User talk:Ultraexactzz

Welcome to my User Talk page. I'll reply to any message you leave here on your talk page, unless you wish otherwise and say so. If I haven't answered you in a short time, it's possible that I am away from a computer at the moment - I assure you, I will get back to you. If you came here because of a deletion I performed, please make sure to note which article or image I deleted, as there's no way I can reply unless I know.

reposting PlayStation NGP entry

SCE is the owner of this content. redmondpie.com is not. Please contact me on the SCEE talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCEE (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Karim Dagher

Hello, You deleted the following contributions I did: (Deletion log); 15:01 . . Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Fareeq el Atrash" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://sir-fz.blogspot.com/2010/06/fareeq-el-atrash-debut-album-release.html) (Deletion log); 15:01 . . Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Soumaya Baalbaki" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://forwardtesting.com/fwdartists)

In the first deletion I do not understand why you considered it as a copyright infringement In the second deletion you used a testing website for the Forward music label who gave me full permission to upload the information I have to wikipedia and when the website is ready I will added to my references. According to the label manager and webmaster the website of forward music will be ready in two weeks and they do not wish to have it public before that date. Thank you for replying unsigned comment by User:Karim Dagher.

Just to interject here (if you don't mind Ultraexactzz), the first one appeared to be a copy paste job of [1], which I located by doing a quick google search. The website did not appear to have a copyright notice and I decided it was applicable for speedy deletion. If you have, as you said, copyright permission for either, then you should take a look at: Using copyrighted work from others (or ask them to insert a copyright notice on the web page). Another one of your recent pages also appeared to be a copyvio, but someone appears to have recently fixed it. Before making another new page, you should make sure you understand copyright on Wikipedia. ^Noom _talk 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Noom's reply covers my thoughts - you'll want to review our policies, as linked above, before proceeding. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg Carr

I figured it wouldnt work. I just thought I'd give it a try. Thanks--Yankees10 20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Konqistador

When you declined a speedy on Konqistador, you seemed to be declining an A7. However, the tag was {{db-repost}} because an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konqistador has already been held. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and re-deleted the page (solely under the assumption that you accidentally missed the deletion discussion). However, Ultraexactzz, if you feel that this deletion was in error and that the page deserves at least another deletion discussion, you have my full permission to restore it. I hope you both are well, best regards! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied, to both. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Request assistance, wiki page was fully re-created after first deletion discussion, wiki guidelines were adhered to and template for musician page was established, old content was not re-posted, recent posting resembled nothing like previous entry, article is reliable as per references provided, please advise :) - many thanksWiki4132 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Arena MMA Page

Hi,

I have provided a large amount of 3rd party references on The Arena MMA page. I have also just provided a 10 point summary on the discussion page rebuting the arguments made for the deletion of The Arena MMA page. As you were one of the original editors who argued for deletion, could you please take the time to read the points I made at this discussion? I am trying my best to play by WP rules and I would like to know if my points are being acknowledged. Thank you. Mmasource (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your points on the discussion page. Thank you. I have asked a few questions in response as well as provided some info re. Sherdog getting its credential pulled. Can you please review when you get a chance so I know which direction to move in as far as article sourcing? Thanks Mmasource (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for fixing my delete nominations...Was not sure what to do there..I see now!! Moxy (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Sholun

Redirect to where? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Line 139: Line 139:

:Also, I see that you asked about Redirects - which might be a good option, in the case of these films. All you do is blank what's there, then type the word "#REDIRECT" followed by a space and a regular wikilink to the target article, or the one that you want that article to redirect to. It's simple, once you know how - but you can leave me a message for specific assistance, if you like. Or, just use {{helpme}} on this page and someone will come along to assist. Hope this helps! Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this and I would like to do it, but I don’t know where to redirect it to. I don’t want to put it in the wrong place. Do you have any ideas where I can direct it to before I do this, so it will be in the right place? User :Sholun Thanks, Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying back and trying to help. No the mars society did not have any part in the production, they just recognized it as a movie made about Mars, and added it to a list of many movies made about Mars. I just can’t believe that there isn’t some category for these movies to be redirected to. I am asking for help because I have little knowledge on how to find a place for them. Maybe independent movies, science fiction movies, I just don’t know. Any ideas would be helpful before they put them on the chopping block. ( 99.34.109.238 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC) )

