User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other really trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Raj Kanna close

I'm not taking this to deletion review because I don't really think he's actually notable in the end, but why did you close in 4 days, instead of 5? Afds should normally be left to run their full time so everyone interetested can comment. I probably would have chosen to add something.DGG (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

no problem, mainly curious, while trying to keep track on the increasing tendency to close early. DGG (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwrapped steel

Why did you leave this afd open? Unwrapped steel was redirected to Steel back on the 31st, so isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that which has already been redirected (or at least take it to RFD instead)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. Was my non-admin closure of the afd in line? I felt there was no point in keeping it open since the article had been redirected, and nobody voiced objection to the redirect after all this time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User rights

Thanks for upgrading me! Mrh30 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your message

I'm not sure what you mean "mass removing". Aren't I allowed to remove the notice if I think the article can be improved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want the articles to be saved! What is wrong with my reason? Do I have to have a different reason for every page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer me?

I thought I could just edit out the notice if I wanted the article to stay? Why do I have to persuade people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. If I want to save more than one article I need to persuade people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So ALL horror movies are being deleted??? Who decided that? That doesn't make any sense!!! Can I read where this decision was made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." So now you say I can't take it off horror movies because there is a consensus to delete horror movies.

Where does it say how many horror movie pages I can save? Where can I see the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the horror movies pages to be deleted. It says I can edit out the notice. SO I did. Then you tell me I can't do too many but you don't say how many I can do! It says right on the notice that I can take it off for any reason but you say I can't do that for horror movies! Now you are erasing my messages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying I have to convince people to change the process but I just want to save horror movie pages!!! How many will you let me do? Parts of my messages are gone. I wrote more than taht.

You said all horror movie articles weren't going to be deleted. Now you say they are! Where is that decision made?

What!?! You said "To save all horror movie pages from being deleted you need to change the process. Hut 8.5 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs)

Why do I have to change the process? I just don't want those articles to be deleted! It says I can do this, but you won't let me!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been adding different reasons for each article. Are you happy now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like I don't have to convince people to change the process or only save "one or two" horror movies articles after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read which message? The one from Excirial where he threatens to ban me? Is that your idea of an apology?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Freakin hell

And apologies for the title of the header, but seriously, what a mess. I expected to do something more constructive the last hour then create a mass AFD, post a lot of explanations and then even having to reason with a second editor about what a prod tag is, before having to defend myself against accusations im re-adding prod tags. Guess your evening feels likewise? ;)

Apart from the rant i somehow couldn't resist including, i initially just wanted to notify you that this finally seems to be handled. The ANI topic is closed, a mass AFD for the articles is up, and it seems that Ministry of Love is now discussing with auburnpilot Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anti-Red China Poster.jpg

I'd like to be civil with you for a change, bur why did you delete a page that was free, after User:Dzhugashvili made the false claim that it wasn't? ----DanTD (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but 1)I didn't get this from Wikipedia. 2)The image has been shown often enough over the past 19 years. 3)This whole deletion campaign was politically motivated, by somebody a user who openly admits to being a communist, and a Stalinist at that. ----DanTD (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the use of free images, although I still believe the deletion of many of these images are quite harsh. But if you have any doubts regarding Dzhugashvili's political motivations for deleting these posters, I suggest you note his work on articles such as Syria and Joseph Stalin. In fact, I just learned he tried to delete an anti-communist userbox. What this kid is doing is no different than a holocaust denier trying to rewrite articles related to the Third Reich. ----DanTD (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If nobody should be allowed to to use their userpages to express their political beliefs, perhaps all political userboxes shold be deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even look at his attempt to eliminate that userbox? ----DanTD (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And this doesn't give you some hint that there might be a pattern? Perhaps it doesn't warrant a sanction at this point. I just hope this kind of thing won't continue. When it comes to userpages, I tend to leave well-enough alone, but outside of that I've always tried to be more constructive when I edit articles. Unfortunatley, I've seen too many edits that have been destructive over the roughly 2 1/2 years I've been a member of this site. ----DanTD (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disposal of AIVV request without review of issues

You recently discarded an AIVV request that I submitted and there was nothing in your notes or the responding admin notes that indicated that the issues I listed were addressed. Instead, the responding admin suggested that I attempt mediation. I replied that I would if the other party were not hostile and abusive and I added that it was unreasonable to suggest that I subject myself to risk of further abuse. The responding admin replied that the other party had submitted numerous edits and opined on the likelihood of a block being successful.

