User talk:CHAK 001/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

PLEASE READ (All Users): Appeal - Notice for Anyone Editing The Following Articles (See Below)

This applies to the following articles that apply: Sid the Science Kid, KQED, KOCE, KCET

Please post responses to this page since those articles have been updated. If there is any errors that I have added on those pages, please respond as soon as possible, and put four tildes on this section. DO NOT ADD A NEW SECTION IF YOU HAVE EDITED ANY OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED AND YOU WANTED TO POST SOMETHING HERE. Do not delete those additions, as I have provided links to the references indicated in selected articles (not all articles are cited because of this).CHAK 001 11:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ (All Users): Appeal - KNSD/NBC San Diego Confusions? Please Read Before Responding

When I read the article on NBC O&O station KNSD, there seems to be some confusion over the repeated use of repeated statements. I have cleared up the confusion and consolidated that part of the article into the "News Operation" section of that article. In one instance, I was trying to figure out what was going on with one of the sections mentioning "HD" in the "History" section, and another mentioning of "HD" in the "News Operation" section of that article. The use of repeated statements in more than one section can confuse some readers, so this is the reason why I am trying to prevent it in order to make more sense of what readers are trying to understand.

This is not the first time that one article has in my suspicion, used repeated statements about a certain part of their history or an important stuff. The only other time that I have consolidated an article like this is when I noticed a repeated use of the mentioning while reading about CBS O&O station KOVR (take a look at the editing history under "View History"). That article mentioned broadcasting in HD twice in different parts of the section, which I did a similar measure to prevent repeated use of the saying in the article. Therefore, the edit that I did to KNSD is similar to that of KOVR in terms of consolidating repeated statements. If anyone sees "repeated statements" mentioned in the editing description, please do not revert any part of the article (however, you may make minor corrections or clarifications).

I thank you for taking the time to read this, and please do not use any "repeated statements". CHAK 001 09:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Neglect Edit in the "Pokémon" article?

This section applies to anyone reading this that edits the Pokémon article. Please read before reverting any edits.

The article, Pokémon (anime version), has been edited because the series has already started and that has been confirmed on the official U.S. website. No one have notice this article until I have verified via both the Cartoon Network official site and the Pokémon website, which neither of them are mentioned in the article. However, it seems to me that the section that I was trying to edit has gone unnoticed. CHAK 001 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

International Sites Verification Notice - READ BEFORE RESPONDING

I will randomly be verifying international sites, regardless of which one it may be. If there is an international website, it will apply instead of the "home" site, provided that the "home" site exists. The following updates will be monitored if a response is given herein. ("Home" site is referred to as the national site, as in a home country.) In one instance, if an airline of an alliance has an international site, it must be used instead of the regional site, and will be checked at anytime. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

KSBW/WALB

The ABC on WALB launch date is actually the one mentioned on the station's website. The addtion has been delayed several times but it is now April 27 barring any more delays. I can say KSBW is the network's 240th affiliate for sure, though. Strafidlo (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you should revert your edits about the ABC network's 240th affiliation, since the launch date from what I have on KSBW is one week earlier than WALB, as I saw on both stations' websites (unless you have done so). It seems that the article claims about the 240th network affiliation on WALB now goes to KSBW after I looked at the articles and clarified those on their websites and on other websites. I rather put it this way: You should mention that WALB-DT2 should be the ABC network's 241st affiliation, and you could mention about the 240th affiliation in my proposed article linked here. (NOTE: KSBW is owned by Hearst Television, not Raycom Media.) CHAK 001 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hi CHAK 001. I noticed your userpage whilst browsing and I was surprised at quite how many hurdles you expect users to get through before posting to you. I was wondering if you'd consider "relaxing" your rules - after all, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, talk pages are designed to help collaborative editing, to encourage discussion. Obviously, users are allowed a lot of leeway in their own space, but I hope you'll consider my friendly suggestions. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies that I use can differ than what Wikipedia uses. All users have a different preference on what is expected on their talk pages within Wikipedia, and I, like many users, can have more strict expectations in addition to what the talk page guidelines specify herein. For example, in order to keep the talk page simple (e.g. keeping them in one conversation), I do have additional talk page guidelines, and it is a requirement for those who wishes to write on my talk page. Second of all, the notice page is designed to reduce any misuse of my talk page, which I have the right to delete them without warning. CHAK 001 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that you can. You're welcome to have whatever guidelines you wish - and I hope you'll see that I have followed the guidelines. However, I do suggest that you tone them down. Your guidelines do not encourage a collaborative atmosphere - effectively making it difficult for users to contact you - they go far beyond "keeping things simple" and appear excessive. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do respect all guidelines that any users request on their talk pages, as well as on Wikipedia articles itself. The guidelines are similar to those of other talk pages that uses such, except my guidelines are also designed to prevent misuse of my talk page (said previously). You mentioned that you wanted me to "tone down" or to "relax" my rules. When I write something at someone else's talk page, that is separate from having users write on my talk page. Because Wikipedia's articles uses proper formatting on their articles, you may be asking me a little bit to modify my page to include an explanation why I commonly delete any comments on my talk page (in other words, is modifying is what you are asking for?). You may wish to see it now. CHAK 001 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a good start (and end if you feel so inclined) - the tone of that section has significantly improved by the explanation. I guess I was just surprised by the tone of your guidelines, words like "rejected and unread" , "restrictions" and "exceptions" imply that it's a command rather than a request. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

hi CHAK 001

Just wanted to say hi and welcome. If there's anything you need, just say. I'm Anna and i like bunnies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Great Restaurant