Thanks, Kim --99.34.109.238 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Abortion in the US block

Then will you be blocking NeutralHomer as well, since he was reverting to an obviously bogus version, and the person you blocked was fixing it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NH baited him into that 3RR violation. While there are other lovely reasons to block him, that 3RR vio wasn't one, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Userfy of Bibliography of Arkansas National Guard History

thanks for making the move, but it still has the Proposed deletion TAG and now a TAG that says "this template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this user page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion."

Is it OK if I remove the proposed deletion tag now?Damon.cluck (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR

Thanks for your review of Moon. The article has been kept! Iridia (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump (Policy)

Just answering your conern that you weren't sure what I was looking for.

I looked at what I believe were all by Village Pump (Policy) contributions. The closest I ever got were problems I was having with a specific article but I was definitely asking about policy all three cases. In one case I got the help I needed (and maybe pointed others to a solution if they ran into ther same thing). In two other cases I never got a response but was never deleted or reverted in the articles I had a concern about, so I consider that sufficient proof I was okay.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

EKOenergy

Hi!

I finally finished my first full article on English Wikipedia. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reskelinen/EKOenergy

Do you think it is ready to be published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskelinen (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today, if I get the chance. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now the references are translated on the discussion page. Please check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reskelinen/EKOenergy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskelinen (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Help desk redacted comment

Hi, Ultraexactzz, I noticed you re-added a comment I removed that included personal information and eliminated the diffs for the edits in which the information was present. You didn't get all of them, however. My edit removing the information (12:14, July 13, 2010) is still there, so if you'd like to remove it as well, you probably should. I'm not an admin, so I can't. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[2]

If you look at the conversation and Refs (that do not qualify as RS) you will in fact see WP:OR,WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP being violated by The Original Wikipedian (in an uncivil manner to myself). I look forward to your comments.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

IP edit problem

Hi! As mentioned in my talk page, I was able to edit wikipedia from my home (current location) but not in the other IP address (school), which showed that I was autoblocked. I had left a note earlier in my talk page, mentioning my autoblock problem in school.

Feel free to check my block log on this. For your kind advice please. Mr Tan (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RTLamp recreated page

I'm not sure what you deleted, but he's recreated the main page with insults vs Wikipedia admins and of course the talk page remains filled with insults against me. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Per your note, I misunderstood the nature of User_talk:RTLamp#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:RTLamp and your deletion, esp given he said he was quitting. However, I did read somewhere yesterday that others and especially admins can remove insulting comments on talk pages. It seems that if we want a Civil wikipedia doing so is one way to make it clear that that such behavior not tolerated. Whatever. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rampant Studios post

Hey,

Just noticed that you deleted Rampant Studios, how comes?

Warrozo (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

67.169.68.203's block

I appreciate that you are reluctant to overturn another admin, but I think you made the wrong call here.

• The vandalism charge was completely bogus. The vandal fighter gave several bogus warnings last night, and was called on it by an admin and by me and has apologized.
• The reluctance to overturn should be somewhat mitigated by the blocking admin's admission that the blocking rationale was wrong and by the objections of several other editors to the block on that discussion page.
• This user was a bit uncivil, saying things like "bots don't have a brain but you have one so use it" a few times, but the bar for blocking is "persistent gross incivility." There is nothing persistent about this. The way to handle this level of incivility is to talk to the user: see 67.169.68.203's talk page, I believe engagement is the only thing that has worked there. The "revenge" vandalism warning, while arguably pointy, was not entirely bogus - the editor had repeatedly blanked 67.169.68.203's legitimate contributions.
• Getting blocked is a pretty intense thing. I know, it's only ~a day, and objectively it shouldn't matter much, but I think the harm here is that this user is getting some pretty heavy handed treatment, and this kind of thing would understandably scare new users off. The overeager vandal-fighter here put a *lot* of bogus warnings on (presumably) new users' talk pages. We needed to mitigate that, not aggravate it like Fastily and you did here!