Will you please reconsider your decision based on the issues I raised and on the related facts? I am interested in a reasonable and civil discussion of the issues. I do not dispute the value of any of the other party's other contributions but neither do I believe that they have bearing on the immediate issue. The other party's previous contributions do not justify hostility, they do not justify personal abuse, they do not justify removal of a copyright violation template without discussion, they do not justify repeat vandalism, and they do not justify removal of vandalism warnings without discussion. Absent a block, I believe that the other party is likely to continue the vandalism and the personal abuse.

Thank you. --Danorton (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Although there was clearly a related content dispute, my AIVV request was not about the content dispute, it was about subsequent vandalism and personal abuse. Again, please directly address the issues I raised in the AIVV request. Once these issues are resolved, it is my hope that the related content issues can be discussed. --Danorton (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ACC Request

Hi there, I was wondering if you could grant me the "Account Creator" ability, becuase as a user of the ACC Tool, I'm unable to create over a certian amount of accounts within a 24 hour period. As an account creator I would be able to bypass this. I would be happy to answer any questions you have regarding this of course. Thanks in advance --Flewis^(talk) 12:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to United Airlines Flight 93

Next time you undo a change, please READ the change, first.

After Aude deleted my earlier edit for disputing the source's reliability, I researched the actual 9/11 Commission Report online, and found that the disputed citation was correct.

To avoid doubt, I CHANGED the citation when I restored my text to point to the official report.

If you were confused by the comment on my change, you might have noticed that the number of bytes was significantly different. Anyway, you should look at an edit before you revert it, to make sure of what you're doing.

Please don't create a WP:3RR situation.

Any comments? Answer here on your own talk, please. Thanks -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Morning show central

Hey Idiot why did you delete my wiki page??? Don't you read before you delete... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisv3193 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider protection of Template:WAD

Hello. I would like to request that you reconsider the protection you added to Template:WAD on 18 August 2008. The comment in the edit history was Protected Template:WAD: high risk template. After reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:High-risk templates, I don't think this template should have been protected. It is currently transcluded in 1725 articles which does not even place it in the top 1000 at Special:MostLinkedTemplates and a number of those are not protected. Also, it has not been subject to any vandalism or edit wars, with less than 20 edits since its creation over 3 years ago. Thanks for your consideration. -- Zyxw (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page and the offer to unprotect Template:WAD temporarily so I could make changes. There are some changes I had in mind (including correcting a bug in the code that displays two periods instead of one), but I will post an {{editprotected}} request on the template's talk page. My reason for making the request is because I feel it should be left unprotected at this time. There is an active community of people contributing to airport articles and if any vandalism did occur it would be noticed and reverted. In terms of airport templates, I understand protecting {{Infobox Airport}} with 7,905 links which placed it at 697 on the Most Linked Templates list. But the protection of so many lower usage templates over the past few months only discourages non-admins such as myself from contributing to template development. -- Zyxw (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "editors manning Wikipedia's email system have reported a very large number of complaints as a result of serial template vandalism, even though the templates concerned may only have a few hundred transclusions", I'd appreciate it if could point me to the page(s) where this was discussed. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Green Mill

10:49, 21 June 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Green Mill" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: http://www.greenmilljazz.com/) [1]

I doubt the most popular bar of the 20th century in Chicago should have been deleted. Although I don't have access to the page history or to the deleted version, I do remember the article, and I've found at least two older versions on the net that are not copyright violations. Could you explain your rationale for deletion? If an editor did alter the article and add copyright violations, why wouldn't you have reverted to the previous version or deleted the particular version from the edit history? Please respond here to keep the thread intact. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The earliest version of the article was copied directly from the URL I referenced in the deletion log, so there was no earlier version to revert to. All subsequent versions were derivative works and therefore violated copyright. Hut 8.5 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at two of the versions right now, and there's nothing derivative about them. Could you forward me a copy of the article you deleted, including the earliest version of the article? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't give out copies of articles deleted due to copyright concerns . Hut 8.5 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There at least two versions online, one in archive.org dated 2006, and another longer version featured on a blog. Neither of them appear to be derivative from the link you have provided. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The archive.org version is from a month or two after the page was created. The creator made more edits to the article afterwards (including adding more text from here which also violated copyright, that content can be seen in the archive.org version). Hut 8.5 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Who was the creator? Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Overdark (talk · contribs) Hut 8.5 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism cleanup

1. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "James K. Polk life" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)
2. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Young Hickory" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)
3. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "James Knox Polk" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)
4. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Napoleon of the Stump" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)
5. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Polk Administration" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)
6. 17:47, 11 October 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "James Polk" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD R1), Redirect to deleted page ".H.A.Ġ.Ġ.E.R?".)