Hi, Mr. Chak. Sorry about having to revert your edits, but as I'm sure you know by now, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al., require sources to be cited when adding material to articles. Yes, I indeed read the article Talk Page, and if you experience editing problems editing, you can simply re-add any removed material, and add the references in question. An article's history preserves anything that has ever appeared on it (with the exception of versions deleted by Wikipedia higher-ups on rare occasions), so nothing is "wrecked". As long as the sources pass WP:IRS, you are not required to have me "validate" them (unless you're unsure about their reliability, and simply want my opinion on them). I've looked through your sources, and they appear solid, so I've restored the material in question, along with some info on the finale's ratings, and those sources. If you ever have any future questions problems, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I do thank you for your response. Please be aware that I may contribute in two or more edits, first with writing, then with sources (when possible; this can be either with more than one edit(s) and/or source edit). Depending on my edit status, a typical addition may take between 15 minutes and one hour to finalize sources, as I am trying to get as many sources as I can. If you are to watch any of my additions, even those without sources, please allow at least 15 minutes in order for me to finalize sources, and I may say something in the article's talk page if the source is unavailable after that time. CHAK 001 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, buddy. Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt it, but I think this might be helpful to you. You can paste {{inuse}} at the top of any article that you are working on. This informs others that the page is undergoing a major edit, and requests that it not be altered while the template remains in place. I hope this is helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. CHAK 001 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed

I left you a review. This is a one-time notification and shall not be repeated. It is mandatory that you read it. There are no terms and conditions that apply to reading it, however a punishment will be considered if you do not read it. You may read it under the following conditions/restrictions:

You must read it aloud.
You must sit up straight when reading it.
Should you disagree with the contents of the directive, you are instructed to surrender yourself to the proper wikiauthorities for a jolly good hiding.
You are permitted during reading to consume 1 (one) regulation-size cup of hot chocolate.

.... :) bunny! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. First of all, after reading your response, I feel that the bold and italics that you have mentioned is not meant to "yell" or "raise" my voice, but to make things clear (this applies to all users). Keep in mind that I do keep a close eye on my talk page at random, which is my main reason of putting a reminder. I will not always rely on every suggestion that you have suggested due to other suggestions left by other Wikipedia users on my talk page (you may take a look at other responses if you like). I do comply of what you said herein, however, I may read this quietly, as someone may be doing other assignments unless stated otherwise. Second, you mentioned that you wanted to blank your entire user page and talk page. Although I won't object or disagree with your responses (after reading other user(s) talk pages), that is actually not possible, however, because such things will have my privacy being abused, meaning that I will be vulnerable to unwanted messages, especially offensive material. I should note that when I took a look at other user pages, they have a similar disclaimer like mines, although my version is kept strict for privacy reasons. The reason why I created my own disclaimer at my page is to keep conversations all in one place (regardless of which user talk page) in addition to preventing misuse (e.g. personal attacks, offensive words). I hope this explains most of your concerns. (The only things that I need are more reviews from other users in my editor review...) CHAK 001 (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As you please, my friend. Just to let you know, the all capitals is widely accepted on Wikipedia as yelling. I don't think you need to be so afraid of invasions of your page. It's kind of overkill, and won't have the desired effect. It will likely alienate you from friendlies, and be a magnet for nasties. Plus, unless you're fighting vandalism a lot (100 reverts a day +), your talk page probably won't be noticed by anyone. Best wishes and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed you as well at Wikipedia:Editor review/CHAK 001. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the review. Although I do worry about my privacy, I do not worry much about my age. Other stuff, such as my current address and full name, are not to be disclosed as I do not think they would be useful. Regarding the archiving, I currently have it set to archive automatically up to 50kb; the first one isn't full yet (about halfway there) so I don't have a second one yet. The extremely old ones you see are ones that I have decided to keep on my talk page because I value them. Once again, thank you for your review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

excuse me, but...

I changed the Pocket Monsters Best Wishes wiki, and you reverted it. You were wrong to do so. I watched the episode twice, with subtitles, and realized several parts of the summary were wrong, and some important details were left out, so I edited it. I was correct, and Dent was not missing an ingredient, even without subtitles, you can see a leaf fall into his meal as Satoshi swings by, and he gets angry because of that. And at the end, they have not eaten. Dent groans that now they have to wait, and you can see, on the table, the food is untouched.

Ok thank you. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more accurate. Thanks for reading this through. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.189.25 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your edits and notifying me (as long as you abide by my talk page policy), as for communication, if I cannot identify who that user is, than I cannot see who that user is. If I want to communicate with you, than I must see the real username. I strongly recommend that you register before you make your edits, as I will watch closely on articles that I specify. Otherwise, in cases of severe plagiarism, I do have the right to report such things to any Wikipedia administrator, and if that holds up, you may not be permitted to edit articles such as Pokemon. CHAK 001 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, these edits [1][2] don't appear to constitute vandalism and I'm finding it hard to understand why you have reverted them as such. They appear to be good faith efforts to improve the page and whilst you are free to revert them, you should explain why you have done so in the edit summary, rather than tagging them as vandalism, it's horribly bitey. Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)d

Well, Bob House, if you did read my talk page policy, I specifically can leave a message at your talk page. The last user that I did respond to has more to do with the suggestions, even though I appreciate your suggestions. I am already aware of such things by what previous users has suggested to me, not only of good faith edits and WP:BITE, but I also would add WP:TILDE, WP:USERNAME, and most importantly (and what I read most), WP: BAN and WP: BLOCK. Again, I do appreciate your suggestions. CHAK 001 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, I'm not sure if you are threatening to have 68 blocked for making obviously good faith edits fo the article cited or to have me blocked for violating one of your arbitrary and unneccessary talk page guidelines but either way it's a hollow threat and it is obfusciating the issue. What I would like to know is, specifically, why you have described, in your reverts, the two edits made by the ip as 'vandalism' when they are clearly not, and more generally why (and perhaps this is unfair, but it does seem to be the case from our very few interactions) you appear to have adopted an editing policy which permits you to revert IPs on site and exercise some sort of veto on edits to pages within your watchlist? I'm not having a go, it's just not really the way things are done on "The free encyclopedia which anyone can edit" Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@person above