Please reconsider - I think the symbolism of an unblock would go a long way toward repairing the mistreatment 67.169.68.203 has suffered. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out, I didn't come back until after the block had expired - but Fastily appears to have annotated the block log as discussed at the IP's talk page, reflecting the correct block rationale. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Fastily at least did that (but see 67.169.68.203's thoughts on it), but I think most of the harm here has not been undone - see what I wrote above. This is not the way we want editors treated, and not the way we want to clean up from overeager vandal fighting. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

help w/ ref tool

Thanks again, ultra. I found what I needed. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 General Questions

Please see here. Tony (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Ultraexactzz, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OzonAction: CFCs effect on Stratoshperic Ozone

Hi. :) This one isn't unambiguous. The contributor is asserting authority, which I'm trying to work out. He may be opting to rewrite the content based on time limitations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, yes. Don't we all? :/ This one is already crazy! I figured you wouldn't mind my restoration; there was some urgency in that I had linked to the article to explain how to correct the problem. I needed it back so he could see it. :D Apologies if I was wrong on that one. I would have otherwise waited for you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

TCMI Backstage Pass

Thank you for your note regarding the TCMI Backstage Pass. I'm very sorry that you can't make it for the Friday. If you're available on Tuesday evening, November 2nd, there is another event (but not behind the scenes) at the IMA. Let me know and I can give you details. If you're interested in helping me with the Wikipedia project at TCMI I'd be very grateful. As such, other opportunities can be made to come meet at the museum and share what we have going on there. I appreciate your enthusiasm! Let me know if you have any questions regarding the TCMI-Wikipedia collaboration. HstryQT (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I'd be happy to have your help once the project moves into the next stages (in a couple of months) where we begin coordinating the sharing of TCMI content in Commons and on the TCMI site (research/photos/etc) and spreading the word to appropriate WikiProjects. This will be done virtually; and I may come hunting you down at that point. :) Thanks again! HstryQT (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:CallumV

See my comments there - from what I can tell on checkuser, they know full well what that edit was, or at least who made it. If it wasn't them, which seems extremely unlikely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for adding leads to the World Matchplay articles, do you have an interest in darts as an admin would be a real help at WP:DARTS. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronsax

...see my comment here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an admin review, but I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Review_of_NLT_Block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with your deleting of SWGEmu

I disagree strongly with your deleting of the Star Wars Galaxies Emulator page. As I am biased as I was originally a developer, I will not push for its reinstatement (yet), but your reasoning is unsound.

I fail to see how it is not notable, and it seems as though instead of searching for sources or even looking, you arbitrarily deleted the page stating no sources. This is very un-wikilike. There are pages on Wikipedia with FAR less notability than SWGEMU, why has it been focused upon? A quick Google search for SWGEMU returns 23,500 hits, the vast majority of which are directly related. The project has been released for some time, it just isn't considered in a 'complete' state, but very few Open Source projects are ever 'complete'. Antman -- chat 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Thank you for reviewing my report at AIV. If you have a moment, can you review the last edit to this article? My opinion is that it needs to be reverted, but I think it would be bad form for me to do so. Thanks! TNXMan 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And I see you've done so. Cheers! TNXMan 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tedescoboy22

Regarding User:Tedescoboy22's comments, it is true that I am involved in the RfC myself. However, based on the comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tedescoboy22 and User talk:PhilKnight#Tedescoboy22, I felt at the time it was right to block him. Also, there were four days since I opened the RfC and informed Tedescoboy22 about it, before I decided to block him. In this entire time, Tedescoboy22 did not respond either in the RfC or directly to me, so I assumed he had either resigned or just got bored of Wikipedia. What should now be done? Should I unblock him? JIP | Talk 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Azeline Hearne

