User talk:Cleared as filed/Jul-Dec 2005

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Cleared as filed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

I noticed that you posted Image:Mariano Rivera.jpg. Hopefully this is not a copyrighted image. Wikipedia is very strict about not using copyrighted information (see Wikipedia:Copyrights). If this is a free image, please go to the image page for your image, and state the copyright status of this image. There are some templates you can use at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Thanks --Rogerd July 5, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Image:New Bedford Regional Airport aerial.jpg

Could you please note the source and licensing status in the description for Image:New Bedford Regional Airport aerial.jpg? Thanks! -Harmil 04:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• To be honest, I've had the image for a long time (I fly out of that airport) and am not sure of its source. I uploaded that image on my first day or so of using Wikipedia, I'm a little more careful about noting the source of my images now. If it needs to be deleted because of its unknown origin, I understand. —Cleared as filed. 04:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

As I understand policy, vanity and advertising articles do not meet current criteria for Speedy Deletion, but still have to go through a Vote for Deletion (VfD). You may also want to join the dsicussion regarding proposed changes. Thanks for your vigilance and welcome to Wikipedia. --WCFrancis 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD

I know it is a pain but as well as creating a Votes for deletion page, you also have to add them to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 July 13 (or whatever day it is). -- RHaworth 23:05, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

• Thanks—I'm pretty new and I didn't realize. Will do! —Cleared as filed. 04:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Anon user

Hello. You have reverted edits by 134.161.144.50 on the George W. Bush article, and now this user demands to know why. Please see Talk:George W. Bush#stop deleting my additions; maybe we can resolve this somehow. Thanks, Sango123 21:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

curiousity....

Is that a picture of Gladys Moore Vanderbilt and her husband (the chamberlain to the Austrian Emperor)? Are there other such pictures whereever you found this one? - Nunh-huh 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yup! As I see you've already noticed, I put that image on the new article for Gladys Vanderbilt Széchenyi. Check out this Hungarian language link for more images and information. —Cleared as filed. 23:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was easier to be sure once you'd made the article!<g>. Thanks for the link! - Nunh-huh 23:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I-895 and the Sakonnet River Bridge

Hi. In regards to what you mentioned to SPUI about Interstate 895, I don't feel that a mention should be made on the Sakonett River Bridge article because that plan to have I-895 use RI 24 and MA 24 to Fall River was very short lived and never put into any official planning documents, AFAIK. That said, however, I will add a mention of it on the I-895 article. Cheers! --K1vsr 13:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with a mention? Even if the consideration was only brief, the removed sentence from the Sakonnet River Bridge article didn't make it look like it was serious consideration. I think it is an interesting fact about the Sakonnet River Bridge. —Cleared as filed. 13:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

You may be right. What the hell, I'll add it. --K1vsr 14:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't remembered that, and I checked the I-895 article and it didn't mention it. But apparently RIDOT told me about it a while ago, so my bad. --SPUI (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the Sakonnet River Bridge article that makes it very clear that this was not a serious consideration and never made it to official planning stages. Cheers! --K1vsr 14:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that long paragraph would be more appropriate in the I-895 article itself; I've put back a shorter version in the Sakonnet River Bridge article that clarifies that it was only briefly mentioned. —Cleared as filed. 14:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Interstate 895 Ramps

I put back the bit about the ramps on Interstate 895. You're talking about the southern stubs which lead to the never-built 238. I'm talking about the northern stubs past Admiral Kalbfus road. That was for Interstate 895 to travel north along the western shore of Aquidneck Island. Same thing for RI 138. That was part of the second route for I-895. Therefore, both sections are relevant. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 14:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm talking about those northern stubs past Admiral Kalbfus Road also. Those were an original part of the Bridge Access Road plan; they were built in 1968-1969, before there was any talk of I-895, when the Bridge Access Road was designed to cut over Girard Avenue, run parallel to Maple Street, underpass West Main Road, overpass East Main Road, and terminate at Valley Road. Community opposition to the highway running through Miantonomi Park and a temporary loss of federal highway funds caused the project to end at Festival Field, just pass Admiral Kalbfus Road. I agree that we should mention that I-895 would have used those stubs had it gone through Newport, but the current wording makes it sound like they were built for I-895, and that isn't the case; they pre-date any notion of I-895. (They're more like the Sakonnet River and Mount Hope Bridges; had nothing to do with I-895, but I-895 would have possibly used them.) Also, I-895 probably wouldn't have used the stubs in their current alignment; community opposition to a highway through the park wouldn't have changed much in ~10 years. —Cleared as filed. 12:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I've spent tons of time researching Rhode Island have never heard of such a project. I'll take your word for it. Thanks for updating the 895 article. --K1vsr (talk) 18:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in researching the Bridge Access Road, check out back issues of the Newport Daily News from Feb–Mar 1967. That's when the R.I. Department of Public Works released the plans and community opposition began to rally against it. —Cleared as filed. 00:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page

Sorry if my comments rubbed you the wrong way, that was not my intent. I noticed you had made several changes to the article, and that it says here that you are a Yankee fan (well, it doesn't say that, but that can be reasonably inferred). In the heat of the moment, I perhaps included you when I shouldn't have. For that, I apologize. Maybe, if you have the time, you could help me and RPIRED in refining the article and keeping it fair. Sorry again for any confusion, I certainly was not trying to cast aspersions. Friejose 20:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for the apology. I am a Yankee fan, but I'm a Wikipedia fan first and foremost.  ;) I'll definitely help out trying to keep it neutral. —Cleared as filed. 22:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Aeroflot Suspended in the U.S.

Charles please see the Talk:Korean Air Flight 007 in regards to your edits in Korean Air Flight 007. User:Misterrick 06:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

Please see Talk:Korean Air Flight 007 because I provided a link to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia website where in a timeline is specifically states that Aeroflot was banned from the U.S. User:Misterrick 09:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

Englyn

I must apologise for blanking this page! I thought I was adding an extra sentence to the definition of englyn unodl union. Thank you for fixing it so speedily. 66.92.237.111 15:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dimness Through Infinity

In case nobody told you: New pages that contain a large body of unwikified text are almost guaranteed to be copyvios. Actually, the same goes even for most large, unwikified additions to existing articles. Just google a few sentences before doing any work on them. Good luck. Rl 15:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I should have checked—it was just so poorly written that I figured it couldn't have come from anywhere. Haha. Live and learn. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 16:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

userpage vandalism

Hi, Charles. The anon who was tearing up your userpage has been blocked. I'vd added your pages to my watchlist, to help with any vandalism that hits here. We try to lock userpages only as a last resort. It may set your mind at ease a bit to know that editors generally revert vandalism to others' pages pretty quickly: mine gets attacked all the time, but I rarely notice because it gets fixed by someone else so quickly. Sorry that you attracted a vandal. Joyous (talk) 21:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Presidential election in D.C.

Hi and thanks for your edits on this page. However, take car while editing this kind of pages, because it is part ofa serie, and I think we should keep the same tables for all the pages. I'll revert tomorow you modificiations of the table if you don't mind.--Revas 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Bravo! The opening paragraph of Rhode Island is much better, thanks to you. Logophile 12:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

MLB template

I would first like to thank you for your help with the Curt Schilling article. I am trying to learn how to use wikipedia. In that vein, I am interested in putting up mlbplayer templates. However, I don't know how to put the box there without copying it from another article and then changing it. Could you help me with this? Thanks. --Sensation002 22:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio template

I happened to stumble across InuYasha the Movie 2: The Castle Beyond the Looking Glass, which you tagged as a copyright violation yesterday. Please be aware that such articles need to be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (WP:CP for short) in addition to being replaced with {{copyvio|url=whatever}}. I've listed the Inuyasha article there for you. —Cryptic (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Rhode Island (Category:Wikipedians in Rhode Island) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Rhode Island page. The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Rhode Island page is scheduled for deletion. Thanks! Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

Thanks for your vote! I'm going to move it to the vote page, if that's OK with you.

Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3 edit rule

You are in violation of the 3RR. 162.83.243.61

No, I've reverted that information three times, and I don't intend to revert it again with the next 24 hours, even though it is a poor addition to the article. My other edits to the page weren't to the data in question. You ought to check these things before making baseless accusations. —Cleared as filed. 03:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

M.S.F.S

Do you have any microsoft flight sim? Your front page reads exactly like the sim --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha yeah—although that clearance is basically the same as the ones I've received in real life too. —Cleared as filed. 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Year in baseball

MLB Standings (makeup) - Hi! Please check out 2004. Cheers. MusiCitizen 22:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ^(talk)

2004 - Please, check it again. Thanks. MusiCitizen 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC) ^(talk)

Kuril Islands

Hi. You reverted an edit to Declaration of war#Current declarations about Japan and Russia still technically being at war. As a result, I had a look at the history of the page, and I noticed that someone else had stated that the two were at war - but I wasn't knowingly restoring what they had said. I first heard of the dispute in a tv program last Tuesday (Foreign Correspondent: Kurils - Islands of Discontent).

