User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive4

Halo Burger

Thank you for added "verify"

I did add links... somebody fix grammar and they add more link. steelbeard1 told me to contact you... for you to look at and approval and remove two box " wikified" and other "notability" about Halo Burger because it is first time for me to do this. thanks again CFBancroft (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am follow up with you. I would like have you to check at Halo Burger. You added wikify and notability. Please tell me what I should do before you can remove wikify and notability? Thanks, CFBancroft (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let you know I did update external link and update link to web.archive.org ... let me know what else that I need to be done before able to remove wikified and notability thanks CFBancroft (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Grcampbell/Sandbox

Why was this page deleted?? I did not request it to be deleted. CSD U1 does not apply as I, the user, did not request deletion. The history section of this page contained info that I was working on for a multitude of articles. According to Wikipedia:About the Sandbox I am allowed to have this page. Please restore the page immediately as you deleted in error. --Bob (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it transcluded a template which had a speedy tag on it, and I thought the tag was on that page. Next time, if yoyu put a speedy tag on a transcluded page, please put it after a <noinclude> tag and before a </noinclude> tag to prevent it from appearing on transcluded pages. I have now restored the page for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom Fofo Agbo

He is a football player playing in the Hong Kong First Division League. You cannot say that he is not significant enough as you dont know him. You shouldnt delete itHikikomori.hk (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be a WikiNazi

my dear sir,

i believe you marked a page of mine for deletion, and while i have no problem with deleting pages if they are useless or vandalistic i do not believe the one you were opposed to was. i have seen the Manhug used in half a dozen states by dozens of unconnected people, and it is a fairly well known act. if you had a problem with how the page was written, you could have edited it yourself or contacted me and i would have gladly made revisions.

humbly yours,

Rockpiper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpiper (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Jim Coffey

Why did you delete the entry for Jim Coffey? Apparently being a professional boxer is not significant enough to merit an entry, but Pull my finger along with 10,000 myspace bands are? It would also have been considerate to notify me, was there even an AFD debate, or did you just go forward and delete it without consensus? -RiverHockey (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I deleted it because it didn't explain in what way he was important. Did he beat these opponents in notable competitions? The article doesn't say so.
2. I didn't notify you, because the page was tagged for deletion by someone else - and I thought that the person who tagged the page had notified you.
3. There was no AfD - this was deleted through speedy deletion. It was tagged with a tag which alerts admins to the pages, I reviewed it and decided that the page is deletable under CSD A7, as a biographical article which doesn't explain the significance of its subject.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Franklin Bridge

I believe that the Franklin Bridge wiki page I created was unjustly deleted. They meet more than one of the criteria required for musicians, specifically: 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition

They competed on a prime time national music competition on a major network, FOX. I included the external link to "The Next Great American Band" as well as an external link to the main website (http://americanband.msn.com). I don't know why that wasn't valid. 9 of the 12 bands that competed have wiki pages.

Also, I included a list of major recording artists that they toured with and added internal links to all of those artists.

Please reconsider. Thank you

Kwitmer (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)kwitmer

Category:Queer Wikipedians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Queer Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hyacinth (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I merely deleted the category as a repost (CSD G4), since the category had been previously deleted. Since the DR is about this previous deletion, I'm an uninvolved party. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Amarillo Design Bureau

Hi. I commented on your removal of the DB-tag at Talk:Amarillo Design Bureau. --Jack Merridew 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apollo heights

Edit / delete conflicts at this article resulted in it being restarted and its earlier history being lost. It's been fixed now and it's not obvious to me who restored the history, but you also removed the tags I put there to attract an admins attention so I presume you also. That being so: thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NexG PrePaid

The reason I tagged it with speedy deletion is because:

1. It claims the card is a Malaysian product, but the infobox was copied from Mastercard International
2. See Also links to every other credit card products
3. External link have no relevance to the product described
4. Lack of Notability, citations.