That's not his point in undoing your changes. You need to get the previous editor's permission first. Standard Wikipedia etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmaprincen (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "editor's permission", that can only be used if the user can be identified (IP addresses does not count as being "identified"), because for me, it makes it easier to communicate. The reason why I do not count IP addresses as being such is that I do have a hard time reading the ID of any IP user, which I do not want to use numbers as an ID when responding. There may be a few reverting edits where that could be a "false positive". Also, I will not accept unsigned comments from now on; please read carefully before posting. Thank you for your time and understanding as such. CHAK 001 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody needs anybody's 'permission' to make changes to an article. This applies regardless of whether or not you're an IP. I suggest you both read up on WP:BRD and WP:OWN. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read my talk page policy on proper formatting; click here for more. Because this is my talk page, I do reserve the right to modify or delete edits for this reason. CHAK 001 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your rules are pretty strict, aren't they? Anyway, was it you who semiprotected the Pokemon Black and White editing? Because that's just rude. You can't assume that unregistered or new users are trolls. I simply patch up the episode summaries, when they are missing vital details, or are blatantly wrong, because whoever wrote the original summary did not really pay attention to the episode at all. I'm not saying this to be snobby, I'm just pointing this out. If it wasn't you, sorry for bothering you. Do you know who did it? plasmaprincen (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For the rules, those are strict to prevent "misuse of my talk page" (e.g. personal attacks, vandalism) after major adjustments and suggestions (see related comment under "A few helpful suggestions"). This is one of three articles in the past month that I asked to semi-protect (the others are the Pokémon anime series and television station KGO-TV; the latter was due to an edit war which a "severe" warning was issued to another IP user). The edits in the Pokémon articles mentioned herein were semi-protected to prevent excessive reverting edits, mainly those done by Ryulong, which is what led up to all of the asking. Although I do read the Pokémon article from time to time, I was not the one writing the original summary, despite that I rarely add a short summary, with occasional article verification and patching up some grammar. The Pokémon anime article and the list of episodes from the "Pokémon Black and White" series were previously semi-protected for the same reason. The "semi-protect" lifting of both of those articles did not stop the unnecessary additions; most of them were reverted by Ryulong himself. So those are what led me to this decision, as I was trying to see what is going on. CHAK 001 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. Thanks for clearing things up. Not that it mattered to me, I was allowed to edit SemiProtected pages, but I was just curious. Ok thanks. plasmaprincen (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A few helpful suggestions

Hi CHAK. It's your old pal Anna. As you requested a review of your perfomance before, I guess you are still interested in feedback now. A few points that might help you and others:

We are encouraged to treat IPs the same way as registered users. They are not second class citizens, and their edits are just as valued.
It's a good idea to respond to the concerns of others if you wish to have your concerns addressed.
Calling an edit "vandalism" in the edit summary is only appropriate for clear cases of vandalism.
Nobody needs anybody's permission to edit in the mainspace. Of course, if there's a dispute over content, then everyone backs-off the article and discusses things at the article's talk page.
If you are concerned about others' formatting and signing and following your talk page rules and regulations, then you should be concerned about your own conduct, i.e. reverted good faith edits as vandalism.
Lots of rules etc, is totally unnecessary, and frankly rather odd.

Best wishes to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna, if you did notice, I have changed my policy just a little bit to not include anything what I think may be odd and dull. CHAK 001 (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I commend you on that. Your pages look much less menacing. Well done. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello CHAK, I see that you are interested in keeping TV station articles factual. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Can you help? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look and see. CHAK 001 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and input in the black sandbox. I don't want to see you blow a lot of time on organizing this. What we need is a solution. We need a reason for tracking the way we do, maybe for a range block, or something like that.

My current strategy is to warn then rollback. I am very interested in knowing if you have some kind of plan to handle this guy. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Anna, I have no other methods at this point, at least for now... CHAK 001 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Post title

I'm not sure "Severe Warning(s)" is best. Maybe a bit more toned-down would be appropriate. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the subsection title to me determines the recent edits by the user or the IP address. CHAK 001 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I may be wrong. Just my opinion. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for this. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And thanks from me, also. The point which you raise had already been covered by me and the relevant contributor had subsequently responded prior to being blocked for a week. The "troll" issue, in other words, has been seen by umpteen admins. If they feel that it was a personal attack then I am sure that they will deal with me in the appropriate manner. However, if I have unwittingly offended you then please accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The warning

Please read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

Consider removing the bold. It's very loud.

Consider using conventional templates. Yours is way over the top.

Assuming good faith, I know you are trying to do what's best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Sitush was right with the troll post. The offending editor, if you check his contribs and the ANI thread, is way out of line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, single-issue templates are the only ones that I use (level 4im only), as the other ones are very often not sufficient enough to my standards to warn them sufficiently. Note that I commonly use bold lines for a strong reminder if I believe it's necessary, as I do keep a strong reminder that I have little tolerance on vandalism and personal attacks on any pages that I keep tabs on. Additionally, note that I usually use personal supplemental templates attached below the level 4im templates. CHAK 001 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand.

Sitush has been around since 2007, and has made 20,550 edits. So, as a regular, doesn't get templated, especially not a level 4 template. Also, you issued a final warning in big bold letters, and more bold afterward, and links to think to be read to self-educate. That's way, way, way over the top.

There's a reason that the accepted warning templates look the way they do. It's what the community thinks is appropriate. The homemade template that you added to Sitush's page would certainly be condemned as over-the-top if others saw it.

I strongly suggest abandoning the homemade template project, and sticking with the community-approved ones. There are many to choose from.

Please, also, dig a little for history and context before deciding what to post on talk pages. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this into context. I do not actually have a problem with being templated but Anna is correct in pointing you to the "don't do it" and you would be well advised to take note of that. My problem is that the warning was invalid and even if it had been valid, it was extreme beyond belief. If the only templates you ever use are variations of the level four, single issue type then I think that you will hit problems. It shows a considerable inability to judge a situation and, indeed, it may fall foul of WP:COMPETENCE. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your methods because there are people out in Wiki-land who will be less tolerant than me and you'll find yourself being put through a mincing machine before too long if you continue in this manner. Take it as a lesson learned, and listen to what Anna is saying to you. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

You make good points CHAK, and I do appreciate you sticking up for me, regardless. Your intentions were good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for warning the IP user. Tinkswiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Thx. Will need some time learning about the warning templates etc.

