User talk:Jeff5102: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:45, 25 October 2011

Welcome!

Hello Jeff5102, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. I completely agree in your attidude towards Adnan Oktar, but the Wikipedia rules and guidelines still need to be followed. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Jayasekera

That's neat! You deleted the accurate bits from that rambling student paper article and left in the inaccurate bits... Who told you his grandfather went anywhere near Murmansk? Stalin? Yet his bitching about US anti-war activists (for example) is all over the web. But as we know, Wikipedia rules and guidelines are neither help or hindrance to woodenheaded editors.

Oktar

Comments like "not even a shred of scientific credibility" and calling him ignorant are still POV problems. Please see for examples how to phrase these sorts of things the articles on Creationism, and the Creation-Evolution Controversy. JoshuaZ 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Harun Yahya made me laugh. I studied science. I got scholarships. I didn't see what an undergraduate biology student should be able to see through Harun Yahya's books, hahahaha. If you can't understand scientific facts, don't blame him. Zahid 19:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and read it.Jitt 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Yahya

Please take a look at Talk:Adnan_Oktar#Orwell_section. --Nkv 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge edits?

Hi Jeff -

I tried in good faith to assist with language problems, NPOV issues and subjects requiring verification in the biographical article on Adnan Oktar. I asked for references, again, in good faith. If the issues claimed in the biography did indeed occur then it's important they are documented appropriately. You did provide references - most of which are from a site which clearly promotes itself as non-neutral where Oktar is concerned. While the inclusion of material from "both sides" is important - independant references are also useful - and that's what I was asking for.

You then posted this:

I am a little bit critical, but I do not see any proper references in your articles about cyclids. please make proper references (preferably from international media) or I had better chop out the unsourced allegations. (and I am serious about this!) Jeff5102 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page - which I presume is meant to be a threat/revenge of some kind. You then proceeded to make vandalic edits to Cardiopharynx and Amphilophus_citrinellus under the guise of "inadequate referencing" (when both articles are referenced as required by the Fish Project group). You then reverted your own changes.

I stress again, I had (and have) good intentions towards the Adnan Oktar article. MidgleyDJ 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I consider this very strange. I DID give references from more sides/sites, but at first you deleted parts of my text where I made references from other sides (and probably with the best intentions) and second you asked a lot of references from a paragraph that originated from one article (which I gave you in good faith), and the next thing you do, is complaining that the most references I gave are from one site. That is bizarre.

Furthermore: I need to prove every single word I am using by "international media" (even when I write about times when mr. Oktar had only a bit fame abroad) or "both sides" (also about topics where Oktar-admirers are silent about).

On the other hand, you consider it as normal to insert some criticism about Copper Healing, and you did not care to give any reference to it. And about those fish, you think it is enough to use only one frontpage of a site as a reference (plus a book I cannot read from here).

That is bizarre, unfair and hypocritical. If your intentions are as good as you claim they are, please look for some more references yourself. You are welcome to edit the article about Oktar in such a way that it fits your standards. Or do it at your own articles. Because I think it is not only me is not only me who needs to fulfil your standards; there is still a lot that needs to be done at those cyclid-pages you made yourself.Jeff5102 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, Thanks for the message on my talk page. Let's agree to disagree over this, I think we both want to same thing and have somehow crossed paths. All the best, David. MidgleyDJ 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADNAN OKTAR

Dear Jeff,

We kindly ask you not to revert to editions we make on the article about Mr. Adnan Oktar. Your editions do not reflect the truths about Mr. Oktar and his ideas, and misguides the readers.

We hope you will respect this resquest.

Thank you in advance.

Best Regards85.107.248.107 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Birch Society

You made a good point about not needing references, because the material was covered in the other articles that were linkable on their names. I don't know why, but I hadn't thought of that. Good catch. Yosemite1967 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you stalking my contributions? Yosemite1967 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umbro sponsorships

Please add references to Umbro sponsorships if you can, otherwise it's likely to be deleted. Thanks, -- Chzz ► 03:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FFI

Hi Jeff, I'd invite you to take your concerns to the talk page. Contemporary Islam is an academic scholarly journal published by Springer Netherlands, and the author, Goran Larsson, is a recognised expert in sociology. You've also removed reliably sourced content from an Asia Times article. As the reliable sources talk about the topic in relation to anti-Islam sentiment, the categories are also warranted - and this has been discusses extensively on talk, which is where I think we should take this dispute. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jeff, I've sent you the academic paper in question. Thanks, ITAQALLAH 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Your opinion is requested here. Thank you. - Agnistus (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me about the AN/I report. - Agnistus (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Deedat

I've blocked that IP but am allowing account creation if used productively.

