User talk:John Reaves

Sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end and use a section header .
Click here to leave a new message.

• OTRS • commons • irc:JohnReaves •

Rachel Z

Why would you assume my addition of a fact tag is a joke? Two sources show time lines that directly contradict the DOB you added. I don't see any verifiable source that supports it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw her birth certificate via OTRS. Good enough for you? John Reaves 08:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, a scan of a birth certificate on an email not available to the public doesn't meet verifiability standards. I can't understand how these sources got there dates so wrong. Why don't we just leave the date out (or with a fact tag) until a source can be provided. I understand the BLP concerns but without an explanation as to why the sources got there dates wrong I am left scratching my head. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some issues with the certificate that I will have to review tomorrow. For now, just leave it because it doesn't hurt anything. John Reaves 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about removing it, no information is better then potentially wrong information. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it's obvious to you what my reply to that is. Find something constructive to do until I come back online. John Reaves 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand at all what would your response would be, do you think what I am doing is not constructive? I am I wrong in detecting some hostility from you about this? In any case please respond tomorrow. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the birth date, I think that is the best move. Sorry I think I might have been mistaken about the hostility, good working with you. I will consider this matter closed for now. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for giving me rollback. --Erwin85 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Excuse moi?

I am sorry I left my crystal ball at home. Thats why didn't get a voice in my head telling me you were helping someone out and it was not just any other test (or intended vandalism). Or may be I have gone blind that I cannot see "I am helping someone out" written in the edit. --soum ^talk 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even I was not serious. :-P Btw, what happened to the edit section links on this page? --soum ^talk 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Real Life Barnstar
		I award John Reaves this barnstar for the user's work in dealing with real life threats on Wikipedia in the Glen A. Wilson High School situation. Bstone (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Bravo. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Great work! I have personally reported threats to the police before and know that it can be time consuming and sometimes hard, but I must say, you did an excellent job! Tiptoety ^talk 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I read about what you did in the Signpost and I also want to tell you...nice work, John. Nice work. --Pixelface (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. John Reaves 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat

John see this. Another Ip which made the same threat. I blocked it for 1 month.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did you inform the police that there was a threat made for tomorrow (the 18th) as well? Tiptoety ^talk 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's only been a threat for the 18th as far as I know. I will give them this new IP however. John Reaves 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the LA Times, the student who made the threats was arrested and charged, and the school closed for the day just in case. I just updated the situation within the ANI thread for this and I commend you for taking such swift action. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of WP:AN page for User:hopiakuta

John, I just wanted to ask why you deleted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina. That page was created because User:hopiakuta cannot access pages with more than about 50k and it is difficult for him to ask others for assistance. I just wanted to make sure that you read the past discussions that were linked at top the page. If you felt justified in deleting the page, you should also clean out the first and second archives. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here regarding the same page. I realize that the page you deleted and its recent history appears as nonsense, but if you check the history [1] you'll notice the original page documented the issue at hand, before whatever is going on with the user took over the page in edits. If you don't wish to undelete, let me know if you mind if I do. Thanks, John. Keegan^talk 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked like nonsense at first glance and is now restored. John Reaves 06:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

You semiproted WP:RFA during an ongoing discussion. It seems to me that most people think it should be left unprotected. Could you please revert the protection? Thanks. --Yooden ☮

I wasn't and am not aware of any discussion. There's no need for new or anonymous users to edit that page and since it isn't part of the the encyclopedia, protecting it doesn't go any of our core values. John Reaves 06:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you need to use four tildes (~~~~) when signing so there is a datestamp. John Reaves 06:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You protect a page without even looking at the matching talk page? Anyway, there's is no consensus for your change, in fact the prevailing position seems to be the opposite. Please revert the protection and join the discussion. --Yooden ☮

What? Who looks at the talk page of every page they protect? No one. Fix your signature. John Reaves 07:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I never was an admin, I just thought that would be the natural thing to do. My bad.