Are you sure you want to delete these? MER-C 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Proto-Indo-European roots

If this isn't a reason for speedy deletion of List of Proto-Indo-European roots, do you think it qualifies for AfD, or shall I leave it altogether? I still think it is misleading if "List of Proto-Indo-European roots" redirects to a page without such a list. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll leave it then. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorted on Commons but....

This one seems part of the problem? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - guess I missed you - blocked now. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia announces launch of new Valued pictures project

The project goes live for nominations on 1 December 2008 at 0:00 UTC

This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.

Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

The Wikipedia valued picture project has opened for nominations. Please feel free to nominate an image at WP:VPC today!

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

help sought to find a solution to bias debate

Hi, I and one of my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of bias on a controversial topic Operation Blue Star, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views so that we can solve the dispute amicably. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

An article in which you have had an interest, List of bow tie wearers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx

Many thanks for your help, but it is still very hard for me... May I ask you is this the right place: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to post my question for help stopping "substituting BD"? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Many thanks again. It looks like that this user is unstoppable... But at least there is now a discussion started after (and during) thousends of unnecessary edits. I think this user doesn't know that his collecting of edits insults hundreds of other users... Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fibonacci Day

It looks like the page was written in jest. Special:Contributions/Cebeyer says "Starting this page to give educators and math lovers another holiday". Pcap ping 17:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Records semi-protection

As suggested at WP:RFUP, I am coming to you to suggest that Atlantic Records has been semi-protected long enough (since June). Please unprotect it. Thanks. 68.167.250.7 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Saw your reply...shoulda looked at the log more closely. Thanks for handling the fundamental issue. 68.167.250.7 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Prod of Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers

Hi, thanks for your edits. You were right to change this to a prod, and I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That being said, if the AfD of the original article is closed (and I presume it's almost guaranteed to be delete) before the prod expires on this, can I change it back to speedy? Or should I leave a note at the AfD asking the closing admin to delete this article along with the original?

I actually gave the article creator, very early on, the option of having the article moved to his namespace where he could work on it, but instead he turned to vandalism and personal attacks, as well as claims that we are denying critical information from people who need it...this new article appears to be an attempt to recreate his first one while addressing the things if was AfD'ed for, but that pursuit would be more appropriately carried out in his userspace rather than in mainspace. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I will open the AfD now. You don't have to feel obligated to get involved in it because, as you said, the issue is getting complicated, there are a couple disruptive editors and your delete vote or comment will probably make you end up being the subject of vandalism, personal attacks, and accusations of being a tag team...although you are certainly welcome to comment if you don't mind that stuff. Thanks again, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does my page Surveynomics keep getting deleted

I provided references, and copyright detail on the page I created for Surveynomics. What do I have to do different to keep my page up? It follows along the same lines as every other page posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordyna (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Joseph

Greetings. It seems as though You have erased an article which I have created. Forgiving my effort of writing and augemnting to Wikipedia, you did not contact me nor gave a warning or a reason for this. The article is sustainable, not poorly written and is augmenting knowledge on a prominent figure (His film was seen by 50 million people on googlve video alone...), that has been mentioned in 3 other Wikipedia articles linking to this page...

I would appreciate if you would help me and the community to further develop this article, by restoring it.

Thank you. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Will Poston

If you care to take a look at the IP editor who created this page, you'll see that s/he is just out to be silly and did indeed create that page because s/he could. The page is nonsense and needs to be deleted. JS (chat) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You may also want to take a look at this, Dylan Littman. JS (chat) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and merry christmas :-) JS (chat) 18:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:No icon

Template:No icon creates errors. Inge (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a look at it and I don't know what to do to remove the bokmål bit. It is not in the code. My limited knowledge of templates is not of use I fear :) I have left a message requesting help at the main language icon page.Inge (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Hut 8.5 , I have two questions about User:Hut 8.5/German editing stats, is there an update in progress ? and two, did you exclude bot edits from the registered users ? Thanks Mion (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks for updating, DE only bots can be excluded by name, 234 bots, namelist on [[3]] (Origin de:Spezial:Statistik. Cheers Mion (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Found some more about the DE bots de:Benutzer:Idioma-bot (Template), de:Benutzer:Euku/Botstatistik, de:Wikipedia:Bots/Liste der Bots, post a note if you need help in translatation. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5, muchos gracias for the correction on the list and happy new year. Mion (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems we can follow the downturn of IP edits live, [[4]] from 33 % now to current IP activity 4.00 (18%) Mion (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5, your stats are mentioned on Wikipedia:Flagged revisions, so don't be surprised if you get more questions about it. Cheers Mion (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Hut 8.5, there is a live counter (live) for the sightings per hour, the constant sighting rate for articles which are rated for the first time seems to show a stable line, it would be interesting to know how many users have more than X non automatic sighting edits drawn from the de:Spezial:Logbuch/review, were the automatic sightings from sighters and the manual sightings are split, i'm assuming now that the data is in the databasedump. Cheers Mion (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And maybe a similar table, but then not only for articles which are sighted for the first time, but a non automatic sighting rate per hour for all to sight edits ?Mion (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