Tinkswiki (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CHAK 001. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Destructive edit by User:220.225.6.45 - repeat after warning

Kindly take a look at Nawab of Pataudi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkswiki (talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

After evaluation, the edit was reverted due to vandalism. CHAK 001 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx, have put a warning using template at User talk:220.225.6.45 as suggested by you Tinkswiki (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is a very strong, very specific word here on Wikipedia. I am not at all convinced that this was vandalism, nor am I persuaded that templating a one-off edit of an IP is productive.

It is not uncommon for people to open up the edit window, fiddle about a bit, get bamboozled by the mark-up and walk away. This often can leave "hanging sentences" such as the one at Nawab of Pataudi. These are "test edits", not vandalism. Obviously, if a user persists in doing this sort of thing over a while then it is disruptive editing, but not until that time. Mis-use of the V word can land you in trouble very quickly, so I suggest that you review the article about this. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a little advice

I think soon an admin is going to steer you in the right direction. So it's better that hear it from me.

Please don't issue one-time warnings except under certain circumstances. Certainly not if it's just a dispute. Do it only if a user is on a mad rampage or if a vandal is adding terrible swear words to articles.
There's no real need to notify editors who have reverted vandalism at an article where you did the same, telling them about what you did.
If an IP vandalizes, sure warn them if you want. But, remember, it usually stops after a couple of edits, and next time, a few days later, it's likely a different user on that same IP. Sometimes it's best to revert and watch the IP. They usually go away.
Only report an IP or registered user at AIV if you've warned them sufficiently and have given them adequate time to respond. Start with level 1, and go from there. (Unless they're on a mad rampage.)
Consider checking contribs before issuing elementary advice to admins and highly experienced user as you did here. Every time I read such posts, I spit tea all down my front. This was the third time.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, I currently am not yet at the 2000 level just yet (that is, in terms of the number of edits overall) as per WP:RFA/NOM. I still have less than 500 left if I want to be even considered being an administrator. Although I will still issue one-time warnings, there are certain circumstances that I do not have to issue one-time warnings. My own goal is to reach a certain point before using the multi-level warning templates. One example of such is that at around 1750 edits or more, I will begin to use multi-level warning templates. I did forgot to mention that I use one-time warnings for testing, so that was the reason why I am still familiarizing with the warning templates and sorting other things out. I was also hoping to get a template (or a Wikipedia template) where anyone can see the number of edits that I have made in real time, as well as for other good use. If anyone has a template suggestion, they are welcome, though I will examine it before accepting such.

As for being an administrator, if I am to become one, I am planning to specialize in protecting pages (certain length and/or indefinite protection), intervention against vandalism, keep at-risk pages under watch, and asking a few questions for verification while continuing to create new pages, work with other users and administrators ("At-risk" means a high risk of protecting pages due to vandalism, edit warring, etc.). Either way, I do welcome any questions and comments, as well as any verifications that anyone want me to evaluate (proper formatting is required on my talk page). CHAK 001 (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did you actually read what I wrote?

I made no mention of your edit count.
I referred to admins regarding you giving them advice, not you becoming one.
"...there are certain circumstances that I do not have to issue one-time warnings..." You have it backwards.
"...One example of such is that at around 1750 edits or more, I will begin to use multi-level warning templates...." What the?????

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (How was the formatting?)

I did manage to read what you said earlier. You may have been confused for the most part, especially the latter two that you have mentioned...

For the edit count, I did not mention the actual number of edits that I have left, although I was trying to get a template that will let any user see the number of edits that I currently have in real time (as mentioned above).
For the mentioning of having it backwards, I also noted about only reaching a certain point before using templates (e.g. 1750 edits). Those are not the actual number of edits I wish to reach the point of when I will begin using multi-level templates. I should note that when users feel like they are ready, they can begin using templates at any time they wish. I will begin to use multi-level templates through several phases within the shortest possible time frame besides the ones that I have already used as of now.

For now, I will search for a better real-time template in terms of the number of edits... CHAK 001 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, yes, that is an example of my specifications of using proper formatting at my talk page. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Perhaps this will clear things up:

The edit count for any editor, you or any vandal, means nothing.
You should issue the appropriate warning template based on the vandalism in terms of number of acts and severity.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For the latter of what you have mentioned, I will be transitioning from using only the level 4im templates to using all multi-level templates in a short while, but not now. CHAK 001 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that you will continue to use a level 4 warning template for all warnings, then you are breaking the rules, and it will be a matter of time before someone tells you so. Plus, you should stop because users who commit first offence petty vandalism can be turned around to constructive editors with a gentle level 1 warning. Issuing level 4 will likely chase them away, or worse. Do you understand what I mean? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring that all warnings are used at the same time. I am only referring to the type of templates that I will be using in terms of the use of the multi-warning template. The level 4im warnings are used only for testing my use of the templates as a trial. I use those samples before I begin use of other warning templates of any level (I can only use one at a time). I will also phase templates for a test before proceeding. CHAK 001 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, not really. Of course, being completely familiar with all the guidelines and rules is vital. Consider reading: Wikipedia:Vandalism, in particular WP:HTSV, WP:R Van, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings.

Of course, WP:VANDTYPES is standard reading, plus WP:VANDNOT.

Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is a classic, as is the introduction to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

I hope this helps. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems relevant: A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it. So, if a user vandalizes, and, before a responding user can warn the vandalizing user, the vandalizing user vandalizes again, the responding user should not yet escalate the warning (for example, give a final warning) or report the user for administrator intervention yet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what you said might be the reason why some users may be thinking that my template usage may be a bit out of hand (some call it a bit disruptive). CHAK 001 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

Thanks for your non-administrator observations at RFPP, they are really appreciated. However, if the page has had sustained or very serious vandalism, then it is not necessary to endorse a protection, sometimes this may be necessary if the request has gone ignored for a long time. NAOs are generally for cases where protection will be highly unlikely, remember administrators are trusted to have good judgment. Though, do keep up the good work :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:30pm • 06:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your advice (despite a minor fix and a discussion with another user). Those actually serve as a basis for monitoring pages, as well as helping me apply the appropriate Wikipedia terms (e.g. WP:VANDAL, WP:NPA). I normally predict the protection if the user has not responded after a short while (e.g. approximately 30 minutes). Also, though I do not have terrible judgement, I discuss what I see after my evaluation of a certain page that has a problem. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No I was saying admins don't need to have things pointed out to them, not that your judgment was poor because, it is better than mine at times! It appears I have started a new "thing", NAOs are all the rage at RFP and RFPERM now :P if admins can't make a decision for themselves, they probably need recall ASAP! :P NAOs are meant as a basis for helping admins to see what is and isn't in need of protection, if there isn't an NAO, it needs protection, if it has an NAO it means that there is insufficient vandalism to merit protection and so on and so forth. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:45pm • 07:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And remember, in the end the decision lies with the administrators. I've noticed you seem to be recommending protection for longer than necessary, a simple evaluation cannot help determine that, you'd need to fully examine the article's logs and history to do that because if it has been protected on numerous occasions and is subject to vandalism immediately upon unprotection or shortly thereafter, the page is in definite need of long-term protection, but if it's one occurence or the page was only recently the target of vandals, then long-term protection isn't recommended or necessary. Long-term protection is only applied if the vandalism is serious or the edits themselves constitute libel, personal attacks and BLP-problems. Do keep up the good work though :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:50pm • 07:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, James, I do apologize for the response delay due to since I was in a discussion with another user (see the above subsection). I have noticed among all the edits that I have been doing, not every user will abide by every request; sometimes, I may have more to say. However, I still must abide as per WP:NPA if I am going to do such things. I am not sure of all future edits, but I think that at least using the appropriate protection level advice or advisory to administrators is OK (along with any appropriate comments when using NAO). CHAK 001 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Issuing poor advice

I have been watching your posts, on and off, since you made a very poor decision on my talk page recently. You are not improving in your use of warning templates etc and, for example, this advice to another new user is very misguided.

I suggest that you either start heeding the advice offered by others such as Anna or you will likely face the consequences of an appearance at WP:ANI. Although we have to take your obvious naivety into account, it is clearly the case that many of your edits are disruptive and there is a WP:Competence issue. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the two above subsections (Just a little advice and "Hi"); Anna has strongly advised me to begin using appropriate templates in order to comply with the appropriate policies (the level 4im templates were used as a test). Other than that, I was not aware of your specific problems, however, I do apologize if such things happen. CHAK 001 (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a test when you issued a level 4 to me. Regardless, if you follow Anna's advice then you are unlikely to go wrong. Just try not to make definitive statements of good practice on other user's talk pages until you have a little more experience. The recent one on Anna's page could have been better phrased as a question, and some of your recent advice to an IP was in my opinion misguided. I accept that everyone needs to learn but you need to recognise that while there are issues regarding your own use of warning templates then it probably is not a great idea to go round giving advice on their usage to other people. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you don't mind a few comments from me. You say above that you were using some templates for "testing". But that doesn't appear entirely true, as you were also advising other people to use level 4 warnings too. But anyway, you should absolutely not be doing any "testing" on other people's Talk pages - you should never give anyone an actual warning as a test. You can use the Sandbox if you want to practice using templates, or use your own Talk page (you can create subpages in your own user space for testing too). And you should not issue any real warnings, and certainly not give other people advice on issuing warnings, until you properly understand what the various warning levels are for, why we use such a system here, and have gained enough experience to use them properly yourself.

Another thing worth mentioning is that we have had a number of relatively inexperienced (and usually young) editors rushing too quickly into trying to do "administrative" things here, and it rarely turns out well. So what I would strongly suggest is that you spend your time doing a lot more content work here - choose a topic area that interests you, and look around its articles seeing which ones you can improve by expanding the content (with sources), by searching for and adding source to unsourced material, etc. And leave the admin/advice/guidance to experienced editors who actually know what they're talking about.

Anyway, this isn't meant as a rebuke in any way (and I don't want it to look like a "pile on"). Please take it as some friendly advice from someone with a lot of experience round here, and who wishes to steer you away from the potential trouble that a few inexperienced editors trying to rush into things they don't understand have found themselves in. And please, do take the advice that other people are kindly offering you, above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do thank you for your suggestion. Anna and I were negotiating on template agreements within Wikipedia (my own parody of "agreement" did come from the article Asia Television Limited, see "Licence" subsection). You also have mentioned taking the advice that others were offering, which meant to me like in the above discussions, I am strongly advised (under that term what Anna and I discussed on within my talk page) to use all appropriate templates as soon as possible, and use appropriate messages when available (see the above subsection, Just a little advice). This came after Anna noticed that I am in the right direction for becoming an administrator, however, I am not in the "comfort" zone yet (as per WP:RFA/N). CHAK 001 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've read all the discussions, and Anna is not urging you to "use all appropriate templates as soon as possible" at all - what she's saying is that when you *do* use one, make sure you *don't* use the wrong one, that's all. Nobody is urging you to do more stuff quickly - quite the converse in fact, people are trying to get you to slow down and not do things until you fully understand what you're doing. As for WP:RFA/N, I'm afraid you are clearly nowhere near ready for it yet, so I would strongly suggest you put that out of your mind for a good while. My advice here is general advice on not trying to do things you don't yet have the competence for, and it's based on quite a bit of experience of other users making the same kinds of mistakes - especially starting here with the express aim of becoming an admin, and rushing round with warnings and giving advice to editors who already know far more than them. I'm sorry to say, every one I've seen who has resisted advice and has pressed on far too fast into "admin/management/guidance" type work has crashed and burned - they usually get blocks or specific topic bans, which are needed to prevent the damage that can be caused to the project. So please do listen to the general gist of what you are being told, slow down with your ambitions, and focus on learning your way around yourself than on trying to guide others -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do be careful on your wording, as some of the words are not too familiar to me (see my user page and scroll down to "Template Notes"). "Not in the comfort zone yet" means that I am also less than the number of edits required, as well as other "set" requirements that other users are demanding (which I may be forced to edit more until the number of edits reaches 5000 due to the set requirements). You may watch my page if you wish, and notify me along the way for any improvements made. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 11:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if any of the things I've said here are unclear, please do point them out to me and I'll be happy to explain further - my checking your userboxes won't clarify what words you don't understand. And please note there are no set requirements for RfA. It is judged by how well a candidate convinces the community that they posses the knowledge, experience, maturity, and temperament to be trusted with the admin tools - some people can demonstrate that with just a few thousand edits, while others cannot do so even after tens of thousands. The notion that you may be "forced to edit more until the number of edits reaches 5000" suggests to me you have entirely the wrong approach - people will be looking for edits aimed at improving the encyclopedia (which will mean focusing on the quality of them too), and edits done purely to get your count up so you can run for admin will be frowned upon. So I'll suggest this one more time, and then I'll leave it for you to think about - forget admin, and focus on improving the encyclopedia -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report of User talk:220.225.6.45

