User talk:Royalguard11/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2 |

Archive 3

| Archive 4 →

Goalscorer articles

I respectfully give you notice that I am going to remake the major goalscorer articles at the weekend. The deletion was unfounded, without consensus and makes WP worse for the sake of it. The only reason given was that they were lists; so what? There are thousands of lists which exist on WP without challenge, many on far more obscure subjects. It was deleted prematurely and unjustifiably by you, an admin, despite the reasonable objections of many who simply aren't fortunate enough to be admins. This suggests to me that WP is really only run by and for an admin elite. I will consider withdrawing all contributions (I am a major contributor on many sports subjects) and withdraw donations if I am not dissuaded of this impression. Regards, Mjefm 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me, Mr 11, but isn't it you that took unilateral action to make a point? You say in your own User review that you respect consensus; but the discussion on AfD reached no consensus, yet you deleted the article prematurely anyway. I refer you to WP:5; "WP is an encyclopædia incorporating elements of general encyclopædias, specialized encyclopædias and almanacs" (ie Rothmans, DK Encyclopædia of World Football). Your action was unjustified, undemocratic and unhelpful. Regards, Mjefm 11:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2

I've lifted the 3RR block on FT2. It seems apparent from the diffs that he was reverting vandalism. The real kicker is that the anon is altering the language of a source quotation. The anon has continued to disrupt the article, so I've recommended semi-protection to him. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone continues to vandalize the Labrador page's "silver" section and is posting inaccurate information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs). 14:39, January 6, 2007

Thanks for help on Rajesh Khanna

Thanks for the help. I'm starting to feel that Jatinram is a little unhinged on the subject, but an arbitration case to get him banned is so much work. Zora 18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution of Saddam Hussein

Could I ask that you reconsider your denial of semi-protection at Execution of Saddam Hussein? I was just about to semi it myself when I noticed your denial at RFPP. It's not just one IP address that's doing this. It's one guy using several different IPs over the last several days. Please take a look at the page histories and the contributions of 64.107.0.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.89.166.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 64.107.2.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), etc.

Thanks for reconsidering and semi-protecting the article! It would be pretty easy to stand behind your initial decision to "save face" but it takes something more to publicly reconsider your own decision. Good job! --ElKevbo 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Trip: The Light Fantastic here

Hi. Suprised to see me? Thought I was some stupid newbie who didn't know how to use a proxy server, so you could bully away? Wrong. I'd suggest you shut up. I'll do as I please. The issue is finished, and could have ended there and then. I was not going to return unless another debate flared up on the issue. But noooo you had to try and punish me. Yawn. Well don't try it, because the very nature of the internet makes it impossible. Now we're on my terms, here they are: I will continue editing Wikipedia in the way I see fit, in a non-destructive manner, as per usual. You may keep the block on my account for the week alloted, in order not to lose face in front of the 24 Season 6 crowd. I'm willing to lose a bit of face to know I've rubbed your face in your powerlessness. I will not return to the 24 article until another episode is leaked, possibly next year, but it's unlikely; and we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. OR You try to "punish" me even more, fail miserably (because we both know it's near-impossible to stop anyone on Wikipedia)... and I abandon all the good work I've done and you create another major vandal. Basically: I will go on a rampage across Wikipedia if you persist in stamping your non-existant authority OR You can save yourself the trouble, shut up, and hear no more from me. I'd suggest you think carefully about what's best for Wikipedia; and the scrutiny your decision will come under if you make the wrong one. Comment on my normal user page, when you've done having your ego deflated. Trip (the Light Fantastic)

I want to voice my support for you Trip The Light Fantastic. I read Royalguard's block of you and what you did to "earn" it and I must say that these newer Admins are major Nazis. They are going to kill Wikipedia and turn it into just another left-wing institution. Yeah, Royalguard is a left-winger. Perhaps you are, too. Doesn't matter. I've noticed that many of these Admins--certainly the majority--are left-leaning. As such, their behavior is predictable as can be and while they claim they support freedom and free speech, their actions clearly demonstrate otherwise. Royalguard is a Nazi. Nothing less. There are no other viewpoints but his. And good for you on your insistance on coming back. These admins are nothing more than glorified janitors cleaning up the messes that vandals make. Sure, we could all pitch in to make Wikipedia better, but guys like Royalguard aren't nearly as interested in that as they are in wielding their own power. Good thing Royalguard found a place to be powerful in cyberspace because I'll bet he's powerless and impotent in real life. Keep up the good work Trip The Light and don't let Nazis like Royalguard drag you down! Monkeybreath 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh, Godwin's Law wins again...--Isotope23 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm back to say hi!