The CIA world factbook for Japan and Russia describe them as technically at war with each other.

There may be the argument that Russia isn't the same as the USSR (was that your argument?), but as far as I know, it regards itself as the successor of the latter.

Thanks, Andjam 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess my argument is that, while they may not have ever signed a peace treaty, in reality, they aren't in a state of war anymore; a political/diplomatic land dispute over some islands isn't a war. I don't know if the countries themselves consider themselves in a state of war (although I would suppose not); if they don't, I don't think there should be any mention of them as a "Current declaration." Do you agree? I'm not sure where to find that information, though. —Cleared as filed. 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best option would be to to emphasise that while de jure they may still be at war, de facto they are not. Or at least mention your views on the talk page. Otherwise, you'll be doing reverts every time someone comes along and mentions Russia and Japan. Andjam 13:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

IFR abbreviated

copied from User talk:Lommer

Hi - why do you think that instrument flight rules should be condensed to IFR where it appears (such as in the Transponder code article)? It seems to me that at least once in each article, the abbreviation should be spelled out for those who don't recognize the abbreviation. They shouldn't have to click on the wikilink to figure out what the acronym means. IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 01:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm of two minds about this; On the one hand, I fully see your point. On the other hand, this only makes sense if you expand every acronym in the article (i.e. VFR, SVFR, etc) and in some articles that can get to be quite lengthy, not to mention it disrupts the flow with all the abbreviated acronyms in brackets behind the term. If the acronym is linked and properly disambiguated, however, a user doesn't actually have to click on the link, they need merely mouseover the link and a tooltip will pop up with the full term. In light of this, I'm inclined to go with the condensed version for acronyms that are quite common, and rely on the tooltip for users that don't know what they mean. Overall though, it's just personal preference. The only thing I would ask though is that if you change it back, make sure you apply the same technique to all the acronyms so that we're at least consistent. -Lommer | ^talk 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Dallas Business Journal article

Curious if you would post your thoughts on the article. http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2005/10/10/daily47.html Tfine80 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah! I wonder if I could wrangle some free Southwest tickets out of this! Just kidding. I do think it's kind of bizarre that the Dallas Business Journal would be giving a play-by-play of the edits on Wikipedia, but I think it's even funnier that the guy adding the anti-Southwest POV was posting from an American Airlines IP address. All I can say is, I think my edits improved the article by reverting it to its previously NPOV state. (I also think the new additions to the Wright Amendment article on "Repeal Efforts" are a good start to talking about this issue.) —Cleared as filed. 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, seems like it was a non-brainer edit. However, considering the Google rank of some of these Wikipedia articles, there are a lot of Wikipedians that have created value for or protected the reputations of major corporations. I think the most interesting statement was Southwest's admission that they were occasionally monitoring the status of the article. Anyway, enjoy your alter-ego's 15 minutes... :) Tfine80 01:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Another strange IP

Did you notice this guy's edits that were mentioned in the AP article? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.166.193.202

I wonder if he was some sort of agent to discredit Wikipedia. Or maybe from Legend Airlines himself. Tfine80 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that article until I got your message. Yeah, it is too bad that the article takes kind of a negative view towards Wikipedia, but on the other hand, we don't try to hide the fact that it's user-maintained and edited, and it does provide some amount of publicity for Wikipedia, which can only be good. And it makes it even more important to get the Wright Amendment article in good shape, since in a way, it has the same kind of visibility from this publicity that featured articles on the home page have. —Cleared as filed. 21:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

World Series

Are you planning on reverting back to past tense for all the text? I had switched it to present tense to match the banner for each Series. It doesn't much matter, but they should be the same. It's weird to have "so and so defeats so and so" and then have the descriptive stuff in past tense. Wahkeenah 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, after going through the Series listings, the present tense does work pretty well from a narrative sense. I'll change it back. By the way, do you have an opinion on whether the team names appear in the series listings (instead of just City Name (AL) etc.)? —Cleared as filed. 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a fight-to-the-death strong opinion, but just as with the past/present tense question, I think consistency is best. The overall listing is kind of a hodge-podge right now. The pre-1900 combatants all have their team names or nicknames, while the modern Series are presented in the old style of just the city name... and then someone felt the need to put a footnote explaining the two different New York National League entries! OK, I say lose the footnotes and use the nicknames openly, as with the earlier entries. The question is what to do with Boston in 1903. Conventional "wisdom" calls them the "Pilgrims" but that is apparently inaccurate. I would be inclined to label it as Boston "Americans", complete with quotes to make it clear that they really didn't have a nickname yet. I think that's the only oddity like that, the others all had nicknames by the time they found themselves in World Series action. Wahkeenah 02:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm on it. —Cleared as filed. 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos. I would have left out the "the's" in the headings, and just used them in the paragraph overviewing the Series. I was amused by someone projecting the Astros as the winners already. I don't think this is 1919. I also saw on the team pages that some a-none had listed "2005 possibly" for both the Stros and the Sox. That's a little silly. Wahkeenah 09:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. I wasn't too sure about the "thes," but the names all become plural-sounding when you add the nicknames, and I thought it sounded weird without them. I wouldn't be opposed if they were taken back out, though. —Cleared as filed. 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Boston Red Sox defeat St. Louis Cardinals 4 games to 0" sounds grammatically good to me. Wahkeenah 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Enter Sandman - Mariano Rivera

Hi there, it was me who added the trivia, that "Enter Sandman" was at least played once outside Yankee's Stadium when Mariano Rivera came to work. You erased it, because you found it irrelevant and not ironical, as I found it. Well, why did I add it? I find it relevant information about Mariano Rivera, although nothing too serious. It would certainly not appear in a regular encyclopedia, but hey, this kind of information is fun and something I am always looking for, when I browse the wikipedia. I find the fact ironical that the the ground staff of the Rogers Centre tried to make Mariano feel like home and possibly perform better. It is as if they were saying "Dear Mo, please feel right at home here". And it means, that they are more thoughful about Mariano than about their own team... What do you think? Ironical or not? - Kind regards, Thorsten. -Thorstenzoerner 0:43, 24 October 2005 (MEST)

Hi Thorsten – that is an interesting fact, although I didn't understand that from what you had added; the line I removed was this:

• Ironically the same song has been played at an away game at Rogers Centre against the Toronto Blue Jays during the 2005 season.

From that sentence, it wasn't clear that the Rogers Centre played it when Rivera entered the game, just that they had played it at one point — which didn't seem at all ironic or relevant to me. See what I mean? I think what you are saying would be a good addition, although I still think we can leave off the ironic part; it's not really ironic, just different. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! —Cleared as filed. 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cleared as filed, thank for welcoming me and thank you very much for your consideration. I can see your point now and you are absolutely right. Let me rephrase the sentence:

• At one away game against the Toronto Blue Jays during the 2005 season Mariano Rivera was also greeted by "Enter Sandman" at Rogers Centre, much to the dismay of the home crowd.

Okay, that's my suggestion. Feel free to alter it and put it on. Kind regards, Thorsten. -Thorstenzoerner 12:20, 25 October 2005 (MEST)

Game 6

Oh yeah, you're right about the Game 6 link. My bad. I didn't notice that it was just a forward... wknight94 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up image placements

Hello,
Thanks for cleaning up the image placements on the MLB pages caused by the infoboxes. We rushed those onto the pages because someone kept putting up their own infoboxes. We were not quite ready to put them up, so some of the clean up was put on the back burner. Your efforts are much appreciated. Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 15:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Washington DC UFOs

If you go to the UFO page, then go to the notable UFO sightings, you'll find the 1952 UFO Incident mentioned. In this, UFOs were seen all over the place in Washington DC. Martial Law 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC) :)

That's fine for the UFO article, but not quite notable enough for the Washington, D.C. article. —Cleared as filed. 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh

Alright, that was pretty darn hilarious. Friday (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

New England Airlines

I reverted your page move, which seemed odd. -- Curps 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I did it because I accidentally saved the page while it was still filled with incorrect info, as I had copied the content from another page in order to have something to start with. Oh well. I will get it right shortly. —Cleared as filed. 02:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Staxringold

Thanks for reverting that odd vandalism, dunno what I did to him... Staxringold 22:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Bug spray AFD result