Please note that only warnings are for serious vandalism and defamation only. Also note that issuing an IP a warning 4 days after the event is for the most part pointless, because the IP could have changed hands. All in all, this report was stale and inappropriate as the edits were not clearly vandalism. If I am missing something and there are long-term issues with name changing on these articles, do let me know. If this was the case, you should have used multi-level templates as it makes it alot clearer. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Taelus, I am now required to use those multi-level templates (see the above discussions); Anna and several other users have already discussed about such just a while ago. As for the AIV report, although I did make the report and reverted the edit by the IP address, another user (not me) has warned the IP address mentioned above (you should mention that user as well). CHAK 001 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Their warning at least addressed the issue as a content dispute, rather than vandalism. You may want to check up on WP:NOTVAND if you are unsure of what constitutes vandalism, as misuse of the term can be harmful to situations. --Taelus (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP:NOTVAND have been advised mainly by User:Anna Frodesiak in my talk page. CHAK 001 (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming

We generally don't add Welcome templates to IP talk pages, as you did at User talk:24.228.209.255 and others, especially when they have made only a small handful of edits. Such IP addresses are usually dynamic, which means they are regularly re-assigned to different internet users, and you'll usually never be talking to the same person again - and in many cases, there's no more chance that the same IP address will ever be used again than any one of the billions out there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And the "Someone using this IP address, 99.181.224.218, has made unhelpful edits, which have been reverted. If you did this, in the future please try to contribute in a more constructive manner" template you left at User talk:99.181.224.218 was unwarranted - it's the kind of thing we may use if there has been vandalism by an IP, but not when they have simply made one well-meaning but imperfect edit. Your over-zealous use of warnings (and warning-related templates) will scare away new users, and if you don't stop you will end up being blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And the only reverted edit from that IP was four days ago, and good edits have also been made from it - so please just stop trying to do things you don't understand, and perhaps spend a bit of time on article work? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are based on the above discussions a while ago (see the above discussions between "James" and me on a separate subsection; observations and appropriate remarks may apply). As for the articles, I only have created four articles, since I do not want to primarily specialize in creating articles. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 12:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I fear you have misunderstood what you were being told. I have read your dialog with James, and I see nowhere where he advises you to add Welcome templates to IP Talk pages or add "warning" messages to Talk pages of IPs who have not misbehaved and whose last edit was 4 days ago. And even if you don't want to create articles, there is lots of other article work to do - there are thousands that need more references, need copy editing, need categorizing etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on at you, but it's considered rude to correct other people's spelling on Talk pages - and "categorise" is not an incorrect spelling, it's a chiefly British spelling - people come from different countries, where we use different spellings and grammar rules. (Again, I'm not shouting at you, but better hear it from me than from someone you actually upset at a later date) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to keep in mind, please do be aware of my templates on my user page (due to differences in spelling). Because of the location differences, the system may not recognize your spelling (which tends to have me correct all spelling errors). Also, for privacy reasons, the only time that location is mentioned is only on my user page. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 12:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes no difference where you are or what your system recognises (and that's a British spelling too), you should not change other people's Talk page spelling - even genuine spelling errors. And for future reference in case you need it, you should not change between variants of English in articles (see WP:ENGVAR), so if you correct any spellings in articles, you need to be sure they're actually incorrect and not just genuine variants -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if you see spelling mistakes in other users comments, ignore it, especially if they are legitimate spellings in alternative styles of English. It can offend users if you "correct" their home language. Be careful. --Taelus (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, after a long discussion, I will have to follow Anna's final verdict (see "Anna gets the last word (maybe)" below). CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 13:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking of article work

Talking of some of the article work you could do, I noticed you added a {{Citation needed}} tag here. You're right, it does need a citation, so that was well spotted. But do you know what happens to those tags? Someone hopefully comes along later, looks through the articles needing citations, and does some work trying to find some. So that's some article work you could do - when you see something that needs a citation, don't just tag it, but do some searching and see if you can find a good source to cite yourself. Just a thought. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are part of my created projects (one of them is a television station). CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna gets the last word (maybe)

Soooo, in closing, with great respect, here is some sound advice for the future:

Consider dropping the vandal fighting thing for a while
Definitely drop the homemade warning templates
More learning, less teaching
Put the idea of being an admin out of your head for the time being
Log tons of good ol' fashioned article edits, making that the vast majority of your contributions
Relax

Best wishes and happy article editing, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will add to that: And "be careful of the confusion of English" wording; correction could "harm others". CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What you just wrote confused me, but I did not correct it, and it did not harm me. Is that what you mean? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, see the subsection "Welcoming" (last couple of parts) on this page; that is where the meaning came from. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 13:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Forgive me. Okay. Let's add:

Avoid corecting others' spelling mistakes

Done, and done. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: Sometimes, you may see me put unfamiliar wordings like the one above, which is sometimes confusing. Don't forget, just ask if the meaning may be unclear. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 13:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Guest List Now Open

The Guest List is now open at my user page. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 13:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page policy