You should also note that you broke 3RR on that page; because you were not reverting blatant vandalism, you are not exempt from the rule. And because you are not a new user, a 3RR warning is not required. I came very close to blocking you as well, but decided to hold off and see if progress can be made with the discussion. Do not revert the article again today, and don't let disagreements get so out of hand in the future. Seek dispute resolution before edit warring, and remember - there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Deedat

Thanks for the comment. I reverted your edits mostly because of objections towards deletion of sourced content in the lead. Also the deletion of stamp issued by Finland was not needed IMO as this was there since long time and a dispute could have been addressed using appropriate tags on that sentence. I will try to reply ASAP in the talk page about your individual concerns.

As a whole , I have been trying to create a balance in the article - on one hand, we have very poor quality edits from fans like Islam4ever who not only bring bias, but also destroys the quality. On the other hand, some other editors make the article into a coatrack, whereby 75% of the article is devoted to criticism many of them irrelevant. Your positive contributions are appreciated. Zencv^{Lets discuss} 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hi. A MedCab case has been opened here, regarding Anthony Flew. You have been named as a participant. Please visit the case page and indicate whether or not you will participate. Thank you. [roux » x] 23:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Adidas sponsorships

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Adidas sponsorships, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Largely unreferenced and indiscriminate list with little apparently standards/criteria for entry

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mosmof (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khamosh

Hi,

I tried to add a new introduction to the Anthony Flew article. Within hours it had been reverted by User:Khamosh, who accused me of being paid to vandalise Wikipedia (I wish).

Could you try talking to him. (If only because because two users are required to do a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users.)

Thanks,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

AfD nomination of Umbro sponsorships

I have nominated Umbro sponsorships, 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/Umbro sponsorships. 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. Mosmof (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

AfD nomination of Adidas sponsorships

I have nominated Adidas sponsorships, 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/Adidas sponsorships. 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. Mosmof (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

An article you created is about to be deleted: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Adidas_sponsorships is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas_sponsorships.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Anthony Flew poll

Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew#Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Zakir Naik

Why did you remove the islam template I placed below this page ? Jon Ascton (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! That was what exactlty I wanted it to be. Did'nt notice the template last time. Jon Ascton (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFI

Hi Jeff5102. Regarding your revert of a few of my edits on Faith Freedom International, I don't believe it's a requirement that every change be explained on the talk page so long as the edit summary is sufficient. Even so, a lot of the changes I made, such as removing material sourced to unreliable references (i.e. WND, FPM) or material that relies too heavily on primary sources, were raised by myself on several occasions on the talk page over the past year or two. If there are any specific edits you disagree with I'd like to hear your feedback. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff5102. Does wiki is controlled by Jew? I am seeing lots of such trend. If asked then I will provide such instances.

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Front of the Russian Civil War

Hi! Kazan Operation - Arsk Uprising - Pitchfork Uprising (not sure for Tambov rebellion) are generally considered to be a Eastern front, or "War in the Volga basin". Please, remove them from the corresponding template --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serial sockpuppet at Ahmed Deedat

Is there a page dedicated to our serial sockpuppet friend at Ahmed Deedat, where I (or others) can quickly and easily report him/her? His/her latest incarnation is User:Reachaveg. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KIA sign

So? Wikipedia isn't perfect. Besides, the pagans, or whatever, don't have their own signs. Muslims do.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? The Muslims used to have their own sign but it won't work any more. Besides, it's not like I'm trying to spread a radical new method or something. This is done all over the Middle Eastern conflict articles. See Gaza War for example. If you really insist, keep it. The battle of Kosovo article needs much more than a simple acronym changed.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the dagger. It was just a skull and crossbones.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Please remember to add edit summaries so other editors can figure out what you're doing [1]. Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty minor characters