Anyway, could you please revert the protection and join the discussion? --Yooden ☮ 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. John Reaves 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others, John, and spoke regarding this on IRC not even an hour ago. New user RfAs may fail, but protecting the page to stop them editing it at all is unnecessary; another administrator will eventually have to end up unprotecting it if you don't. Qst (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid, why should we waste our time dealing with vandals. And I doubt any non-autoconfirmed user has ever legitimately submited an RfA. Claiming it's unnecessary is an illogical argument for unprotection. John Reaves 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't protect it to prevent new people from trying to RfA, I protected because of the recent vandalism, preventing time wasting snowball RfAs is just an added bonus. John Reaves 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There were two minor pieces of regular, run-of-the-mill vandalism. Hardly worthy of protection, don't you think? Qst (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you post the IRC logs, please? --Yooden ☮ 12:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I cannot post the IRC logs from the channel, its prohibited. Qst (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_WP:RFA. --Yooden ☮ 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just commenting I completely agree with protecting it. There's no reason whatsoever a new user would need to edit the page. Majorly (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

John, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, I can't say I blame you. But do you mind if I revert to the previous condition until the discussion reaches some conclusion? --barneca (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just work with my unintentionally rogue protection as the precedent? Maybe the discussion would actually go somewhere rather then end up filed away with the other perennial WT:RFA fodder. Of course I can't stop you, but that's my suggestion. John Reaves 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because if we don't reach a consensus there, it seems a little unfair to have new "facts on the ground" while the discussion is ongoing, and then default to this decision instead of the decision that has been in place for quite a while. If you're OK with changing it back to how it was if no consensus is formed, I don't much care what state it's in while we discuss it. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should shift the discussion to "should it remain protected and does it being protected hurt anything". But no, I can't stop the consensus train. John Reaves 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, since you protected the page, consensus appears to be to leave it protected. Maybe people prefer the status quo in general, or maybe the AN/I thread brought out more people who support protection. Enigma ^message Review 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea: Let every contested change be the new default! --Yooden ☮ 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough of you [den]. Stop posting here. John Reaves 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, let's move the discussion to ANI. --Yooden ☮ 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss wherever you want, just stop posting here. John Reaves 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support the protection, and leaving it protected. I'll leave further comments on the discussion at WT:RFA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I actually agree with you in this case regarding protection. IMO, pages that anons would have no good reason to edit should be semi-protected. Unfortunately, few others agree with me. Enigma ^message Review 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Syken

Do you know about any outcome having to do with User:NaomiSyken's (User:69.253.242.57) contact with WMF about Jenna Syken? The unsourced, likely OR negative content has been removed and the article may have quieted down in the meantime. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The contact was about 45 days ago and I think the same thing happened (i.e. the article was cleaned up). John Reaves 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

pathological lying

Sorry about my intrusion into your ground, but I do think the introduction into the Pseudologia Fantastica article could be improved a bit. Please do improve it further, if you can. I'd be happy to see something more on the subject, given that I've probably suffered from the very condition, in the past. And, good work. ;) --Decoy (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback on the Ridgecrest site

Thanks for the rollback. I have to watch this site like a hawk. People really hate this little town.

FYI, Wikinews

FYI you are mentioned in the Wikinews article n:California student arrested in criminal threats made on Wikipedia, just thought I should give you a heads up. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

n:Teen charged with 7 felonies related to threats made on Wikipedia, Wikinews interviews administrator who contacted police -- Thanks so much for participating! Cirt (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI protection

Hi John. Not sure protection is a good idea right now since there is a discussion going on about the University of Luton & an anon IP is participating. The vandal is not that persistent & I'm watching it. Up to you, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, cancel that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Looks Ryulong got it anyway. John Reaves 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

Just so you know, calling someone a christian terrorist is NOT my point of view! In fact, its the point of view of newbie, User:Kek15! He seems to be building a consensus on the articles talk page that this is in fact not a WP:BLP violation. I was simply applying this consensus to the article! Please consider adding your point of view to this discussion as i believe an administrator should be talking about edits and reverts, and not just assuming bad faith. Cheers! TheProf - T / C 23:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring me, Kek15 and the issue is not how to build bridges! I expected better from an administrator. TheProf - T / C 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please join the Discussion on this article. There is a consensus, but not 100%. We are trying to discourage unilateral reversions to edits in a knee-jerk way. There is a real discussion going on here. Your input would be very welcome. Thank you. Kek15 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete my picture?

Wikipedia policy says the site is not censored, if you don't like the image then don't view it. Do not delete it again.--Aleks31 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate and had dubious licensing. Don't re-upload or you'll be blocked. John Reaves 09:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#nasty admin for a related discussion. - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Duh

Hello John Reaves,

You recently protected the page Duh.[2] Since it has been turned into a disambiguation page, could you please unprotect it, or at least semi-protect it? Thank you, Korg (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Reaves 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Korg (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom's RfA

Sorry, I did not mean to be grumpy or anything. Please feel free to copyedit my comment to ensure its clarity. I frequently ask native speakers to copyedit my articles to avoid confusion in the space that really matters. Cheers, --Irpen 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Excellent

Thanks John, I am trying to spell it out as best and simply as I can, hopefully that will clear things up... :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Veinor

Apparently it was some silly test. User:Shanel is aware. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little gift...

