User talk:Thivierr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:39, 8 May 2011

Mellisa Hollingsworth image

I have been asked by Mellisa Hollingsworth to remove or change the image. She is not happy with the photo. I am not able to upload images yet myself. User:dgervais

CHRC

After a bit of contemplation, I agree with your position on the format of this article. My apologies for any trouble our conflict may have caused. Frank Pais (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, thanks. --Rob (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DumZiBoT bare references

Hi. As far as I can tell, there's been no response from NicDumZ about the 'bare references' - either on his talk page or on Bot owners' noticeboard. I'm wondering how you see this now? Perhaps it's all too much of an effort given the environment? If you have a moment I'd be interested to know your opinion. --Klein zach 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really see that there's any more for me to do or say. I suspect there won't be much support for a change, until more users see some problems in their articles. --Rob (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian evangelist scandals

Hello, just a friendly note to ask you to please be more careful when using Twinkle. This edit you reverted as vandalism here when it was definitely a good-faith edit [1]. Cheers... justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have labelled it vandalism and am sorry for that. I saw something that seemed like an attack without source (before you added one later). If I see a similar unsourced statement in the future, I'll still remove it immediately, but I'll avoid the term "vandalism", as it doesn't meet our definition of the term. --Rob (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I agree--at first blush it did look like an attack. I probably would've thought the same, but I happened to see it in the news a few days ago so it was easy to find a reference. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hamblen HomeLogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use

Hey Thivierr, I'm working on a project for ER nurses around calgary, and you're the author of almost all the good pictures of any hospital around calgary posted on Wikipedia. I looked at the GDFL licensing, but I thought I'd check with you, if it's alright for me to use your images of the hospitals/medical centres around in a slide show to be presented on Wednesday, October 8th.

How are you with sports photography? Interested in taking some pictures during the 2009 Alberta Open at the Oval in January? Just throwing that out there, let me know what you think.

Thanks! Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I'll put an overlay in, or I'll have some credits at the end, although there's only about 4 people that would be credited. as I'll probably just use the pictures for a DVD menu, not in the presentation.

The alberta open is the ISU Alberta Indoor Long Track Speedskating Championship. It'll be held January 25, 2009, of course there isn't a lot of information on the web about it, let alone speed skating in general. You can find some information on the CSSA's website, under results for last year, and the upcoming championship under 2008/2009 AASSA event list. www.calgaryspeedskating.com and www.albertaspeedskating.ca

Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 19:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:TpauBridgeOfSpies.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TpauBridgeOfSpies.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Paulmartin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paulmartin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Roxton Canton Logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Roxton Canton Logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Roxton Falls Logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Roxton Falls Logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Guard Photos From Gaza Protest

Don't know if you care, but the Aryan Guard is using your photos without permission:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=560481 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.63.28 (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Hats

I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see:text

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Miss Canada International page

Please stop editing the Miss Canada International page to reflect Rachel Jaillet as a titleholder with our event. The only recognized titleholder for Miss Canada International 2007 is Solonge Tuyishime. Signed: Miss Canada International Titleholder's Liaison. You can email me for confirmation and clarification at liaison@misscanadainternational.com Thank you. We appreciate your co operation and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.191.64 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the article, even though it is about your organization. You need to find an independent reliable source that has covered the fact you wish to include. If and when you can cite sources to everything that happened, we can then cover the full story of what happened, from all sides. We won't be discretely hiding information for your benefit. If you wish to discuss things further, register for an account on Wikipedia, and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. There will be private email conversation between me and you. --Rob (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK PAGE

You can't tag a whole article because you disagree with one sentence, neither should you tell other people to correct your mistake. The help sections will tell you what do do, I suggest you spend some time there. --Snowded (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said, feel free to fix how it's tagged. I may take a look again, but don't see what use your comment above is. I looked and didn't see anything at template:disputed, which listed other tags, and inline templates, but nothing appropriate. The help system tells you how to make and use tags, and doesn't really get into which ones to use, and where. Usually advice on tag useage is at the tag template itself, which is where I looked. Instead of using a tag, the best approach is to immediately remove the false statement, and then discuss what text should be used to eventually replace it. People should be warned when information is known to be false. --Rob (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culbann_C.P.C

Hi ive replied to your last comment again, but also if i find these newspaper articles and magazines how can i implement them as sources. Im sure i have the magazines in the attic of the house and the snippits are somewhere else. any help would be grateful --Weeman com (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making Edits to World Council of Credit Unions