You recently participated in the deletion discussion for this article, stating that there are "independent references that focus squarely on the subject." Could you add some of these to the article, or even just indicate what they are on the talk page? The only sources I'm finding are Dale Baum's book and reviews of the book. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed comments

Well, that was certainly not planned. Actually, the software gave me no indicator at all of why I'd been EC'd; the only difference between the stored text and mine that I could see was the text I added. So, I blame MediaWiki. Thanks for fixing its/my error, though! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TCMI Project update

Hello! While I know that you weren't able to attend the Backstage Pass, I wanted to pass along some resources and links from the day. You can see that images from the day are being added to the Children's Museum of Indianapolis category in Commons. Note that there is a separate category of images of us from the day (rather than objects). We also received a little press on both the Children's Museum blog: The Wikipedians are Coming! and the Wikipedia Signpost had the event as their lead story last week. I will be continuing to work on organizing TCMI research content and moving forward with the content donation in the coming months. I will probably have an announcement about the content donation sometime around February, and I could certainly use your help in spreading the word at that point. In the meantime, do let me know on the project requests page if you are interested in working on a TCMI-related article and would like to be connected with a curator. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA bot

Nice one. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethany High

If you're interested, I've added an explanatory note to this AfD. Cheers! TNXMan 20:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Farmertedmustgo

Yes, by all means. It doesn't look like someone whose intent is to learn how to contribute productively. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment....

As I am expanding and sourcing the unsourced, one-sentence stub that was first nominated,[3] Perhaps you might revisit the improving article and then perhaps the AFD discussion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The nominator did a speedy close in response to my improvemnents. No doubt the original mis-spelling on the fellow's name led to many dead-ends. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt - but it looks great now, so crisis averted. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

unblock cut and copy

I would agree with you, that request could be rejected out of hand as a copy of a previously rejected request, seems a bit not really serious if you ask me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indentvote

Template:Indentvote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Minako Hamano

Hi, did you come up with any further sources on Minako Hamano? Pkeets (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)\

Thanks for the effort. I've been looking, too, and found a couple of sources that might marginally apply. However, it would be good to have a solid primary source for her to avoid future problems. Pkeets (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the article now and see what you think. It may be okay.Pkeets (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CITIZEN LA

Citizen LA should not be deleted by anyone. This is an institution and deserves the same respect from Wiki Users as it has with the people of Los Angeles. LA Weely is not written much different. I wrote all of the content and does not infringe on anyone elses copyrights. But I will re-write if I must. Citizen LA is a cultural institution and must remain on Wiki. Gstiehl (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Weller

Stephanie Weller is a gymnast is you do not believe me that Stephanie Weller in a Notable person then go and check out her website and contact her - her website is www.stephanie-weller.jimdo.com thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviawhite1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lugia

Wait what. I said to history merge it with my userspace article, not delete it. Are you in the middle of this action or what? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. You shouldn't notify people that the action is DONE when you just started it, and the article is deleted. That scares people. xD _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think everything is in order. I am just used to how Anthony Appleyard does it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Spring Children's Museum backstage pass?

Hello!
I wanted to touch base and let you know that, as part of the ongoing project with Wikipedia, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering a second Backstage Pass Event this spring, likely to be held in April. Since you were interested previously but were unable to attend, I wanted to feel out if a Saturday event would work for you this coming April? Thanks for helping us gauge interest! Things are moving along with the image donation and there should be more press soon to share as things move forward. Thanks again for your interest! HstryQT (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Winkworth PLC

You deleted the entry for Winkworth PLC,and reason give was 'self promotion', and i don't agree with this. Please can you be more specific?

Furthermore, the entries of 2 of our competitors remain on the wikipedia website (we sent you the links and I'm happy to send this to you again). The entry we submitted was in the same vein as those of our competitiors and was no more "self-promotion" than theirs.