You are a total and complete jackass, Royalguard11! You accused me of being someone I'm not. I said I would be back again and again and I will. From now on I am your mortal online enemy. I saw how you requested a "checkuser" to see if I was Trip The Night and I also saw it came back "inconclusive". Do you know why it was inconclusive, IDIOT? Because I am NOT Trip The Night! Now you have 2 enemies, Nazi. And yes, you are a Nazi. You are a fool. It's admins like YOU who are going to destroy Wikipedia and turn former contributors into vandals. You've done it TWICE in one weekend!!! Fool!

I don't know how the heck you became an admin with your inflexible attitude and vindictive behavior. You are nothing but a spoiled, left-wing Nazi drunk with administrative power which you wield much as Hitler did to crush anyone who is in disagreement with you. Disagree with Royalguard and get banned! Why, because Royalguard is impotent and useless in the real world.

How hard will it be to write a vandal script to access proxy servers then vandalize Wikipedia through them? I don't know as I've never done any scripting. Maybe some scriptkiddies will be interested in helping me with my vendetta against you. You made an enemy for life, fool. I suspect you make a lot of enemies. Too bad, because I really liked Wikipedia. But I dislike you even more, Nazi. The LAST thing I want to do is become a Wikipedia troublemaker. But as long as you are an admin, that is exactly what I shall be.

Next time I come here I will do so through proxies as soon as I learn how to use them. You can't stop me, FOOL. You can't stop Trip The Night, FOOL. All you are doing is making enemies--not a good thing to do on an openly-editable wiki, now is it, left-winger??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeebreath (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Woo-hoo, I have another sockpuppet! And it's Trip the Light, Monkee... we should hook up and work out some sort of plan... I'm planning to hit Wikipedia with sneaky vandalism, and then present our mutual friend Royalguard with the cleanup bill every so often ;) How does that sound? Hundreds of pages will be wrong, wrong, wrong... I won't have article after article of good work thrown away without the same amount of bad work. Any other suggestions? Let me know. Trip: the Light Fantastic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.242.163 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Request for permission regarding article

I was working on an article for Wikipedia, when I noticed the text, 'Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.' So I need to ask for permission to copy some text. I am working on an article that was requested about the architect Alberto Campo Baeza. I wanted to ask if I can copy and paste the names of some of his publications, and some of his work. I have saved my work in a word document on my computer. The URL for the website is http://eng.archinform.net/arch/684.htm?scrwdt=1024. Thanks. --The Regime 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission From Website

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I will be sure to ask the owner of the website for permisson to use the copied text, or if I cannot contact them I will find a different source. --The Regime 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FA Premier League 2006/07 goalscorers on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FA Premier League 2006/07 goalscorers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.40.185.235 (talk • contribs). 14:58, January 3, 2007

Thanks!

Thanks for welcoming me to the AMA Royalguard! I think I'll enjoy helping, but first, I have a case I just accepted today on the MedCab (my second!). Once more thanks for welcoming me! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OSX wiki tools

Hey there. I just found User:Royalguard11/AIV'er. I figured if you're still developing it, feel free to lift any code from WP:WikiGuard if you'd like. Not sure if there's anything in my app that would help, but you're more than welcome to. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA issue

Thanks for the welcome message but I'm contacting you to get your thought on an issue if you could. I took on my first AMA case but the user that filed it has since sort of withdrawn from the conflict, unfortunately not officially. What do you suggest I do at this point? Also if you could I would like to get your thought on how I handled the case, the extent of which only being narrowed to my talk page and User talk:Roger the red. Thanks in advance. — Tutmosis 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, should I close the case? — Tutmosis 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if he is going to edit the article it's quite possible conflict may arise again. That's why I am uncertain as to close the case yet. The comment you referred to does in a way lean to WP:OWN but as of yet he has not enforced it, so I'm reluctant to make a big deal of it. If such action occures I'll be sure to advise him to stop. Thoughts? — Tutmosis 00:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protection.

Hi Royalguard, you responded to my request for unprotection on user Strothra's talk page. He has responded to your message and said he no longer needs protection, but has since archived that discussion. Maybe you could follow it up and unprotect the page.

--Guardian sickness 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mary Kay article

I am at a loss on how to summarize this. Someone adds something, someone else deletes it. No discussion on the talk page. Sometimes there is discussion, sometimes there are insults.

Then we have the revert back and forth going on. No attention to edits within that are then lost when someone else reverts.

There are editors who insists on putting in information that is nor from a verifiable source. Information from blogs or discussion groups.

Example: the statement of directors losing their units due to serving in the military and being out of the US for 90 days. There is no source for this at all;

The statement that Mary Kay is a pyramid scheme. This is stated as a factual statement. No discussion of this on the talk page, no sources. Where is the proof that Mary Kay IS a pyramid scheme?

There are many many debates on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsue (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Happy editing!--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't watching...

A friend of yours paid a visit to your wikibooks page:

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Royalguard11&diff=prev&oldid=718649

--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you unprotect Haik page now? (we agreed)

We discussed (User:Eupator) and I about the Haik edit. He himself said will add that info when it is unprotected. So can you unprotect the page thanks. Ararat arev 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a typo "not" is "now" Ararat arev 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh damn.