Hello, I am attempting to make edits to the article on WOCCU, and a possible COI has been brought to my attention as I am an employee of the organization. I think it would be in the best interest of the community to have a more thorough description of the organization, as it is fairly complex and has a lot of different activities going on around the world in different capacities. I would like to declare my interests (as recommended) in having the organization thoroughly and accurately represented in an unbiased way. Would you be willing to work with me to ensure that the information that is available about the org on it's website be presented in a totally factual and non-promotional way so it will not be deleted when I post it? Maybe we could look to external press about the org for references. Thanks for your help =)Unespecialista (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fletcher

Twinkle crapped out and didn't finish the afd nomination, leaving only a red linked discussion in the log and not tagging the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Storey

Saw that the page got deleted. Just wanted to say that the links to Flickr were added based on other comments saying there were no sources listed for any of the photography section -- they weren't originally there. Also, there are quite a few links to third party sources including write-ups in local papers and quotations in articles, but everyone seemed to ignore those and instead focused on the content they didn't like. The photos taken backstage during the BC Festival 150 event were ultimately purchased by the event promoters and used to promote the musicians from the event in the official media handout of the event -- unfortunately though, there's no web sites for such things so no source available. Rmackdale (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Tararam

I've restored it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Chantal Condor album.JPG)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Candi (album).jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Go For It TV clip.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Angela Lanza (The Perez Family).jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sai R. Gunturi

I have nominated Sai R. Gunturi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

The article on Jody-Anne Maxwell) which you created is included in this nomination - RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amstrad CPC games

Hello, just a note to say that I've resurrected and greatly expanded List of Amstrad CPC games. There should be no reason for removing it again. 2fort5r (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your reasoned response to, and rv for, the incomplete AFD on the article about me. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Over time, I've come to appreciate not having my own Wikipedia bio, because of the hassle of having to monitor it for people editing out of spite. --Rob (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I had known then the grief it would generate, I would have stayed away from mine. Oh, well. Live and learn :-) —GrantNeufeld (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Janelle Pierzina

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Janelle Pierzina. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Thivierr! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 154 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Erika Landin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern College

Hi Thivierr! The Old Malvernians/alumnae section that you contributed to in Malvern College finally got so long that it had to be split off into a separate list page. In doing so, it's been found that for many of those noble people there is no actual proof that they ever went to the school. However, they probably did, and the entries were made in good faith. Nevertheless, the rules require everything in the encyclopedia to be verifiably sourced. It would be great therefore, if you could take a look at the list and help out if you can with providing some references. The people all have their own Wiki articles, but it is no guarantee that the mentions of Malvern College (if any) are correctly cited. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of my contribution was to change "noted" to "notable". Anyways, all the uncited names should simply be removed. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested ...

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians

I've actually started working on an update of the current notability criteria for politicians, which is meant to provide more detail than is currently present at WP:POLITICIAN. I'd actually welcome your input and/or suggestions if and when you have some time. It's at User:Bearcat/Whatever for now, though I'll move it to another title eventually. I'd stress that I'm not attempting to invent new rules here, but simply to codify in more detail where consensus currently stands for various types of politicians. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added back 2009 update on Dala (band) article

I'm not sure I understand why you removed it in the first place. All the information is verifiable, and I actually was present at the Newport Folk Festival.

In your comment re: the removal of my original text, you state that information should be timeless. I don't understand this, as this article is actually describing a running history of Dala. There are many articles like this on Wikipedia.