Hey there, thanks for your recent edits, but please do not add any more images to Dynasty minor characters. Every entry previously had an image but the list was completely stripped as it violated fair use rules as an "image gallery." We managed to keep a small amount of images (I believe the argument was for original cast members, images of notable characters not featured anywhere else on Wikipedia) but if there are too many in this list it will be stripped again. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Oktar

The parts removed have been found to be highly questionable and based on non-notable sources, so they were removed. I think you and I would probably find a lot to agree about off-wiki on this gentleman's work and philosophy, but on-wiki, the rules we have are there for a reason and not defaming living subjects (whether we like them or not) is pretty much iron-clad policy around here. Orderinchaos 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were among others the scientific monthly New Scientist, the Spanish newspaper El Periodico, and Turkish nationwide television news channel NTV (Turkey). Calling them "highly questionable and [..] non-notable sources" is hilarious.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

Hi Jeff, I have taken the liberty of reverting the article back to the version of Ari, which is the only one that made sense. Feel free to remove and edit the things you did in your last 4 edits into that version. The version you edited into was the result of a heavily pov and vandalist attempt over the past afternoon by two editors (possibly socks). They removed chunks of material which was reliably sourced replacing it with chunks on biblical debates(??). Completely messed up the article. Just wanted to inform you. Inthedarkness (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion the sockpuppet from Zakir Naik is back. --Ari (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, are you able to revert Zakir Naik to the last good version? Spine.Cleaver is insisting on edit warring in order to get non-consensus edits in.Thanks. --Ari (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of Sock Puppetry

Hello. I am unsure why you have accused me as sock-puppetry. Could you please explain what I have done wrong? I am unsure who 'Awliya' is, aside from being reported on the history and discussion pages of Zakir Naik. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The Well Wisher (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Awliya. You just happen to start a new account for the sole purpose of reverting back to Awliya's edits. You also just happen to sign comments in the same way with an attempted line break as well as both contacting random editors. --Ari (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who I 'randomly' contacted. What are you talking about!?! --The Well Wisher (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in times of an edit war, one user is banned, and starts to use sock puppets. At this time, a new user pops up, and restores it into a version that looks like the version the sock puppetteer preferred. That was what you did on the Zakir Naik-article, and that causes quite some suspicions on you.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kbonline and Sister Agnes are not Sockpuppets of Awliya, because I am Awliya. Check their IPs you false accuser Jeff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.35.85 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are nothing but a liar. As they say in North America: F*ck U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.108.35.85 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the facts, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awliya/Archive. Jeff5102 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