--Cahk (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you want to claim CSD G3 (vandalism), the first 3 claims have nothing to do with speedy deletion. The last claim is related to CSD A7, which applies to unimportant (note that I didn't say unnotable) real people (whether one or a group) or web content - otherwise, unnotability is not a cause for speedy deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A7 for Albums

I could have sworn that I've seen albums deleted via A7, but I'm probably just imagining it.  :) Thanks for the heads up, I'll see if it's worth adding a prod. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the CSDs are currently written, albums are clearly excluded from A7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Australian cars Portal

Hi, the reason why I nominated Category:Australian cars Portal for deletion was because it has been succeeded by Category:Australian cars portal. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo deletion

Od, that logo was originally attached to a now-deleted spam article and is now an orphan. It was used to augment the spam and should therefore be deleted as well. What template should I use in the future for a situation such as this? That old template used to suffice, but times are a changin' around here. Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's speedy-deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Thanks.PamD (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Leboninc

Did you notice that the user's username was exactly the same as the company defined and that their only other contribution was this page? It's a obvious corporate vanity account (this is the email that led to CSD G11) and should be blocked for at least a promotional username. MER-C 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that the user page needs to be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cassettes Won't Listen Page

Hello - can you please explain to me why the page I created was deleted? I seriously debate the lack of significance or notability (If I recall I referenced billboard, spin, cmj and many other reliable publications) And what (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what makes them significant? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They have received great press and interest from major music publications and tastemakers, as wall as performed official remixes for some very notable artists. I know their forthcoming record is much talked about (in billboard this week) - I only know what I read about them, and what I hear people saying and i'm hoping people can expand the article with more infoAnd what (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they're currently in the press makes them currently well-known, but doesn't mean that they will be in later years. Please read WP:MUSIC, and tell me how they are relevant. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would debate that they will have future interest due to the creativity of the music, however, this is all so subjective. In regards to WP:MUSIC, I referenced "non-trivial published work" from notable authorities. And what (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I found (and removed) a wrong transclusion of an old AfD for this article, that ended in No consensus. Unfortunately the article and its talk page was already deleted once speedily per A7 previously despite that AfD. As far as I see, this means that the article (an its talk page) should now rather be restored with all versions. A second AfD may be in order.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all a little new to me, can you explain what this means - will the page be put back up?And what (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.164.9 (talk)

Well, above was mostly directed at Od Mishehu who obviously was not and actually could not be aware of a previous deletion discussion. We have different deletion processes and one principle is that if a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements. Since he doesn't seem to have been online since then, I'll restore the article for procedural reasons. This, however, does not imply that we'll keep it eventually, since he or anybody else can open a second discussion to clarify above dispute about notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Beauty queen CSD

If you look at the article, the beauty queen is Miss University not Universe. That is hardly "significant". --WebHamster 10:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the stub is that Winnie Mariama Forewa is the national beauty queen, and the contest took place at a university. A national beauty queen, as far as I'm concerned, is significant enough to avoid speedy deletion, although not AfD/PROD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

From the link given on the stub it appears that this isn't the case. The contestants are from 3 further education establishments and is limited to students. This, in my view, is not a national contest, at least not in the spirit of WP:N. This is why I issued the CSD. --WebHamster 13:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid

Please reconsider the page move of History of South Africa in the Apartheid era. This page name has a long history of argument around it, and the name was a result of compromise, so it is by no means a "housekeeping page move". Zaian (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Denise Ho

You don't need to create Category for every singer. If your action is correct, then we will have to create seperate categories for each singer in Hong Kong using their name, this could not be true, right? --Da Vynci (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's possible that some siongers deserve their own categories. If you think that this singer doesn't, feel free to put the category up at CFD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Tibet

I am unsure why you deleted User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Tibet . Is there now a new userbox elsewhere of the same topic? Kingturtle (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted by Nakon per user request (this template was in Neutralhomer's userspace, and he requested that it be deleted). What you see in my name is a creation of a page by that name to remove all pages which transcluded that page from CAT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:G6 tags added by me