		The Real Life Barnstar
		Great job dealing with the Glen A. Wilson conflict, I'm sure those 30 kids thank you too! Soxred93 | talk bot 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Morrison

You recently removed information from the Van Morrison article citing an OTRS ticket. The information appears to be well sourced so I'm going to have to ask for more info about why the removal was done. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per privacy concerns in relation to laws in the EU and at the request of Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney. John Reaves 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I will reluctantly accept this but I am very disquieted at the complete non-transparency of this process. This anti-collaborative action seems to strike against Wikipedia's foundations. I'm not commenting on your action BTW, just the process that enables it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP and personal privacy should trump transparent process don't you think? John Reaves 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If facts are reported in reputable sources are they still private? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the sources are also being accused of violating privacy laws. John Reaves 04:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. If it were stated that the sources were being sued for something like this then we would know we probably couldn't use them and the info would come out. As it stood, we had no idea why sourced info came out and what it would take to put it back in in some manner. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think EU privacy laws would have a threshold requiring civil action. My understanding is that the privacy rights of residents in western Europe are generally the strictest in the world (more so than in the states, for example) and this especially applies to information about the children of celebrities. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heyy

if someone isn't gonna be helpful then yea I'm gonna get mad.besides I was getting mad at seicer, not you. Mr. Green^chat 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well try doing something constructive, you aren't helping anything. John Reaves 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ga.wikipedia usurpation request

Hi - just to check, can you please confirm on this account that you posted this usurpation request? --Kwekubo (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. John Reaves 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Denied My request for deletion?

I created the page "Ansei Ueshiro" no more than 2 weeks ago on the behalf of the karate organization I am a part of. Upon their request, I am atempting to take it down because it contains alot of inaccuries and most of it, as I just found out, is not correct. I'm not sure why you said it was "not eligible for deletion", but I assure you it is. I am going to undo your change and please ask that you put it though. Thank you

SCQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scq (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. When you created it, you agreed to release the text under the GFDL, which is irrevocable. I suggest you fix the inaccuracies because if you continue to tag it, you will be blocked. John Reaves 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of TheProf07

Blocked TheProf07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 31h for disruptive editing, including [3] [4] and for his tirades at WP:AN#John Reaves #2. He has "retired" yet has chosen to continue his battles... seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I doubt anyone will miss him. John Reaves 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no particular need to restore the talk page of TheProf. He has been indef blocked, the page protected - what benefits does retoring this page bring? Along with the somewhat turse edit summary (he went out with a bang, that much cannot be denied, and his indef-block was certainly deserved, but before this he was a good editor), I fail to see what you wish to achieve. Also, take a look at my talk page - those involved (minus Seicer) came to the agreement that the matter was over. Unless you can give me good reason not to, I'll re-delete the edit history. (While I'm here, the comment "Oh well, I doubt anyone will miss him." above is uncalled for). _TalkIslander 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No good reason was given for deletion. And I do doubt he'll be missed... John Reaves 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User request? And, FYI, I'll certainly miss him, as I suspect will Keeper and others. Before something riled him, and he went mental, he was actually a pretty decent editor. As you've failed to give me any particular reason, I'll go ahead and re-delete, shall I? _TalkIslander 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling you aren't going to be any less stubborn than me so I'm not going to bother waiting for you to see the error of your ways. John Reaves 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How kind ;) _TalkIslander 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, and for what it's worth, I've just had an email from TheProf apologising for the email he sent you, and thanking you for deleting his page - I haven't a clue what his email contained, but from the fact that he's asked me to apologise on his behalf, and the fact that you blocked him emailing, I'm guessing it wasn't good. Anyway, pay attention to or ignore as you wish. _TalkIslander 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was something along the lines of "You're so sad, you are a dickhead". It'd be in his best interest to start over at this point anyway. John Reaves 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure he plans to, but he doesn't want this account unblocked at any rate. Due to whatever reasons, he's now left, properly. Case Closed. _TalkIslander 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. You and Seicer have managed to torment a 20-year-old kid into acting out and then quitting Wikipedia. Nice tag team. And you're very wrong - TheProf will be missed, by me and many others. He was an excellent editor and vandalism fighter - but I'm sure he'll be back, despite the abuse of power shown here. He's got a good spirit - I could tell. Kek15 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kek, just drop it now. What's done is done, whoever's fault it was. Nothing can be achieved from continuing this any further. _TalkIslander 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. But the injustice of it pisses me off as does the "nobody will miss him" crap. Kek15 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal fighters are a dime-a-dozen. All this crap about "injustice and abuse of power" is also the the dime-a-dozen canned response from editors like you that can't or won't abide by our policies and are for some reason unable to function within the community. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen as they say. John Reaves 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace, light and love to you. Kek15 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhg. John Reaves 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He had chosen to retire and disclosed it so publically before the incidents came to light on my talk page. The actions that I took to block an offending "retired" user was within guidelines and there was no conflict of interest -- given that I have only communicated with the user one one other occasion at AN. He's gone, dealt with, let's move on... unless you intend to drag this through the mud as you have with Christian terrorist. seicer | talk | contribs 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is totally over and you have prevailed. The most I am doing with Christian terrorist is attempting to gather source material; only then can one hope to build cocensus. This would be the only way to get this applicable term applied to Griffin. It's the Wiki way. Kek15 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fighting to the death for your POV isn't the "wiki way". John Reaves 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POV issue. And the Wiki world can be a tough one. A wise admin once told me 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kichen.' Now, I'm fighting too hard? Anyway - good job with tracking down that 15 year old kid and notifying the cops. And did you see Iggy Pop perform when Madonna was inducted into the R & R Hall of Fame. He did a good job.Kek15 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Morrison article

