User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 16

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of formulae involving π

The closing statement decision might in some cases be the least important part about a deletion discussion. Much more important is the discussion itself, including in particular the fact-finding process. In this one the absence of a clear and unambiguous inclusion criterion or even a discussion about it was most obvious, hence my example of a made-up formula. I can give you examples of research papers that have dozens of equations using Pi, none but extremely few relevant outside the context of the paper. That's what renders the list indiscriminate, and that's what needed to be discussed. As about my own closure, I might in fact not have closed the debate but relisted with a question what the exact inclusion criterion should be in order to keep it from becoming indiscriminate. Your process above and your notion that this is a case where you can invoke WP:SNOW or even WP:IAR tells me that you need to learn a bit more about the first goal of a deletion discussion. You can consider this an editor review if you want. Good luck. ~ trialsanderrors 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be important to note that I was only invoking WP:SNOW due to the fact editors were saying the AfD was closed only 2 hours early (which is pretty small, compared to the five days a discussion is active). Thanks for the review. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	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. Ralbot 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious

What made you think I was a new user? Not that a welcome letter isn't nice, but I've been around for quite a while. Don't edit that much, and log in infrequently, but if you look, you will see my earliest edit is from May 2005... Personman 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby -Drei

Please look. As you can see here, larry Darby's begun Sockpuppetry and is Hostile to the point of personally offensive, racist, and frankly, well, I'll stop. But PLEASE support any action to keep such an editor banned. Thank you. ThuranX 02:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

(Copied for editor review Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)):

Hey Yuser31415. You sent me a warning on my editing of the gameznflix wikipedia page. It was not necessary. Maybe it is because you are from New Zealand that you are not familiar with Gameznflix. Every link I posted on the page was straight from their website. NOT SPAM. You may not be familiar with the links I posted but they are companies that are wholly owned by Gameznflix. And some of the links were from the gameznflix website itself. I was just trying to be thorough with the many facets of the company. I posted the links and then a brief title next to each. You should do a little more research into the info you try to edit. It seems you are just interested in raising the number of edits you have (wow! I hit my 5000th edit today) instead of actually doing educated work. If you wish to respond to my complaint you may do it here... on your own page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.239.222 (talk • contribs)

sincire question ?

What do you realy want ?

May talk page, as i readed, is for communication to me. Please let me know what idea you want to communicate to me. I readed your messages , hosted them, to please you, but plz, dont expect me to pray to your strings.

If you insted have subject to discus, write to me and i wil be happy to discus it.

Nasz 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

history is not an advertisment

Thank you for pointing me to the "how to" sections...so very kind of you, but I already visited before I wrote the artical. I guess it would be very hard to write about history without mentioning "a little" about the actual company...right?

I have grow up around this shop for 40 plus years. While visiting the Seal Beach and Sunset Beach pages, there was mention of Katin, but no page for Katin. So, I decided to write one as a way of giving back to the shop so many people love.

In fact I emailed the site and told them that the should link to the Wiki page for thier history (as they currently do not have history page on the site). If you feel this is an advertisment, then please, by all means re-write it and show me the proper way of writing history about a surf shop.

Bmmedia 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OCT change

Hello Yuser31415, I'm curious why you considered my edit to the OCT page spam? The external links section has links to Carl Ziess and Optovue. The link I added was for another company in the same domain, all be it the company I work for. I could have put a more specific link to our product if that's more appropriate: http://oti-canada.com/octpfeatures.htm. I'm quite sorry if this was inappropriate, I just saw the other companies there and didn't think there would be anything wrong with adding another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.130.119 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoops

I actually have a screenname. It's Ilikefood. I must have forgotten to log in. Thanks :-)70.107.187.18 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Template:Emot Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Allen H. Greenfield

I do not see why one should NOT be emotionaly close to the situation when one is attempting to keep Wikipedia from becoming little more than an advertising agency for marginal authors of occult books?

The facts in play are as follows:

1. The original Greenfield article was deleted after admin review. The reason for deletion was because the article was an auto-biography of a non-noteworthy person.

2. Since the initial deletion of that article, I have been told that I am an agent for the OTO, that I have a personal axe to grind with Mr. Greenfield (and with one Mr. Gerald Del Campo.) I have been called a "stalker" and have been personaly attacked in various pages in Wikipedia. I have been accused of being a sock-puppet for another user.