Thanks BostonMusicFan1 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments at Talk:Dala (band). --Rob (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tracy Williams for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Tracy Williams, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Williams until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fixer23 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nomination of UC3 for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article UC3, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC3 until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fixer23 (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Proposed deletion of Angela Lanza (singer)I removed the prod tag you placed on Angela Lanza (singer), as it is permanently ineligible for deletion via prod due to an AfD discussion in 2006. Additionally, your rationale of "nobody cares about article" is not a valid rationale for deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]How long do you intend to pursue this?Just curious how many more replies you intend to make to everyone that posts or comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology officials, over and over again? Perhaps it might be a good idea to let others within the community have a say and discuss amongst themselves, to assess consensus from previously uninvolved contributors other than the individual that started the AFD? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]I'll ignore the pot calling the kettle black, and instead say: I won't make any further comment on the AFD, unless/until you do. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Alright. Understood. Thank you. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Proposed deletion of Dr Bruce CopleyHello Rob, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your comments. It is my belief that my first article about Dr Bruce Copley is no ordinary listing because the noteworthy and verifiable achievements span a 40 year period in the fields of sport(tennis), medicine, science, education, research, music and international business consulting. As a newcomer to the Wikipedia team (somewhat overwhelmed by the complex rules and policies) and someone who wants to actively make a significant contribution to the stated aims and objectives of this extraordinary source of information, I do have many questions which I hope you can help me with. Re the issue with multiple, reliable and verifiable sources: 1. Dr Copley has had significant collaborations with high profile people and associations listed on Wikipedia such as the International Tennis Federation, Prof Philip Tobias, Amy Biehl Foundation, Common Purpose, Dr Peter Block, Dr Leo Buscaglia, South African Broadcasting Corporation(SABC), South African Tennis Federation and many more. On his website there are quotes from many of these people and instances, and sometimes videos and photos showing their participation, as well as reprints from articles. Does this not constitute reliable and verifiable and independent proof, even though this material is displayed on Dr Copley's website? 2. If links to this material are not acceptable because they are hosted on Dr Copley's website, what kind of links would be acceptable? Would reference to blog entries, direct correspondence (letters and emails), citings in books, magazines, interviews be ok? 3. Besides the validity of the 2 out of the 14 links which are questioned, are the other links acceptable? 4. Dr Copley says that he can provide me with many more appropriate sources than the 14 links currently in the article. Would you advise me to do this? ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]I'll write a reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Copley. I copied your comments there, so people deciding on deletion can see what you say (remember, it's not my decision, it's a community decision, so you need to convince others). --Rob (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thank you very much for your input - I responded to the criticisms with extensive edits, and would very much like your and other's opinions on whether the guidelines have been met and if not, how to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Douglas KnehansHello. You have a new message at User_talk:UncleDouggie#Douglas_Knehans's talk page.Dog collarsRe "dog collars" in L. Ron Hubbard, it's a common (and I assure you) harmless colloquialism. Maybe you've not come across it before? See the bottom of Clerical collar#Use by denomination. Helatrobus (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]I shouldn't have said "deeply offensive". Obviously, like many terms, the context can make the difference between being offensive or harmless. In a controversial person's bio, it's more likely an informal term like that is going to be taken negatively. --Rob (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Incomplete FfDI notice you recently nominated File:Sudan-people-liberation-army-spla-2.jpg for deletion. However, you forgot to list the file on the FfD page. I have since removed the tag. If you would like the file deleted, please renominate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, I've been having mixed success using the automated feature on the toolbar for deletions. So, I appreciate you cleaning up my mess, and I'll try to check next time. Rob (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]inre Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film)The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Prediction for 2005So that I'm not refactoring other's comments, do you want to make a prediction on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42nd Canadian federal election, that isn't in a past year? 117Avenue (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Oops, thanks. I meant 2015. --Rob (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Invitation to take part in a studyI am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]About my blockRecently, I was blocked by User:Hawkeye7. I'm not appealing the block, and will wait to edit. I'm not faultless, but I will point out some issues of misconduct on the part of the admin as well as User:LauraHale, the owner of Netball, which is the article in question.I did not actually violate the letter of WP:3RR, as I did not revert *more* than three times in *24* hours. Note, my first revert was a couple days earlier, outside the 24 hour window. Now, I do appreciate that we should not "game" the system, which is why I accept a block may be justified. Hawkeye7 has been an active editor of the article in question, and recently active in the dispute about an image before the block. He proceeded to revert six minutes after his block of me. So, really he's using the block as a way of "winning" a content dispute. 3RR blocks are designed to stop edit wars, not "win" them. If I am to be blocked for violating the spirit (but not letter) of 3RR, then the owner of the article, User:LauraHale should also have been blocked. She also stayed within the letter of 3RR, but violated the principal, by repeatedly re-reverting. Hawkeye7 has not had the courtesy to leave a message on my talk page, to explain the situation. Given the above points, some explanation seems appropriate. Hawkeye7, as a party to the dispute, should have sought assistance from uninvolved admins. Nobody actually reported a violation to the edit warring notice board. So, it seems Hawkeye7 was only aware of the situation because he himself is an active participant in the content dispute. He saw LauraHale's request for a block on the talk page, and acted on it. A major reason for the notice board, is to bring in uninvolved admins. Hawkeye7 appears to being avoiding oversight by fellow admins in this action, and showing favoritism to a particular editor. --Rob (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10

