User talk:Sanchom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Avro Arrow

Hi Sancho, How are things in lotus land?. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Reply about me talking to a user

I have sent a message to Colemangracie about his Tim Sylvia edit.

Thanks, Takedashingen620.

Minor edits into the public domain

Responding to your question: I hadn't really thought about it. It was one tag between a series of tags I agreed in principle with. If I edit GFDL'd text and I place my edit in the public domain then there's only so many things that could happen. I suspect legal counsel would love to help.  :-) —EncMstr 08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my addition to the Randy Couture entry

I'm still not sure why you did this.

It was difficult to reference the quote as the video of Tim Sylvia saying this is not kept at a static url via the UFC site.

It was one of the things that made Randy's last victory even more significant- that most people counted him as over the hill and Sylvia said himself that Randy had 'lost a step'.

Please revert to the previous version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth02 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

If you find a source that says something like "one of the things that made Randy's last victory more significant was Tim Sylvia saying "....", then we can include this phrase. However, currently there may only be sources that say 1) Tim Sylvia said "..." and other sources that say 2) Randy Couture won. To add our own interpretation by saying that this combination made his victory more significant isn't allowed by Wikipedia policy. We must only report the facts, or interpretations published by reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More specifically related to the phrase that I deleteed, it was because you said that Randy's win was "despite" Tim's comments. The definition of "despite" doesn't seem to warrant its use in this sentence. It implies something that isn't supported by reliable sources - either that Randy was unaffected by Tim's comments, or that Randy fought to spite Tim. It was really the use of the word "despite" that I thought wasn't correct. Sancho (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WT:N

I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Recommendations. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and it's a good point - but I don't see what's wrong with the current version. It's true that the normal criterion is the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test, which is the one we usually apply when an article comes up for AfD. Yet at the same time, it is possible that someone or something might be notable despite not passing this test; there are some articles which do not present coverage in multiple independent sources, but which would never be sent to AfD in the first place, because their notability is self-evident. (A good example is Anakin Skywalker - all of the sources are Star Wars-related, but no one has ever nominated it for deletion. In fact, it was an FA at one stage.) It would be too rigid, therefore, to say "an article is notable only if it meets the criterion"; it works more the other way round, in that "if an article meets the criterion, then it is automatically notable". So I would argue for no changes whatsoever in the current guideline. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

I mean I don't issue warnings, esp. to IP vandals, because in my experience, there are too many admins worried about offending people that they water down any attempts to warn vandals to the point of being absolutely useless. Even when I have been able to get an admin to block a vandal, another admin unblocked them shortly agterwards. Hence, USELESS. About 40% of my daily edits are spent undoing vandalism. If I wanred them all, I'd never get any real work done, and they would not get blocked anyway. Hence, USELESS.

Oh, there is an satirical essay on my user page whcih sums up views on the issue. - BillCJ 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have no time to work on footnotes right now I will however work on rephrasing the selection then I will need your help with referencing. There are no guarantees that this will all get done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.253.9 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Reply to "Vandalism" Change

After taking another look at the article, I now realize that I should have labeled the change "(REVERTED UNSOURCED EDIT, POSSIBLY VANDALISM)". Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I will make sure to be more specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Lester B. Pearson High School (Calgary)

The article Lester B. Pearson High School (Calgary) has a problem with sources right? Well all the information is correct because I have talked to the principal and he personally told me all the facts listed in the article. So there should not be a problem with sources.

Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. Just because you know that the information is correct doesn't mean that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The material must be verifiable by a reader other than you by going to reliable sources that you provide in the article as described at Wikipedia:Attribution. The problem is that a random reader can't check that the material in that article are correct. Sancho (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look

Hi Sanchom,

I don't think my first comments on changing my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Middle School were as clear as they could have been. Please take another look at the discussion. Thanks. Noroton 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation. It does seem a bit late to take the originally appropriate route now however, since it's evolved into a full-fledged AfD discussion. I did leave a message on T's user page cautioning about WP:POINT, but I've done this before too: defended an article, but once realizing the strong argument against it, found other articles that should be nominated as well for the same reasons that changed my mind about the article I was originally defending. Sancho (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

West 49

Your changes did the trick. I've changed my vote to keep. Thanks, and good work! Realkyhick 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Regarding your question on the help desk: Don't forget that the logo template requires you to post a fair use rationale as detailed in Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. How does this look now: Image:West-49-logo.jpg? Sancho (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle

Thanks, I'll look into that. I certianly WANT to warn vandals, but doing it manually takes up way too much of my time, as I edit alot of pages everyday. Something like that would be a great help, if it does not place too much of a load on my old comp. THanks again.

I tried it out on a vandal's edit, but I kept getting a script error. I'm running IE6 on WIn XP, so I'm guessing Twinkle is not ready for that browser. Do you know of a tool similar to Twinkle that works on IE, preferably IE6? My comp can't run IE7 without crashing at odd times, and I'm used to IE, really didn't like any other browser I've tried. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah.. that's unfortunate. I just noticed that on the Twinkle page, it actually says that the scripts are only verified to work with Firefox and Opera. There are a few other scripts in the same category as Twinkle, but I haven't used them, so I don't know if they are as nice as I find Twinkle to be. They're listed here: Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Rollback scripts. It doesn't seem like they do the same kind of thing as Twinkle though. I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Twinkle-like script that works on Internet_Explorer. Hopefully somebody can point you in the right direction. The other obvious option is using Firefox, but that seems a bit much of a change just to get a script working. Sancho (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

THanks for checking on options for me anyway. If I have to, I could run Firefox simultaneously with IE, using IE for the majority of my edits. WHen I find a vandal's edit, I could copy the diff itno Firefox, and use the Twinkle features there. I'll try it out on my back-op OS, and see if it works the way I think it would. Still, I'd ratehr have something integrated with IE, but I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks again. - BillCJ 06:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor Information

If you haven't already sent a request for oversight e-mail: If you don't have time, I'll make it easier for you: E-mail me the user page and I will find the diffs and submit it for you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I just sent the e-mail. I included the original diff that added the information, and another diff that updated the information. Is that the best thing to do? Sancho (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That should be good. What they basically do is delete the page and then restore all edits except those 2. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there - I've noticed a few of your recent edits like this one when patrolling recent changes. I wondered whether these users had requested that their age be removed from their user pages. Whilst I agree that it is certainly good to advise minors not to disclose too much personal information on their user page, I was not under the impression that there were any policies that state that these ages should be removed from their user pages, unless with their express approval. Cheers. Will (aka Wimt) 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've stopped for a moment... I'll reply here in a sec. Sancho 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I re-read the arbitration commitee's decisions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy. There is no consensus that states that these ages should be removed from their user pages. However, there is no consensus that they must not be removed. I know that the user page guideline says that I should not remove information from other editors' user pages, but this seems only to be a suggestion that I would follow in almost any other instance. I was going to continue removing until hearing an objection. Are you objecting? If so, I will stop and work towards reaching a consensus on this issue. I think that the removal of this information improves Wikipedia, and helps to protect all minors. Many minors post their age and much more based solely on the example shown by other under-age editors. Sancho 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may well be correct that many minors follow a common example. However, trying single-handedly to remove all the ages from minors' user pages is going to be a losing battle given how many such pages there are. As you state, the arbitration decision on Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy produced no consensus to remove such personal information. Although you are correct that there was not a ruling that people should not remove such personal information, it is generally considered bad form to edit another user's page if the edit may be against the wishes of that particular user. Although I am not going to object to your actions per se, I would recommend that you only remove personal information from user pages if it really poses a risk being there (eg. location information, contact information). I don't think just removing ages is a good idea. There are also a number of experienced Wikipedia editors (and administrators) that identify as minors and I think that they would most certainly object if you tried to remove the age information from their profile. So my advice would be to work on a consensus on this issue as you suggest and, for the moment, only remove personal information that poses a risk to the user. In those cases you will also need to oversight their edits because otherwise they remain in the history for all to see. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I would have followed a different route for the removal of information from the user page of an active editor, but these accounts were used only once, or not at all, other than to post the age information that I removed. One user posted only her age and a link to a myspace page. Regardless, I will start a discussion before continuing. See you around. Sancho 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in fact, if users have only edited to their user page and no other encyclopedia pages you can actually prod their user page for deletion which would remove the page and its history. This might be a useful tactic in some situations if minors have just created an account, posted personal information and then done nothing else. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems a reasonable route. Sancho 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Davidspringob

I have removed the speedy tag which you added to this userpage. Wikipedia is not censored, and users can add, within defined limits, anthing they like on their userpage. The comment you find objectionable does not breach guidelines.--Anthony.bradbury 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soap_opera? I would see this (deleting the page) as an action that forestalls the drama associated with interactions between naive children and predatory pedophiles. Sancho 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. As the page in question is posted by a self-stated 13-year-old boy, the guidelines in my view do not directly apply. The page gives no detail of location or other means of contact. I would favour watching the page to see if a conversation develops. Please feel free to seek a second admin opinion if you are uncomfortable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not uncomfortable to the point of getting a second opinion on this specific case... I'm still developing my opinion on these matters and am still learning what the arguments are on each side. I do wish there to be a discussion that is more widely participated in, however. Watching the page as you suggest is a good idea. Sancho 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Orbicle (talk · contribs) mess

Hi. I don't think we've bumped into each other before. I just wanted to say "thank you" for helping out with this. It looks to be quite the mess, judging from the AN detective work and User:Gmaxwell/orbicle. Jkelly 03:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

snuffmag

Thanks for pointing this out, I added the image when I was reasonably inexperienced. Thanks again --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

On April 11 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Responded on my talk page. Thanks for making an effort to help us resolve the dispute. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Shemale

Have already tried to improve that page, but unfortunately there is a particular user who reverts any addition or modification to it. I think We've fought it out on Talk:Shemale. Feel free to tackle them, fee free to use the stuff on my subpage, but I've voluntarily withdrawn my effort from that particular article. Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. good work trying to resolve the argument over there, so;

		The Original Barnstar
		For working hard to resolve an edit war I couldn't cope with Cheers! Lauren♫/∆ 09:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one from me too - thanks for pitching in and helping with the dispute. As an aside, I responded to Lwollert's comment on her talk page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your help in dealing with the dispute at Shemale. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tito Ortiz

Hi. You asked for an explanation on the page protection on the article about Tito Ortiz. Unfortunately, my discussion page is currently protected due to attacks and deliberate violations of Wikipedia's privacy policy so I hope it is okay for me to talk to you here. It's the first time I've had to protect my discussion page against all but admins and I assure you, it was not something I took lightly.