Hi, CHAK. I see you are still requesting that Wikipedia editors read your User:CHAK 001/Talk Page Policy before posting on your talk page, and you are still telling users that "the talk page policy is enforced at all times". This doesn't sound reasonable to me. First of all, your talk page doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the community, and the policies and guidelines apply to to it before any of your personal policies. Second,most editors are not going to take the time to read your talk page policy before posting. Best practice is to condense your concerns down into three or four short bullet points and place them in a small box. Lastly, telling other editors that your talk page policy is enforced at all times makes it seem like this is a prison system of some kind. It isn't, and I recommend you change your tone to be more welcoming, inviting, friendly, and accepting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a little concerned that CHAK 001's guidelines seem to encompass not only xyr own talk page, but also the talk pages of others, especially where xe specifies a number of line breaks, says that xe will not respond to cross-posted replies, etc. It's bad enough that we all have to follow rules if we want to communicate here; it seems worse that it seems like if I don't follow Chak's own rules on my own talk page, any response I make to xyr comments there might be ignored. Is there some reason for all of these formal rules? Do they somehow benefit you, or do you believe that they somehow benefit the encyclopedia? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing that CHAK can do at this point is start fresh, delete all the "follow my talk page policy" stuff and concentrate on writing articles. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian and Viriditas, you should focus on how much activity there is on my talk page on top of after discussions on my improvement via my userpage. I do plan a bit of revamp in mid-August; my main focus is to keep the way that Anna has advised me (this includes the use of unnecessary marks). On top of the revamp, the problem is that I do have too many activity on my talk page, therefore, I am going to clean it up during my revamp. Please do not put the template {{seealso}} since I do archive pages randomly (at least once a year based on activity). CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 08:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a good wikibreak. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only is there this over-the-top Talk page policy, there's also a strict set of rules for signing the Guest list! And someone got told off, here, for getting it wrong!
CHAK 001, this web site is about Wikipedia and building a quality encyclopedia, it's not about you. Your approach should be about what's best for the site, not about everyone having to smartly follow your rules. And as for instructing people how to respond on their own Talk pages - well, that really is unacceptable. As I suggested above, I've seen a very similar approach to yours before, and it led to the person creating a very negative image for himself and getting in a good deal of trouble. So if you want to be seen as a collegial and constructive member of the community, you'll help yourself a great deal if you get rid of all your overbearing rules and just interact the way everyone else does. Your rules won't stop vandals - they'll just ignore them anyway (and, in fact, your rules are more likely to attract them). And for the rest of us, we simply don't need them. People really do have better things to do with their time here than learning and remembering lots of detailed individual rules (I sometimes interact with a hundred or more people in a day - how do you think that would work if I had to read and follow a hundred different sets of rules?). Have a look around at the Talk pages of the most experienced editors here and see how they approach discussion - it's a lot different to your approach.
And if someone's formatting here isn't exactly the way you'd prefer it, or someone signs their name on your guest list and adds the date, well, just live with it. You can just change the layout yourself if you want (as long as you don't change people's actual words or meaning), delete stuff you don't like if you want, or remove the date from a guest page sig if it really bothers you. Just don't stomp on over to someone's Talk page to rebuke them - all that did yesterday was got the editor to remove their signature altogether, and leave an edit summary of "lol nevermind".
Another thing I've noticed is your giving orders on how people should edit articles you are watching, and telling people they need to seek permission of the author to change them - I know that's been raised before, and I just hope you've stopped that now.
I'm sorry if all this sounds like I'm being hard on you. But I have had experience of problems like this before with other people. And if you want to create a good image of yourself and want to contribute as constructively as possible (and especially if you have admin ambitions), you really will need to listen and be a lot more flexible in your approach - and the sooner the better, really. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: Here are my talk page rules, in their entirety: "Discussion. I think it it's best to keep discussions in one place. So my talk, your talk, or an article talk - I'll carry on wherever it started." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Warnings abound

Three hours after advising you against such posts, you made this one. The only reason I didn't blow tea across the room was because I wasn't drinking tea at the time. (Actually, I've been kind of kidding about that. I only did that once, and sort of only dribbled the second time.) But seriously, dig a little before such posts. You warned Sitush too and didn't seem to learn the error of your ways.

Now, we are all mighty curious why you are so big on warnings. It seems that most of your edits are related to warnings in one way or another. What's with that? Please do tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Listen up CHAK 001, I'm going be blunt here. If you keep dishing out inappropriate warnings, I am going to temporarily block you from editing - and possibly ask for a community ban on your issuing any warnings at all. It is disruptive, it can harm the project, and frankly, you don't seem to have a clue about what is appropriate and what is not. I've checked Anna Frodesiak's Talk page, and there are *no* personal attacks there from Viriditas that I can see. If you think there is a personal attack, please feel free to explain exactly what it is here, and I'll try to help by offering my opinion on it. (And, erm, I had a mouthful of beer when I read this - it took some self control to keep my keyboard dry) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 05:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a good week

Hello CHAK 001, Viriditas 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Anna Frodesiak has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Have a lovely day!!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I normally don't get on my talk page, but thanks to all! CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 12:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Viriditas has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Please comment on Talk:Edit warring

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yum

Boing! said Zebedee has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Comments at WP:RPP

Hi there. With regard to this edit at WP:RPP, I'm a little worried about the tone of your comment. It sounds as if you're approving the user's request for protection; giving it the OK before an admin looks at it. Fortunately, DuncanHill (talk · contribs) is an experienced user who probably doesn't mind, but a newer user might think they need to justify their request to you.