3. I am well familiar with the written "works" of Mr. Greenfield and they are often not the product of his own labors. Many of the books with his name on them are little more than collections of documents that exist in other works with some small annotations, a lengthy introduction, and a new cover. I am currently looking at "The Compleat Rite of Memphis" by Allen H. Greenfield. Within this book of some 149 pages, only 6 pages of text (plus a 5 page index) seem to be the work of Mr. Greenfield. The rest of the book consists of works by John Yarker (first and foremost,) Kenneth MacKenzie, and Theodore Reuss. Of this book, only 7.38% of the book was actually written by the "author" and yet the book does NOT say by "Yarker, Mackenzie, and Reuss as edited and compiled by Allen H. Greenfield." The same may be said of the "editing" job Mr. Greenfield did with C.S. Jones' "Liber Thirty-One." His book, "The Story of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light" is little more than a collection of documents about Mr. Peter Davidson's sojourn in north Georgia with a slap-dash tad of annotation. The same is true of many of his other books. The only reason that nobody screams "Plagiarism" over these titles is because the sources Mr. Greenfield is using for his documents have been dead for many, many years. (Can ANYONE take two or three works in the public domain, slice them together, and stick their own name on the cover? If so, I have a great idea for an awesome novel! I'll call it, "Oliver Ulysses in the Rye." It's about a young boy on the verge of running away from an orphange where he spends his days swearing and making bad puns. His name is Holden Twist. Sound familiar?)

4. Margot Adler's book "Drawing Down the Moon" cites MANY neo-pagans in its 600+ pages. Should every one of them have a Wikipedia entry?

5. The original articles for Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Gerald Del Campo were little more than advertisements for their books. Both men have used the same publisher, Luxor Press which was known as THE publishing house for second-rate authors who happened to belong to the Ordo Templi Orientis (of which Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Del Campo were all members at one point in time.) The sudden increase in approval for these articles and the sudden vitriol shown to those who challenge these entries may be indicative of a publisher's wish to have his authors featured in Wikipedia to bolster book sales. How might this differ significantly from the recent scandal where Microsoft hired people to edit Wikipedia entries about Microsoft products to make them seem more favorable?

6. Allen Greenfield's Doctor of Divinity degree WAS (in fact) issued by the Universal Life Church. I have a Doctor of Divinity Degree from the ULC (a birthday gift from a friend in a garage band I was in many years ago.) To become a "Doctor of Divinity" all you have to do is pay the ULC $100 and you can buy the title. His claims to being a legitimate "Doctor" are thus invalid on their face.

These are the facts, sir. They are verifiable with a modicum of research and due diligence. I would like to suggest that you do the research and then respond to me.

Further, I feel that given the broad attacks against me by these two authors and their associates, I am entitled to a bit of emotion over this. Wikipedia is devolving into an advertising agency and most editors and administrators are too uninformed to even notice. Eyes down, human. 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

I'll use the temp you suggest but what does Subst mean? --Fredrick day 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah my pet hate!

Don't use template is a situation like this. Talk to him properly. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay. Advantage with templates is that they are neutral. I'll be offline in about ten minutes anyway, so I hope you can take care of things ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They can come across as passive agresssive. Unfortunely I'm offline too, but there is no hurry. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit other users' userpages

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User:WeniWidiWiki. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And in a bit more detail... Expressing a viewpoint about WP policies on one's userpage is not a "personal attack" as no individual was targeted [1]. Also, reverting one's own userpage is not "vandalism" as you characterized it when again removing the material with which you disagreed.[2] I think you need to calm down and back off a bit, ok? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate to disagree with ya, Kathryn, but it as a veiled threat.

"I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work. You say you live in an oppressive totalitarian regime? It would probably be for the best if you turned off the computer and picked up a rifle."

That is most definitely a threat and that is not cool and should be removed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn, I know you're warning me in good faith, but my action was backed up by policies and at least four users against one. I hope this clarifies. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit my userpage or post on my talk page again. I consider it harassment, and deem your adding of unwarranted templates as malicious. - WeniWidiWiki 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will do whatever is necessary to improve our encyclopedia to its ultimate goal. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you quoting Malcom X? "Doing whatever is necessary" is a euphemism for violence and a threat. You are not a wikipedia super-hero or vigilante, and again, I consider unwarranted use of templates as malicious and the unilateral removal of material without consensus harassment. If you decide to vandalize my userpage again, I will pursue the matter much further than I did this time. - WeniWidiWiki 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not implying harassment, but implying that if you attack our new contributors, our future, on your userpage, I will (a) remove the comment per WP:NPA, (b) take the matter to WP:ANI, and (c) create a RfC. Consider this your final warning. I have no interest in continuing this discussion at this time. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleas do so. I think the implications of this matter needs to be discussed with a wider group of editors. - WeniWidiWiki 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And as a note, there was consensus. At least four people disagreed with you - myself, Theresa, Dgies, and Fredrick. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, back off. Vandalism implies intent to harm, which I know is not the case here, whether or not Yuser so happens to be right. --Deskana (request backup) 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What I fail to understand is why WeniWidiWiki thinks that targeting a large amount of people with an attack makes it unnaceptable. Were you to replace "IP editor" with a username of a particular user, nobody would tolerate it. Yet you attack a larger audience and it becomes tolerable? Insanity. --Deskana (request backup) 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an edit war. I think the best solution is to reword it in a way as only to only inform IP editors of the benifits of registration, not to discourage them. Wikipedia was largely built by IP editors, and allowing only registered users to edit would be a huge disruption. Many articles were made mostly by IPs. Also, editing userpags is only a disruption when it's vandalism, or modifying intended content to something the user didnt intend to express. Please make the comments more mild and end this war. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Laura Dawn AfD