Hi, why did you redirect Bug spray? The consensus of the AFD was keep, not redirect. —Cleared as filed. 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I felt that merging the article would have been more appropriate (which, by the way, I did myself), and that I should discount the votes of the newly created users. Garr who voted to keep, as per Youngamerican, is a sockpuppet. Denni and Vegaswikian voted for merge/redirect. RJH voted for keep, as per Youngamerican. The other two, one annon, and one newly registered user—both have spent the majority of their edits on AfD—are not active members of the community, and could be either meat- or sockpuppets. I believe that Insecticide is not yet strong enough of an article to merit separate pages for its subtopics, and thus I chose to merge and delete. There were two Keep votes, and two Merge votes. I am new to AfD, and would like to keep my oppinions out of it, but I think I did the right thing. Should I have left the AfD vote as keep, but perhaps merged it as an editor, instead of an admin? Thanks in advance, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

Your explanation was true enough. Thanks for explaining to me. —Cleared as filed. 04:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, sorry it took so long to get back to you. By the way, are you an admin? Just wondering, and thanks... -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}

Nope, just an editor, so I only look to close AFD's that look like a easy-consensus keep vote. I'll make sure to check the backgrounds of the voters before deciding that so easily in the future. —Cleared as filed. 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You defiantely had me fooled. Thanks for helping out with the closing (if you need me to be your mop, I'm more than willing to use my newly gleaned powers—but not without cause, of course). If you see a page that's obvious delete-worthy (e.g. speedy, or something along those lines), would you mind dropping me a line? Thanks for closing the easy keeps and redirects, but be sure to check next time. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{05:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

No problem. Congrats on your new adminship. —Cleared as filed. 05:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA! — Phil Welch 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with your new adminship. —Cleared as filed. 12:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Just want to...

Hi, I just want to say congrats on your RfA looks like its "in the bag", and say thanks for reverting Alice In Chains before I could the user who vandalised it had made a few other very sneaky edits that had gone through the first defense :-D. Anyway I was bored so I thought I'd drop a line just to say hi and so on and so on. Happy editing:I also leave jokes 8/10 times when I leave a message so your gonna be one of those 8!

"Hello is this the drug squad?" "Yes Sir, what can I do for you?" "I'm calling to report about my neighbor Jimmy Smith next door. He is hiding marijuana in his firewood." "Thanks for the call sir" The next day the drug squad arrives and chops open Jimmy's firewood with axes, but find no drugs. They apologise to Jimmy and leave. The phone rings at Jimmy's house. "Hey Jimmy, did the drug squad come? "Yeah!" "Did they chop your firewood?" "Yep!" "Happy Birthday Jimmy!" KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 01:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha. That joke is corny, but thanks.  ;> Thanks about the RfA, although one never knows; has anyone ever blown it in the last 18 hours? As Yogi Berra would say, it ain't over 'til it's over. Anyway, here is a joke for you:

• A senior citizen named Barney is driving down the highway when his cell phone rings. Answering, he hears his wife's voice. She urgently tells him, "Barney, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on Route 280. Please be careful!" To which Barney replies, "Heck, it's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!" —Cleared as filed. 02:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This meanss WAR! :-D A tired Doctor is awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night. "Please, you have to come right over," pleads a distraught young mother. "My child has swallowed a contraceptive." The Doctor dresses quickly and is on his way out the door when the phone rings again. "You don't have to come over after all." the woman says with a sigh of releif. "My husband just found an other one." KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 02:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. All the best, Warofdreams talk 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Midwest Connect

Thanks. I'll start the research over and work on the cleanup. Vegaswikian 06:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for removing vandalism on my userpage

My annoying brother vandalised it. --Adam1213 Talk + 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Windmill

I've stopped watching this page for a while. I really do not see how reverting patent nonsense is an edit war. Mrsteviec 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, if the user is responding on talk pages and it's not obvious nonsense, then it's not simple vandalism. The statements he's adding could be true, even though it's unlikely. Other editors will take care of it if it really is nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 15:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not a vandal

Please stop reverting my additions, you incorectly accuse me of vandalism. You change my helpfull edits in the name of bigtory! How is my changing of "A secret decoder was an inexpensive toy popular among young children during from 1930s through rest of the 20th century." to "A secret decoder ring is an inexpensive toy which can me used to 'decode' messages writtern in specific codes. It was popular among young children through most of the 20th century starting in the 1930's." vandalism?--Kat fletchers smug face 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In Secret decoder ring, I didn't say that was vandalism in my edit summary. I said the original wording was better, and it was, as yours didn't add anything except spelling errors. Your other edits, regarding Kat Fletcher, are clearly vandalism. —Cleared as filed. 17:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever meet Kat Fletcher?--Kat fletchers smug face 18:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people think George W. Bush has a smug face. That doesn't mean it belongs in his article. Stop adding nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 18:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to drop by and thank you for commenting on my RfA. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't know where you came from, but I've seen you around a lot lately, and you've been doing some great work. Keep it up! Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 20:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring may be hazardous to your health

I love this little animation... as soon as I saw it I was laughing, but it looks like it'll be deleted in a week, as it's without copyright status. I've left a message on the uploader's talk page, but I was just wondering if you knew anything about it that would warrant its being kept. Anyway, thanks, and good find. Blackcap (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hahah. Yeah, I figured it might bite the dust; I just happened to notice it in the upload log, and figured I'd use it while it was around. I don't know anything about its source, though. Sure hope the uploader figures out a way to keep it.  ;> —Cleared as filed. 23:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's brilliant, isn't it? I did a quick Google search, but came up with nothing. Oh well... it'll have a good few days. *sigh* Blackcap (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Help: New user and you deleted article

I am sorry for not using a "sandbox" but I still can't figure out where that is or how to make one (gonna do that now, I hope). I just signed up again (had done so before, but it didn't seem to take). I previously started an article for Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana, and then it was deemed to be copyrighted material (though I wrote the material myself) and subsequently added the copyright info so it would not be deleted. Later, you deemed it a vanity thing, but it is a biography, not an auto-biography. I then had a friend help rewrite it to reduce some of the descriptive adjectives (guessing I got a bit carried away) and so we focused more on fact. Then it was deleted altogether. Both entries I submitted follow the guidelines for known personalities, qty of published works, appearing in well known publications with significant press runs, television, film, Google, etc. I provided a list of dates and facts. All of the info can be checked and I even offered to send printed documents to verify the portions that do not appear online. Does a person have to be dead in order to have a biography here? What about current musical groups/bands? One editor mistakenly thought a band was a store? If that's the case, then every group on here is disqualified for selling their own music. Wiki allows other groups to be listed here and I certainly can't find info for them on Google or even Amazon. Anyway, I would ask that you review your decision, take into consideration that I am still learning my way through this maze, and have also made a few other contributions (alphabetizing lists, a few grammer fixes, organizational stuff). Here's my new user id, hope it works: Blooferlady 23:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The community reviews new articles and decides whether the meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. The result of this discussion for your articles is linked here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo. Articles that are regarded as "vanity articles," self-promotion, or advertisement are generally deleted pretty quickly. If you disagree with the consensus of the community, you can list your articles at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where the decision to delete the page is reviewed. Sometimes the problem was that not enough people took place in the discussion, so there is a chance your articles could get restored if you can show that the content was accurate, verifiable, and notable for inclusion. Hope this helps! —Cleared as filed. 23:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a request as instructed. Now, could you please copy the last bit of discussion I added to those pages into my talk page? I had listed a bunch of publications, tv shows, dates and such, but I didn't keep them on my computer (duh). I would have to go research it all over again, but I'm hoping to get that info back first. I have a few things to add, and am reworking the bio even more, adding more details and specifics on various projects. I plan to create a sandbox or temp page for previewing and hope for some kind of OK before posting as a full article.Blooferlady

What exactly would you like? You listed some references in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo — are you looking for content in the actual deleted articles? —Cleared as filed. 02:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeez! I just realized you gave me the link. OK. I got it. Sorry for the hassle.Blooferlady