I also got a previous message because same 'vandal' message had been left on another user's talk page. Guess why. Crummy markup indeed. My bad. — JeremyTalk 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandal on my userpage

Thanks for catching that... I didn't realized that it was changed until two days after the attack! :) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to Add to Your RCU

I noticed your request for checkuser report and thought that you might want to add the following user to it: User:Munkeeebreathe...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copying Text

I am here to inform you that I am creating an article called Languages of Sudan. It was in the list of requested articles. I went to an internet site to retrieve information for this article, here is the URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Sudan.

Anyway, I needed to contact the people who control that website and ask for permission to copy their text, because there are 142 languages in Sudan, and they have about a paragraph of information for each. I went to 'contact us' on their website, and I found the following text, of which seen here is copied directly from the website, yet I made it italic: You may not need special permission to use our materials.

I wanted to tell you that I am going to go ahead and copy the text. If I am still violating Wikipedia rules, please inform me so I can change that.

Thanks, --The Regime 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Master son - Request for Protection

Earlier you declined my request for semi-protection of my talk page. Which I accept because I can see your approach, however, please view the latest attack on it that occured...[1] by Special:Contributions/172.150.151.145 which happened to be his only edit at the time. This edit identified the user as User:512theking despite being an anon IP. This user was identified as a vandal who repeatedly attacked several other userpages such as User talk:Rschen7754, User talk:Seicer, User talk:TwinsMetsFan and User talk:Stratosphere. A case regarding this set of users who were determined to be sockpuppets are currently open in WP:ANI

• WP:ANI#Highways_problem

I have not rerequested protection as of yet (and will refrain from for the momemnt) as there is the possibility that this could settle, but I wanted to show this additional incident to you as a mark of evidence of the case. Thank you for protecting my user page though and for your time. • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Methods

Hello, it's The Regime again. I went to the requested articles page to find some new articles to work on, and the page has been deleted. I would like to know how I can contribute to Wikipedia and assist the development of it in any other way.

I also noticed that someone named 'mark' has deleted or replaced the copied information that I informed you of a while ago. The text that didn't require special information to use, remember? The article was Languages of Sudan. Apparently there is some other work in progress there, so if I was hindering the process of that, I apologize. I will more than likely create articles concerning Science & Technology now, due to controversy in most other areas, such as my Prayer Warrior article. Apparently that article was not helpful to Wikipedia, I do not exactly know what the case is so I will not assume things or jump to conclusions, so I will let the administrators deal with that article as they see fit.

Thanks for the opportunity to serve Wikipedia, and I will continue my work.

--The Regime 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mary Kay Article

You'll need to give us a short summary of what happened before we can find an advocate to take your case. The summary will help us find the right advocate for your case, and will help the case start faster. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did give a summary. I have just reviewed the Mary Kay article and discussion page again. It is a total joke. There are a couple of people who edit and revert and both have stated they will not sign in and use a user name, they prefer to use the IP addy. At least I think it's 2 people, it could be just one. It's hard to tell from IP addys that don't always stay the same.

There is now discussion of mediation on the talk page and one of the IP addy's has just posted a statement of whether or not BlueAmy and me, RSue will go along with mediation. That is just insulting. I have never done a revert. When I edit, I explain it on the talk page. My explanations are for the most part ignored. I have never edited any of the tables.

I object to Mary Kay being called a Pryamid Scheme, especially as a statement of fact. I discussed this on the talk page. Again it was ignored.

I have watched the battle back and forth of a word here, a word there; both words still conveyed the same meaning - why make it an edit war?

I have watched the article revert war back and forth. I have not done any of this revert war.

I have never delted any of the court cases cited.

I am pro-Mary Kay. I would like this article to be neutral and factual. The anti-MKers insist on adding speculation and supposition. The statement of memos from MK Corporate that Pink Truth supposedly has is specualtion. There is no way to verify the authenticity of these alleged memos.

I have had very little, if anything, to do with the links edit war.

To be totally honest, I am fed up with being insulted by comments on the discussion page. Terms such as in "pink fog", and even the "pro-Mary Kay". And the allegations made that it is the pro-MK people doing all the reverting and editing. And now this last insult by IP addy, insulting both BlueAmy and me. I have not seen BlueAmy doing any editing lately anyway.

As I said, I would like to see neutral and factual. This is not going to happen because the anit-MK people want to turn this article into yet one more platform from which they spew their hatred and lies about Mary Kay Cosmetics.

The only way for this article to be neutral and factual is for it to be locked, only user names allowed, no IP addys allowed, and for one person, a Wikipedia advocate/moderator, to be in control of this article. Otherwise, this whole article should just be totally delted.

Rsue

Who is a Jew?