Winkworth, as a company, has been in existence for 175 years and I'm sure there are many people who would be interested to read about the history of the company and our current operations. I await your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsodeinde (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i'm still waiting for a repl, or have i missed it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsodeinde (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had responded about this one - let me doublecheck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Frog-toad-logo.png

Hi. :) This one is pretty confusing; it's being discussed at MCQ (question raised by the OTRS agent who tagged the image) and it was brought to my page by another contributor to see if I could help out. I'm not entirely sure on what basis the OTRS agent tagged the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio, since it was being used under non-free rationale. I've reviewed Ticket:2011020310016613, and the person who wrote us seems only to be complaining that the copyright owner was misidentified, and that http://www.cnrdrama.org/tickets.html should be replaced with http://www.mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000254, since they are the actual owners of the logo. Since you processed the speedy deletion request, I figured I'd better let you know about the conversation. Maybe you'll have feedback that can help clear things up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely understandable. Thanks for weighing in. Once I get more feedback from the OTRS volunteer, I may be restoring the image, then. Since I don't do that much with non-free images, I figured I'd better let you know, particularly in case you might say, "Oh, but it fails NFC because of arbcom decision 76b(c)(ii) ...." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stan Eegit Lampard (SEL)

I do not feel that you have obeyed the laws and rules of Wikipedia. You did not give me warning of imminent deletion, just nominations. I feel that I have been treated with no respect, for this reason I would like to propose a deal...

I would like the page to be returned to its original self and there will be no more trouble. The user which looked at our page and chose it for deletion I think had acted in a very ignorant way and did not fully understand where I was coming from. In no way did my page act as an attack page, I would never dream of doing something like that on a site such as this. All I wanted to do was to share my knowledge of Punjabi folklore and let people learn and understand about this tale.

In no way I am being harsh or judgmental, but, all I ask is that my page is returned. If you would please give me time to gather third party sources to prove my point I would be very grateful. I like Wikipedia very much and I wouldn't want my views to be changed of it because of this incident.

j3wman — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ymbb

Template:Ymbb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Munich Center of the Learning Sciences

Sorry but I don't get why my page got deleted. I cited the Website of the MCLS so why is that a copyright issue than?

4 February 2011 Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Munich Center of the Learning Sciences" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.en.mcls.uni-muenchen.de/about_mcls/index.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.heitzmann (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the semi-protection of my talk page. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User 68.198.135.130

"You'll also note also that your conduct is under discussion at WP:ANI". User:Ultraexactzz.

I read carefully the so-called "discussion". I assume you are being ironic, since there can be no discussion when only one viewpoint is allowed. Since you decided to join the chorus (it's a shrill one) let me fill you in:

1. I inserted information at the Theosophical Society page. The source was the Encyclopedia of Religion (EOR), properly cited, and my text accurately rendered. The facts as presented in the statement are widely considered to be true.

2. Without any discussion, User:Jpgordon removed my edit, claiming that just the affiliation of the Encyclopedia contributor rendered the source unreliable.

Question 1: Was User:Jpgordon's "conduct" (the removal of info without discussion at the relevant talk page) proper? Please direct me to the policy page that justifies such action.

Question 2: If there is no such policy, do I have the right to add the information that was removed? If not, please direct me to the page that strictly forbids my action. If yes, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:Jpgordon's conduct is similarly discussed. Because this is where it starts.

Question 3: Encyclopedias have Editorial Boards that oversee and can override contributors deemed biased or inaccurate. The EOR is widely considered reliable. Please direct me to the policy page that recommends we parse the contributors of reliable sources (such as the EOR) for bias before citing. Also, to the page that recommends the immediate removal of all information by such contributors. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:Jpgordon's conduct is discussed.

3. I added the removed edit, and again User:Jpgordon reverted it, bringing along a friend, coincidentally allowing gaming of WP:3RR by their side. In the meantime, he misrepresented the dispute (his dispute) here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Theosophical Society. Notice that he brings no proof whatsoever that the source is compromised or the contributor biased. He is prejudiced: it doesn't matter if statements are factual, they have to be disallowed because of the person that makes them. He also avoids to mention his failure to engage in discussion. He basically asks for help to engage in bullying.