The only people who make decisions on protection requests are administrators. The {{NAO}} template is really supposed to be for users to give relevant background information that patrolling admins might not be aware of. The article in question, Wheal Vor was so blatantly obviously being vandalised that there really was need for clarification. Just go steady with your use of that template; it can be confusing and potentially misleading to have you semmingly interrogating people making requests. Thanks :) Ged UK 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize for the delayed response, as I am preparing to revamp my talk page. I did say, however, since the last discussion that I would "leave it up to the administrator" (I forgot to say to the last user that it was my version of "the only people who make decisions on protection are administrators"). Perhaps I should note on my user page that sometimes, I can go a little too far on the use of some templates (e.g. {{NAO}}), but not all of which. If you wish, I can go for a standalone Comment and/or Question (the latter already used) before my saying at WP:RPP, as I believe that the RPP does require the careful use of some templates, as not all of my future responses will use the {{NAO}}. Also, you can let me know if I have improved in my discussion with others, particularly in responding to requesting for page protection, since that is one of my main focus (in addition to regular edits). CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 17:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for approving this request, you may be thinking that I have approved the user's request. I did not say anything about such (my saying would be, "I approve your request"). I was only understanding what DuncanHill was trying to mention after I asked about his suspected sockpuppetry. Just to give you a bit of insight, I have never used the phrase "I approve your request" so far, since if I actually used it, other administrators such as Boing! said Zebedee or users such as Anna Frodesiak and Qwyrxian would warn, block, or even ban me for such violations (the latter two upon their request), and their comments may differ from yours. Furthermore, my actions involving mentioning that specific phrase can jeopardize someone's privacy. You may correct me if I am wrong. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You said " Since this one is likely noticeable, I will leave it up to the administrators to decide". Now, as I know you know, only admins ever make those decisions. What you said there could be construed as you acting as a gatekeeper deciding whether admins need to make a decision or not. I know that's not what you meant, but I think that's how it could be read.

I'm afraid I don't understand your second point concerning privacy.

Personally, I don't think there's any need for the vast majority of NAOs we've been getting on RPP recently, but that's just my view.

I disagree with MOX's comment in your archive that NAOs are meant as a basis for helping admins to see what is and isn't in need of protection, if there isn't an NAO, it needs protection, if it has an NAO it means that there is insufficient vandalism to merit protection and so on and so forth. Admins check every request. NAOs are not really to help admins decide whether something should or shouldn't be protected; it's there to allow background info the admin may be unaware of. This would include things like "I think this IP may be a sock of banned user <username>" or "There's an additional discussion about this article or users at ANI", or something like that. NAO is definitely NOT for pointing out to an admin that there's been a lot of vandalism in the last few days, or that there hasn't.

Anyway, hope that clears up what I meant! Ged UK 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I see your points, especially between your view and what you have viewed in my archives. Just to let you know, my simple definition of privacy is "for my own online safety", but I also define it in various ways, including, but not limited to, not disclosing things that are unnecessary.

The quote that I have written refers to what User:M.O.X says about such, however, he likes his name to be called James (see also the quotes listed here), so please do be careful and watch user pages very carefully. Some of what James said (but not all) may be unhelpful to me after you noticed my archives, so you can notify him if you like (given your administrator status). However, I am not too offended by his overall comments. Nevertheless, I hope that some of your suggestions may help. Also, I can also say that that I can leave it up to the administrators "to decide the final verdict" or to have "the administrator decide on this case". However, I am concerned that some users may disallow me from using the word "administrator" from my word usage on Wikipedia, which I am unsure of.

Finally, what I am about to say that it is time for me to calm down a bit before I continue to do more regular edits and occasionally comment or respond to other requests at WP:PPP, but with only the Comment and Question mentioned, if that is authorized. I hope that you'll continue to watch my page if you wish to do so, as I may want to clarify with administrators at anytime to keep things straight. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 06:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Ged UK 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New article

Hi CHAK. Would you like to collaborate on a new article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what article you may be up to. There are two things that I am looking at; if you are talking about my article that I am creating, you can find it here. If you are looking for my sandbox that I am currently thinking about, you can find it here. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The quotes thing isn't my cup of tea. I saw User:CHAK 001/Projects/Overtone (South African band), and almost edited it (A-capella --> a capella), but didn't. What I had in mind is something new. Any thoughts? A mountain? A species? A person? A thingemeedoodad? A town? A galaxy? A ship? A process? A group? An institution? We could do a section each and fight over the lead. It would be fun. What's your cup of tea? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain my first cup of tea: For the quotes that I decided to use as a reference, my objective is that if any IP or new user sees messages that was commonly seen on talk pages, those may be used as my reference, but unlike your black sandbox, I did not wish to put my sandbox outside of my user page. For the other article that I am looking at, I am trying to review several sources to decide what I am going to write on that article. Several online sources are currently under review as of yet; you can search it up on various websites if you like.

As for what I am thinking about in my "second" cup of tea, there are no other articles that I am thinking about, currently just editing, reverting, modifying, and doing other stuff that I have added to my watchlist. However, I am able to help in developing your next article(s) if you wish, as long as I abide by important article-making tutorials as per WP:RS, WP:DEVELOP, and WP:MOS. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 07:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are able to help in developing my (our) next article! Don't worry. I'm sure you will abide by the important article-making tutorials. If you don't, you can warn yourself. Start with a gentle scolding, then move up to something more severe. If you continually fail to abide by the rules, you can get yourself blocked. If that doesn't work, try smashing your head against the desk a few times. That'll learn ya! :) Kidding. Okay. I'll shop for an article that needs doing. This will be fun! :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can also try to shop for articles that also needs a large amount of improvement, but I will not limit to only just TV stations (as I have a template on such). I am also thinking "outside the bun" as well. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 08:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get back to you on it. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have now been upgraded to administrator status. This is what I call "great support" from Wikipedia users that gets to know you better. We hope that you and other administrators will help each other, as well as other users that might need help or clarification with something. While I work towards my next goal, just don't forget the official template of your new achievement, Qwyrxian! CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Femininity

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Femininity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on User:Jwillbur/TemplateList

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User:Jwillbur/TemplateList. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windsor University School of Medicine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WalkerThrough

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:WalkerThrough. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 5 October 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Tyler

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dana Tyler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Krugman

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Krugman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Lane Craig

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:William Lane Craig. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judas Maccabeus

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Judas Maccabeus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falafel

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falafel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:President of Croatia

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:President of Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Persondata

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Persondata. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:DASHBot

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:DASHBot. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/Sports

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/Sports. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)