This page is protected against edits from an abusive sockpuppeteer named Verdict (talk · contribs). This user was banned by community consensus but continues to attempt to violate his block. He has used over 100 sockpuppets, he has threatened physical violence, he has threatened legal action, etc. etc. Now, you say that he has not made any edits to this page in quite some time. This is certainly true. However, he has made a number of requests to get the page unprotected. This shows that he is still targeting the page and this is why I extended the block. Because of the number of sockpuppets involved and because he generates new ones on an almost daily basis, it can be hard to determine exactly which accounts he is using. You should not expect that his edits would be made by the account, Verdict, which was banned some time ago. But I assure you, he is still around and still trying to violate his ban. I hope this clears things up a bit. I'll try to monitor this page for a bit but if you want to discuss this, you may wish to contact me by email. Alternatively, the protection on my discussion page expires in about six days. --Yamla 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WOOOOH Thanks

Always wanted an award. Mind if I put it on my user page :)? Anyway thanks heaps for the refference info on footnotes.. Will fix up the small changes. Anyway as for the footnote after the punctuation, in my course we got told to put the refference then the punctuation (APA format i think) but i guess this was to do with essays and journal articles so yeah.... Thanks again mate. Cya around. petze 08:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Move it on over to your user page. A lot of people even set up sections on their user page to display all the awards they have. See ya! Sancho 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound editing

Hi, I'm hoping to get the files from the girl on Saturday. I will forward them to you as soon as I get them. There's two possible amounts of help needed:

• either convert them to OGGs,
• or cut the answers apart into separate files, delete the questions,
• or cut the answers apart into separate files, delete the questions, and convert them to OGGs.

Does any of this sound good? I don't know how long the interviews are, but there's four of them. -- Zanimum 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It does sound do-able. Unfortunately, I realized that I need to work pretty heavily on school work for about a week straight, so I can't do anything with them until next Saturday. Perhaps you want to canvas for another volunteer? I will be able to help if you still need it next weekend, though. Let me know. Sancho 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Project to improve and assess MMA articles

Hi, this is User:Takedashingen620 (but you can call me Jesse) and I'm responding to your idea to help to assess and improve MMA articles, this is something that I would like to help you with. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia (I think I have like 500 and some odd edits) so I'll no doubt need some help once in a while editing profiles, but me being a noob aside, I'm game for helping improve the MMA articles. Thanks Takedashingen620 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for stopping by

Hi! im a UFC fan and seen the latest UFC event including cro cop vs gonzaga match. Id love MMA although im not that knowledgeable about the specific infos. Im glad i could be of some help †Bloodpack† 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Please do not remove the links to the Nokaut forum or the video clip from Mjenjacnica, because it does not belong to the "Inappropriate links" category. If you look at the official website of Mirko Filipović you'll notice that the link to the forum is on the front page. Therefore it's not promotional/personal-interest link, but official link that leads fans towards non-profit community bulletin board, and place where Filipovic's fans gather. I believe that it's important for new fans to be able to find this place from Wiki and get connected with the fan-base and mr. Filipovic as well, who is by the way also the member of Nokaut forum. Regarding the Mjenjacnica video clip, it is also important because it is a reference for the article which could be found mr. Filipovic Wiki page, that caused a lot of controversy. It is crucial to have link towards the video clip since it is the only source that makes the article credible.

Thank you and regards. Hal 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

applet extension

Conversation moved to MediaWiki talk page. We can continue talking over there. (I'll keep checking my user talk page there for the next little while). Sancho 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New Comment

It would be best, so I propose we use this one (or one like it):

This image is of a proposed military/cadet rank. Copyrighting combatant identification and/or rank insignia violates international law; hence this image cannot be copyrighted and belongs to the public domain. This applies worldwide.

---

Note that the use of such symbols is restricted in many countries independently of the copyright status.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreamafter (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Tracings of images

(the following is in response to your help desk posting): A tracing is a derivative work, and so you could not release it without permission from the original copyright holder. If you created a new map using data from this site, you probably could claim it as your original work and release it as you chose, but a tracing is clearly out. The license terms you link to prohibit commercial use, and so are non-free as far as wikipedia policy is concerned, see WP:FUC, and can not be used except under fair use. Fair use is quite restricted by wikipedia policy, and requires a specific rationale. I don't think this one would fly. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

For Flight Corporal RCACS.png Flight Corporal

For the Flight Corporal RCACS.pngFlight Corporal Rank Image, I did not know what {{tag}} I should have used and so chose the easiest one. As for it, I was hoping you would know which one would be best and that you could change it for me. Dreamafter (talk · contribs)

• {{Military-Insignia}} was the tag that was used on the original.
• And I believe if we could create one like this:{{Military-Insignia}}

Thanks

I am sorry to be trying to message you here.. But your great looking page is confusing me where to start talking to you...BalanceRestored 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, where can i check the current wiki project? Looks like i've edits not towards a single project.BalanceRestored 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the page confusing?? You found the right place, but if it's confusing, that's not the point at all. I'd rather have a plain old page than something that takes even a second longer to figure out how to start a conversation to me. As for the projects that you need to have contributed to in order to vote, they're talking about any Wikimedia project, so that would include Wikipedia, Wikimedia commons, Wictionary, or anything else in Category:Wikimedia_projects. It looks like you had 276 contributions to Wikipedia as of June 1. They were asking for 400. Sancho 08:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's now .. what I personally feel is that you should try and write a note, something that says .." Start writing here" .. that will do a lot good.. ne way your template is great and something very new..BalanceRestored 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So, I changed the wiki-text to use a template. It should be a lot clearer now to edit the page and find where you need to add a comment. What do you think? Sancho 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Sanchom on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Sanchom. Thanks. --Sancho 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: MMA images

Thanks! Do you have any ideas regarding where I can get more free images? The Creative Commons search engine and government websites are all that I trawl right now. east.718 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The CC search does grab Flickr images, but I only search for noncommercial images only, which cuts it down a lot—I've found most people prefer a by-nc-sa or by-nc-nd license. I never even knew the boilerplate requests for permission existed, thanks a lot! east.718 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on getting the mop! east.718 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD

No tools; I have deleting things in CAT:CSD down to a rhythm (click, scan, delete or remove tag). Cyde's list also makes things much faster. --Coredesat 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded

Hello, I have responded to your comment in Corey Hill's page.

MMAfan2007 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

J. Holiday

Sanchom, I'm not trying to get banned from wikipedia. I'm just trying to update a page. Can you please just tell me what to do the page so it won't be deleted??

I replied at your page. You would only be blocked if you continued to contribute copyrighted material, so don't worry. Sancho 03:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations on passing RfA! With regards to my 'oppose' vote, and the question you left under Sarah's - I do believe that actual, personal, user-to-user interaction, in the user namespace, is very important. When people ask you why their articles have been deleted, or why they were blocked, you could, of course, answer with a templated message, but it wouldn't be very polite :) Your interaction with users elsewhere is perfectly fine, which is why I merely opposed as a way to point it out to you - not because I thought you were undeserving of the bit, or because I thought you would abuse it. You're a good user, and I'm sure you'll make a good admin. Good luck with it, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions, I'll try my best :) Take care, Riana (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I think now that you've planted the seed, just the fact that I'm thinking about that namespace more will bring me to make better use of it. See you around. Sancho 17:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just dropping by here to say congrats for passing RfA, I'm glad to hear it succeeded, and thank you for dropping that awesome link by at Talk:Dubstep last week, it's been really useful :) See you around, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats buddy! Get back to work!!! Seriously, congrats and best wishes! Jmlk17 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I'm glad to be able to help out a little more now :-) I will certainly have some questions as I'm getting started with some of the new tasks. Time to get back to work, or Jmlk17 will yell at me again ;-) Sancho 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, bro. 199.201.168.100 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too, and many thanks for the message on my talk page. Your RfA had already closed by the time I had read your follow up response to me there, so I was unable to respond to your comments and questions. I am certain you will make a fine administrator and I did not want to stand in your way. I certainly would not have opposed you had your RfA been on shaky ground. However, I do feel very strongly about one-on-one communication skills in administrative candidates because I have seen so many problems escalate unnecessarily when administrators have problems communicating one-on-one. I am happy to read on my talk page that you've become more aware of the issue since it was raised in your RfA and that it is something you plan to work on in future. Congratulations on passing your RfA and I wish you all the best for the future. Please don't hesitate to drop by my talk page if I can ever be of any assistance. Regards, Sarah 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nucleate Boiling

Perhaps you are right - it is not a *blatant* violation but the greater portion of the first half of the article is a very slightly altered test lifted from the url. Bigdaddy1981 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

responded on corey's page

I responded on Corey Hill's talk page MMAfan2007 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: What is this?