No problem; I thought that might be what you were looking for. All there was in the "Talk" pages for the articles were copyright notices. Let me know if you need anything else. —Cleared as filed. 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I cleaned house in terms of my earlier questions. I have posted a proposed biography for Joseph Vargo on my user page. I couldn't find any other place to put it for viewing by editors. If this new revision works, let me know, and hopefully it can be approved for placement as a real article. Blooferlady 14:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi; no problem, but I like to keep all of my old talk page discussions here for archiving purposes. I'll take a look at it later on today, but probably your best bet would be to go ahead and move it to a real article (using the move tab at the top of the article), and then post a message on the Talk page for that article saying that you are aware that it was deleted previously, but you have recreated it with new content and you feel that it now meets the guidelines for inclusion. If you'd like some help doing this, I'd be happy to help later on today. Let me know! —Cleared as filed. 17:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I am done with the main text. I fixed some minor character stuff (ascii not appearing properly). I have about 5 dates to look up for newspaper and magazine references... some mags don't print the year, just the season. And, because I am a newbie, it seems I am NOT allowed to move a page, so I guess it stays put on my user page until approved and moved by an admin or senior editor (hint, hint). See what you think. If all's well, I plan to re-write the band bio for Nox Arcana and submit that for inclusion. Thank you. Blooferlady 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion before it's moved up to the article namespace again would be to try to reword some things so that they are told from a more neutral point of view. For example, this line: "Joseph Vargo has been hailed as a gothic visionary and modern master of the macabre, and for good reason." Take off the "and for good reason." That's the article telling the reader what to think, and that's something we try to stay away from. Just tell the facts as they are, without adding any personal opinion from the point of view of the author. But the article definitely looks better. —Cleared as filed. 04:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll make the edits as suggested. One last question (before I royally screw something up) is: When I MOVE the page using the move tab, it appears as if I might lose my own user page for good. But when I read about moving pages, it tells me "do NOT just copy and paste the contents to a new page." So, until I hear one way or the other (copy vs. move), I am going to sit tight.Blooferlady 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you can move it without worrying about losing your user page. What will happen is that your user page will become a redirect to the article you move it to (that's always what happens with moves). But you can still edit your user page, remove the redirect, and change it to whatever you want. You are right that moving the page is how you want to do it, rather than copying and pasting. Let me know if you have any trouble. —Cleared as filed. 04:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't such a wide concept as villains kind of silly for a list with all kind of them?

I propposed for deletion that article becouse, I found it missleading since it mixes all kind of categories of villanis. A villain that might have apeared in a Barney show, could easy get next to the Faust or Hittler. Isn't it very uncharacteristic of an enclyclopedia article? I made some categories to clasified them to avoid the situation and know exactly what kind of villains is each one. So there'd be a place for chidish villains, and another for the more serious or more historicaly respected ones, another for the ones from, movies, toys, and so on... The people who seem to be the ones that enjoys forums a lot, erased all changes, even though people started filling my categories. I'm not so polite either, I'm sorry to say, but I get it there is a way to make this kind of changes: sugesting it on the forum... Which seems to be ruled by those two anyway! And they are even look like the same ones that denied the deletion!! You see, I´m sorry but I'm getting the impresion that they are just tring to make some sort of 'cool', 'awesome', or 'crazy' 'megalist of villains'. Get my pont? Shouldn't this list end up, similar to, say, the list of american mobsters, that is made of various list depending of the mafia ethnicity they belong? How is a bad page going to get delated or I don't know nominated by some wikipedia big shot like yourself to have some major changes; If the only ones who vote are the ones responsible for the bad decitions (from my point of view, in this case) that put the page nominated for deletion in the first place? My nomination was not the first and is obvious that the page is going to be nominated again. I like pop culture, but what if I were more serious in my taste? I think that someone like that would be more severe and think way less of the wikipedia... All just because of two fellas who enjoy free to have their "super cool crazy list of villains". But thats just my opinion. Please, I'm not only writing here to 'tell on them', I'd really apreciate some orientation --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 11:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you completely. I think the list has a lot of problems, and I actually would have deleted it if it had been my choice. When I close an AFD (articles for deletion) discussion, though, I'm not allowed to just do anything I want; I have to operate according to the apparent community consensus, and in the case of that article's discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains), the consensus was keep. But that only means it can't be deleted outright; it can still be heavily edited and modified. It can even be broken up into multiple lists, merged into other articles, etc. Since there are obviously some other people who are watching and looking after that list, when you make serious changes, you should also post a note on the article's talk page with an explanation of what you did so that people don't just come by and revert the changes. But good luck and let me know if need any help or have any questions! —Cleared as filed. 13:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Your answer rules!... No, wait…You rule! Ha, ha, ha! I’d didn’t expect you to agree with me, specially since I’m not so formal the way I express myself… Which on my defense, I think its due to the fact that, I assumed most people on the forum most be younger than me; therefore it didn’t seem out of place for me.

I’ve got some questions:

- 1. ...is it aproppiate if i write kinda like this on a forum? cmon, man! u know, its just the forum, lol!

- 2. What can I do if I’d like to urge users who might know some piece of info, probably a word like a name or an important element for a list that I don’t remember myself to type it? Is there some sign for that where I can describe the word or noun or element I’m looking for?

- 3. Is there some way to hide some words that might be end-spoilers, like on some pages that you have to do some mouse selection to se what’s hidden?

- 4. What happens if a page keeps been nominated for deletion on a regular basis?

- 5. Shouldn’t the people that have done some major editing to the page before the nomination be banned from voting? (That’s just common sense. It’d be illogical to vote against your own work… I’d be like saying that your work sucks).

- 6. Wouldn’t it be better to have a voting box at the top of the page, maybe on the ADF message itself? (I think people who think the page is a waste of time, probably don’t care for the page itself enough to go through a forum. Regular people don’t like forums. What would one write if the problem is that the idea or the whole structure of the page is just plane dumb. It’d be difficult to write something that is not offensive for a page you don’t care for in the first place, because you don’t like it, making not worth the trouble of writing only to get debated by the dweebs that created it [a dumb page is probably made by a dweeb, I’m not offending anyone, that’s the beauty of it])…I got dizzy… To much foreign grammar for me.

-7. CAN I QUOTE YOU? (copy-paste the whole thing)

If by the forum, you mean the Talk page, it can be conversational, although if you write clearly it'll be easier for people to understand what you're trying to do with the article. There's nothing to stop an article from being nominated for deletion on a regular basis, although a lot of users who might think the article should be deleted will vote keep on an article that recently survived a nomination, just on principle. The people who worked on the page before aren't banned from voting; the deletion discussion isn't really a "vote," it's a discussion. The admin who analyzes the discussion will take into account which people have a stake in the article and which people are more independent, and take it all into consideration when deciding what the community consensus was. And you can already discuss what you don't like about an article on its Talk page. As far as quoting me, I'd prefer it if you didn't; I'm not really interesting in editing the article. You should explain to the other users there your own reasons for disliking the article. You don't need mine, and it's not like they'd put any stock in my opinion anyway. I'm just another editor. —Cleared as filed. 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

din't mean that i'd like to avoid the nomination fromm happening. i ment that i'd like the wikipedia to notice that there must be a reason for that to keep happening, and there should be a solution. kind of what i tried to do with the list of villains... just after i finaliced the proces and did the final click, and consulted it with the pillow, i realized a list of villains well done could be a great idea.

About the other answers i realized the encyclopedia don't work that way at present, i was asking ideally. Is there a way i can sugest those ideas to the encyclopedia programers? Spetially # 3.

about quoting, i realized it wouldnt be that ethical to do it with your consentment and kind of sensacionalist . And i would'n like to do that to a person who just so gave me such encouraging points of views.

Greatings!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 08:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Brown hair

bitchin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Branddobbe (talk • contribs)

Back to the Future II

Why did you revert my addition? Cyberia23 08:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Cyberia. I removed it because it appeared to be basically a mini-personal essay written by you on how Back to the Future went wrong on its future technology guesses. If that's the case, it violates the no original research rule of Wikipedia. If I judged wrong, please feel free to add it back with cites that show its source. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 10:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mini-personal essay?" For a source, it's from the Special Edition DVD interview with Robert Zemeckis. I don't believe what I wrote is any worse of a rant than what is up there already. Cyberia23 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just removed the other stuff that was there. Anything from the interviews should say, "In an interview on the DVD extras, Robert Zemeckis said..." instead of speaking as if Wikipedia authors are making it up. IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 15:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I don't own the DVD anymore so I'm not exactly sure who said what at the moment. It's just what I recalled from memory, so I can't cite the exact source. I'll skip my addition to the article for now. Cyberia23 16:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE USE OF 3RRs

Your comments would be appreciated on "Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)" [found here [1]]

Hi, anonymous user. I am in no position to pass judgment on UK law, but I am in a position to enforce Wikipedia rules, and according to the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:81.111.172.198 and verified by myself, you were in violation of WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Wikipedia. —Cleared as filed. 11:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See further information here [2]

81.111.172.198 14:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Request

I shall do in future. Bear in mind that I always summarise on the talk page of the article in question. Rob Church ^Talk 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Blogging Tories

I'm not challenging your resolution of the AFD closure, but as I raised in the AFD discussion, this and Progressive Bloggers can't be treated differently from each other. And yet that's exactly what's happened; this one got deleted but the Progressive Bloggers got kept. NPOV requires that one of two things happen: either ProgBlog has to be deleted or Blogging Tories have to be reinstated; it constitutes bias-by-inclusion to have an article on one but not the other.