wow, thats fast, i have a question about it, is the timerange may 3 2008 - oct 11 2008 for both lists? (2008050301 - 2008101107) Thanks Mion (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5 , thanks for the update, playing with it, as presented there, the number of users with more than 1 sighter edit is three times the presented number on special:statistics. any idear ? or maybe i can ask on DE. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the other option that the total number of users is wrong and that 264 from 4949 reached the 1000 sightings that depends on the query, but has an impact on the total sightings as well.Mion (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for helping, clear enough. Mion (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoi, I think the Average sighting per sighter per day on 4,42 shows that we didn't reach the numbers on the core group of Sighters, which should have at least 10, i think next time the table has to be extended 1000-3000 in steps of 250 or something like that, can you check the page for wrong assumptions on my side ? thanks Mion (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Partly answered [5] Cheers Mion (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5, the average is added to the list, the difference between the first total 1.144.505 sight edits and the second 1.578.272 . beeing 433.767 edits, maybe autosighted edits ? a good point, it changes "Average number of new edits in the timerange sighted per sighting: 6,0" . Mion (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the question is different : How many ‎ ((automatisch) [Status: gesichtet]) edits are there in the same period ? Cheers Mion (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recalculation on the table data [6], says no error, the total 1.144.505 is correct there on the given numbers. Mion (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5, 1.144.505 is removed as 1578272 stands, a snapshot of the group of 219 sighters is added, as for 4.37 (all edits), the German discussion is about 5 sightings per sighter on average, however the talk is that the edits on the talkpages are not sighted, i'll check that later. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Hut 8.5/German editing stats is updated, i have one question for that page, are in the edits from the registered editors the sighter edits included ? (and sorry for showing up so much here) Mion (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Runtshit socks

Hello Hut 8.5. Just giving you the heads-up that, as you blocked Suppresstwits earlier today, that account was created by Suppressturds before-hand, so the initial account should probably be blocked as well (block log). Also, perhaps a few of the accounts starting with "Suppress" should be checkusered to see if there are other spare sock accounts created by User:Runtshit. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

keep up your good work

keep up your good work [7] - too bad that such work has to be done. LocodeMaster (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

Why do you not make a bit more of an effort for a page on Archimedes Plutonium? This subject is the most notable from usenet, and recieves growing dead-tree attention every year. He is the subject of a chapter in an unrelated book, an article devoted to him in a big paper, casual mention in at several books, and an enormous internet presence.

I understand that the best location for this article is "Archimedes Plutonium", but I wouldn't know how to unblock that page. This page was deleted twice, both times without consensus, by frivolous decision of hostile administrators. I don't know how to proceed. Please help me, if you can.Likebox (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are cases where groups of people so obviously go wrong that it is good to unilaterally challenge "consensus". This is one of these cases.Likebox (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Plutonium didn't like the first three articles. This article is very similar to the one reviewed in the 4th AfD, which Plutonium approved of.Likebox (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You say "no one", but you mean "not me". Maybe someone else will. But I respect your position.Likebox (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted my Page?

Hi! I just noticed that my page regarding Pirates Online was deleted and read the discussion coming from it. I'm totally fine with the deletion and just wanted to clear this up with all users who were nominating it, so maybe if you could spread the word around! First: I didn't know you couldn't have your own personal pages with information, because I had seen other users with the same sorts of things on their personal pages (e.g. Brethren Court, etc.). Second: I wasn't aiming on threatening vandalism tags with everyone – there was a specific person, whose IP and various accounts (accused of sockpuppetry) had been personally harassing me and it was agreed between myself and a few administrators that the more he put my mainpage/talk pages, etc. up for speedy deletion, the more vandalism tags he would be given. Hence, I had posted a notice, specifically for him. I'm sure I should've been more clear about that. That is all, and thanks so much for telling me what I should've been doing, I didn't know I couldn't have my personal page on that. Regards, BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Krazy Kevin Lipsitz

Hut 8.5, why are you protecting a notorious convicted spammer and ebay fraudster? Did you follow the links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebay patrol (talk • contribs) 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert my 3 changes? They're in place, and were made to comply with the other brands in the category.

all Cigar brands have the "(cigar brand)" mark after their name. Take a look at Cohiba, for an example.