Well, as the filename tells us, it's a fractal. I don't know what it means by "Apophysis", though. Unless you're wondering why it's there, it's just something to make the userpage look nice. Will ^(talk) 00:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks... it certainly does the job of looking nice :-) Sancho 00:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you delete my page "Pan African School of Theology"?

Sanchom:

Did you delete my page "Pan African School of Theology"? I am a new user to Wiki and am trying to find my way around. I created the content myself, so there was no copyright violation. Please do not delete my pages in the future without informing me. Is there any way to retrieve this page? THank you.

James ROland

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pan_African_School_of_Theology. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jwroland 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did delete the article. Another editor did also. The page was created as a blatant copyright violation from http://www.pacekenya.org/past/index.htm. You were informed on your talk page prior to the article's deletion that this was going to happen. There is no way to retrieve the page other than by re-creation with non-copyright material. Sancho 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SniperVille

Sanchom:

Why did you delete my page for SniperVille?

Because an editor (who I agreed with), believed that the article made no assertion of the significance of the subject of the article. This made the article a candidate for speedy deletion. You can read about the different criteria for speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. See paragraph 7 under the section Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles for the specific case that covered the specific article that you created. If you have questions about the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are, please feel free to ask. Sancho 20:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

overspeedies by Action Jackson IV

I see you changed some of the improper speedy tags placed by User:Action_Jackson_IV. There seem to be literally dozens. could you perhaps take a look as his user contributions & if you think appropriate tell him to stop. i'm such a well known inclusionist that it might be better from someone else.DGG 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I took a look and decided to just tell him how he had erred in the speedy tag that I changed. Sancho 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tokenizer - Speedy Deletion - Blatant Advertising.

This page is deleted due to Blatant advertising (CSD G11), thanks. I'd like to restore it partially, it should be linked from some categories such as list of domain specific search engines. Any external links such as press release articles from untrusted sources should not be restored. Thanks Funtick 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Also follow the links in the section on notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. If you feel that you know of significant coverage of this product in reliable, third-party sources, go ahead and create the article again, but I'll check to see that it meets those requirements and that it isn't spam. If you are unsure about anything in those reads, just ask before you create the article again (like, if you're not sure a certain source you know of would be enough to establish notability). Sancho 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tokenizer" is a word from Programming Wolrd

Thanks Sancho, there are some Wiki articles in DE language; "Tokenizer" page should be related. (String Tokenizer, Analyzer, WhiteSpace Tokenizer, and etc.) I started a page tokenizer.org instead, if I am allowed to do... (I'd like to add some technical info which I know...) "Tokenizer" page will contain related info from programming world (full text indexing, natural language recognition,...). Thanks! Funtick 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's missing sources establishing its notability. I'll continue conversation at the article's talk page. Did you read Wikipedia:Notability? Sancho 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll read it tonight and during weekend, Wikipedia is an interesting world and I have some technical knowledge... I need to study also rules for Category: listings, and how to create an article about service providers. Funtick 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

hi,

you have a question about the rena silverman image? what is your question? it is ligit from my end, as becca fineman took the picture, and she is the user bfineman2. the picture is of me and its totally fine if it's there. do you need an email from my email account confirming or a fax or phone call? Rena Silverman 13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PDTantisocial

Ok, I was considering adding the discussion from FURG onto the main admin noticeboard. I saw your post at User talk:PDTantisocial, so I will wait to see how he reacts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Uploading Images?

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page, however I still do not know how to determine an images copyright status. For instance, what is the copy right status of this image. Nocturnal Wanderer ^{Sign here!} 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Nocturnal Wanderer ^{Sign here!} 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I give you this award, because I really appreciate you helping me on how to upload images & how to find the proper image copyright status. Thanks again! Nocturnal Wanderer Sign here! 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:

It's a fucking album cover, how the fuck am I supposed to know who owns the fuckin copyright? There's thousands of album covers on here, most time I come across their pages, they don't have copyright info, so get off my dick. I got a suggestion, instead of spending your days trolling around on wiki looking at copyright info, why don't you get a fucking job? or get some pussy? or maybe just off yourself, because if this is how you spend your time, you and the world are better off. Have a nice day! --PDTantisocial 10:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: RE:

Alright, I just read the whole huge convo on my uploading and my "uncivility", yeah, I'm a little uncivil because I've gotten like 100 of these notices and I'm sick of them. It seems like more people are defending me if anything, and I think adding the "album cover" fair-use template or whatever is enough. And you ask about the brevity of some, it's because many times I've added full info and they get deleted anyway, why I don't know, so I didn't feel like wasting my time. I honestly have no fuckin' clue who album cover copyrights belong to, and have no idea how to obtain info like that, so what the fuck ever. I'm pretty goddamn sure album covers are completely fair use, so yeah, I'm sick of these bullshit little technicalities over this. And you guys tryin' to get me banned over some stupid shit like this? I've written an entire featured article myself, an entire A-Class article myself, and made hundreds of solid stub pages all according to wiki code, so get off that shit. --PDTantisocial 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: state terrorism

Thank you very much for the barnstar and kind words! east.718 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for comment

Thanks for your comment in the AFD of Anne Lindfjeld instead of just saying "keep" or "delete" (you said you were commenting because it was requested). A few weeks ago, an article I wrote disappear (probably AFD for NN) so I decided to find out more about AFD and see if my opinion was the same as the administrator's opinion. I think I have a better idea now so I feel more confident in writing. Fineday 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bausch & Lomb external links

Hi Sanchom-

I added some links to some of Baush & Lomb's product websites and you removed them and said that they don't comply to the wikipedia external links policy. I read through the policy and can't figure out what was wrong, the links I provided are to official websites owned by Bausch and Lomb and the sites have information that is relevant to visitors who are viewing the Bausch & Lomb page. You mention that I should discuss it on the article's page, can you please clarify for me; I'm new at this and want to make sure that I understand before I go in and add information. Thanks!

There's a "discussion" tab at the top of each article that takes you to a discussion page. Here's the link that goes directly to the Bausch & Lomb's discussion page: Talk:Bausch & Lomb. I'll start a new section for this topic. See you over there :-) (Also, on talk pages like this one and article discussion pages, you should sign your name with four tildes ~~~~. The software will convert them into a signature when you save the page.) Sancho 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lauraxp 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Lauraxp

Request for Arbitration

Hello, I've decided it's time to ask the Arbitration Committee to help out with the problems around articles such as List of republics, which you've been involved in editing or discussing. There's an opportunity for you to add your comment on whether the case should be heard by the ArbCom, and they'll decide if they want to take it up. --Nema Fakei 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoptee

Hi Sancho,

Many thanks for offering to adopt me. I would just like a helping hand to point me in the right direction.

Like you, I'm very busy, so may take many bites at the cherry to complete a task but how else do you eat an elephant?

Seems I started on the wrong foot having being accused of vandalism; still don't know what I did to get such an accusation; so has made me somewhat apprehensive; though, having pulled myself off the ground, dusted myself off I did get stuck in, so to speak.

Maybe a good place to start would be for you to review what I've done so far and comment on what I did right, what I could have done better and what was absolute rubbish.

Jmrtn13 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi Sancho,

You're so gonna wish you hadn't adopted me.

Can you please tell me how to stop a 'Go' or 'Search' being 'Redirected' so I can create an article of it's own.

To be specific; I was trying to create an article for 'Blennerhasset' but I keep getting 'Redirected' to 'Blennerhasset and Torpenhow'.

The former is the hamlet/village the latter the parish.

Jmrtn13 00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Ramdev Arb

Whoa ! - quite a line above here from the last post on your page.

On a more pleasant note......

Thank You for your offer to provide a 3rd opinion. I have two concerns regarding this: 1. There was another user who posted the fact tags on the page before the deletion in dispute - if that user joins the effort here then what happens (since we now have more than two parties) ? 2. A more general concern- Having only one other person in the uninvolved category brings the probability of an outcome to 50%. This is no different from flipping a coin to decide. Could you suggest ways of getting more uninvolved users assume the same role as yours - say 3 ? Don't know the process for Request for Comments - is this a possibility ?

Could you post your reply here so that we maintain the thread. Thanks.

Wikipost 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just ignoring that post above....

Anyway, regarding the 3rd opinion, I was hoping that the end result would be that all three (or more) of us could come to agree to the same outcome. I wouldn't want it to be you vs the Hornplease, with me as the deciding factor. Often, with a bit more discussion than five posts, and maybe a different way of looking at the situation provided by a third person, the two editors that were originally in conflict will come to an an agreement. We could start with such an attempt... hopefully we won't even need more than the three of us. After a little bit of effort, if we aren't getting to consensus, then we could take a look at the request for comments process. I'll be out of touch for about a day probably, but I'll check here for your response. Please invite Hornplease to comment here on the idea. When we start discussing the actual content, lets move the conversation to the article talk page. Sancho 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello: Posted invitation to Hornplease Talk page 5 days ago. No response yet - looks like that user is not interested in 3rd party involvement. Thanks for your offer to help Wikipost 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There for Tomorrow

I see that you've already seen that one, so I won't speedy it - don't want to step on your feet. I did leave a message on the author's talk page asking if he'd like a userfy move so that he can edit without worrying about deletion. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• No prob; these csd lists go fast when there's more than one guy doing them. :-) Carlossuarez46 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Studio Live

Dear Administrator:

I am writing to discuss the deletion of my recent contribution TV Studio Live... I feel that here- in the area of Brooklyn it serves- the studio does indeed have significant mportance in both furthering the cause of TV game show production and as an educational tool of today's youth. There are certainly any for-profit local businesses that are listed. I strongly fewel this unique service should be recognized for its efforts and want to take proper channels to debate this issue.