In a nutshell, the reason I tagged all of those templates with G6 was because none of the other reasons seemed appropriate. The templates were all either redundant or overly complex. For a fuller explanation please refer to the message I left at Gimmetrow's talkpage. Thanks. Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattawan Men's Tennis

Hello, I have finally finished the article; however, I cannot move it back to it's original location. Can you help me move it into Wikipedia or do I have to do it myself? If you want to take a look at it, it is here. You can also see that I included the women's team (which hasn't started yet. Can I change the name to make it just Mattawan Tennis. Thanks, Hurricane06 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Umcraig

This isn't about a school.P4k (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is about, it's been deleted anyway. Weirdy Talk 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Advance enzymes

Even if it doesn't pass as G12, it still qualifies as G11. Blatant advertising needing a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic - therefore I've given it a G11 tag. Thanks. If you still don't agree, take it to AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions at my request - further help, please!

Hello Od Mishehu—thanks for deleting my no-longer-needed User subpages. I can't work out how to flag User:Giler_S/Status and User:Giler_S/statuschanger.js for speedy deletion too (they merely redirect to the pages you've just deleted). I can't edit them for some reason (because it's my old Username, I think)... Can you help? Many thanks; much appreciated. ^talkGiler 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you. ^talkGiler 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information, to access a redirect page you can do the following:

1. Try to load it as you would any other page.
2. You will be redirected to a different page. However, there will be a line "Redirected from source", with a link to the original name in stead of the word source. Click on the link.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weiner Shnitzel

I have seen the {{underconstruction}} tag. But it's almost certain that the band is made up. Bloodredchaos (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then follow the instructions at WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes. Please keep the following in mind (quoted from same section):

Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax. There have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Album decline

Could I use db-album then? A db of my own?Metal Head (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no CSD for albums which pass no context - feel free to use PROD/AfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

I was wondering if a new speedy template could be made. One that covers albums. Albums such as compilation albums. There are many crappy, non notable albums out there with more than one artist on it, which makes them no available to be classified under a speedy template. Let me know if you can do this. Thanks. Metal Head (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of User:MegaMom being a sock-puppet

I've looked a bit at MegaMom's edits, and she doesn't look to me like a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels. It's possible, however, that I'm wrong. If you believe that there is reasonable evidence linking them, please file a report at WP:SSP. Feel free to ad any other users who you suspect are also sockpuppets of Wyatt. Until filing such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet of Wyatt. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the note you left on my Talk page, saying pretty much the same thing as עוד מישהו, who beat me to it. I don't know who Wyatt Ehrenfels is, and had not heard of User:MegaMom until (s)he posted on my Talk page, so I don't know if you are right or wrong. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, post it in the appropriate wikipedia page. It is unacceptable to simply go around tossing accusations. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What "proof" are you looking for, fingerprints and DNA? It's called "circumstantial evidence"; namely User:MegaMom's sudden unsolicited appearance in an unrelated dispute on WP:AN/I repeating Wyatt's original nutty paranoia and adding some bizarre claims about how I mistreated "her" child.

For some nutty paranoid goodness so you can compare, see this bizarre page of Wyatt's.

As far as I'm concerned, this passes the duck test, and I will continue to treat this character like the obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet he/she is. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say she isn't. I didn't say you shouldn't say she is - I said there's a right way to do things like that. If you think she passes the duck test, feel free to file a report at WP:SSP. Until you file such a report, please refrain from calling her a sockpuppet. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that User:Wyatt Ehrenfels is not blocked, the scutwork involved in digging up the evidence to file a report at WP:SSP would be utterly wasted. So the point of that would be what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 13:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's rich! I didn't realize that the editor that you have devoted so much time to smearing all over the Internet is, in fact, an editor in good standing. [1][2] It also seems to appear that you, acting on your own, without benefit of any fair administrative process, are responsible for tagging two IP addresses [3] and the user known as Tai Streets, as "sockpuppets" of a person you appear to be harassing and stalking. None of these users appear to be blocked for any "wrong doing" either. So, what are you doing, Calton? What's the point? This seems to me like a very improper use of Wikipedia. Again, Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service which you can abuse for the purpose of harassing people and smearing their names on the Internet. MegaMom (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Calton's Lack of civility