You recently unprotected this page optimistically and if you look at recent vandalism i hope you will agree it needs to remain protected from unregistered users. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

Your user page was vandalised and I reverted it. Yonatanh 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I would like to thank you for help in my current AMA matter. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Eyes down, human. 02:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Del Campo Debacle

Again, I thank you for looking into this matter.

I have made another post in the Talk:Gerald Del Campo thread, attempting to express my views on the matter in a polite but firm way.

I am attempting to gain some common ground with user "Solis93" by suggesting that the organization Mr. Del Campo heads up, "The Order of Thelemic Knights" be nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope that this olive branch helps.

I will refrain from saying any more on the subject until such time as your investigation is concluded. Eyes down, human. 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with a vandal...

User talk:168.9.128.151 has been vandalizing frequently (even after final warning), and has blanked his talk page more times than I can remember. Nevertheless, the two times I reported him to AIV in the last 30 minutes have been ignored. Could you review his edits and decide if he deserves a block? Thanks. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Game art.

Why did you delete and protect?Quatreryukami 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Request for protection

Interesting idea, but isn't it redundant considering we have WP:RFPP? I'm not sure what advantages a category for requests would have other than to create extra work for us admins (but wait, that isn't an advantage...). -- Steel 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:The Game (game)

While I didn't agree with the AfD for the game, I think protecting the article's deletion is a good way to cool everything off. However I'm curious why the talk page was deleted and protected as well. It seems like the talk page is the natural place to discuss issues related to the (non)article. Especially since the deletion decision was based on concerns about enough sources (which could change) and the precise wording of certain guidelines (which also change from time to time). If there is another, more suitable, venue for discussing issues related to the article, perhaps a link to such a place would be in order? Rdore 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up--TfD nomination of Template:NOTOC

re: Template:NOTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wish to hell I could figure out where these kids find the time to root out a little mnemonic like that macro! Christ, they need some work experience. I think this is a contender... less than 18 hrs, and someone's picking on a memory aid! I pulled an all nighter trying to catch things up between here, the commons, wikispecies and meta, have the wife howling mad at me, and these youngsters apparently have total perfect recall or God doing their typing.
  You'd think they'd exercise a little common sense... like those 15 bytes are going to break the foundations piggy bank, or Heaven help us, actually aid someone's productivity! The whole Tfd criteria needs an enema--no one considers the impact of all those nominations downstream on someone else's time... (you'll have to go down 2-5 paragraphs in each of those to see the gist of the time impact point) yet the multiple can be staggering.
  What in the hell is a notable template? What does redundancy matter if one simple template is usable by the many, has little or no learning curve, and the more complicated one is confusing and hard to apply? Even if they are equivalent, save for parameter order, some people find comfort in walking a different path. If it's being used, not doing any harm, then the nominator should be the one deleted. SHEESH!
  Does everyone use the same choice of words when speaking? No, all our brains function differently and relate to things the same way. I had to stop productive work and hunt that magic word up. Call it fifteen minutes between trying 5-6 spelling variants, previewing, then figuring out how to get to magic words. Never mind loosing the train of thought in the middle! That's expensive right there. And if I don't use it again four or five times, I'll have to do that over and over and over again every time I want to remember it.
  F***ing idiocy! I started to draft up a criteria change proposal and pulled it off into an off-line file, cause I needed that browser again. Looks like I'm going to have to kick some butts somewhere in wiki-politics. Don't we see enough of that silliness doing advocacy?
  Thanks, but this shit is really beyond silly. Somewhere over to the left of insane, me thinks! These folks need to bite into a project and spend more time editing, not stroking the olde ego making talk-talk, doing make-work, and patting themselves on the back like they did something important!
  Ah, well, at least you let me do some straight line compostion typing. It's a nice break from seventy plus hours of templates and category edits. Thanks again. I think I'll just link this section. Best regards // FrankB 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request Protection

This is the reply I gave on Steel's talk page: True {{Request Protection}} redundant with WP:RFPP, but then isn't the {{Editprotected}} which goes into the category Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests also redundant? I was hoping that this category be added to this category tracker which updates every hour: --Parker007 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Hey, Royalguard11, I think I just got my first vandalized user talk page thanks to "UBM"! :-) I left a note to the little imp here. Since I'm not really up on the ins and outs of disciplining such children, would you mind checking this out and keeping tabs on him when he escalates? ;-) Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A little taster

Spring Garden District, Pennsylvania
David Prior (UK politician)
Mount Selinda
The Lost Ones
Jehovist
Bob Goalby
Eagle Mountains
Natural England
Challenge Stadium
Baelde
Sondre Meisfjord

Next time the list I give you will be much, much bigger and encrypted; and you'll have to solve a clue to decrypt it.

Because I'm a shit like that.

Oh, and the IP I use to post here will not be the same as the one I use to vandalise the dozens of articles, so you won't be able to follow that one...

I might well use a sockpuppet.