Will Feld (Carnisie Will) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carnarsiewill (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

You deleted UrbanFilmClub.com

Hello,

I'm confused at how the first site for onine retail of film to African-Americans is not notable???? Especially as it's debut was covered in several related press (Variety, Video Business, Black Enterprise). If you are saying the subject matter is fine but the page needs to be re-worded, please provide examples of format. That would be appreciated, as Wikipedia is a new platform to me.

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mriss2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

68.50.101.75

68.50.101.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has done nothing but add defamatory content and make other unconstructive edits, do you think that a longer block is deserved? I know this would belong better on ANI, but I try to avoid it due to the politicking. east.718 at 18:45, August 3, 2007

Yeah, a longer block is warranted. 14 days might be long enough to have the user get bored with vandalizing Wikipedia. Sancho 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Gravoty and its Like

I'm confused about the deletion of these articles. First, when did newspapers become unreliable sources? Second, why was the 200 North article deleted when a member of the band verifiably went on to join two undeniably notable bands? Third,I thought there had to be consensus (an article, by the way, that merely gets tagged for siting no references, a common practice it seems on Wikipedia, while these articles were deleted for having what I feel has unfairly defined as unreliable sources), meaning "1. majority of opinion" or "2. general agreement or concord; harmony," neither of which are true in this situation.

Your insight would be very much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdadamly (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the question:

1. Newspapers are usually considered reliable sources, as long as they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (I can only think of a couple without this reputation: Weekly World News, for example :-) )
2. The 200 North article was deleted due to the achievement of rough consensus for its deletion in the deletion discussion. When a member of the band goes on to join a notable band, WP:MUSIC does say that it is "often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." and since the deletion discussion had received a rough consensus for delete, I intended to create a re-direct from this band to the person, but had forgotten. Thanks for reminding me; I'll create the redirects now... I created the redirect from 200 North to the Circa Survive members list, but a more appropriate redirect would be to an article on Brendan Ekstrom, which doesn't exist (yet).
3. In a deletion discussion, there only has to be rough consensus.

I'll also mention a couple of other things that you didn't ask, but I think might be the source of your questions about the fact that some of the sources provided were "unfairly defined as unreliable sources". A passing mention of a band in a letter to the editor isn't "non-trivial" (required by WP:MUSIC): [1], [2] and letters to the editor don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources.

These sources may be reliable, but don't provide non-trivial coverage of the subject: [3] [4] [5] [6].

I spent some time reviewing all arguments, including the sources provided and the arguments that claimed the sources were not sufficient to establish notability. It seemed that rough consensus had established that they were not sufficient to establish notability for any of the articles nominated for deletion in that discussion.

If you feel that I have misinterpreted the outcome of the deletion discussion, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sancho 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. That was a very well articulated and detailed response. I appreciate that.

CDA 03:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i am he ...

he is me (james r. frazier, that be). however, can we remove the antiform cover? i don't know how to do it, and now that its associated article has been deleted, i'd like to have the image removed, as well. if you let me knwo how to do it, i'll take care of it. Lawofone 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation in Australia

Hi Sanchom,

I've finally finished wikifying this page. Please take a look and be honest I note characters and comments have been added to the text so as to hide from view a couple of paragraphs. The commentator suggests the paragraphs are not pertinent to Australia but I tend to disagree since they both refer to culture. Is it OK to delete them?

Jmrtn13 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spread it

Yeah. Spread the wikilove Sanchom. All over the place, except one place. Here:

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to editors who have made minor edits of the utmost quality. This one, in particular, is for knowing that an encyclopedia can only reliably report what HAS happened--quality starts with knowledge.

--76.203.48.190 05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new subject on a talk page

If you click the "+" tab above the edit box, next to the "edit this page" tab, you can make a new subject, when you are indeed discussing something new, so that your edit in the page history and on watchlists does not appear to be part of the prior edit. KP Botany 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks for archiving, but please remember to sign your posts. I didn't, and didn't look if the bot did, but please do. KP Botany 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. WHEELER is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Onward march

Once anyone has ever been accused of sock-puppetry, it can never stop. Do you realize how easy it would be for someone to get ticked off at an editor, make a bad edit on an IP, then accuse them of sock puppetry? There's no proof that any of these editors are SallyForth. And, one of the people who is clearly geared towards skewering her everywhere admitted that SallyForth was NOT guilty of 3RR. So, at what point does this nonsense of attacking, personally and by blocking, a good and new editor stop? It can't stop, because once an accusation of sock puppetry is made against an editor who has the audacity to tick of established editors (and that really is what SallyForth did, try to get established editors to follow Wikipedia policy) what happens is more and more accusations are put forth until the person is permanently banned from Wikipedia. No one ever tried to work with this editor, and I'm sick of seeing this happen to good editors, and to new editors--get banned because of lame sock puppetry accusations, and get hounded and hounded and hounded, until, frankly, they're driven to sock puppetry. If this editor never 3RRed, if this is a new editor, if this editor was correct, as all of ArielGold's good points about her indicate, if this editor is being skewered by editors like ArielGold without any administrator calling AreilGold to account for her personal attacks, then all that is going to happen is a foregone conclusion: SallyForth will be banned permanently for sock puppetry. There is no evidence of sock puppetry, it's just anonymous IPs making conveniently damning accusations that SallyForth is a puppet master. She was banned for something she didn't do, now she's being hung for something without evidence or any voice in the matter. And I'm tired of seeing these escalating sock puppetry accusations connected to large IPs where anyone could fake they are an editor to get them banned, because Wikipedia administrators are far too gung ho to ban editors. And, until I was hostile, you didn't really care what I said, did you? The assumption on Wikipedia is that anyone in the world could and would be a sock puppet--but no one would ever ever ever pretend to be a sock puppet of someone else. These other editors, and ArielGold especially, wanted SallyForth gone. She was attacked and skewered. She's probably long gone, and other editors are making up sock puppets to make sure she's permanently banned. Well, they've succeeded, because, again, everyone will sock puppet, but no one would ever pretend to be a sock puppet, and if they're ATT accounts, in California or Texas, they must be SallyForth sock puppeting. KP Botany 21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanchom, my sincere apologies for the intrusion, but to KP Botany: I'm going to respond to this, as you're continuing to refer to me. I wish to make it quite clear: You are very wrong when you state "ArielGold especially, wanted SallyForth gone". I actually had multiple productive discussions with Sally on her talk page, she was helpful to me in a variety of areas, and as I said, I respected many beliefs she has (as she posted on her user page). It was only after I saw the sockpuppet tag on her page, that I looked into the issue, as I was surprised someone who was so devoted to the rules would break them, so I looked into it. I had nothing to do with her blocks, or their extensions. When I found out about the allegations, she was already blocked, multiple times, and it was for an issue unrelated to anything Sally and I had discussed. Your continued insistence on painting me as someone "out to get" her is completely incorrect, and uncalled for. I respectfully request that you stop referring to me in that way.^Ariel♥Gold 07:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanchom, I don't care what happens to SallyForth123. I'm sick of Wikipedia and all this railroading good editors away. SallyForth's better off being banned from Wikipedia if people are going to treat a decent top-notch copy editor in this manner--and that seems to be the case on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, from the diffs provided to support all of these allegations against her by ArielGold (none), SallyForth did nothing wrong, was blocked for 24 hours, then a freak out of sock accusations arose that she was editing from a dozen different IPs thousands of miles apart, and so she was permanently banned for that.

When you asked a question about SallyForth123, ArielGold took it as an invitation to personally attack her. No one called ArielGold to task for her personal attacks on SallyForth. This, appears to me, an attempt to rid Wikipedia of a good editor, or to support any action taken against SallyForth by posting unsupported allegations against her in an unrelated topic. When people get to personally attack an editor when she's been banned, without supporting evidence, and without anyone calling the attacker to task for the personal attacks, and it ultimately results in a good editor being permanently banned, I'll take it for precisely what it looks like: a concentrated effort to get rid of a good editor who wanted to and was capable of making Wikipedia better. But SallyForth123 deserved better.

I don't care what happens to SallyForth123 because if she should be stupid enough to edit conscientiously, eventually she will get attacked again for thinking that Wikipedia MoS, English grammar, and rules of NOR meant anything. AGF applies only to spammers and vandals.

I replied to Ariel on her page. Her continued personal unsupported personal attacks on SallyForth123 will apparently be allowed to go on.

KP Botany 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

SallyForth123 isn't banned, the account is currently blocked indefinitely (not infinitely). It is irrelevant that ArielGold hasn't provided diffs to support the block on SallyForth123, since ArielGold has nothing to do with the blocks on SallyForth123. Again, I am investigating via WP:RFCU the correctness of the sockpuppet allegations. I didn't respond to ArielGold's "personal attacks" against SallyForth123, because I didn't get the impression that ArielGold was making attacks. In fact, the impression that I was left with after reading ArielGold's statement about her interaction with SallyForth123 was that SallyForth123 was a good editor. I'm confused about what you wish to accomplish KP Botany. Are you accusing me of being part of a concentrated effort to get rid of a good editor? Please be specific, and again, I remind you to not use sarcasm. Sancho 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish to accomplish nothing, because nothing I do or say matters when posting that someone is rigid, blindly following the media, and posting from anti-NASA reporters seems like supporting them. These are not supportive words, they are designed to cast doubt upon the value of the person to whom they are attached. It was very cleverly done, but, no, the letter was not supportive. And RFCU is worthless if the user can't defend themselves and while calling them "rigid" and accusing them of "blindly following the media" without providing any supporting diffs is fine. And, there is no sarcasm in my suggestion that you just move on, because the nails have already been applied to SallyForth's coffin--once any admin has started down this path of quickly escalating sock puppet accusations, that a user is using IPs from Ukiah (northern California) to Texas, and they're proven by checkuser to be one user, nothing will change it. I give up on editing Wikipedia, there is no point--eventually I will be accused of sock puppetry and blocked and talked about without diffs anywhere and everywhere when I'm not allowed to defend myself. There is nothing that any editor can do about this--you're either in with the in crowd, or you're an outsider, and I've already wasted too much time on this. I don't wish you to do anything. I'm not accusing you of anything. Wikipedia does not want good copy editors and does not want references added to articles, because editors who do these tasks are treated like shit. Let's call this enough, as I don't really need to waste any more of my time doing this, when SallyForth is permanently blocked and will remain so. KP Botany 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your help

Thanks for your help in editing a page. You are correct that I intended to re-arrange the ordering of the sub-headings, and certainly not delete any information. First try, oopps. (Hence BooBoo in user name).