Please, consider blocking User:Calton for his lack of civility. He has ignored the two warnings you placed on his page, and continues to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Wyatt Erhenfels, while refusing to file a formal complaint. For the record, I am not a sock puppet and I consider his messages to me to be taunting and menacing in nature. After your warnings, he continues to refer to me as Wyatt Thank you. MegaMom (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave Calton a warning which I intend to keep - if no one else gets to it first - that next time he accuses you, off WP:SSP, of being Wyatt Erhenfels - he will be blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so bureaucracy triumphs over common sense, is that it? Have a read below. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read my message to you carefully. My common sense, as an admin who doesn't consider himself to have the appropriate skills to handle WP:SSP, are that she isn't. You've been accusing her in an uncivil manner. Feel free to open a sockpuppetry report against her, where the appropriate admins will check out your accusation. They don't look at my talk page, your talk page, MegaMom's talk page, or the other places you've been making personal attacks against her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And to ask, once again, the point of doing so other than to fulfill some bureaucratic threshold of yours?

A few more points for your common sense to ponder:

• [4] Attempts to scrub mention of Wyatt sockpuppet on IP Talk page. Twice.
• [5] Attempts to re-add redacted personal information
• [6] Early, out-of-the-blue, personal attack

Apparently personal attacks, evidence-free charges of harassment, and blind stalking of a long-term editor's edits by a new editor are okay, as long as the right bureaucratic checkboxes are or are not ticked off. Got it. --Calton | Talk 08:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an WP:SSP admin, so I don't handle sock-puppetry cases. There's no need to try and convince me.

If you had come with a clean slate (in regard to MegaMom), and complained about her at WP:AN/WP:ANI, then I promise you she would have been dealt with by the admins here. When you come and accuse her of sockpuppetry, you no longer have a clean slate regarding her, and unless you can convince the correct admins that she is a sock puppet, you should probably just leave her alone. I'm keeping an eye on what's currently going on between the two of you, and you seem to be the culprit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Ehrenfels reality check

Since I already dumped this on someone else's talk page:

As for the history of Wyatt's SEO campaign on Wikipedia, some pointers:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive80#.22Wyatt_Ehrenfels.22 - a brief wrap-up of his activities -- including his attempts to out my personal identity
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking - One of Wyatt's pet theories.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and the talk page- attempts to hijack this title for his theories (This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (User:Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. User:Uncle G)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking - attempts to hide his article in User space.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks - attempts to get Alt.usenet.kooks deleted as "libel". Note anon IP article edits around the time of the AFD such as this and this
• Talk:Dream/Archive 1 - Wyatt tries to shoehorn in his crackpot theories into Dream. Includes some classic Ehrenfels paranoia and details of his vanity-press publications (...it's not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation even among other vanity presses [as even a cursory search would turn up]).
• Talk:Cyberstalking - attempts to hijack this article. Note especially the contributions of sockpuppet Curt Jurgens (talk · contribs)

User:MegaMom had -- what? -- less than 350 edits over those nine months before popping up at AN/I to start retailing, verbatim, Wyatt's bizarre little conspiracy theories about me, along with some bogus -- and completely evidence-free, of course -- nonsense about how I was harassing "her" "son" on Wikipedia. The duck test applies, in spades: User:MegaMom is a User:Wyatt Ehrenfels sockpuppet or, at best, meatpuppet, and I'm not going to start pretending the sky is green when it clearly isn't. --Calton | Talk 17:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Amnon

Hi,

Do you happen to know who could do this? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need an edit done to a protected page, you can request it on the talk page using the {{editprotected}} template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehh ... that's not what i asked.

