User talk:Wafulz

• Sign your posts with four tildes (for me, typing ~~~~ would create "Wafulz 23:42 August 14, 2024 (UTC)").
• Be civil.
• I'm not very active lately, so it may take me a while to reply to your messages.

IF I HAVE DELETED YOUR ARTICLE, READ THIS FIRST:

1. Be specific. Use the exact name of the article. Provide a link.
2. Be brief. An essay on my talk page is likely to confuse me. Stick to the point.
3. Read through Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?
4. Don't shoot the messenger. A lot my deletions are procedural. If I've deleted an article, don't take it personally.

can u make me into an administrator. see below.

Hi, i'll keep it short. recently the subject of a wikipedia article by the name of Daphne Merkin, has informed me about her displeasure over the dicemination of unwanted (True - but irrelavent to the subject) information concerning her brother - J. Ezra Merkin's involvement in the recent Bernie Madoff scandal. As it happens a particular (anonymous) user has taken it upon themselves to post this information as many times as necessary to make it stick. It was anonymously deleted sometime in December of this past year and reposted by 66.108.7.225. This unonymous and unqualified user has contributed only to 4 different articles 2 pertaining to the Merkin family. I have been a wikipedia user since april of 2007. i have consistently made constructive additions to wikipedia as my record shows. Also, if for whatever reason you find it impossible, unnecessary or just undesirable to make me a user i am asking you on behalf of whatever articles this user may have edited can you please block user 66.108.7.225 . THANKS!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab merkin (talk • contribs)

Only bureaucrats can give people administrative rights. Administrators are only chosen at requests for administration, with rare exceptions (ie, someone who works for Wikimedia would be given administrator privileges). I don't think there's anything blockable yet. If you think there are issues with the biographies, you can post at the biographies of living people noticeboard.-Wafulz (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy movement

Technocracy movement

Wafulz if it is not appropriate for me to leave this message here...and if I am going about this wrong please remove it. I left this message with an Admin recently because they took off a notice from an article ... put there vandal fashion by the i.p. listed here. You are aware of the troubled past of some of this stuff... and if you could track the i.p. and do what is called for, that would be appreciated. Again if I am all wet here... I am sorry. Believe that I do not want to create problems... only trying to make the encyclopedia work well.

Start I noticed you took a tag off the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=next&oldid=261551970 - I think the person that put it on is a sock puppet ... if I understand the term... which I may not... for user User talk:Isenhand who is the Andrew Wallace of this group Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats. The I.P. if I am not mistaken of the single purpose edit is that of Andrew Wallace/Isenhand. His personal webpage which is located here http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm this shares the Telia ref of the I.P. of the person that tagged the article 90.229.144.187 IP : 90.229.144.187 Neighborhood Host : 90-229-144-187-no117.tbcn.telia.com OK Country : Sweden

I think this user is angry because his group Network of European Technocrats article was Afd'd, and the link to them black listed on Wikipedia, and for that reason he put an inappropriate tag on the article which is related, but not directly to his group. The Technocracy group is a group he wanted to link to in order... I think to get notability for his group of which he is the Director N.E.T.-

Thanks, if this information is not relevant please feel free to remove it, or let me know that alerting you to this is not appropriate. I do think the editor mentioned has used other identities while editing on Wikipedia also possibly including this one - User talk:Technocrate. skip sievert (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be any further action necessary other than improving the article. Technocrate (talk · contribs) has not edited in 11 months, Network of European Technocrats was deleted months ago, and the only thing of current concern is ensuring that Technocracy movement doesn't represent a distorted view of what sources actually document about that movement. The article does seem to be a little misleading, giving the impression that this is currently a flourishing movement when sources say that it is barely noticable today after largely collapsing in the mid-1930s; and its introduction could do with a lot of work. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I just wanted to bring this to your attention as a reference if the same editor Andrew Wallace or Isenhand or Technocrate start to make a habit of putting tags on it for what ever reason. I am not a member of the official group, but I do monitor them... and according to their website they are growing.. http://www.technocracy.org/ and there is currently a lot of information relating to them on the internet. They put out a newsletter, have a radio show, etc. Thanks, I will look into improving the introduction. skip sievert (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • The same user has shown up again to vandal the article. Can you run a trace on the I.P. and see if it jives with the editor I mentioned above... and his personal web page... Andrew Wallace NET Director... it would appear to be that editor as a sockpuppet for Isenhand? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.229.144.187

End - skip sievert (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't look serious enough for admin intervention.-Wafulz (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Human sexuality

Hi Wafulz. Almost a year ago, you semi-protected Human sexuality. I think it's time to try unprotecting it. Do you agree? Powers ^T 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could, although popular articles about sex are heavy vandalism targets.-Wafulz (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Powers ^T 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ars Regendi

Dear Wafulz,

I hope you remember me. One year ago I contributed an article about the political browser-based game and economic simulation www.ars-regendi.com. It has been deleted after a long discussion. The simulation was completely new at that time.

Finally we all agreed that the article would not be deleted if independent sources coould be used as references, and if I do not publish the article myself. That has been your proposal as far as I remember.

So I waited patiently more than a year, until a native English-speaking user asked for a Wikipedia article and offered to write it. Meanwhile also many independent sources were writing articles about Ars Regendi too.

Yesterday he published the article, but it was immediately deleted at 02:25, 22 January 2009 by Hmwith. As if it was rubbish, without any discussion.

I think that is not fair. Especcially regarding the fact, that other simulations like Erepublik are listed in the English Wikipedia, even though it's still in Beta stage. Ars Regendi now is a respected simulation which proved its high grade of realism and poltical relevance, as it encourages the players to think critically and independently.

The deletion of the article last year has diminished the registrations heavily. Each day there came 40 users less. Which on the other site means, that about 40 users each day considered the article about Ars Regendi as helpful and interesting enough to register on Ars Regendi. So it was a Win-Win-Win situation for everyone.

Please consider reimplementing the article regarding our acknowledgment. At least please take care that I won't get speedily deleted without any discussion.

Kindest, Marc

Malone70 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)