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the first paragraph about giftedness to directly lead into ADD, ADHD, and other "neurological disorders". While useful information and there are most definitely individuals with dual/multiple exceptionalities, I feel it is more appropriate for this to appear later on the page.

Thanks again for your help, and feedback.

LoriBooBoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriBooBoo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notable Former Air Cadets

I might be able to swing a few references. In the meantime, the category has been nominated for deletion. I directed the administrator to a similar category about former Eagle Scouts and thus created a storm of controversy!I guess I hit a nerve and there are many people out there defending the Eagle Scout category, while I seem to be the only one trying to defend the Air Cadet one. All in a weeks' work I guess! Sbmcmull 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Connell66 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Help with a croation source

No problem... I'm already reading it and my comments will appear on the article's talk page shortly. GregorB 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation in Australia & English Colts Club Knockout Cup

Hi Sanchom,

I'm happy to stick with you as mentor but I may create havoc in the meantime while 'doing my own thing'! lol

On the first point; many thanks for your comments. I try so hard, maybe I'm not cut out for this stuff. Are there any jobs involving sweeping the editors' floors etc. lol I guess I'll just have to keep trying 'til I get it right; right?

On the second point; I spent ages altering that page [7], badly maybe, and someone who has now deregisteresed as a member has altered entries to reflect the new year. Is this a case to introduce a 'start box'? Why do they register then disappear?

Jmrtn13 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand National

Hi Sanchom,

I've decided to go and try baby steps in the small pool and pick on minnows, so I thought, lol rather than the remnant monsters left behind in the big pool of December 2006 I'm not sure this [8] is appropriate on its own. Would it be more appropriate to incorporate it with [9] in a start box? I must seem VERY green!

Jmrtn13 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

just one account

Hi Sancho, I have just one account Tonyx123, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyx123 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool no probs. Tonyx123 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD on American historical collection

Sorry about adding a CSD tag to this article. I didn't realize those types of caps errors were legit. No worries. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for all your help regarding User:KillerCRS. It was very much appreciated. AngelOfSadness talk 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SallyForth123

I think another User:SallyForth123 anon IP has popped up. As you can see on the history of Talk:Tropical cyclone that edited the RFC after you blocked User:Abotd. ---CWY2190^TC 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of fluid physics and an wrong redirection to fluid mechanics

Hello! The user Nondistiguished deleted by himself (I did not know it is possible to act like that) the article Fluid physics and gave a wrong redirection to fluid mechanics.

Fluid physics is something different than fluid mechanics. You can see the difference if you look at the article about the physics of fluids and the external links.

Please check it and bring the article back to Wikipedia. And tell something to user Nondistinguished about this violent action.

If you want to discuss the problem with me, then please leave a massage on my talk page. Thank you.--LidiaFourdraine 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information and addresses. I have left a comment on WikiProject Physics and Talk Page of Fluid mechanics and a note on Talk Page of user Nondistinguished. It is a pity, that he or she did not leave a note for me after deleting the article of Fluid Physics. Can you tolerate such an action as an administrator? The deletion and redirect are wrong. See here and compare please: [10] and [11].

One really does not need to be an expert in physics to see the difference. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Sylvia page

I am the person who posted the information regarding autographs being available from Tim Sylvia's website. I'm not sure exactly how you thought it was a spam link, or the fact that I linked directly to his site constituted "unsourced." I have posted it again at the very bottom of the page. I have provided a footnoted source, along with a link within the text to his website. I am not sure why you guys delete this, there is absolutely nothing dubious, controversial, or slanderous about it. For crying out loud, it's right on the FRONT PAGE of his own website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.166.53 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the project

Hallo! I have decided to leave the EN-Wikipedia project. I would like to ask you to delete my personal page and my talk page and also my user name according to the obligatory regulations. Thank you for your cooperation. Good luck. --LidiaFourdraine 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the deletion of my user page. I would like to ask you to do the same with my talk page. I have three reasons: 1)Unfortunately I used my real name, 2)other participants attacked me personally in the past and 3)there is no violation from my side on my talk page or other pages so there is no need to keep it. And maybe last but not least I would like to forget this, sorry to say so, very bad experience and go on with my own life. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tank you Sanchom!

Hello! Thank you very much Sanchom! Greetings and good-bye. --LidiaFourdraine 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For Lidia for sheer excellence. KP Botany 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Lidia. You wrote well and accurately and at an appropriate level on a very technical subject for a non-technical encyclopedia. Because you have asked for your user page and talk page to be deleted, and I have not seen them, I am awarding you a barnstar on Sanhom's page to acknowledge that your contributions are worth far more than the often careless editing done to them. Unfortunately Wikipedia sometimes has low respect for expertise, particularly high level expertise on a technical subject, and, for some reason, even more so for high level expertise written well and at an appropriately not overly technical level. It's our loss that you are leaving. Please change your mind some day and come back as an anon IP, as a sock puppet, or as yourself. You deserved to be treated better. KP Botany 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of redirect

There is discussion of the redirect at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Check it out. Nondistinguished 11:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that my redirect would be as controversial as it now appears to be. Still, I'm satisfied that it was the right move. Nondistinguished 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding

Just a heads up to say that an ugly head is rearing again. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadet

Why is it that these two pages (Royal Canadian Air Cadet Training and Royal Canadian Air Cadets), are basically copies of each other? Couldn't we merge the two of them together and create a more concise article? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, then should we just list the article for deletion, on the grounds that it is a copy? A copy that isn't as good as the original. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what is there to merge then? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:76.203.50.187

Hello. A user at this address complains about being caught in a rangeblock of yours. Can you evaluate the unblock request? Sandstein 06:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

problems with User:Anonimu

Hello

I encountered non viki-civilised user who seems to be some very interested with Romanian fascist and communism. He reverts all my contributions and do not engage in discussion. From his talk page and links it is clear he was already banned at least once. Could you please help me starting some action to moderate him? He even removes my contributon to his talk page

Cautious 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it looks like you've also contacted another editor, User:Cremepuff222, regarding this issue. I agree with what was said in that conversation: the tone of your edits to Anonimu's talk page was not the best way to initiate conversation. Also, Anonimu was only blocked not banned. Anyway, what do you specifically with assistance with? Is there a particular content dispute that you wish me to look at? I don't know if you came to me because I am an administrator, but I wouldn't be able to do anything special for you with my administrator tools help you with a content dispute. I would be glad to help (moderate) as a regular editor if you still want help though. Sancho 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One more question about images

What is the copyright for Satellite images from google maps? Nocturnal Wanderer 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The copyright information for the images that make up the satellite composites displayed by Google can be seen at the lower right corner of any map. Depending on the region that you're viewing, the images might be copyrighted to TerraMetrics, or DigitalGlobe, for example. So they are not free and we can't generally can't use them in articles on Wikipedia. Sancho 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (3rd nomination)

Could you clarify your close here please. I can't work out if you read the debate or not, or simply based your close on your interpretation of 10 or so words from a policy of a few thousand and a guideline. Hiding T 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the entire debate. I was summarizing what I had believed to be the rough consensus based on the arguments that were presented. Sancho 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as presented in your close, which simply reads As per If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. from WP:V, and all three criteria of WP:WEB.. Since the debate presents third party sources, I'm not sure I understand how you determine the 11 words from WP:V apply. I also don't see anywhere in your closing statement a reference to the debate or to a rough consensus. I can't see where or how you weighed the arguments. When I became an admin some words of advice given to me were When closing a debate that is borderline or one in which your discretion is used, a few sentences explaining why you did what you did is an effective way of making your decision stick, and demonstrating that you were, indeed, within your discretion. It also doesn't leave people wondering why you did what you did. It's both permissible, and encouraged. So I hope that helps in clearing up why I'm asking. It's all well and good pointing me to rough consensus, but I can read that, read the debate and come to a different conclusion. I want to understand on what basis you weighed one half of the debate above the other, and why you disregarded sources presented, or deemed them not to meet WP:V. Sorry to take up so much of your time on this one, Hiding T 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any argument that refuted the assertion of several contributors to the debate that the subject failed to meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. Neither did I see an argument that discussed why this subject should be an exception to the guideline. The sources were blogs, a single mention in an article about Chinese goldfarmers, and the subject being a one-time guest comic in a magazine. If you look a few links further through WP:WEB, you get to WP:RS, which the sources that were provided were argued not to meet. Even the possible exception at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction still says, Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. Regarding the award/runner-up argument, consensus was that the subject was a runner-up in a nomination process, not nominated for an award, and hadn't won an award (which would have satisfied WP:WEB). It seems that this is more of an issue of WP:WEB than WP:V, but the arguments against several of the sources were based on discounting their reliability, which is discussed in WP:V. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). I feel that I rendered the rough consensus of the community appropriately. Sancho 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you summarised that thinking in the close I'd have better understood your thinking. From your close summary I couldn't get any sense of weighing the debate. Sorry to have troubled you. Hiding T 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking, but would you consider amending your close there to cover this somewhat, or would you be amenable to me pasting this conversation onto the talk page of the deletion debate? Hiding T 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, been a bit busy with non-Wikipedia stuff. I'll post this conversation to the talk page of the deletion discussion, and edit my summary to refer to it. Sancho 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The noob