4. After several back-and-forth, he "warned" me on my talk page: User talk:68.198.135.130#February 2011. Notice the following sentence: "It appears you may be engaged in an edit war". So he's warning about an edit war he started. Then there is this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive150, go down to Section 50: "User:68.198.135.130 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result: No violation 31 hours)."

Question 4: Is a person directly involved in a dispute allowed to be a judge of the dispute, as in issuing warnings?

Question 5: Notice the following by User:Jpgordon: "consensus seems to be that the source is not reliable for these particular claims". He is referring to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Theosophical Society. First, why not determine consensus in the relevant talk page? Please direct me to the policy page that justifies his action. Secondly, "seems to be"? Is this how punitive action against an editor is discussed? Is there consensus or not? And where is it? No interested editor of the Theosophical Society page was part of their little "discussion". And what does "for these particular claims" mean? How does he judge that? It's a secret. Is this serious?

Question 6: How about this, from his pal User:AndyTheGrump: "It should be noted that the IP appears to be a single-purpose account, only editing on Theosophy-related articles." Is a single-purpose account proof of guilt? Please direct me to the policy page that conclusively makes such claim. He very clumsily implies that it is proof of guilt. Do you think that his conduct is prejudicial? Do you think that the reason I edit "Theosophy-related articles" maybe because I happen to know the subject? Does that make me biased from the start? Please direct me to the policy page that conclusively makes such claim. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:AndyTheGrump's conduct is discussed.

This is just the beginning, I'll be interested in your answers, since you are the latest here. I will pick it up again later from this point, it's good to have everything and everyone in one place. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing

5. I was not allowed WP:AGF by those two above (others would later also accuse me of bad faith, as if the repeated removal of the information I was adding was in good faith). User:AndyTheGrump invoked WP:BRD, without apparently bothering to read it. If he had, he would have seen that this just does not apply here. Citing broad, easily proven to be factual statements from reliable sources do not fall under that page. But this doesn't matter, they just want my edits out of there, any excuse will do.

Question 7: Are reliable sources (such as the EOR) considered "bold" edits? Do they fall under WP:BRD? Please direct me to the policy page that unambiguosly states this. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:AndyTheGrump's conduct is discussed.

6. The way I see it, by now User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump have several times reverted pertinent information without real cause, and I quote from WP:VANDTYPES, section Blanking, illegitimate:

Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

The Revision history of the relevant page: [4]

There was no valid reason given in the summary. "Readily apparent examination of the content itself" does not provide a reason for removal. A non-frivolous explanation was not provided, linked to, or referenced.

It would not therefore be strange, extreme, uncivil, or in bad faith to call the repeated removal of information by User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump as vandalism, and I did in the edit summary.

Question 8: Do you think the attitude of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump as allowing me WP:AGF? If yes, I'd be interested in your explanation. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where their conduct is discussed.

Question 9: Do you think the reverts of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump could be characterized by a disinterested observer as vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES? If not, please explain. If yes, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where their conduct is discussed.

7. Enter User:B: User talk:68.198.135.130#Theosophical Society post of User:B [13:45, 10 February 2011]. After following the above, would you be at least mystified (if not insulted) by this posting? It's not as if the sequence of events is hard to verify. User:B himself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive150, go down to Section 50: "User:68.198.135.130 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result: No violation 31 hours)" saw no merit to User:Jpgordon reporting me to the 3RR noticeboard. At this noticeboard, B [13:41, 10 February 2011] mentions that he will ask me "to join the discussion on the talk page" (of the Theosophical Society). What discussion?!?! There was no prior discussion, in fact this was one of the things that I was pointing out: that the people who originally removed the information did not bother to start a discussion first.

Question 10: If, according to User:B "There is no 3RR violation" why is he warning in my talk page that I have been reported for edit warring (which I did not start) and that I have to "modify my behavior"? What does he mean "rather that blocking you"? Is this a threat? Has he already mediated fully and incontrovertibly decided I'm wrong? Why are only my reverts the subject of his attention?