And Wikipedia's existing notability criteria can't support the status quo, either. It's simply impossible to make a case that ProgBlog are notable enough to be here but the Tories aren't. On every criterion spelled out in Wikipedia policy, Blogging Tories are technically the more notable of the two -- more members, more notable members, higher Alexa ranking, etc., so if one were seriously looking to deem one notable and the other not, the only possible case on those grounds would be the exact opposite of what actually happened. (And no, I'm not a whining Tory; I'm ideologically far closer to the ProgBloggers.)

I guess what I want to know is whether there's a venue where I can raise the matter for discussion. It simply doesn't feel like either listing ProgBlog for a third AFD or nominating Blogging Tories for undeletion would be the right process, but just leaving the situation as it currently stands simply isn't an option. Bearcat 19:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing much really about the two blogs in question, the issues they talk about, or their relative notabilities, I can't say that I agree or disagree with you one way or the other. I didn't close the Progressive Bloggers discussion, but it's not too surprising that they came out different ways, since a few different people were voting and different sides had different numbers of sockpuppets in each discussion. (Plus, since they were closed by two different admins and everyone's idea of "consensus" is a little different, that may have had an impact, although I haven't analyzed the Progressive Bloggers AfD to see how I might have closed it.) I think that your dissatisfaction is a result of the AfD process itself. Like you say, related articles aren't voted for as an all-or-nothing package deal, every user is allowed to use their judgment to decide which goes and which stays, and it can be entirely related to who happens to notice which AfD on what day. Rather than take a more "big-picture" view of a type of article in general, articles are voted on one-at-a-time, which can lead to results that may not make sense (such as a more-notable blog being deleted, and a less-notable blog being no-consensus'd). So I guess the best solution would be taking on the AfD process itself, making it a more big-picture, intelligent process, but that is a huge undertaking.

As far as what you could do in the short term about these two particular articles, I have no idea. You could nominate the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review; I certainly wouldn't take offense to the community reviewing my closure decision, but it could end up another battle-of-the-sockpuppets that wouldn't solve anything. Maybe a discussion along the lines of the ones at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Policy_consensus (like the ones for Schools, etc.) could help at least get the community involved in a discussion of what makes a blog article appropriate for inclusion.

Sorry; hope this helped. —Cleared as filed. 03:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like somebody's already raised it for review. At any rate, I think this was one of those cases where a group nomination would have been required (and I even suggested that in the AFD), but since they weren't actually nominated at the same time (or by the same person, even), I'm pretty sure merging the two noms post facto would have been a dangerous thing to do (*grin*) Bearcat 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem, I think, with group nominations is that nothing stops the community from saying delete article A and keep article B, and then we're right here again. It's good that they can be considered side-by-side, and that will probably improve the result, but it's no sure thing. —Cleared as filed. 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A new one submitted for your approval...

Thanks for all your help earlier on the Joseph Vargo article, which is now in place. Now, I submit another article for your approval and/or critique prior to making an official article of it. See my user page: Blooferlady for more on Nox Arcana (previously deleted). Blooferlady 08:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User "Cryptic" seems to have personal issues

Cryptic seems to have some personal issue with my recently approved article. Could you show him the discussion I had with you. He seems to want to see votes as well. I don't know how to do that. Blooferlady 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If he thinks the article is too close to the original to stay, you should probably take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review to see if you can get the article approved. Mention that you've put a lot of work into making it NPOV (neutral point of view), adding external cites and sources, and that it's not substantially the same as the original. Good luck, and let me know if you need any help. —Cleared as filed. 05:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Then he simply does not read the facts... Please read my latest comments [here] and also the discussions I mention in my comment. I ask for your vote for undeletion based on the facts stated. Blooferlady 15:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I would like to know why was the page Daryl Rampersad deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stookie (talk • contribs)

It was deleted because it was an article about a real person that did not assert that person's importance or significance. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for details on what articles can be speedily deleted. Also see Wikipedia:Autobiography. —Cleared as filed. 05:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Earl Cameron

When you tidied up the article on Earl Cameron, you categorized it as "US-film-actor-stub" - an incorrect assumption on your part. The copyvio'd text (which you reverted) clearly indicated that Cameron is of British citizenship and Bermudan birth. I've fixed it, and expanded the article somewhat, so no harm done - just be a bit more careful henceforth, eh? DS 15:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. —Cleared as filed. 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Word

Thank you for moving Word (linguistics) to Word and Word to Word (disambiguation). Please remember to add {{otheruses}} to the appropriate page (Word in this case) if you do a move like this (I just did so). Thanks again, Kusma (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Hunt for Red October trivia

[3]

"The book became a best-seller after being given a huge endorsement by then President Ronald Reagan who called it 'unputdown-able'."

[4]

"Clancy's success with his very first published novel, 1984's The Hunt for Red October, was virtually overnight. Although published by the small, academically-oriented Naval Institute Press, the novel had the good fortune to be praised by then President Ronald Reagan, who was seen carrying the book and proclaimed it "a good yarn." Not since President John F. Kennedy professed a love for Ian Fleming's James Bond novels in the early Sixties had an endorsement from the Chief Executive helped boost a book's sales so profoundly."

[5]

"Clancy owes his fame to Ronald Reagan, who propelled the unknown former insurance salesman to celebrity status when he endorsed The Hunt for Red October in 1985"

Please don't revert things just because they seem "unlikely." Staxringold 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Staxringold, I reverted that passage because of the part that said that government officials used The Hunt for Red October to "educate" the new President on the Cold War. It is quite unlikely — as I mentioned in my edit summary, the book was written in 1984 and Reagan was inaugurated in 1981 — and none of the cites you mention above make that claim. Where did that come from? —Cleared as filed. 04:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Starting all over again

I am starting fresh. Can you delete the old page for this discussion. Reason; sensitive info and misleading assumtions made by other editors, which reflect badly on the subject himself. See new article here, which I have really condensed to hopefully meet criteria (I know it was approved for the longer version, as well as the band article, but [Cryptic] seems to still hate it, so I cut it to ribbons.

I have also removed all my old discussions, or would like to, in order to start with a clean slate (knowing what I know now.) Oh, and during my frustration, I posted this for deletion and humbly appologize, and ask for that snide comment to be deleted forever. I was very frustrated with having my articles approved by you, then deleted by another, all in one day and I pretty much decided to give it all up.. then I decided to try one last time.

And I think I totally goofed up my talk page trying to save just the links to helpful articles. I can't seem to edit the top portion. Can you reset it to a blank page or grab my edits and put them in a section I can edit? Thank you. Blooferlady 12:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Blooferlady. Unfortunately, I can't just delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo; it's an archive of an old deletion discussion and policy requires that it stays for future users to view. You could nominate it for deletion by posting the discussion page on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion but I seriously doubt the community would vote to delete it, so it's probably not worth the effort. I've removed your nomination to delete Midnight Syndicate per your request. As far as my approval goes, I probably should have made clearer that I'm just another editor like you; the fact that I can delete and undelete pages just means that I can do some Wikipedia housekeeping chores, but it doesn't give me any right to decide the fate of an article. I'm happy to help out as far as I can, but my approval doesn't bind Cryptic to anything.

I'm not sure I understand the problem you're having with your talk page; if you click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page, it doesn't let you edit those links? It seems to be working for me. Let me know if you still have a problem. —Cleared as filed. 13:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No. I don't have an "edit" tab on the top of my talk page. I only have the ability to edit subsequent sections. If you can't delete the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo can you hide it from the main polulace, for viewing by admins only? As I posted my email there, and I think both you an Cryptic were under the wrong assumption about my identity (referring to me as "him" but I'm most definitely a "her" hence the name BlooferLADY :) and the statements made by Cryptic in regard to vanity are rather destructive to the subject, something I would prefer to not to be held accountable for. Can you still delete this comment? It was pissy and uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooferlady (talk • contribs)

The "edit this page" tab should be right in between the "discussion" and "history" tabs at the very top of the page. That allows you to edit the entire page, rather than just the section. I also can't hide Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo from the general community; it has to remain there as an archive of the discussion unless the discussion itself is nominated for deletion. As far as the comment on Talk:Midnight Syndicate, you can remove your old comments yourself if you find that "edit this page" tab. Let me know if you have any trouble finding it! —Cleared as filed. 14:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The "edit this page" tab simply does not exist for me. The little + sign is there, but that only allows me to add a new section. I tried a manual URL, adding "&action=edit" after the base URL, but that only brings up an option to create a new article. OK. I just tried again, using a back door from my user page, then typing User_Talk instead of User in the URL. It enabled ne to edit, but the tabs are still not showing up. Maybe a glitch. More on this... it seems my Talk page was moved with an article, then I moved it back, except not to the correct space. I moved it back to Talk:Blooferlady but someone else corrected the move and sent it to User Talk:Blooferlady. I guess that's when I lost my tab. Blooferlady 14:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Another question