Please post a copy of the entire deleted "the noob" article to my userspace as a draft article. I believe that there is content worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, even if you don't. I and other people will continue to improve the article in my usersapce until it is worthy of inclusion. Please make sure the entire article history is included to avoid GDFL violations. Since you are an administrator, please also include the history from the previous two AFD's, as the previous administrator did not and this was a GDFL violation. Thank you for your time. Timmccloud (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• You mean GFDL, and you don't need the deletion debates, they are not a part of the article history and there is no violation of the GFDL by not including them. Hiding T 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• I will do this for you in the next day. Also, I have tried to remain ignorant as to whether or not this content is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I simply was interpreting the debate and weighing arguments based on current policy and guideline. The current state of the verifiability policy and notability guidelines may be too stringent in that they allow for deletion of articles like this. Sancho 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Check the link I posted to your discussion page. Sorry this took so long. Sancho 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I figured it would take a while to put the history from the seperate articles together, thank you again. Someday I hope to have an article here that is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, in the meantime a lot of people other than myself have performed a lot of work that I don't want to get lost. Timmccloud 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

u deleted the whole personal section of Oscar de la Hoya

6 mo ago u deleted the personal section of Oscar de la Hoya. I dont know what the personal section said {page has been changed soooo much since then so I dont c nor feel like looking for a past version where its still in tact}.

I'm nost sure what was added (it was prolly alleged gfs) that made u delete the whole section.
But info like his parents name,any siblings,high school he attended\raduated from, & his daughter Atiana is fact. So y delete the whole section? 70.108.126.66 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Forum Links

Hello,

I noted that you removed some links I added to a few pages. The links were to a discussion forum. However, I noted in one case (this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Cadets ) that you removed my link to a discussion forum, while leaving another link to another discussion forum intact, the one titled "UK Sea Cadet Corps Forum." I have no issue with the removal of the link I placed, I was not aware of the rule you cited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ), I just wish to see the rule applied equally to other links on the same page.

Regards,

kcd325 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcd325 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and removed the other link also. I had just over-looked that one... thanks for the note. Sancho 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

QR&O 19.36 No member of the CF shall without permission publish in any form whatsoever any military information or the members views on any military subject without permission. The regulation applies to everyone from privates/ordinary seamen to General and Flag Officers. 24.108.176.42 (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Olsen twins

What is your source for them being fraternal twins? Have you read the discussion on the Olsen Twins talk page? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My source was a youtube video of the twins themselves identifying themselves as fraternal twins. I hadn't read the discussion on the Olsen Twins talk page until just now. I read it and added a comment regarding the People.com source, which was new to me. Sancho 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

UFC 84

A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your support and help to the editing of the article, and thank you for adding the "welcome" part to my user page, I thought that it was automatic. For the referencing templates, I've just copied the ones that you used :). For the time being I try to convince the admins that the article is not an advertisement by adding more references. But there is not much independent news articles around, the majority of the info that I've found come from blogs and forums and I think I cannot show them as references.

I think I can turn wikipedia editing into a hobby, I am not sure for the time being as if my first article will be erased, it will not be very encouraging. Intathin (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite to WP:ROBO

NASA Spirit Rover Model

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Robotics! Our goals are to standardize the structure and content of all Robotics articles, improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles (hopefully propelling them to featured article status), and serve as the central resource for all discussions and information related to Robotics on Wikipedia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The Robotics infobox is one way we hope to standardize our coverage of Robotics articles. All Robotics pages should have this infobox, and relevant fields should be filled in and sourced.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a few expanding departments, which handle article quality assessment, member recruitment and project awareness and article improvement collaborations.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask one of the project participants or post a question on the talk page. We'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Gracie Barra/Gracie Barra Combat Team

A merger of these two articles is being proposed. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Gracie Barra Combat Team Talk Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). In addition, if you feel that any changes are needed on either page, feel free to edit either page. Unak78 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Latimer

Hello Sancho, Since you were once involved dropping a message on the talkpage of S. T. Webb, (also likely editing as S.T. Webb, IP 70.66.167.200 and IP 70.66.167.249) about this article, I wonder if you would be willing to look at the situation again. I could do with a bit of advice about what the best thing to do with what seems to be a single purpose editor who continues to try to push their point of view over such a long period, though admittedly not that regularly. Not sure that there is anything really, but I wouldn't mind someone else's opinion. --Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Publisher as source

Can you please tell if I can you website of the publisher as RS in an article about the book they published. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the section at Wikipedia:SELFPUB applies here. Sancho 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A question

You should be getting an e-mail soon asking the question. Dreamafter (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistake???

Hallo! Would you like to verify the "notability|biographies" "COI" warnings that an IP number put to the article about Jan Scholten. It is the only one contribution this IP made on Wikipedia up to now. I wrote the article concerning NPOV. Thank you. Greetings. L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.199.26 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadet Training

Hello sir. I was wondering if the afore mentioned article should just be deleted as it only copies parts of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets article. I thank you for your opinion and time. Permission to leave? Dreamafter (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And also well done! I'm surprised I didn't notice it before! Dreamafter (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Cadets GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Royal Canadian Air Cadets and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics July Newsletter

The WikiProject Robotics Newsletter Issue I (July 2008)
Project news Project now covers 1000 articles on Wikipedia and is continuously growing in coverage and in members New article assessment drive! Please help by assessing articles with no class assessment or importance rating! New {{Robotics Barnstar}}! Give it to someone who has improved significant portions of robotics articles or WikiProject Robotics! Four new DYKs were featured this month.		Articles of note New Featured articles: Automatic number plate recognition Hell Is Other Robots Three Laws of Robotics Make an article featured! New Good articles: ASIMO Robot Nominate a good article!
Current proposals and discussions Discussion on whether to add subcategories into this WikiProject and whether to create separate task forces per subcategory.
Awards and honors User:Jiuguang Wang was recently awarded the Wikipedia Barnstar for his continued efforts in the article assessment drive.
The current Robotics Collaborations of the Fortnight are: Editor Nominated Topic Robotics B-Class Improvement Drive FIRST Robotics Start/Stub Improvement Drive Home automation Every fortnight three robotics-related topics, stubs, or red linked articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold! This COTF is organized by WikiProject Robotics. (Nominate future collaborations or see past collaborations.) This WP:ROBO/COTF is effective: February 29, 2008—March 13, 2008.		Things to do Continue upkeep of Robotics Portal Assign a class and importance level to unassessed articles Place {{WikiProject Robotics}} on every related talk page.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Thanks for your feedback on my corner detection photo - much appreciated Retardo (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Solomons Ashes

I saw your removal of the SD tag. I have updated the tag to reflect a copyright vio. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gere

If you are going to reprimand WebHamster for what he said, which I feel was rather acurate to how users were reacting to what appears to be a winning valid arguement, I think you should say something to Crotchety Old Man. Crotchety Old Man's comments were not only non-constructive but also quite condescending in nature.Fodient (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's my opinion.Fodient (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The java script that he gave me works were I just put in what the page is going to say, and and *** were I want the name of the artcle to be, that's why all the pages I create are the same except for just three areas, compare Macroglossum tenimberi ‎and Macroglossum tenebrosa (before you change the species). And I don't know how to program Java scripts, nor did I know what Java script meant till a couple of weaks ago, actually the only reason I know how to work it beacuase it has simple buttons on were to add my edit token, Page summary, Page content, List of pages to create, and I nice pig butten entitled Go!. But how would I make, instead of the exact page name, but the abbreviation for the species name? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

May I see the script? I could hopefully modify it to abbreviate the species names. Sancho 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree

I was going to send you the same message! I will keep plugging away as well. There is some legitimate stuff in there, just got to get through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakf (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for picking up the torch on this one. My patience wrt ethnically-charged disputes runs very thin. –xeno^talk 20:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

hello and thank you for the help with the dispute

are you admin? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with User Supreme Deliciousness Violation of Egyptian Articles

Sancho:

In addition to Omar Sharif, SD has gone around violating the sites of other prominent Egyptian figures such as Farid al-Atrash, Asmahan, Stephan Rosti, Anwar Wagdy, among others...

We've had a long debate about Farid al-Atrash and his sister Asmahan with the help of Admin Graeme Bartlette. Graeme required us both to present evidence that Farid was Syrian as an adult. I have provided the evidence required by Graeme below. SD has failed to provide any such evidence for the fact that Farid was NOT Syrian as an adult. Farid and Asmahan had immmigrated to Egypt in their childhood, with their mother and older brother. Graeme is also in agreement that Farid should be identified as Egyptian. I have agreed to state that they were of Syrian-Lebanese origin since they were born outside Egypt. Please help stop SD's vandalism of Egyptians' sites.

Please see the official STATE INFORMATION SERVICE website of the GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT. The Egyptian Government lists Farid Al-Atrash as one of the country's prominent EGYPTIAN FIGURES (see: http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/figures/english/html/Farid.htm). The website states that Farid left Syria with his mother (and as it is well known, also with his siblings Fouad and Asmahan) "at a small age". The Wikipedia Article itself states that Farid and Asmahan immigrated to Egypt at ages 8 and 5, respectively, and were naturalized as Egyptian citizens. They lived for the rest of thier lives in Egypt (except for Asmahan who was briefly married in Syria before returning home to Egypt) and all are buried in Egypt. Virtually ALL of their musical work was created in Egypt and in the Egyptian dialect.