Trip: The Light Fantastic

Bye, bye, Mr American Pie
Drove my Chevvy to the Levy
But the Levy was dry
And good old boys were drinking whisky and rye
Singing this'll be the day that I die....
00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SPURA

May I remove the deletion tag from the SPURA article? Juda S. Engelmayer 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Juda S. Engelmayer 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard

You deleted 'FA Premier League results December 2006' and other related pages for the Spanish and Italian soccer leagues. If you think those pages were too detailed...then look at this ---> 2006 Indianapolis Colts season, it practically lists every fan's name who attended the game. Similar pages exist for all 30 NFL teams, and the same set of pages exists going back to the 2005, 2004 and 2003 seasons - buy hey, thanks for picking on soccer and leaving AMERICAN football untouchable. 74.113.196.37 04:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Real social dynamics page deleted?

Aside from the nom, there were three votes both for and against deletion. Recall also, that the article did have sources, so it shouldn't just be an open-and-shut case. There was also debate still going, mainly on the merits of those sources. Is that really a consensus? I would have much preferred for the debate to have continued, perhaps attracting other votes, before the AFD was closed. Perhaps you can explain how you came to your decision. Thanks. --SecondSight 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did do my homework, and I am well aware that AFDs are based on consensus. I just didn't see any consensus in that discussion, and I was wondering why you did. I agree with you that the amazon.com and blog links were problematic, but the article had other sources. As for the Times article, here was a quote from it: "Tyler Durden (according to Strauss and several hundred websites) is one of the most polished PUAs in the world, with routines for every occasion. No woman, allegedly, can resist him." That doesn't sound "trivial" to me. At least, nobody in the AFD, including you, has provided any reasons why such coverage is "trivial." Furthermore, there were two more sources (one from Men's Health, and one I forget) published in magazines. Yet everyone seems to have ignored them just because they weren't linked to online versions of the articles (though I just found one here). You don't mention these sources, nor do you mention how Real Social Dynamics figures in The Game, a New York Times Bestselling book. Hence, your closing of the AFD seems somewhat subjective and out of process. Furthermore, I just found another article from San Francisco Magazine which mentions RSD [2]. --SecondSight 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Real_Social_Dynamics. Let me reiterate the prospective sources for the page:

1. The Times article
2. The Game
3. The Men's Health article (was listed in original article, but not linked to, though the text is available from RSD's website
4. The Edge Magazine article (also listed in the original article, but not linked to; I later found a link to a website that archives the magazine since it is now out-of-print)
5. The San Francisco Magazine article[3] (wasn't found until after article was deleted; the relevant paragraph from the article is now on the talk page of the deletion debate)

Let's say we throw out the Times article, because it doesn't mention RSD by name (although it mentions Tyler Durden running a seminar, which can only be RSD). Let's say we throw out The Game for some weird reason (though I don't agree with that). Let's even say we throw out the San Francisco Magazine article, because it only has one paragraph on RSD (though I think it's a nontrivial paragraph because it conveys a perspective on their methods). There are still two published sources for the article (3 and 4, the Men's Health article and the Edge Magazine article). These two sources are unambiguously about the company. Read them if you doubt this. These sources were cited in the article all along. On the basis of these two sources alone, the article stands. Yet both of them were ignored during the deletion debate. It's partly my fault for not advocating better and pointing them out. But the deletion was still out of process, because those sources were there in plain view and they still were ignored by you and people voting for deletion. There is really no excuse for this. If you still don't like those two sources for some reason, they still weren't considered in a deletion debate that centered on a lack of sources. At least, the article should be undeleted and relisted so it can get a trial in which all its sources are considered. Perhaps now you can see why I have a problem with the deletion? --SecondSight 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete Swift City?

Why can Lonely Planet have an article in Wikipedia -- yet the entry about the Swift City project is deleted for being advertising?? The Swift City site makes no money. It is a collection of people who are trying to document great things to do in cities around the world. We don't accept payment for placement in the guides. Why is the Lonely Planet project more important than ours? Because they make money?... err, wait a second! Please undelete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.155.154 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

So, what you are saying is that if we write a more encyclopedic entry, then that is fine?

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Es pp.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Es pp.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Template:uw-vandalism1

As the project isn't finish yet, we have decided not to protect them yet. _→AzaToth 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect them if you wish. Thanks. Gracenotes^T § 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My Tank is Fight!