My apologies. My connection is not good at the moment. I intended to post this notice on your page and was unable to do so. You are quite right that I came across the request through patrolling the page for possible harassment of the netball editors. I wish to express no opinion on the issue at hand. I hope that you can achieve a favourable resolution to your dispute. Nobody "wins" these sort of disputes. Again, my sincere apologies for not putting the correct notice on your talk page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]I have noted on ANI that Hawkeye7 is a WP:INVOLVED admin and should not be making this block. He is the reviewer of Talk:Netball/GA2 and did one of the reverts in the 3RR episode. You can get another admin to review the block by leaving a {{unblock}} template. Racepacket (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Racepacket, thanks for your input into this and reporting to ANI (which I couldn't). I'm not asking for a block removal, because I was violating the spirit, if not the letter of 3RR. I can't criticize somebody else, if I don't take my due. Hopefully Hawkeye7 and LauraHale will also admit to edit warring, and try to avoid it. --Rob (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hawkeye7, if your connection was a problem, how did you manage to revert me six minutes *after* the block? Funny how your connection works fine when you want to edit war, but not when you want follow policy. Given your the fifth most active, out of 1,400+ Netball editors, I suggest you commit to not using your admin powers on Netball articles, or others your involved in an active content dispute with. --Rob (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Even with all that, once you got reverted once you should have stopped. Edit-warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]block log barnstarThe block log Barnstar (award details) - I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:Thivierr for his fine contributions to wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks, wear your record with pride, respect to you from Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]ArbitrationYou are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]RFAR RacepacketAn Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Put this in the workshop page instead. The main page actually shouldn't be edited like that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Of course not. But, it also doesn't really fit in WorkShop, at least not the way it is. So, if I add it there, it will be removed as well. The whole thing is big confusing mess. --Rob (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] There's an "analysis of evidence" section at the bottom. Put it there. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Afd on Indian black money in swiss banksYou didn't complete the AfD nomination for Indian black money in swiss banks--you need to make a discussion page. I always use Twinkle to do it for me, so it's been a while since i did it manually. Instructions are at...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You need to follow steps II and III in the how-to section. I could open it for you, but since you need to give the reason why you think it should be deleted, it's better for you to do it yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, I actually did use twinkle, and it didn't complete. Twinkle works most of the time for me, but has often failed. It can be difficult to fix, because if I re-do it in Twinkle, I duplicate some things. Anyways, I'll try and fix it. --Rob (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Netball GA messBecause of the unique circumstances of the two GA reviews for this article, and continued claims by you and others that the article does not meet the GA criteria, I believe a reassessment is required to avoid the status of the article continuing to be under a cloud. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Netball/1. Chester Markel (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for doing that. I'm hoping this will give a chance for some new editors to get involved and share a fresh perspective. --Rob (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]"LauraHale continues to seek conflict over GAR"Um, you have a factual inaccuracy in your evidence presentation. That is the first GAR of the article. The previous two were GANs. Yes, it could be seen as a minor distinction, but it's important. The "R" in GAR stands for "reassessment"; the "N" in GAN stands for "nomination". The article was nominated twice and is only being reassessed for the first time. Your comments imply that this is the third time it is being reassessed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Contributions to NetballI don't think you should be doing stuff like this so soon: [2][3]. I know there's stuff to fix up and you're trying to help, but doing it alongside the arbitration case means that you currently have a conflict of interest. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]I don't quite understand how this applies to me. I understand why an arbitrator should avoid any potential editing conflict. I suppose I do have a Conflict of Interest when calling for certain actions against certain parties, but I've been very honest about what bias I have in my opening statement. The amount of "conflict" isn't going to change by my edits. If I knew I wasn't supposed to edit certain articles I would have avoided contributing to ArbCom. Anyways, I can't make any promises unless I'm told what timeframe I'm supposed to back off. --Rob (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's because of your stated bias against Laura, and your evidence against her. Since Laura was a major contributor to that area, it can look like you're editing with prejudice. More trouble than it's worth, whether or not it's true. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note that what I'm saying also applies to you commenting on the GA reassessment page. It would've been better to leave it to a completely fresh set of eyes, but it's too late to remove the comment now. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] My suggestion is that anyone that's participating the arbitration in any capacity should not be editing anything related to the topic area. To continue editing will just prolong and complicate the issues surrounding the arbitration. Let's get the dispute sorted out first, and then we can move on with the articles second. Imzadi 1979 → 09:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 336: / Line 336: @@
 ::It's because of your stated bias against Laura, and your evidence against her. Since Laura was a major contributor to that area, it can look like you're editing with prejudice. More trouble than it's worth, whether or not it's true. - [[User:Zero1328|Zero1328]] <sub>[[User talk:Zero1328|Talk?]]</sub> 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 ::Note that what I'm saying also applies to you commenting on the GA reassessment page. It would've been better to leave it to a completely fresh set of eyes, but it's too late to remove the comment now. - [[User:Zero1328|Zero1328]] <sub>[[User talk:Zero1328|Talk?]]</sub> 09:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
+:::My suggestion is that anyone that's participating the arbitration  in any capacity should not be editing anything related to the topic area. To continue editing will just prolong and complicate the issues surrounding the arbitration. Let's get the dispute sorted out first, and then we can move on with the articles second. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span>  09:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)