Er, this can't have been a unanimous result, otherwise there would have been no AfD in the first place. Valrith 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was implying all those who commented, not including the nominator, but since "unanimous" is probably confusing I will refrain from using it in the future. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious Comments

Hi there. Can you explain why you made your edits to Alexander Graham Bell? It appears you changed quite a lot of data and wording; I'd appreciate if you clarified on my talk page. Thanks! Yuser31415 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Yuser ! My edits serve two broad objectives. One, to clarify more meaningfully information displayed; this can be through improved grammer or style. Two, to add pertinent information that either substantiates what is already present or what is already lacking. Hope that clarifies things somewhat more. Thanks. Curiouscdngeorge

vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The only edit I've made since being registered on Wikipedia was removing the phrase 'she has big cock' from the page about Mackenzie Rosman. How is that vandalism? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etoile francaise (talk * contribs) 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

(Replied on user's talk page.) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

Hi. You reported User:FireforGod777 to AIV, but I find no contributions for this user. Either all the contributions were to deleted pages, in which case can you tell me what pages, or perhaps you have typo'd the name of the user. Please double-check and report to AIV again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was reporting the user based on their username. Perhaps I should try a Username RfC to get wider opinions on whether the username is appropriate. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Feel free to do that, especially if the user begins to do any editing; right now, still no contributions at all. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting my page! =) MetsFan76 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems, glad to be of assistance. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats

I just wanted to say congratulations on reaching your 5000th edit (wow) and take the opportunity to thank you for your invaluable help and contributions! +A.Ou 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanks!!

I just thought some of the images over at the commons would like a new home and vice-versa. Thanks again--DO11.10 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Well atleast do something.Azerbaijani 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent attacked any of them, check my contrib's.Azerbaijani 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you attacked them. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

We have tried to focus on content. Azerbaijani consistently acts as if we haven't addressed his sources and unilaterally reverts the page to his controversial and unreliable version. I put forward a compromise that no side be covered regarding the reasons for choosing the name, and most of the offended Azeri edits supported this. Azerbaijani did not, and has continued to ignore our arguments and edits in a way that has been most disruptive. He has also shown no respect for consensus development on the page, preferring to simply enforce his view without the agreement of numerous other editors. Go take a look at the edits involving that page, and Azerbaijani's edits, and you will see what I mean. I don't see how we can focus on content with his disruptive, uncompromising editing anymore than we already have. Simply put, he doesn't care about presenting a neutral view acceptable to the majority of those involved with the page. And hence, the article remains in poor condition. The Behnam 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting two sides saying completely different things. Azerbaijan is complaining about personal attacks, you're complaining about his conduct, and perhaps you could both stop? Please provide diffs showing comments you have made to attempt to calm down the situation, and attempts to reach a compromise. Thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam and the few others who share his POV are pretending that there is a consensus when there is none, User:Azerbaijani is not the only one with a different point of view. There is a content dispute, and as long as User:The Behnam makes accusations of "vandalism" [3] and claims false consensus, it's very hard to reach a compromise that's acceptable to both parties. --Mardavich 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest both parties head for dispute resolution. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, simply check for yourself. All of these users are only one or two people actually, infact, one has already been banned for being a meatpuppet! These are all lies they are making up against me, along with their personal attacks, to try to divert attention from the fact that they are removing sourced information all over the place.Azerbaijani 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR is a great thing. I will not make judgements on any user, regardless of the evidence. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ever So Much!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks For Helping Me When I needed It! Greatly Appreciated! ACBest 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! My FIRST EVER BARNSTAR! Thank you! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Helene pham

Hi. It's not a big deal, but it is a waste of time for us both to warn this article's editor of its impending deletion. And I placed the {{speedy}} tag, so you might well expect me to post the warning.--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I thought you'd forgotten to place the tag, and as I was NP patrolling, I thought I might as well place the tag Template:Emot. I am sorry to hear things are going badly for you in real life. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

In this edit, you implied (by using the word "all") that I was making personal attacks. Can you please show me where I did? Thank you. --NE2 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --NE2 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Yabasic logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yabasic logo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrongfully accused of spamming

Yuser31415... I tried to cleanup a few pages' external links sections and add new links (see Special:Contributions/66.117.162.79), and got smacked down as a spammer. I had forgotten to log in, so it was as an anonymous user. Please help me understand what actions will be considered spam and what won't, and why the links I added were considered spam.