It seems to me (I could be wrong) that the whole discussion about the material the anonymous editor wanted to delete was a set-up. First it was said to be an invasion of privacy (perhaps it was) and then the set up begins when Jeandré (where DID she come from?) comes into the discussion making charges of gossip. I felt this premise could not shown to be true at all about the actual relationship and births of the children. Obviously, the higher ups at Wikipedia felt like this would be the best premise to delete it on and you were the one who actually used it on the edit. That's my opinion. I have been very careful with editing in Wikipedia and do not at all like to be implicated in inserting gossip. If indeed as you asserted: it is gossip, then why not delete the entire discussion, why did you only remove the paragraph by NeilN whose intentions were only to follow what he and I both believed were standard guidelines. I really do not understand all these games sometimes played on Wikipedia. I've never got involved - I'm only a lower case worker bee. Please correct me where I may be wrong on this? I would like to have the whole discussion removed, please tell me what purpose it serves now? Agadant (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't just "remove" conversation from article talk pages, you're welcome to archive though. Jeandre and I are both OTRS agents, that's why we seemingly came out of nowhere. Even if there weren't legal issues, I don't see how this information could be considered encyclopedic. John Reaves 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not remove the paragraph by NeilN? Why only that part? I'm genuinely confused!18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Please don't use excessive question marks ????????????????? John Reaves 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently an anonymous editor has a privacy issue with: <removed, cite a diff if you must. John Reaves 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)>This part here. His paragraph was what started the discussion. By the way, I was just looking at articles on Rod Stewart, Elton John, Paul McCartney and they had a personal info section. I've always used other articles for a guideline. And I don't know how to archive. It looks so complicated. If it must be archived and not removed can you do that? Excuse the excessive ?, I was only writing like people do in real life.Agadant (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed what was a verbatim copy of the controversial text. Archiving is simple, cut the text from the main page and paste it to the archive page. The other articles may have personal life sections, but the subjects aren't threatening lawsuits over privacy violations! John Reaves 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That's Van the Man for you! And to think his personal life is squeaky clean compared to the rest of them! In fact, most men his age would pay to have it printed in Wikipedia. Oh, well you gotta love him! Agadant (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

threat catching

Hey,

I read the article [5] about you helping the police cach the guy who posted those threats, and I just wanted to congratulate you on it.

GREAT JOB!!!!!

Can I nominate you for some sort of award for this? Like Real-Life Vandal Catcher or something?

--Your Great Overking Billytrousers XIV (Who Wishes He Were A Dinosaur-Dragon Crossbreed) (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment, but don't think there is any type of award for this. John Reaves 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello John. I also read the news. Great job. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio Stations

In case you are not at WP:ANI the list is below

List of reals and possible fakes

• K15AE-appears to be fake.
• KJTV-CA backed up by outside source [6]
• K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas [7]
• K41CZ-appears to be fake
• W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source [8]
• W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [9]
• K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [10]
• W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source [11]
• KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [12]
• K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source [13]
• K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source [14]
• K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source [15]
• KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [16]

It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The same from WP:ANI. Rgoodermote  17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

If you are asked to courtesy-blank a closed arbitration case, you probably should blank the /evidence, /workshop, and /proposed decision pages in the same case. Typically whatever information appears in the final decision will have been led up to on these other pages as well. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. John Reaves 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Signing

How do you sign without leaving a wiki link? like this --Numpty454 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Reply on my talk page thanks.