A month ago, you closed the afd debate for My Tank is Fight!, with a result of keep. My primary concern in the debate was the lack of reliable independent sources to establish notability. I added the primarysources tag to the article a month ago, following the closure, in addition to the importance tag I had added some weeks before. As of this time, there are still no independent sources. Could you please take another look at the article and assess whether it should still be kept?--Drat (Talk) 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought a month was too soon for another AFD. I will re-nominate later.--Drat (Talk) 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

criteria for deletion question

I have read help page where it clearly suggests that an article could be deleted on "notability" and "self-advertisement" grounds. I have suggested a couple of pages which I know for a fact that clearly fall in that category. This is, in my opinion, helping wiki not vandalizing it! So I suggest again, pages I proposed for deletion are clear instances of self-advertisement. cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tumbleweedtumbles (talk • contribs). 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics‎

Once the AfD is closed, I'm afraid that that's it. If you think that you made a mistake, then you can explain that at the requests for undeletion page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, any editor who sees someone reopening an AfD after it's been closed can revert the changes, and any admin should redelete a page that has been deleted in line with an AfD. That you were the closing admin is irrelevant, and that I was involved in the AfD is also irrelevant. If you're right that the AfD result should be overturned, then that will be determined when you request undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion; I've left a comment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

?? There was no deletion review; it was closed early with no explanation. Mind you, that's consistent with everything else that's happened in this case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was closed early because clearly there was no need for it when the closing admin had decided to keep it. You can't have a deletion review if it is not going to be deleted after all!! Mathmo ^Talk 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BLOHARDs webpage

Late last week, I added an article on the BLOHARDs; a New York-based red sox fan group. I looked for the article today, and found instead a message, apparently from you, that it had been marked for speedy deletion. Evidently, I hadn't demonstrated that it was of interest to anybody other than the BLOHARDs.

I was told, if I disputed this characterization, to go to the entry and put a {hangon} tag, and justify the "notability" of the organization in the entry's "talk" page. Unfortunately, I can't find the entry any more, it having apparently already been speedily deleted.

As far as notability goes, I can offer newspaper articles from:

The Boston Globe, on three different occasions: [4] [5] and [6]

Time Magazine's website (three articles): [7][8][9]

The New York Times: [10] [11]

New York Newsday: [12]

The New York Daily News: [13]

And Sports Illustated: [14] [15]

As a matter of interest to you as a Hartford resident, you may note in the last article that BLOHARD co-founder Henry Berry was himself a Hartford native.

In any event, I hope that this satisfactorily addresses the issue of "notability". Is there any way I can get my article back? Or has it been not just speedily, but also permanently, deleted?

Incidentally, I'm sort of surprised that I didn't get an email pending the deletion of the article. IIRC, I provided an email address when registering for just this sort of purpose.

Peter Collery 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood his message, Royalguard. I tagged the article originally, and left the note. He just noticed, and left me the note above, and then he copied it over here. That was to me; I'm from Hartford. But he asked about restoration and you were the deleting admin. Sorry for the confusion. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics

Are you planning to repost the comments? Or do we have to start over? --N Shar 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad, didn't realize there was a new discussion. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, my question was poorly phrased. I wanted to know if you were going to copy the new comments from the old discussion (which you removed) to the new discussion to start things out. I'm going to assume that you are not, so I'll just make a new post unless I hear otherwise. --N Shar 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, never mind. Actions speak louder than words. ;-) --N Shar 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, if you start over, please just say you're opening a new discussion for the relisting. Don't scold people for adding to the discussion that was linked from AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, the discussion involved was linked from the AFD. If the wrong discussion was linked this is an unfortunate mistake but it's not our mistake; users are entitled to assume the AFD is set up properly and add to the discussion they find. Any error isn't our fault. Remember we're doing Wikipedia a favor by participating in these discussions, please be careful not to bite us. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Appreciate the heads up on my talk page. Just for next time, if something important happens late in an AFD, it's better to extend the closing date of the existing AFD than to start a new one. It's no big deal, and it's not worth changing it back. Better to leave it slighlty suboptimal than to keep thrashing it around. People are getting to pass comment on the change in circumstances, which is the main thing. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But that was the problem, you didn't close it. You marked it as closed, but you didn't go through with the actions that should have acompanied that - you didn't delete the page, and you didn't put the appropriate messages on the talk page. So it wasn't really closed, it just looked closed. So the smallest possible correction was to unclose the AFD page. Given the situation, you really had to either reopen the debate, or go back and change the consensus decision to keep. Preferably reopen the debate. Marking the AFD page as "closed: delete" then not deleting the page produced the worst of all possible worlds. It went to DRV and they couldn't cope, and it went to AN or ANI and you saw what happened there. Had you reopened another AFD right away I guess most of that fuss would have been avoided, but in general, it's best to repair IAR mistakes by making the smallest possible IAR change, which in this case would have been to un-close the original AFD. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong here. It was deleted, but then unfortunately a completely different page was created by a new user at that location. Then the DRV found the old version should be kept as that is the closing admins decision and so then the old version was restored. Nothing went wrong there. (well, other than you "reopening" it... but that is a totally new discussion) Mathmo ^Talk 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:RE:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking in reference to. Just H 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I Gotcha. Sorry for the confusion. Just H 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree To Disagree

We'll have to agree to disagree then. To me, treating Jimbo any more or less important than any other Wikipedian because of "who he is" goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia, and valuing his words for his name rather than the content of the words is just plain sucking up. Just H 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of contribution