Thank you for the info about why Daryl Rampersad was deleted. I am working on compiling info about his significance. Does he have to be well know or locally known as far as importance goes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stookie (talk • contribs)

Hi, Stookie. You should check out Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. It's not a hard rule about what kind of biographies are included on Wikipedia, but it's a well-accepted guideline, and an article meeting its criteria is unlikely to be deleted. Good luck and thanks for contributing! —Cleared as filed. 00:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana

User:Blooferlady moved this page to User:Blooferlady/Archive1, blanked it, and blanked the redirect. I tried to restore it, but the current, now empty, deletion page will have to be deleted. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The continued deletion of my approved articles (approved by YOU, and administrator) and then the further deletion of changes—major cuts made to try to make lesser editors happy—has finally caused me to want to leave this project. I do not want my discussions held public. My own comments are subject to privacy and copyright (in part) and the comments made by others have only proved to be disruptive (assumptions made through ignorance, which are not true and reflect badly upon the article subject). I have met with not but prejudice in regard to my attempts to clean up an otherwise faulty article. I followed one editor's suggestions, then another editor sees fault. No one has offered comments on my talk page prior to deleting anything. (My stupid talk page is still not showing an edit tab.) And, it may very well be that the approved changes were only deleted again because no one bothered to remove the Afd discussion or see the comparable changes (because the comparison article was already deleted). The discussions were and are old and did not/do not reflect any of the new (approved) changes. I do not intend to resubmit my articles and I want all reference to my work removed, including all discussions relating to said articles, subjects and persons (finally concluding with this post).Blooferlady 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put the VfD discussion Blooferlady tried to get covertly deleted by deceiving CSD processing admin(s) back to where it belongs. We do not remove previous deletion debates, ever. If someone cannot live with that, tough. jni 13:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave verifiiable sources!!! No one bothered to check them. You or Cryptic deleted my notes, so some of the voters who are not admin could not read them. The derogatory statements made about me and the subject fueled the fire for the other voters to make their own demeaning and derogatory comments. No one stated facts. Everyone just made assumptions and stated opinion. That is NOT a fair debate. Blooferlady 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Blooferlady

Blooferlady, I am sorry that you are deciding to leave the project, and I wish you'd stay. However, as I told you before, you can't just try to hide deletion discussions from the community; they have to stay as an archive of the discussion that took place, and trying to move them into your user namespace isn't acceptable either. Both of the discussions you've moved have been moved back to where they belong. Additionally, as I told you before, I have no special authority to "approve" articles. I have to abide by the will of the community just like everyone else. I saw no problem with trying to see if you could convince the community that Joseph Vargo was, indeed, notable, but in the end it looks like that wasn't meant to be. It wasn't helped by the fact that you turned out to be his business manager; that makes it look like your entire episode here on Wikipedia was possibly meant for self-promotion. So I suggest you stay here at Wikipedia, and edit some articles that have nothing to do with Joseph Vargo or your business ventures.

Also, all of your edits up to this point have been released under the GFDL, as it says at the bottom of every page when you click "edit" on something. So you can't have them deleted for "privacy and copyright." We'll be able to delete your user and user-talk page if you request it, but not the discussions regarding your articles in the main namespace. Sorry. —Cleared as filed. 13:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "living" with it. It is a matter of incorrect and defamatory comments made by others—even if unknowingly committed. And personal information such as email and copyrighted text also belong in my personal pages. Not one of the persons that deleted the article itself bothered to check with the admin (you) to see that it was already approved. I was totally mislead by all editors, who kept telling me to try, try again, and "be bold." My own copyright declarations were deleted and cannot be retrieved, then the comparision text of the article was deleted, whereby others had nothing to compare with the new. They were voting to delete a new article (approved by you), but Cryptic's comments as well as some of the earlier ones were directed at an earlier version which was no longer available. Everyone (except you and Tom Harrison, who were privy to the older article) was voting along with what Cryptic said, not knowing that the older version had already been removed several days prior by Cryptic. Cryptic nor you ammended the discussion or history to allow others to make a proper decision. The comments made due to this total flub are unwarrented, defame the subject, and are based on ignorance of the facts. I stand firm in my request, or at least ask for a complete history undelete of discussion back to Nov 13, 2005, then move the article to a sandbox, where I will correct it to the version you approved. That way it can be fairly debated. My point is that the debate was not fair from day 1. Blooferlady 14:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to tell you, though, is that none of the persons who deleted the article had any responsibility to check with me. I don't have any right to "approve" recreated articles that have been deleted before. Many of the people who participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review are admins and had the ability to see your newly created page even after it was deleted. So they had access to your new version. Additionally, a major concern that the participants had was that no matter how many facts you put in there, the community couldn't decide if he met an objective standard of notability because all of the facts were coming from you, who has a personal stake in Joseph Vargo's promotion as his business manager. I've been assuming good faith and assuming you that you just want to contribute to the knowledge of Wikipedia, rather than promote yourself and your client, but it's going to make it nearly impossible for the community to take the article seriously. I think recreating it again, even in a Sandbox, is only going to prove frustrating for you because the community is most likely going to stay dead-set on deleting it until someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the outcome asserts his notability. —Cleared as filed. 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How about when people have asked for references such as reviews and publications... and I gave those. Did they even bother to check things out? Did you? (Jeez, and I forgot to sign off again). Can we talk privately, just for a second? Blooferlady

Did you know that someone from this IP submitted the discussion to Google? That's a pretty underhanded thing to do. Is THAT part of the Wiki policy? Blooferlady 17:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about; I haven't deleted any of your comments. I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as Google, what IP submitted it? Google has bots that automatically cache Wikipedia pages every couple of days, so most Wikipedia content ends up on Google at one point or another. Also, as I mentioned, it's not appropriate to blank or otherwise modify the original deletion debate. I've reverted it again. I've moved your comments, links and analysis over to the talk page for the discussion, which is where it belongs. —Cleared as filed. 19:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blooferlady, I just took a good read through User:Blooferlady/Archive1. It looks to me like there are still no verifiable external sources for this information. You have links to sites associated with Joseph Vargo, and you have a list of his publications and other things. But there are no outside, independent, neutral sources that have talked about his work, his style, and his notability. I believe that is why you're having no luck over on Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you can find independent sources that offer support to your claims, then I think you'd have no problem. —Cleared as filed. 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Musical Instrument Digital Interface?

What went on there with all those quick and destructive edits? Charlie Richmond 00:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looked to me like just usual vandalism. The weird thing was, Wikipedia messed something up when it was saving and put the page history in the wrong order; so even after I had reverted the guy's vandalism, it put his things at the top of the page history. But the page looked fine. Weird. —Cleared as filed. 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu House

This article is up on FAC again, it failed its last nomination (which you voted object for). Can you please vote support on the latest nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xanadu House, several issues you mentioned last time have been addressed and this is its 4th nomination. Thanks. — Wackymacs 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheer up because...

I'll leave you this funny joke to make ya laugh, and hopefully make you decide against a wikibreak, or at least help make it a rather short one....There is a man who has a very bad stutter. So one day he goes to see a speech therapist. "I h-h-heard tha-that you can hel-hel- help me" "Yes sure. Ease yourself into the chair, look straight into my eyes, and count slowly to ten." "O-one t-two th-th-three...eight nine ten, It's wonderful, I don't stammer anymore! "My fee is 300$" "H-h-how mu-mu-much?" Hurry back KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak

You have been an admin not much over a week and already taking a break. Admin duties are not as easy as some think. Rest up good and take it all with a grain of salt. You'll be alright.--81.29.68.162 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's not the admin duties which bother me — I actually enjoy that quite a bit. It's the editing. It's frustrating to have to argue facts with people who are simply wrong. I could try convincing them, but the debate part of Wikipedia is getting old. I want to write, not try to defend my writing to people who don't know what they're talking about. —Cleared as filed. 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem anytime you need someone to talk to I'm here! :-D I just hope that joke wasn't G-classified "corny" like my first one to you lol. Fortunately for me I have not had many disputes over content. But I am getting a little discouraged at all the arguments and people leaving. Anyway I hope this means you are back from your wikibreak? I'd like to know because if you are I'd like to remove you from Esperanza/Alerts :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back. Thanks again. —Cleared as filed. 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikifiddler is being merged to Andrew Orlowski

I'm contacting you because your help is needed and because you recently cast a vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifiddler. DannyWilde (talk · contribs), who has been actively campaigning in that AfD for the keeping of the article, has in the meantime been repeatedly copying the entire contents of Wikifiddler verbatim into Andrew Orlowski -- each and every time marking it falsely as a minor edit, and with either no edit summary or with a false one such as "rv blanking vandalism". Obviously this is unacceptable; AfD has no meaning if any editor can unilaterally save any text from deletion by simply merging it into a different article. Please assist me in resisting this attempt to circumvent AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Yo, CAF:

Haven't seen you much around IRC in the past few weeks. You're missed.