Please undo the changes.

Edit on caesar cipher

Hi

You removed the link i added, saying that there was already three similar links. In fact all three links discuss the caesar cipher, and propose sources or programs that you have to download and execute or compile before doing some ciphering or deciphering. They are in java and in excel. On the other hand, the link I added propose the user to actually do some ciphering or deciphering, without downloading anything. Just right in the browser. Also javascript is a different language from java. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.183.80 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research (9/11 conspiracy theories)

I am confused about the meaning of "Original Research", as was applied when my entries were removed from this article. I looked up Original Research on Wikipedia, and found, "This material is of a primary source character." I then looked up "primary source." It states, "a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information(paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources." By this definition, my entries were secondary sources, citing authoritative primary sources. I would like to understand how "Original Research" applies here, so that I won't make the same mistake again. I tried to find respected authoritative sources, so that there would be no need to question the validity of the sources.

As for "two of the sources cited say nothing about conspiracy theories", that is true. Does factual material which is part of the history of 9/11 have to be part of a conspiracy theory to be included in the conspiracy theories article? Is it disallowed from standing on its own in that article? If it doesn't belong among the conspiracy theories, would it be acceptable to add it to the main article on the September 11 attacks?The Original Wildbear (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response, Hut 8.5. I recognize now that adding something which seems perfectly appropriate to an article's subsection may not be appropriate to an article as a whole. I agree that it would be best to keep factual material and "conspiracy theories" separate.

Like most or all Americans, I had essentially no knowledge of what had happened when I first heard on the radio that a building in New York had been hit by an airplane. I followed the story afterwards to try to learn more. What struck me as surprising and significant from day one was the extent to which the Bush administration made efforts to hinder a full and accurate investigation. I wasn't expecting that, but there it was... extensively covered and plainly visible in the media... stonewalling, coverup, and destruction of evidence in a wide variety of forms; some of which were appallingly blatant. I'm not a conspiracy theorist (in the sense that I'm not proposing theories involving space aliens or anything like that), but the aggressive coverup by the Bush administration and many of the federal agencies which were under its jurisdiction seems to demand an explanation.

I still don't know the answers to what happened on that day, but I want to learn. When I read the main article on the September 11 attacks on Wikipedia, I was shocked by the apparent non-NPOV nature of its coverage of the topic. Disputes over it's neutrality are ongoing, and I'm sure they will continue until either the article's deficiencies are corrected, or those who dispute its neutrality are locked out.

An example of something which might warrant correction: accusations that Osama bin Laden was involved and/or knew about the 9/11 attacks are speculative, and arguably constitute a "conspiracy theory." It wouldn't surprise me if he did know or was involved, but it appears that assertions of his direct involvement are very speculative and unsubstantiated by any hard evidence. Nothing documented by an authoritative source (that I have seen) provides a convincing connection. The FBI apparently agrees, because they have not listed him as a wanted man in connection with the 9/11 attacks. That the Bush administration and its subservient federal agencies have deliberately obstructed and/or attempted to obstruct a full and comprehensive investigation from taking place is well-documented by authoritative sources. Yet the former (speculative assertion) gets a prominent place on the 9/11 attacks page, and the latter (documented fact) gets little or no mention. That seems unbalanced to me.

At the very least, I feel that the September 11 attacks article deserves a heading indicating "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

My apologies if this letter is excessively long or inappropriately directed. The ultimate intent is to improve the quality of Wikipedia without violating any rules or proprieties.The Original Wildbear (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta Theta Pi

Good Day,

My name is Robert Umstadter and I work for Beta Theta Pi Foundation and Administrative Office. As the legal copyright holder for the text that's been included on our page, we have the right to post this information as we see fit. Please do not delete our content. If you would like to speak with me in person, please call our office at 800-800-2382, ext 237. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umstadter (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, I've also sent an email (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) from our domain giving permission for this content to be posted.

Protection request

Greetings. I see that you protected Template:Navy as it was at high risk. Would you mind doing the same for Template:Air force and Template:Army? The Air force template has recently suffered vandalism. Thanks Greenshed (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi Hut, I came here since you handled both the AIV and the SPI reports on User:Sole fisher. Did I do the SPI correctly, and how could I have done it better? thx — Ched :  ?  11:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)