Question 11: What does that tell you about the amount or quality of administrative work by User:B when he does not even bother to find out that there is NO ongoing discussion in the relevant talk page?

Question 12: Is his tone in User talk:68.198.135.130#Theosophical Society post of User:B [13:45, 10 February 2011] just a bit condescending, explaining what constitutes a talk page and what is a discussion—"On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions". What opinion? I accurately cited a reliable source. I have no opinion on the content. Others, not me, have an opinion on the content. Where were they urged to discuss it, or "modify their behavior"?

At the Theosophical Society page, User:AndyTheGrump again reverted the page, including addtional edits of mine unrelated to the original disputed citation. In his edit summary, he misrepresented my edits as factually "controversial" and "disputed" whereas in fact that is his (and User:Jpgordon's) opinion, still unproven or unsupported. He also complained for me calling him a vandal, as discussed above. I restored the page to the one before his revert.

I left a message in User:B's page regarding issues I pointed out in Questions 10, 11, 12. He blocked me for 31 hours shortly afterward, without any explanation or reason given. But, before my blocking, User:AndyTheGrump again reverted the page. I thought that was funny.

Question 13: Are you satisfied with User:B's mediation in this? Do you think his negative attention on my actions is justified, since he apparently paid no attention to the actions of others? If yes, can you point out the policy or other Wikipedia page where administrators are urged to concentrate on one side of a dispute only? Where they are absolved of the responsibility of weighing everybody's actions? If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where his conduct is discussed.

Question 14: After considering the above, do you think the block was justified?

I'll be interested in your answers, please. I will pick it up again later from this point, it's good to have everything and everyone in one place. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone referred to in this topic, I'd like to make two points: firstly, I don't consider this an appropriate place to discuss any complaints about my behaviour - particularly without the person making the complaints notifying me. Secondly, I consider 68.198.135.130's description of events unrepresentative of the facts. I've no interest in discussing this here though, and will suggest that 68.198.135.130 looks at the various items of Wikipedia policy he/she has already been directed to, and then if he/she still considers my behaviour inappropriate, to raise it in a more appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything pertaining to this dispute into which you invited yourself I have discussed in what I thought was the appropriate place, Talk:Theosophical Society#Primary sources. But this happened later than the timeline I presented above, I'll get to that eventually. Which facts am I misrepresenting? I lay out what happened, and I am asking User:Ultraexactzz for her/his opinion, (including her/his opinion on the way I see it) since he/she decided to get involved in this. I have posed questions to her/him, following her/his post at my talk page about a "discussion" at some noticeboard. I am not starting a discussion with anyone else here. Since that "discussion" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130) as of today is completely one-sided (and started by another person involved in it, I'll get to that eventually) I consider my posts in this page as informing User:Ultraexactzz of an opposite viewpoint. You have made your views clear in several places, this is my turn. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding question #13, I am not a mediator. Regarding question #14, you were blocked because not only did you edit war as reported at AN3, but immediately following my message on your talk page informing you of the policy, you reverted again and stated your intention to continue to do so. --B (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to User:Ultraexactzz for this detour. To B: so your role was not mediation. I supppose that means that the merits of the report about me edit warring are immaterial to you. In that case, why not write a bit of code? Saves you the trouble. Once a trouble ticket is reported, the bot would immediately send a threatening note to the reported user's talk page, regardless of the circumstances. It can start like this: "Rather than blocking you..." etc etc. That will surely predispose the recipient wlth a conciliating attitude. Your reply to question 14 is conditional, depending on your answer to question 13. I agree: all my reactions followed, and were imo proportional, to the actions of others. As an aside, ofcourse I would continue to reinsert the information that was removed or reverted. Nobody has shown me that my original edits were frivolous, incorrect or biased, nor that the dispute was/is examined impartially (in which case I would stop until an impartial verdict was/is reached). Instead (by now) the original perpetrator basically agrees with my position. But I'll get to that eventually. Again, I apologise to User:Ultraexactzz about this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring/3RR blocks are made without regard to picking "who is right" in the dispute. The only exceptions are for reverting intentional vandalism or unsourced contentious material concerning living persons. You may be "right", but it is immaterial to a block for edit warring. The correct alternative is to discuss your preferred changes on the talk page. There, you may convince others or you may yourself be convinced. If a general agreement cannot be reached, there are dispute resolution alternatives available such as mediation or third opinion. You were NOT blocked because I disagreed with your edits (nor did I form an opinion as to who was correct) - you were blocked for edit warring. --B (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, my warn/block bot idea seems interesting. So let's see here: Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is and how it was applied solely to me. The first item in the list (potentially controversial point - an Encyclopedia is controversial?) does not apply here. The second item I discussed above, in the likelihood of WP:VANDTYPES in the actions of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump in my point "6." The third item in the edit warring list could be argued in my favor, as I believe that the removal of good-faith edits without prior discussion can be reverted. The fourth item in the list does not apply.