Just wanted to say "Thanks" for your support vote on my RFA. I squeaked by with a final tally of 46/13/2, and am now an admin. My aim is to make sure nobody ever regrets voting "support" for me.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a page protection

For George W. Bush, and can part of the revisions that can be seen in the history be removed? Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, page protection is vital - no one must see the vandalised versions, we'd be a laughing stock. Izehar (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved this from OwenX talk page as he appears to be out this seems urgent please help! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind it has been protected. :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to go about removing the page histories if another admin hasn't already done it. —Cleared as filed. 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ASK A DEVELOPER! Admins can't delete individual revisions from the history.. one, they still show up in the list of deleted revisions. Two, you would have to manually undelete approximately 25,000 revisions in order to preserve the history for GFDL purposes. Please please please ask a developer next time! Rhobite 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Shpants

I believe that you miscounted when closing this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shpants. It was in fact 4 for move/redirect, 4 for delete, and 3 of the 4 for delete were based on the original article, which was in fact altered during the course of the voting. Therefore, there was actually a consensus to redirect. On seeing your confusion, I was bold and put in REDIRECT Three quarter pants in to the article, as that had been the consensus decision, but this was speedy deleted by the one and only person who voted delete. As such, it is currently going through the deletion review process. I just want it to be a redirect to Three Quarter Pants. I really don't see why this is such a big deal, or why the big stink about it...... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

New category

Of possible interest, [[Category:Wikipedians who are pilots]]. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info! —Cleared as filed. 10:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:De Lorean article

Hey, thanks! It's my favorite car so I had to do it. I want to get it featured on the Main Page as well, so it has an entry on Wikipedia_talk:Tomorrow's featured article if you'd like to support it. — Wackymacs 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope I haven't upset by editing your comment on WP:TFA, but after the recent kerfuffle over Christmas and Omnipotence paradox, that page really does not need "support" or "oppose" votes. Polls are evil. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, but I thought that your edit made it look like I had crossed it out (since that's the way it works most of the time) and wasn't supporting anymore. I don't know anything about the recent kerfuffles, so I was surprised to see my comments modified. No big deal, though. —Cleared as filed. 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Date styles

When I changed the date style in List of U.S. Presidents by date of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I was doing so not because it's my personal preference, but because this is an American subject, which should be written according to American language/formatting standards. I would never have changed the style if this article were a British subject. If you change this back to before, then you might as well change all American articles to British-style dates. If you would like to debate this a little further, please take it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --TML1988 07:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't personally care about date styles, because as I was saying, they show up according to each user's personal preferences anyway if they are correctly wikilinked. Everyone would save themselves a lot of grief by just using [[2005-12-23]] format, which also shows up according to correct preference but doesn't offend people's sensibilities when it comes to U.S. vs. European dates. I wouldn't have bothered fiddling with List of U.S. Presidents by date of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) if the only problem was dates — however, when everyone was reverting the date styles back and forth, they were also damaging the information itself, by mixing up dates between presidents. If someone wants to convert the dates to American dates, carefully, without damaging any information, they're wasting their time (since it shows up in American style for Americans who have their preferences set anyway) but I won't touch it. —Cleared as filed. 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Cleared as filed/Jul-Dec 2005, and a happy New Year too! — Wackymacs 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!!!

This is my first time reportning, i ashamed to do this Dyslexic agnostic (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for atarters, ths stalking harassment-lover has emptied the Bat-embargo page, insulted me and my editions directly, i've tried to make peace repeatedly, explaining him that i feel ofended, vandalized my own page writting sturr i repeatedly told him not to, i got out of control and swear indirecty at him in that very space. lately he reverted my editions writting insulting summaries in the Batman, batman villains and superman articles. Please, at least make him stop or met me in the middle point or something. He is also confused about article sizes. i've not been that smart daling with him but i think i deserve beter--T for Trouble-maker 09:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)woow i saw what he has been doing with everythink i write...scary

Since this, Dyslexic agnostic (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) commites vandalism 2 times:

---- (cur) (last) 04:17, 27 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (look, if you have a fact to corrrect, CORRECT IT, don;t just add your unreadable droning. '''I changed Bane to the 1990s (if that's even true) just for you'''.) (cur) (last) 01:51, 27 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (bane and HQ (ho is mr. j lover indeed) are from the early 90's. Also: no need to keep it short. Don'd make this short when editing.) (cur) (last) 23:39, 26 December 2005 Pc13 m (cur) (last) 12:13, 26 December 2005 Freakofnurture m (Popups-assisted disambiguation from Maurice Evans to Maurice Evans (actor)) (cur) (last) 12:04, 26 December 2005 Pearle m (Changing {{cleanup}} to {{cleanup-date|December 2005}}) (cur) (last) 08:17, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic ('''revert User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow's changes... don't remove the cleanup notice at the same time you add garbage!''') (cur) (last) 07:59, 26 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (cur) (last) 07:19, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (this page could use a good cleanup) (cur) (last) 07:19, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (copyedit and reduce intro) (cur) (last) 07:14, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (revert vandalism by '''T-lunatic''' to version by User:211.26.96.169) (cur) (last) 04:58, 26 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (cur) (last) 04:58, 26 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (cur) (last) 02:14, 26 December 2005 211.26.96.169 (al ghul is closer to 600 than 800) (cur) (last) 21:45, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (cur) (last) 20:28, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (cleanup tag) (cur) (last) 20:27, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (It hurts to read T-man's writing, worse than almost anyone's editing.)

---

1. do you believe this:

---

(diff) (hist) . . Enemies of Batman; 04:17 . . Dyslexic agnostic (Talk) (look, if you have a fact to corrrect, CORRECT IT, don;t just add your unreadable droning. I changed Bane to the 1990s (if that's even true) just for you.)

---

... he did this just to bother me, nobody is that ignorant (of the batman fans)

1. he blanked the bat-embargo page

---

(cur) (last) 11:57, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic

---

1. he vandalized my page by writing ove and over this

---

(cur) (last) 03:33, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (vandalism reported) (cur) (last) 03:22, 26 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic (→Good night) (cur) (last) 12:18, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (cur) (last) 12:16, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:16, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:14, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (:-D) (cur) (last) 12:13, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:13, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (:)) (cur) (last) 12:12, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:10, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (revert!) (cur) (last) 12:06, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:04, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (revert) (cur) (last) 12:03, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 12:02, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (revert) (cur) (last) 11:59, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 11:54, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (revert) (cur) (last) 11:52, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→Batman Vandalism) (cur) (last) 11:51, 25 December 2005 Dyslexic agnostic m (cur) (last) 11:20, 25 December 2005 T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (→On the Batman edits)

---

He was warned properly, and i followed the procedure, and yet khaosworks never addressed the issues, he just kept saying he found me "worst".

• told him that the Dyslexic guy was following me everywhere, reported every single time dyslexic did anything.

• followed the exact procedure to report dyslexic, he even committed more vandalism and nothing.
  • gave him wikipedia guide links
  • warned him
  • reported him
  • asked nicely
  • asked him to leave me alone

• told khaos that dyslexic was following me(every thing on my watch lis was being undone by him, with insults), and he didn't care. dyslexic even kept repeating his behavior and insulting me just in the face of khaos and nothing.

• write a lot in the discussion page, and I’ve been writtin very properly lately, but since dyslexic didn't care about khaos and the last kept his behavior i lost control and wrote "f you" as an answer to what he did, because I was all alone against somebody that kept stalking and mocking me. I feel like in a cape fear situation.

• You see? I’ve tried to calm down several times but nothing never changes and I end up loosing control like that because, dyslexic doesn’t change his behavior (which is not what I ask from him)

I’m actually asking to either block him or do something to make him stop messing with the pages I edit.

So, can you help me? This task would require a lot of history reading of all the pages on my watch list. Would you please take it...or pass it to somebody with the patience?