I have been adding some important material which is then removed because it shows that what people are doing is wrong, so embarrassing them. How can I stop its removal? It is an abuse of others to prevent them from learning this. R. Mirman 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impunv (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I am unable to find from the history page who has been removing my material. Thus I cannot discuss it. The material is in the "string theory" page. Is it possible to protect it in some way? R. Mirman 11:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Westfield Warrawong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a group of articles were speedy deleted and then undeleted by a single admin. You are one of the admins that did the speedy deletion. GRBerry 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Your admin page says that 5 users in good standing can suggest a recall. You define "good standing" as 4 months/1000 mainspace edits. Perhaps you meant 1000 edits? Not many Wikipedians have 1000 mainspace (e.g. I don't, despite 2250 total edits and 2 years of experience). I'd suggest you change this. 69.19.14.19 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)_{This post was made by -- Chris is me (u/c/t) when he was unable to log in}

No, I do mean 1000 mainspace edits. I'm saying that you must be in good standing in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I believe that to fully understand how Wikipedia works, you need to know the encyclopedia. The people that have some of the best understanding of all policies are the ones that spend a lot of time in the encyclopedia, since that's where most policies apply to. You can't possibly understand all policies and decisions without spending enough time there. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh..

your edit count button points to User:Martinp23's edit count, not yours. Might wanna fix that. :) --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your userboxes...

... and I'm going to copy a few over to my userpage. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:911ct

While you may well be right to have unprotected it, the dispute is in full swing still. What would be really helpful would be to close the discussion on Template talk:911ct over the renaming of the template in a formal manner such that the consensus, if there is one, is obvious and people feel bound by it. Can you provide that small service, please? If you could watch the template over the next few days and slam protection back (any version, standard rules) if the war restarts totally, that would be useful Fiddle Faddle 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Records

Hi. Could you please comment on your return to full protection for Atlantic Records on Talk:Atlantic Records? Note that I'm not disputing your action but rather would like actions be discussed or explained in regard to this particular article. Also, do you have thoughts on what criteria we should use to determine when a softer protection could be substituted? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you unprotect I Love New York (TV series)?

This page is a popular television show in America (#1 on Vh1), and is vulnerable to vandalism. In addition, before protection, there was vandalism by IP addresses every day. Please restore protection. Real96 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is vulnerable to vandalism through out the week (Mondays - mainly, because that's when the show comes on). I don't want to have hundreds of reverts on the same day and violate 3RR. However, when the vandalism gets out of hand, I am going to submit this article to page protection, instead of undergoing a wheel war. Thank you. :-) Real96 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Sorry if I seemed hostile. I wondered if there were exceptions to the 3RR. Real96 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hello since when did you become administrator??

Soup on the rocks

BLOHARDS

Herewith a message that I left with Leebo86 in the belief that he was responsible for deleting an article I submitted on the BLOHARDs. He tells me that you were the deleting party. Is it possible to get the article restored?

Thanks.

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

For the first time in well, over a month, we've put something together. We've been a little busy / the tubes of the internets crashed so apologies on the delay. We're finally back to normal, we hope....

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

• Episode 11 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Liverpool F.C.

I note that you recently removed Liverpool F.C. from having semi-protected status. While I fully understand your reasons for doing so, and personally believe that wikipedia is at its best when open to all who wish to edit, I do believe that cases can be made for protection in exceptional circumstances. In particular, I am highly concerned that because of the current situation at the club, with Liverpool having been only recently taken over by two American businessmen, and with tabloid accusations about fights within the club last week, any constructive work on the article could be undermined by vandalism and the addition of rumours. I would therefore be keen to see the semi-protected period extended a little longer, at least until the dust has settled a bit from recent news events. Robotforaday 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sending me back to the pit of wikibureacracy when I could be using time to profitably edit articles. I always appreciate it when people take the time to make a full and reasonable assessment of these things, taking the full circumstances into consideration. Robotforaday 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Please reprotect the page, the same editor is at it again. He's gone fully over the shark now. He can't separate Ford's WW2 contributions to America's efforts from Ford's anti-semitism. He keeps saying that every other editor doesn't understand how much Ford did for America in the war, and so on, and draws some conclusion that we're out to get Ford. He's not the first editor to try to 'redeem' or 'whitewash' Ford's page, and he won't be the last, but it's time for him to stop. Please look into this, because my patience is at an end. It seems like every month we've gone through this, and every month editors come back to fight the same fight. We've got Reliable Sources, we've got the evidence, but some people can't separate Ford's great contributions to industry, and his great civic work for America against the Nazis, from his personally held and publicly propigated anti-semetism. The two are different. Thank you. ThuranX 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mount Vesuvius

This is why I semi-protected the article - it's a vandalism magnet for bored kids doing classwork assignments. There've been about 120 edits since New Year's Day - all but a handful have been vandalism. -- ChrisO 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page needs reprotection

I believe you were the user who unprotected the "Jack Thompson (attorney)" page back on the 16th of February, and it has since been vandalized over a dozen times, many of which have been by anons. Can you please semi-protect it again? --PeanutCheeseBar 13:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget what I said; Nishkid64 took the initiative. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Duck re protect

You removed the protection from Duck on 25 Feb, may I request its re protected to avoid vandalism Palmiped 20:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This is a special episode we recored specifically dealing w/ the whole Essjay/Ryan Jordan situation. We recorded this before Jimbo's second comment, so it might be a little dated but still a good listen.