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) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. In fact, sometimes i know i made mistakes because ive rushed throough my edits, and i hoped someone else would fix them. usually i have to go back and fix the mistake, like a broken references etc.Дунгане (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alt-textThis edit could have been reverted as vandalism, but I'll assume you just don't know what alt-text is; it's about accessibility. Do not do that, again, and if you've done it elsewhere, go restore it. See WP:ALT. Jack Merridew 13:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]this should all be in one place Jack MerridewWhat is exactly the reason of those alt-A-texts at the Brad Pitt-article (like "A Caucasian with light brown hair, blue eyes and a short brown beard, in front of a turquoise background. He is wearing a white shirt and white hat.") It looks like a joke that I would have liked if I still was twelve years old, but I passed that age long ago.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply](talk page stalker)Think about how a blind person using screen-reading software would 'view' that page. pablo 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Did you read the page at WP:ALT that I linked on your talk page? It explains it in some detail. Jack Merridew 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]I see what you mean. This example shows my problems with your text at Pitt's page:Normal viewing Screen reader Rationale Blair and Bush agree on a strategy for peace in the Middle-East on 12 November 2004. link graphic Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference. Blair and Bush agree on a strategy for peace in the Middle East on 12 November 2004. The image shows them greeting each other with a handshake during a press conference. The alt text shouldn't say "Two men shaking hands," because that's not why the picture was chosen; it needs to identify the men. The alt text shouldn't say they were in the East Room of the White House, because that isn't clear from the photograph. That the men are dressed identically is conveyed by the photograph, but it isn't relevant to the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]I didn't write that alt-text, I just restored it. Alt-text should be descriptive, so that someone not seeing the image gets a fair idea of what's depicted. The text you removed is a reasonable description of the image, but if you would like to adjust it, fine; just don't remove it all. The above table is from the WP:ALT. I'll grant you that it's not a very good example of alt-text. It could mention that they're standing front of two podiums with seals affixed to them and equipped with microphones, that the background is read. The idea is to describe the picture for cases where the picture is not seen. This could be someone who is blind, but it could also be someone with their browser set to not download images (typically because they're on a slow connection), or it could be an issue with the server being fucked up and not serving the image properly. The image caption is read via screen readers, too, so they get that information; the two should not repeat each other too much. Hope that helps, Jack Merridew 04:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Self-pub sourcesIf you're still interested in clearing out self-published sources, you might want to look at www.bible-researcher.com (list of links here). It came up on an article on my watchlist, and appears to be cited in hundreds of, generally minor and poorly patrolled, religious articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Adnan OktarThere was a very long discussion with three editors, two of them quite senior "barnstar" editors, for 24 hours on talk page, please discuss there before you change. You should not make changes to whole sections if they are disputed without discussing them first on the talk page. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]I did discuss them on the Talkpage. If you wish to ignore that, so be it, but please do not bother me on my talkpage with that.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] You reverted the change before you discussed on the talk page. I am answering your comments there. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am afraid that you are mistaken. I discussed the new lead last evening, and I reverted the page last morning. Please try to pay attention to the dates, before you start your accusations.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi Geoff, I see that the discussions around mr. Oktar exploded when I was off-line for only two days. I have only a little bit of time to work in the article, but I'll get back on it as soon as I can. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please make your comments now. I really don't want to go back and forth with many editors for several weeks only to have you revert it all because you weren't in the discussion. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I cannot help it that the discussion-page is flooded with comments the last few days. Please don't hasten the process too much, will you?Jeff5102 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I wrote you two comments on my talk page --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Zakir NaikHello and thank you kindly. I did not know the convention you mentioned and I accept its logic. Thanks. I just considered it strange that Dr Naik was repeatedly called Zakir (his first name) throughout the entry. I have removed the title throughout. I have no real interest in Naik, and have no position either way on the strengths and weaknesses of his preaching. I just monitor the page because of the strident partisanship that I see almost every day. Naik seems to have passionate fans and equally passionate detractors. As a consequence the entry veers occasionally (actually, rather often) between uncritical praise and uncritical condemnation. I'm keen to see it remain neutral. This has not proven easy. Thanks again.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]ottomans'n stuffhi, can I solicit your opinion here? (RE:[2]). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Allegations about User:LyltryI've been asked to review your comments about User:Lyltry from the point of view of whether they went against the WP:OUTING policy. I think in this case your manner of expressing your suspicions went too far and breached this threshold, and so I have used Revision Deletion (but not OverSight) on your edit summaries for these three edits. Whilst I appreciate that keeping a watchful eye for potential SPIs and socks is worthwhile, we should be cautious about claiming with scant evidence things which are damaging in a form which is essentially eternally public. For the Village Pump thread you started, I have blanked it (but not used RevDel or even OverSight as it would involve wiping a good deal of the page history), but please don't do this in future. If you have similar concerns you should take them up with the user in question first, and then on WP:ANI or WP:SPI as appropriate. Yours, James F. (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]Adnan OktarHi Jeff. I just opened up a discussion about the article on the BLP notice board. BigJim707 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Regilio TuurI notice that you have previously edited Regilio Tuur and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Peoples Movement AssemblyWould you be interested in looking back at the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article to provide feedback, as it now provides links to other Wikipedia articles and the tone has been changed? Thanks.

@@ Line 301: / Line 301: @@
 ==Regilio Tuur==
 I notice that you have previously edited [[Regilio Tuur]] and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the [[Talk:Regilio Tuur#To avoid an edit war|talk page]].--[[User:Mrmatiko|Mrmatiko]] ([[User talk:Mrmatiko|talk]]) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
+== Peoples Movement Assembly ==
+Would you be interested in looking back at the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article to provide feedback, as it now provides links to other Wikipedia articles and the tone has been changed?  Thanks.