An anonymous user added a wrong interwiki link to a page in the Italian Wikipedia, and thanks to the bots it propagated to all the other Wikipedias. The same IP edited your user page, so i thought that you may know who could that be. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I see that on English Wikipedia, this IP's edits are mixed - some are vandalism, others are good contributions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re vandalism and blocking

Do Admins ever block vandals on sight after only one edit like that, if it is so obviously vandalism, distasteful, etc.? Cirt (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Only in a case of an obvious sock-puppet of an already blocked vandal. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Ehrenfels

Since you know a bit about the history of this, could you please process the speedy request I've placed on User talk:Wyatt Ehrenfels - MegaMom's comment was, she agrees, misplaced and hasty, and leaving the comment in the page history won't serve to end the on-going edit warring and general incivility. Comments on her talk page cover it. Thanks. gb ^{(t, c)} 13:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. gb ^{(t, c)} 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashuganj Upazila

Hi. Fair enough - I've 'prod'ed it instead. You're the first admin who's actually told me why they declined a suggested delete of mine, so thanks for the information. :) CultureDrone (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that by leaving you one message (a locally templated one), I may prevent you from tagging lots of non-speedy pages out of ignorance. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gloucester County Times

I've removed the copyvio paragraph from the page. If the remaining article is also copyvio, feel free to leave a new {{db-copyvio}} tag for it, based on its source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL – Not much left after your edit! No it’s fine now and thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much - but enough to not be speedy deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am in agreement with you! Nothing wrong with stubs as the article is being worked on. In fact, I should have just deleted the paragraph instead of tagging. Call it the first edit of the day, still wasn’t awake. Shoessss |  Chat  14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

If an article has enough non-copyvio information to survive other CSD criteria, as Little Angel Theatre does, then it shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio - instead, the copyvio sections should be removed. For your information,

And for YOUR information, if the article begins as a complete copyright violation and remains substantially the same, then it's a derivative work of a copyright violation and must be deleted. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Hi,

Just to let you know that a new template has been created for one of the queries your answered to. Please see this to understand what I mean. The template explains about Capitalisation to the IP.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Salka

Thanks for going through all the hassle to create this account for me! Salka (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist Rant By "non-existent" User

Hi,

If you have any time I wondered if you could advise. A user named "rtc" User:rtc has managed to run their account in such a way that makes it impossible to quote (link to) his user page during discussions, even though you can link to his edit page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rtc [like so], as Wikipedia thinks he doesn't exist. For example, using the same WikiMarkup of [[User:???]] I can quote my own username [[User:???]] like so. How they have managed this is unknown to me but this does not appear to be in violation of any Wikipedia Username policy that I have managed to read, and using the above link they still manage to somehow sign their posts.

The reason why I ask your advice is because in a very long and protracted discussion the user posted a long racist rant (chapter 24, last post) on national superiority, and has been using this excuse of "superiority" (as I only recently discovered) as the primary means for ignoring valid claims made by people from other nations (i.e. me) about an article's content and reverting edits without any counter-claim or justification (bar "superiority"). I have frequently wanted to quote their username with a link but I haven't been able to do so as Wikipedia thinks they doesn't exist.

I don't want to forcefully create their personal page, or comment on it (as suggested on WP:RFCN) as that is going to seriously stoke the fire and turn an article-focussed discussion into a personal war; very stressful at best and not something that addresses the article's issues. But not being able to link to his user page because he appears to not exist is causing me concern.

Finally, I am not at this time asking for any assistance regarding the article discussion itself, something that may change in the future. However, I will say I would like to keep the racist rant in place to demonstrate that the claims being made about the article are real claims, regardless of any further action against the user that other people may deem necessary.

Many Thanks in Advance,

Andrew81446 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (this request went out simultaneously to one other selected editor).