• Episode 12 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Stephen Harper

You previously put a semi-protection on this page however the behavior of vandalism still hasn't stopped. I tried to submit it for semi-protection again however it was declined on the basis that it wasn't vandalized for several hours despite having plenty of vandalism history over the last several days. May I ask if you can look into this? Thank you. ViriiK 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sad to see you off

I just got your message. It was a pleasure to have you on board the AMA, my friend. Good luck with what you're working on, and if you ever decide to join back up in the future, well then you're just out of luck! .... Heheh, just kidding! You're always welcome! I'm not sure we're going to have the same character without ya. :-) Peace, אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 13!

We've decided to avoid the direct link to the audio file in an attempt to prevent any sort of audio format war. You can download whichever version you want (we have OGG, MP3 and AAC on the site.

The direct download to Episode 13 is http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/06/wikipedia-weekly-13/

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Talkpage archiving

Just doing the rounds of talkpages previously archived by EssjayBot III. Just to let you know that Misza13 has created MiszaBot III to perform the same function. You can request this Bot's services at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. Werdnabot is presently blocked since March 6 following a malfunction and Werdna does not appear to be around to deal with the matter. WjBscribe 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 14!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/11/wikipedia-weekly-14/

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

• We wrap up the Essjay affair, as the famous Wikipedian cuts ties to the online encyclopedia.
• A look at the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year Competition, which finished earlier this week. In addition, all the Featured Pictures of 2006 are available as a bittorrent download.
• The new “Username Usurpation” feature at the English Wikipedia.
• Jimmy Wales travels to India for the recent Indian WikiCamp, and narrowly survives an attack of ninja monkeys.
• One thousand Featured Articles at the German Wikipedia.
• 300 Spartans.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning templates

You recently denied the unprotection of Template:Subst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think this was a mistake because I am not aware of any convention that warning templates are protected as a matter of course. Now, for some of the most-used ones (specifically, the test series), there is a good reason besides - they tend to be posted on talk pages of users who are likely to be vandals, putting it on their radar, and test1 in particular also tends to be put on talk pages of new users. Such a concern does not exist for {{subst}}.

But if you think it needs to be protected, can you convert it to use the /doc convention and for the text of the template to not make reference to server load concerns?

Note also that some of the uw- series templates are semi-protected - that seems to me a much more reasonable solution than full protection if any level of protection is indeed necessary. --Random832 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 15!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at [16]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Wikipedia from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications

please remove yourself from the list.

Saskatoon Neighborhoods

Thank you for your reply. I will leave the other neighborhoods as they are then, and let Wildwood be different. Thank you and kind regards SriMeshSriMesh Julia 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro NDP bias

It appears that you are exhibiting pro-NDP bias in your editing of articles, which is unnacceptable since you are an admitted member of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party. Please very carefully review Wikipedia's NPOV and conflict-of-interest policies before editing articles in the future.

70.73.4.197 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Royal Guard, I'd like to thank you for semiprotecting Olean, New York. I really appreciate such a prompt response from an admin like yourself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo

Could I ask for a reversal, or at least a relisting? I realize no one but me recommended deletion, but I strongly feel deletion is what policy calls for in this case. Thanks. Pan Dan 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pan Dan 22:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah page

Greetings, thank you for putting stop to rv war. Would it be possible that in the introduction to the page you add the deleted phrase that "his modernization program was considered by many as "superficial". The citation is already in one of the previous edits. I can provide additionaol citations. For example; Profeesor Keddie of Columbia University in the Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-02606-4:

" During the Reza Shah period, economic self-detrmination could only have come to Iran if the regime had followed a policy of fundamental socioeconmic reform. Reza shah took a path to modernization that did not integrate the economy, which remain unbalanced... (p 110), The Reza Shah regime widened the gap between the growing, but still quite small, middle and upper classes, and the vast majority of the poor... Under Reza Shah, the social structure continued essentially to be one where a small minority lived off the labors of the rest. (p 111)"

Respectfully yours Faranbazu 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

also block

Thank you. Would you please also block edits to Natan Slifkin? --Metzenberg 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeeeelp!

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Natan Slifkin

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have an advanced degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,000 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for trolling, but check WP:DISPUTE. Usually it's Avoidance >> RfC >> Mediation >> Arb. Cheers! Real96 05:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)