So the justification of the block by this: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks, subsection Disruption, specifically the edit warring bullet point, appears to me debatable in the very least. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. If any further comments regarding my behaviour are made here (the talk page of an editor who is not participating in the discussion) I will be making a formal complaint. This is entirely inappropriate. Either discuss this in a more open place, or cease referring to individuals' behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not given the benefit of doubt, and I don't think you have immunity from criticism. I believe your behavior was entirely inappropriate, and I retain the right to make a formal complaint myself. I discussed the reason I'm using this talk page in my posting above, this was supposed to hopefully be a discussion between me and User:Ultraexactzz, since the other "discussions" read like cabals. Please tell me where is a more open place, I'll also pursue it there. How can I "cease referring to individuals' behaviour"? This is what it is about. I won't discuss it further with you here, I'd like to continue my point-of-view in this dispute so I can bring it to the present day. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to suggest an 'appropriate place', since (a) you seem to be familiar enough about how Wikipedia works (at least when it suits you), and (b) The 'appropriate place' would depend on the nature of your complaint - as an involved party, it would be wrong to make a suggestion in any case. You will have to decide for yourself. I will however point out that I consider your comments here regarding me (and others, including alleged 'cabals') to be in breach of WP:NPA, and as such may be raised at WP:AN/I or elsewhere, and/or deleted by me. Either complain properly, or stop casting aspersions regarding the integrity of others. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I will complain properly. But first I will lay out the facts as I see them, including information supporting my pov. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like things got a little exciting while I was out of town. IP:68.198, My involvement begins and ends with semi-protecting one editor's page, in an effort to prevent interaction between you and that editor on their talk page. As it is their talk page, they can make that request, and I didn't see any problem with it - they had asked you to stop posting there, after all. Not a big deal, and notice that I very specifically did not take any other action regarding the issue. As for the other items you discuss, at length, above - I dunno. This is a dispute that I'm not involved in, and I don't have the background information to provide any meaningful insight. I think things would be much improved if everyone calmed down and discussed things reasonably, but that's a general thing. Sorry I can't be of more help. If people want to use my talk page to bat it around a bit, fine - no problem. But there may be better venues. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What I'm doing is providing background information, so maybe you will be able to give meaningful insight. I want to get this over with soon, because I want to return to the Theosophical Society page and elsewhere and continue editing after this disruption. Obviously, it makes no sense to edit anywhere now, since I cannot be certain that someone like User:Jpgordon won't decide they don't like my edits (without cause) which eventually will lead to imo completely unwarranted and unexplained warning templates and self-contradictory edits at my talk page by User:JoeSperrazza (I will eventually come to that), and then the threats of a more permanent block by User:EdJohnston here: User talk:Jpgordon#Theosophical Society dispute and further down in the same section User:JoeSperrazza (I will have something to say about that thread too, later). Please tell me where would be a better venue for this? I only used this page because I thought you were overseeing a resolution of the dispute. But I'm glad you want to at least hear me out. Btw, the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130 I referred to above, has been archived here: [5]. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)