On the HTPC page for example, there were a million links, most of which seemed to be appropriate "more info" kinds of links. I added two, and removed a few more that didn't belong there. On the other pages, I linked only to official sources, useful general information, etc. Yes, I am part of those sites, but I had hoped the links would be considered valuable, not spam.

I am only interested in conscienciously adding quality content to Wikipedia. I do NOT want to spam anyone. Please help me understand what the problem was.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Yabasic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yabasic.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

spam--I don't know how to fix it

There is spam on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business

I saw your name on the discussion page and hoped you would fix it--I don't know what the right way to take care of this is.

The problem is in the links section--the link about setting up business in India takes you to a spam page through some trickery in the url (http://http//ruby...).

Sorry to bug you with this! If there is something I could do in the future to fix this myself, please let me know--I registered an account just to fix this problem and then couldn't figure out how to do it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitK (talk * contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I think it's gone now? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup--thanks!WhitK 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

This is just a belated thanks for moving Huntsman (chemical plant) into the userspace of Boswell. I adopted him and he's planning on creating this article (and to be honest - he's doing a really good job with it). Cheers for realising that this was a WP:AGF:good faith edit and not just tagging it with {{db-spam}} as it may first have seamed. I'm planning to help him add some reliable sources in to show it meets WP:CORP before its moved back into mainspace. Thanks again RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

If a copyrighted image is deemed legitimate for use in articles under Wikipedia's fair use policy, is it necessary to notify the copyright holder before upload? Thanks +A.Ou 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is necessary. See fair use. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting: time to carry out the threat?

User:220.225.82.158 has once again removed a legitimate link from the article India national football team to replace it with a less appropriate link to the soccernetindia site, in which I suspect this editor has an interest. Reviewing his/her contributions history, this seems to be the only activity that this user has ever undertaken. I have the above mentioned page on my watchlist, but I see that the change in question has been made frquently accross a range of pages. In the light if your final warning of 18 January, I would suggst that the user if not deterred, and so I would suggest that the time has now come to carry out your threat of blacklisting the site in question. I have no personal connection with either of the sites involved in this editwar, and have the Indian team page on my watchlist because I did some editing to tidy it after I came accross it in the course of applying FIFA rankings to every national football team. Kevin McE 09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not being a Meta admin, I can't blacklist the link myself, but can add a request. I'll send in the troops soon. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Helping me at all...

You really aren't helping me at all with the Greenfield problem. You site a passage of text stating, "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other" and expect... what? To my knowledge, Allen Greenfield has NOT been the subject of a SINGLE book. He was interviewed (along with HUNDREDS of other pagans) for a fairly important work by Margot Adler many years ago and has since compiled and published other author's works under his own name. Do I have a personal grudge? No. But I know the antics of those involved in the fringes of the occult and UFOlogy and I know how the seek to capitalize on their notoriety.

Tell you what. I'll just retire from this pile of crap called Wikipedia. It is FAST going to hell in a handcart and it seems that nobody cares. Hell, let's give EVERYONE a Wikipedia entry! Yeah! Hey! I just printed a pamphlet out on my printer! I'm a published author! Start a page for me, will ya? Eyes down, human. 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment removal

The last two incidents were genuine accidents, as I ran into edit conflicts. The first incident stemmed from my thinking that the user Fredrick Day was simply vandalizing pages and trying to whip up rumors. ErleGrey 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gvim editing yabasic script.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gvim editing yabasic script.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Rankin Family

I am curios what your rationale for reverting the edits to The Rankin Family is? You commented that they were spam but I don't see how a link to the official website (which many other artists have) is spam.

Taylor 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it was because the IP I was reverting, 198.163.53.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), had been making vandal-only contributions; so I just assumed their edits to The Rankin Family were vandalism also, and reverted regardless. Feel free to revert me if you believe I was incorrect. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hello one of user(User_talk:Masterb8er) here [[4]] made this edit ,i want o warn him for this edit,if you could help me to do this? he also made this edit [[5]] Khalidkhoso 02:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole collection of warning templates here. For example, to warn a user for a test edit, type {{subst:uw-test1}]. You might be interested in WP:CVU. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is not test editor he is already having warning on his page but still he is doing it? Khalidkhoso 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In which case use {{subst:bv}} :). And don't worry about the editor - he's already blocked indefinitely. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism??