Since the Governemnt of Egypt declares Farid (as it did also his mother and siblings) as an Egyptian Figure, on par with Egyptian Giants Mohamed Abdel-Wahab and Umm Kolthoum, then my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate.

Please see also the abstract of an academic research paper from Cleveland State University and University of California, Berkeley

"Building a Man on Stage - Masculinity, Romance, and Performance according to Farid al-Atrash

by Sherifa Zuhur (see: http://jmm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/275)

"This article explores the life and career of male singing star, instrumental talent, and Composer Farid al-Atrash, who created a prototype of the romantic male musical star from the 1930s until his death in 1974. An immigrant to Egypt and a member of a distinctive religious sect, the Druze, he arose from poverty and the invisibility of the previous generation of musicians thanks to his talent, ambition, and investment in his own film productions. A lifelong bachelor, he constructed a popular image with references to the authentic Arab Islamic poetic/historical past and an idealized version of modernity. Tales of his love affairs enhanced his popularity during his lifetime and were seemingly merged with the lyrics of his love songs. From Arabic sources, the author attempts to uncover the psychological rationale of a man whose life goals were shaped by his mother, who was overshadowed by his sister, and who consciously elevated music making to a professionalized art form.

"Key Words: masculinity • Arabic music • Druze • popular performance • Islamic culture • Farid al-Atrash"

Even Syrian website "Damascus Online" (see: http://www.damascus-online.com/Music/farid_alatrash.htm) states that Farid and Asmahan moved to Egypt in their childhood and makes no mention that Farid ever returned to, let alone lived in, Syria afterward.

Finally, Graeme, please allow me to quote you personally. You stated: "I must agree that it makes more sense to call Farid al-Atrash Egyptian!" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.194.124.102).

Therefore, my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate. I ask that you please restore the Farid al-Atrash article to my latest revision.

Thank you.

(98.194.124.102 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

• 98.194.123.102: I'm trying to provide assistance in settling the content dispute between you and SD regarding the Omar Sharif article. This post does not help with resolving that dispute. Please cease characterizations of SD's behaviour as vandalism, or discussing his/her motivations at all. Focus on content. I'll be in discussion with you both at the Omar Sharif article. Also, your posts will be received better if you keep them short, avoid long, unnecessary quotes, and bold text emphasis. Sancho 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancho: The post above was due to the fact that SD went around today changing other Egyptian articles, listed above, after you had kindly started providing your assistance with Omar Sharif. It was also due to the fact that other admins have not brought this matter to an end once and for all in a reasonable amount of time. I hope you will. I do not want to see things get out of hand with that user changing the articles beyond repair as he had done on Stephan Rosti. My hours-worth of efforts on that article are unrecoverable. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

hello and thank you

for agreeing with me on the Rosti article, could you be so kind and revert it to the previous version?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support you if you made the change back to the previous version, explained yourself on the article's talk page, and mentioned something like "see talk page" in your edit summary. Sancho 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can not change it because I would then have reverted the article 3 times in less then 24 hours. I have done what you say before on other articles, he doesn't listen, you cant debate with him, it is impossible to have a mature and civil discussion with that guy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See, the guy just reverted everything you did on the Omar Sharif article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everything. Just one section. But I'm talking with him/her about how to improve that section now on the talk page. Sancho 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, thank you for checking up that encyclopedia source, really appreciate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sancho: please see the following on Stephan Rosti: http://www.answers.com/topic/stephan-rosti. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

please

look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#vandalism_by_98.194.124.102_on_Stephan_Rosti_article --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my support. I didn't agree that you were correct about Rosti being Hungarian, only that you had a source that showed it, and would support you introducing a sentence saying that until 98.194.124.102 proceeded as required through discussion or providing an alternate source. I replied at the administrator noticeboard. Sancho 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was what I meant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancho: I made a very detailed argument for the changes that I made, and invited reposnse from you and others on the Talk page of Stephan Rosti, 3 days ago. There has been no challenge to my argument since then. The information that you placed on the article page now is inaccurate and misleading, and the "Hungarian" source has been proven unreliable. Please make a case for the accuracy of the references used, on the Talk page of the article. Thanks. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That was simply a cut-and-paste from a previous discussion that neither SD nor myself were made aware of. Also, you didn't provide a source with your change. I explained my recent change at the article's talk page. We can continue discussion there. Sancho 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was more than the cut-and-paste from the previous discussion as you later noticed. You and SD were invited to partake in the discussion 3 days before. There was new material at the bottom and a question on whether Arabic references would be accepted. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancho: I do not see any movement on the Stephan Rosti Discussion page or any challenge to the reliable sources that I have offered. I shall move to revert the article to match those sources. There are other articles where I will also need your help to resolve, if you do not mind. Also, I do not appreciate the declared resolution on this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#vandalism_by_98.194.124.102_on_Stephan_Rosti_article I was not notified of the existence of that posting and you know that you jumped to conclusion while you missed the new material on the Discussion page. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Another contributor, EdJohnston is communicating with you on the article's talk page expressing doubts regarding the reliability of your sources.

Regarding my summary of how I resolved that issue, I believe it describes accurately what I did. I issued a warning on on your talk page about removing two references and the sentences they supported without introduction of references that supported the changes you made. See here. Sancho 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Asmahan and Farid Al-Atrash

Sancho, I request your help on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're in the middle of a discussion that's coming to a conclusion... I don't see what assistance I could provide other than offering points for improvement regarding communication styles. If you have something specific you'd like me to do or provide an opinion about, feel free to ask. Sancho 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancho: in my view, all evidence has shown that the current versions (of 30 June) of both articles are the most accurate. Discussion on the Talk of page of Asmahan seems to have been stuck for a couple of days. No movement is happening on Farid's. I appreciated your methodical approach on the Omar Sharif article, and I think that your input to these articles will get the matter resolved in a scientific way. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Confabulation (neural networks) AfD

Personally, I'm not too sure this [12] is warranted or appropriate in this instance. The editors involved in the AfD seem to be engaged in ironing out the issues that caused the article to be sent to AfD in the first place (check the article's edit history) and IMO Wikipedia would be far better off content wise if more AfDs were conducted in that manner. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the flagging was perfectly valid; thank you for highlighting it. 4 users who have only contribd to the AfD, talk page and a couple of minor edits certainly needed flagging. Sorting out who is and isn't a sock/meatpuppet would be tricky and probably not worthwhile; I just hope that people will ignore the unreasoned debate which makes no policy references, and instead will look at the simple lack of notability. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you still around?

Sancho, I need your help on Omar Sharif that you have worked on with us before. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What help do you need? Sancho 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sancho, as you may recall, you've helped us with Omar Sharif. There's this seemingly new user, Lebanese bebe, who's started editing Omar Sharif, Asmahan, Farid al-Atrash, Youssef Chahine, Shakira, etc., making them all Lebanese. On Omar Sharif, you've concluded, "Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person." Lebanese bebe has made him Lebanese, then Lebanese-Egyptian, then of Lebanese origins, etc... She just won't stop. She's done the same with all those other articles that have been very heavily and laboriously debated on their respective Talk pages, to which she had not bothered pay any attention. She's using sheer rudeness, aggressive reverting, ridiculous sources, and even circular references, to force her "tribal" point of view into these articles. Could you please make her stop before it spills over into edit wars? Thanks again in advance, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sancho, please see this interview with Omar Sharif: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYD0LTKaFc4&feature=related. At Time 11:30, he says, "I've never changed my passport. My passport was always Egyptian." Period! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What have you done to try to talk with this user? Can you link to diffs that show you've attempted in good faith to communicate your objections? Sancho 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to talk & explain on her Talk page, and on the respective Talk pages of the articles, e.g., Farid's. Another addmin, Tan, chipped in & supported my opinion, but still, LB has not heeded the advice. Please see, for example, this diff from this morning where she replaced Egyptian with Lebanese, even when the references say otherwise. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Untitled post

Hi Sancho,

Long time - sorry did not have time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aretai&redirect=no#Applet_extension Thank you for your help here I have managed to do it on my own.

Cheers Aretai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aretai (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to send you the same message! I will keep plugging away as well. There is some legitimate stuff in there, just got to work on it.

Squamish wiki stuff

I'll be glad to discuss the Squamish addendum.

Talkback

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

San Salvador image

Hey, found an image - thought you'd like to know. Wormcast (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I remove headline

Hi.

• Hi. Okay. I didn't notice a difference and I forget why I had that there. Sancho 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Sanchom,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pouring oil on a fire

While you felt it necessary to censure me, you ignored the remarks by Wer900 that completely mischaracterised my position, ascribing distasteful political beliefs. Those remarks were either malicious or, as I said, idiotic. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Barsoomian (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked him to stay civil as well. Sancho 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. "Stay civil, everyone". You wrote nothing on his talk page, but you saw fit to personally warn me. The message you send with that is that he can slander me without any consequence, I was wrong to complain. [User:Barsoomian|Barsoomian]] (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

re ANI

Sanchom, I am not going to argue my ANI case here, but I am curious: have you been watching my edits and waiting for me to cross a line? I responded to the issue that you chided me about a while ago, ("idiotic remarks") but you never responded, so I thought the issue was closed. Then weeks later I find you saying "I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously" Why were you not able to discuss it with me? Why escalate this to ANI? If we'd continued on my Talk page, I would have explained that issue as Drmies said at the ANI, though he expressed it more clearly than I did. Barsoomian (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did discuss this with you, and as I understood things, you believed it was okay to respond to incivility with further incivility, and I believed it was not okay. I didn't respond further because we knew each other's position.