Hi, T-man. The problem here is that you've got a content dispute, not a vandalism problem. You can't have a user blocked because you don't like the fact that he's reverting your changes, especially when you're reverting his too. It looks as though you're getting pretty angry about this — I'd suggest taking a short break to cool down and think about something else, because Wikipedia isn't worth bursting a blood vessel. Once you come back, remember that discussion pages are a place to discuss adding new material or changing an article; if the feedback you receive is that the material is unwanted or unnecessary, you should take a good look at why and decide whether your additions are really appropriate for the article. Also, keep in mind that by not writing in perfect English, you make it very easy for people to just blindly revert your changes, even though ideally they should be copyeditting them instead. If you keep your prose in good shape, people will be more likely to judge your additions on their merits. Good luck. —Cleared as filed. 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll need your advice then. Maybe you can be my (kinda) tutor for a while. I really need a teacher. The fat that is got me scared as hell is that the stalker is following me everywhere, how would you feel if somebody is blind reverting all you do everywhere without more explanations than the insults he writes in the summaries. He barely tells me anything, even when I write in his talk page. He won't ever talk to me on my page (not that I'm looking foward to it). I always try to copyedit and talk a lot... way more than what I write in the articles... I'm also not sure, he knows about the topics he is writing, since he never writes anything. If you check all he has done is erase or move stuff. The "Harley and Bane" commentaries gave me the hint. Since for fans, it’s to well known "Batman: the animated series", and "knightfall" are recent and not from the 80's. Remember he never writes and the only time he did it was way wrong. All I want from him is to leave me alone and to stop following me, as I asked him. Thanks beforehand, I knew I was going to feel more comfortable with you, I liked your previous answer, because I what I need the most is somebody telling me what to do.--T for Trouble-maker 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the stalker?

I am being stalked here, not T-man. And defamed by him routinely, even though I am only correcting his terrible concepts of editing and spelling and grammar. I am sick of this lout wasting my time, and how dare he suggest I don't contribute anything productive. If there is a factual error anywhere, then he should correct the error, and not simply revert everything to his way of thinking. His work on Batman would have destroyed the page, and is certainly not consensus. Keep talking all you want, T-Man, I am no longer addressing your crap, as I am busy working on improving wikipedia and reverting garbage. Dyslexic agnostic 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You see? no longer addresing? he never did... And if he is not following me how come he got here in the first place? His daily agenda is to check every page I edit go there and blind revert it. I kew he'd get here even before you talk to him, he is a nightmare --T for Trouble-maker 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

fixing redirects

...can result into inpropper linking. [6] .... ;-) best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have noticed that it was already redirecting to Urbanized area anyway; I was merely making it go straight there instead of through a redirect. I was making no judgment as to whether that was the proper destination. —Cleared as filed. 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too!

I hope I feel better too! Thanks! This is one of my favorite ones about lawyers, enjoy! One day a teacher, a garbage collector, and a lawyer all die and go to heaven. St. Peter is there but is having a bad day since heaven is getting to crowded. When they go to the gates, St. Peter informs them they have to answer a question to get into heaven. To the teacher he says, "What was the name of the ship in 1912 that crashed into a iceburg and sank killing most of it's passengers?" The teacher know's the answer and says, "The Titanic right?" I'ts right so St. Peter lets him through the gate. He then turns to the garbage man and asks him, "How many people died on that ship?" The man guess's, "1228?" That turns out to be right so the garbage man is allowed to enter heaven. St. Peter turns to the lawyer and says, "Name them!" KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hunt for Red October

Yeah... it's a pretty notable film on it's own. Eventually, I don't think it will remain a stub. I realize some films pages are intertwined with the books (the James Bond films, for example). But many films that are as highly successful, as are the books, have their own page. Dracula or Frankenstien, for example, are films that are seperated from the book pages. I plan on adding more later also to make it less of a stub. Cheers. Steve-O 13:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm just writing to let you know the the dyslexic guy is know now one of my wiki-buddies!! haha. Since he likes to follow me everywhere, i I asked him the same tutoring deal the same thing that I asked you, namely that I asked you to correct my grammar; and since theme then we are ok! by By the way, would it be ok to give you sketchs samples of what im I am trying to add, so that you can check if it makes sence sense (no quoting you if it gets rejected, of course, hehe) Happy new year!! --T for Trouble-maker 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the above edit as per T-Man's wishes to follow him and fix things. Dyslexic agnostic 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was talking about still. I have to do this Dyslexic agnostic, and it's not to you. It' only I need some perspective on how to deal with you, since, as you know it has again been tough to me lately. Don't take the bellow section personally. It's something I need to do. I clearly asked thees 3 editors I'm asking help not to do anything to you. If they respect my wishes, they won't even talk to you. So, please don't worry.--T for Trouble-maker 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not asking for intervention, or deep exploration of the case, just for personal advise based on what i'm saying and showing here

Hi, Cleared. I'm just bothering you again, this time only to help me get perspective:

It's a good thing somebody like dyslexic is following me since I have bat temper and soo poor self control... but i feel humiliated when he blind revert's my edits and puts rude coments on the summaries; he is not even trying to copyedit my stuff he just either blind reverts it or just massacres it. And he never writes anything for any article, and the only time he did he was way wrong*.

There is not one single page I can go he won't follow me. It's like he is forbidding me to edit anything. Wherever I go he follows; who ever I talk to he talks to. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy! what can I do? It'd be ok if he followed me to copiedit the mistakes I'm sure I can make, already told him I wouldn't mind first consulting with me before editing... I even tried once. I think he is not willing cooperate. I feel like he is just sensoring me and whatever I write. I'm not sure, but I think the first thing he does in the morning is check my contributions and undo them all. I feel like I can't be productive anymore.

I have done good things in the past. The list of villains categories format was my idea (even though then i noticed some others like Rowe had already proposed it way above, in the talk page) I stuck there and after a couple monts, hard work and Rosiah's magic (Rowe probably did more than I, I realice... I'm not that self absorbed heheh), we finished categorizing all villains and now it doesn't get nominated for deletion on a regular basis... I also did the Bat-Embargo page. From nothing. A page I'm afraid he want's to massacre. I have to assume good faith... but still...I dunno he said: **

But since he started folliwing me I'm not abble to acomplish anything. I've been rude in the past ans I feel sorry for myself whenever I have to admit it. The truth is that I really admire Rosiah, Cleared as Filed's temple and I'd like to be like them. But I can't change that fast... I'm too stubborn, and red boned, it's not so easy... I'm trying though, but cred is a hard thing to get once you lost it, everybody expects me do be rude and they don't buy me when I try to change.

I guess I'm just asking for advice. I wouldn't like Dyslexic to be baned or punished in any way, and I'm not even asking you to talk to him. I think he is a good guy after all. But I don't know what to do. It's a nightmare. And I'm confused and depressed, I only want you and a couple of other editors who I'm also asking, to iluminate me with some of your wisedom. I'm asking for kind words of advice.

Thanks beforehand

--T for Trouble-maker 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ps. Remember, I horribly insulted him with profanity (I replied f you a couple times on his talk page) when I lost temper in the past because I assumed hypocricy instead of good faith...A big mistake on my part, of course; which I why I maybe deserve what is happening to me.

---

* The only 2 times I can recall he wrote something, Dyslexic Agnostic was horribly mistaken. here... Check it out To me, this is almost insulting. And I my vertion clearly says that the Ventriloquist, Black Mask and Killer Croc are from 80's. Dyslexic don't even seems to pay attention to what he blind reverts...uh, right, blind revert. I get it.

** Sorry, but I can't... I don't see why this Bat-embargo is so important! It only applies to DC animated series, which are not important in themselves. Dyslexic agnostic 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

And I replied:

I get the feeling you are just going to wet yourself laughing at my sorry ass...but I'm starting to get the feeling you actually don't care for the Animated series...or anything you edit at all: I haven't seen you put some info yet*, but only take of whatever I write. And reduce, reduce, reduce... There are other ways of editing, you know?

I'm very sorry to say so, but what else can I think? you "edit" (or more like blind reverse) my whole contribs list! What else can I think of you??! To me, you don't think anything is worth having in an article. This is the only track I can think of you: Save memory, save memory, save memory! I'm starting to get confused about your intentions here.

I haven't felt useful for a while now. I'm even starting to get depres whenever I think about the wikipedia. I asked you in every posible way: rude, nice, sarcastic, friendly...Nothing seems to work with you? What do you want from me? you won't help me because I feellike if I'm only a big joke to you.

Thanks for your time. Looking fowrt to really start cooperating to you, (T for Trouble-maker 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi, T-man. I'm not exactly sure what advice you're asking for or what you're asking me to help with. I find that the easiest way to deal with someone who is checking all of your contributions is to give them nothing objectionable or interesting to find. If you work on making your grammar/spelling/prose better, and only add information to articles that is neutral, verifiable and well-sourced, anyone watching your contributions will quickly become impressed. If you want any help with that, please let me know and I'll be glad to do what I can. —Cleared as filed. 07:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Cleared as filed/Jul-Dec 2005,

I wish to thank you for your vote on my RfA. It has passed with a final tally of 59/0/0. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)