The following message was left for me (by you) and as I am unfamiliar with editing on wikipedia I am confused by what you are saying:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"

What I gather is that someone has been editing with my IP address and vandalizing articles. I would ask for more specifics but judging that I have never edited anything on Wikipedia, there would be no reason. So my question then is: How could someone be using my IP address to edit?

If you could get back to me that would be great. Since I don't edit Wikipedia anyway it isn't of severe consequence if I were to be blocked from editing. However, I am concerned that someone is using my IP.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.180.131.17 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my posting to your user talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hannaford Bros. Co.

Yuser31415, This is MercCougXR7. You recently warned me about placing a spam page under the title "Victory Supermarkets" and I think that you wrongly accused me. You also claimed that my facts were not in order an that I was damaging other people's works by placing that page up for all eyes to see. Well I must inform you to the fact that I used to work at Victory supermarkets everything that I wrote about them is 100% fact and 0% fiction. Now I must also say that because of your ignorance to Victory Supermarkets' you wrongfully accused me of not citing my sources. Well let me tell you that my sources are a 3 generation legacy of family members as well as myself working under the DiGeronimo Bros. My sources are just and FULLY valid and I truly believe that what I placed on that page should have not been removed. I thank you for your time and plese get back to me as soon a possible. I would love to hear from you witin the next few weeks.

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                           MercCougXR7.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added to User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 18 by MercCougXR7 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Yuser,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, please let me know. - Gilliam 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what to do ,how to decide

Hello there I found one artilce i can not decide if this is right or not ,if you could see this link and help me to revert or not, check it [[6]].??

cheers

Khalidkhoso 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415 (Editor review two!)

O.K. this is becoming a bit annoying and I can see why many people are fast becoming disengaged with the Wiki project. I sent this Wiki link to the shop’s website and they replied, “thanks, this would be great to link to for our history page (as we don’t have one at the moment) accept for the “advertisment” title at the top of the page. People might get the wrong impression.” I read MANY business entries before I wrote this entry and I acutaully copied the format from a camera shop that I use in New York. Two things that qualify me to write an entry for this shop are; I grew up around and using this shop and I surf. Whether or not my writing style resembles an advertising should be left to the public, NOT to a self proclaimed “Wiki-troll”. Do you know this shop? Do you surf? If not, I find it hard for you (no matter how much editing experience you may have) to make any type of content edits..since you just don’t know. Sorry for being so passionate (The 'chatty' promotional tone) and precise in my history (excessive amount of unnecessary detail)!

You keep your “advertisment” tag up if this makes you feel bigger. But, I’ll leave the editing up to the public and “the people who know”. I was under the impression that this is what Wiki was about. And just to think, I have been using Wiki for years and enjoy learning, then finally decided to “give back” and write an entry about something I’m close to.

Please don’t tag the Metallica page too, it also “… reads very much like a magazine article or a press release, instead of like an encyclopedia article”. As well as countless of other pages that I enjoy.

Bmmedia 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ILIKEIT

Stop referring people to WP:ILIKEIT just because you disagree with them. Even if they make no sign at all of liking the particular subject of the article marked for deletion, you refer them to that link either because personal attack removed - see Diff 66.254.246.198 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, personal attack removed and discontinued. But why's it NOT OK for somebody to "attack" an editor, when it's OK for an editor to resort to ad hominem arguments such as those displayed by Yuser31415 (i.e., replying "WP:ILIKEIT" to any argument he disagrees with, even if ILIKEIT is irrelevant) 66.254.246.198 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Go away. I do not tolerate either personal or ad hominem attacks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
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. Ralbot 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

^_^

Hey, sorry for wasting your time with this trivial matter. I've just noticed your comment a few days ago in this closed RfA, in which you addressed the candidate as "she", but his/her user page is placed in Category:Male Wikipedians. Am I missing something here? PeaceNT 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Record Linkage and 82.13.138.161

This IP continues to insert spam links. You have already given a last warning to this user. You may want to permanently block the IP. Ipeirotis 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator at this time :(. You may wish to report the user to WP:AIV. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA oppose

Hi, just to let you know, you put your oppose in amongst the neutrals on Moreschi's RfA. It is getting a bit mixed up in there, I know. :) Bubba hotep 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for moving it :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Break

I will not be able to be here for a while so thanks (your adoptee)--The brown curse 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)