I brought this two ANI for two reasons: because of that previous interaction and your later interaction with Jack Sebastian (where as I see it, you felt attacked when he suggested you should have treated another editor more nicely than you had). Together, these two things led me to believe you see nothing wrong with your behaviour and are not receptive to correction. I didn't see a benefit in me repeating to you what had already been said (that you need to be more civil and that you should not respond to incivility with further incivility) because I knew you disagreed with those points. Sancho 15:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You failed to look into the history of Jack Sebastian and myself. He is not a disinterested Good Samaritan. I am certainly not receptive to any "corrections" from him. He never fails to attack and insult me in any interaction. See here for our last major contretemps. So, when he turns up to give "advice" to me it's with an agenda. And if you look at the supposed cause for all of that: my comment [13]

Why repeatedly make names into red links? If you're going to create the articles, do that first. Otherwise it's just annoying. Barsoomian (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I simply stated what I saw as the problem and asked him why he was making these edits -- and reverting them, without any comments. And subsequently, despite Sebastian's butting in, Wraithful saw my point and the issue was resolved completely amicably. See the last edits here. And I do not think that "it was okay to respond to incivility with further incivility". I don't believe though that I was uncivil at all in the "idiotic remarks" case. I think that the person I was supposedly being uncivil to is the one who should complain if indeed he is offended. Incivility may not be excused as retaliation, but the remarks must be seen in context, and while I may not escape blame, I wonder why others' equally offensive comments go unremarked. Barsoomian (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sancho, those closing comments at the ANI thread (and I hope they will remain the closing comments) have exactly the right tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice then if it could be closed. Do either of you have that power? Barsoomian (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sancho opened it, so they can close it, as well as I can, but typically it's left to an uninvolved person. Also, there is no need to repeat the obvious: there is a consensus that the "idiotic remark" thing was not an incivility; I was the first one to point it out. What worries editors and administrators in that thread is the general tenor of your commentary, as I have mentioned to you on your talk page, to the point where an admin says you'll be blocked next time you comment in that vein--which I assume is the pompous windbaggery vein. You don't agree with that assessment, of course, but there was such a consensus last time I checked. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that I have no idea what the "pompous windbaggery" vein is. I feel that it is such a mild, Bowdlerised, epithet that no one could take real offence. "Windbaggery" is a noun describing words, not a person. See any dictionary.

But at least the ANI is closed, though Jack Sebastian gets his last kicks in on the record while I cannot respond. A question I was going to ask there, and I would still like to raise:

Jack Sebastian can say that my edits are "nonsensical, unnecessary comment", with no one raising an eyebrow. I say that exact comment on my talk page is "pompous windbaggery", and then delete it, then I am suddenly pilloried at ANI and told that could get me blocked for incivility. Just how does this work? Why was I publicly put in the stocks but Jack's similar, or worse, words are ignored? Both are disparaging the other's edits. Neither is a direct personal attack. What is the distinction here? Why am I the guy who needs to learn how to "play nice" while Sanchom describes Sebastian's disparaging me as "a user coaching Barsoomian"? Maybe you think I'm harassing you with all this self-justification, but you subjected me to an ordeal because of these words. Barsoomian (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As was pointed out earlier, it's a pompous windbag who practices pompous windbaggery. It does not work the same way for "nonsensical, unnecessary comment". I don't think you're harassing me, but I do think that you should drop the stick: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is beginning to be applicable. If you want this over with, say "OK" and accept that what you hear yourself say is not what others hear you say. That is all. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was addressing the above to Sanchom, as the person who charged me with the offence. If he wants me to go away he could just say so and I will. Barsoomian (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're seeing this as a bigger deal than it was. I thought you needed to be more civil, others agreed, and two of them asked/told you to be more civil. The consensus is that your comments are occasionally near or over the civil/uncivil boundary and you've been asked to move them towards the civil end of the spectrum. I believe you when you say you didn't intend to be uncivil. However, you've now been informed that despite your intentions, you do sometimes does come across as uncivil. This wasn't about you in comparison to any other editor, so I'm not going to address those questions. This was about the way you communicate. I'm sorry that you felt this was an ordeal. Sancho

• Since the consensus is that I'm the one at fault, and I am unable to accept this: clearly I'm just going to get in more trouble, as I know some people will take this is a green light to keep needling me until I snap again, knowing that admins will just look at a few words out of context and slap me down, harder every time. So, time to leave Wikipedia. Five years work on thousands of articles; and all it adds up to in the end is a kangaroo court where people line up to tell me what an asshole I am and three admins tell me that I deserve it and I should not talk back. I know this is something that happens on a daily basis here and everyone will just shrug and forget me in a minute. That's fine. There is no community here that I want to or can be a part of and it has taken me too long to work that out. Barsoomian (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:West-49-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:West-49-logo.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD close

Hi! I saw your AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen and then also of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dubro. Good to see that you summarized the AfD in your closing note. I don't recall any other admins doing that unless the issue has been a heated one. But i think they do have some practical pros of keeping "result-was-delete" kinda short closes. I can't tell you why that style remains popular as i am not an admin myself. But liked your close and hence thought of writing this.... Good job! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI

You closed before I had a chance to rebutt his poor examples.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. If they're poor examples; they'll speak for themselves. Or, he'll bring them up at AN3, and you'll get a chance to rebut them. Sancho 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyvio you were looking into

Hi Sanchom,

At Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet_(Tchaikovsky)#Permission_and_crediting_of_sources you say you suspect a copyvio and was emailing the original author for permission. I expect you've long since forgotten since this was back in 2007, but do you by any chance recall whether you ever got a reply? And if so, was it filed with OTRS? --Xover (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the author said that she was fine with the content being reused on Wikipedia "as long as there is the link at the bottom that you mention". Unfortunately, I didn't follow up to get an explicit GFDL licence. Sancho 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking!
Hmm. That makes this kinda complicated. I believe that these days a donation of content to the `pedia effectively requires either public documentation of a work's license status, or a statement by the original creator to OTRS following a set procedure and format. In other words, it's not enough that she told you it was ok, she would have to tell OTRS that it was ok and that she licensed it under the appropriate license.
Under the circumstances I am… conflicted on how to proceed. I fear we'll quickly end up at the point where large swathes of the article will have to be removed if nobody steps up to rewrite them.
Anyways, thank you for your help! --Xover (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, I understand what our requirements are. I don't know why I didn't follow up with the author. I'll do that this week. Sancho 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to undelete MGTOW page

The MGTOW page on Wikipedia has been deleted several times in 2006 and 2007, primarily due to lack or WP:Notability and WP:Citations. (You are mentioned as one of the editors to have deleted it.) The page is currently protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. However, a lot has changed since 2007. Today, MGTOW has been described in books (Helen Smith Ph.D., Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters), and (using the literal word "MGTOW") in many articles in mainstream or notable newspapers and websites, including VICE Magazine, Reason magazine, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times, the Independent, the Irish Independent, Independent Journal Review, Breitbart, the Huffington Post, Wales Online, PanAmerican Post, InfoWars, Metro, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, as can be established using a quick Google Search. A quick search for the keyword "MGTOW" on Google News yields many more results. I kindly request that you reinstate the MGTOW page, or allow others to create this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can you provide an example of a reliable source the gives the subject significant coverage (for a starter, more than just a description, recognition of its existence, or quote)? EDIT: I see you're making some progress on a sample article in your user space. Let me know when you think it is in state that demonstrates notability. Sancho 19:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for replying. Actually, my userspace draft article is far from finished; the writing is taking much longer than I thought it would take. In particular, I have not yet fully integrated all citations in the body of the article; hence most of the citations are currently simply enumerated in the lede paragraph(s) (I hope to enlist others to complete the job, after the page is created.). However, I believe that if you examine them, those citations now sufficiently demonstrate, that MGTOW meets the criteria of WP:Notability, which are listed as: (1) Significant coverage (this is defined as "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material", and "book-length" treatment is "plainly non-trivial".); (2) Reliable sources; (3) Secondary sources; and (4) Sources independent of the subject. Note that all of the four criteria are met. Regarding "significant coverage" in particular, I would like to highlight a few examples: e.g. the Sunday Times featured an 8-page article devoted to the MGTOW phenomenon [14]. The Sunday Times is described by Wikipedia itself as the largest-selling British national "quality"/"highbrow" Sunday newspaper! The Sunday Times article has been described as (quote) "comprehensive" and "in depth" by a Breitbart journalist [15] The text of the Sunday Times article (3912 words) is behind a paywall, but you can find it in this forum thread "WE HAVE GONE MAINSTREAM!!!!!!" (visit at your own discretion). Breitbart itself has also published several comprehensive articles on MGTOW, including a two-part investigative report devoted to MGTOW [16][17] (5118 words in total). And there are many other articles entirely devoted to the topic MGTOW, such as the VICE magazine article [18]. And this does not even mention the book-length significant coverage of the marriage strike in e.g. Helen Smith, Ph.D., in her 2013 book "Men On Strike; Why Men are Avoiding Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and Why It Matters". Hence, if you examine all the citations, I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that these merit the creation of a MGTOW page on Wikipedia. Feel free to add {{citation needed}} tags, if you deem it necessary; but please do not immediately delete parts of my contents, as others will be surely be able to add the appropriate citations in the body of the article. --MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:SS Royal William.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SS Royal William.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Asa, linge-te!!!!!

mady 12:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Beare bună!!!! mady 12:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Sanchom. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Sanchom.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sanchom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sanchom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sanchom. I'd like to welcome you back to editing and adminning with a suggestion: To see what's changed since you were active, you might want to look at WP:ADMINNEWS. There are archived newsletters going back to January 2017 containing all sorts of useful info. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Sancho 01:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sanchom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

permissions

Just wanted to say I admire an admin who hands in the mop because they weren't using it. —valereee (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,783 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Royal Canadian Air Cadets has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)