User talk:Crotalus horridus/Archive 2

Rattlesnakes

I'm glad to see someone who has an understanding of rattlesnakes. I've come within close range of the critters on many occasion, by happenstance, and they've always seemed more scared of me than vice versa. I know, too, many friends who've also had very close encounters yet not one of us has ever been bitten. The people I know of, and have read about, who are bitten are those who try to pick up the snake. Pit vipers are not antagonistic towards people. It's likely that far more people have been killed by rodents, one way or another, than by snakes. -Will Beback 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it may also be true that far more pit vipers have been killed by people than vice versa. I suppose that's unverifiable. Pity the poor rattlesnake - so misunderstood. -Will Beback 10:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about spiders? They get a really bad rep too.... RobertAustin 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith

I feel that your request on WP:RFPP over the protection of the Criticism of Wikipedia page was made in bad faith and followed up by false accusations against Raul654. You say that "Raul has been very outspoken on the issue on the talk page", but the only statement he has made there in well over a month is as follows:

Those people adding the links to Wikipediareview you mention are, by and large, the same people who have already been blocked/banned from Wikipedia. Insofar as they are concerned, you are confusing cause with effect. I am not assuming bad faith due to the fact that they inhabit wikipediareview; they inhabit wikipediareview because they were kicked off wikipedia after demonstrating their bad faith.

Furthermore, your claim that Wikipediareview contains relavant criticisms is simply untrue. If I want to read about Snowspinner's teeth, or see shock-pictures labeled as SlimVirgin, or read conspiracy theories about how jews like "Jewjg" are going to take over the world, I'll check Wikipediareview. On the other hand, if I want to read legit criticisms of Wikipedia, I'll go elsewhere. Raul654 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable to me. You may disagree with his assessment; most Wikipedians would not. As an occasional reader of Wikipedia Review I think that is an accurate assessment.

At first I disagreed strongly with the remedies made in the arbitration case, but my eyes were opened when you edit warred with arbitrators on the proposed decision page. If you persist in attacks like the one on Raul654, I may go and seek the support of two other administrators (which I'm sure would be an easy task) for an appropriate restriction on your conduct, under the General Probation applied in remedy 2 of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this post, I simply must know everything there is to know about Snowspinner's teeth. I hope I haven't been sent on a fools errand here! Anon, and away! Hamster Sandwich 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vandalism_of_Restroom.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Three Triangles.svg

This is a derivative work of a logo owned by Nintendo. Please see http://www.zelda.com/universe/. Note that there is some discussion going on regarding a virtually identical image at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Image:Triforce.svg. I've retagged this image as {{logo}} and it is now tagged with {{orfud}} as well. --Durin 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

Creating Brian Peppers in popular culture was simply an attempt to get round other titles being protected. I don't care that your article is meticulously sourced and attempts to describe the phenomenon and not the man, have you actually seen Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers? (I have salted your peppers article!) -- RHaworth 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

war on blogs

Thanks for checking through them. The need was evident-- I intended to check also but ran out of time.DGG 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS

Please do NOT revert WP:OTRS actions without discussion with the OTRS member. No, we are not infallible and you are entitled to question us. I could even be wrong here (I've not reviewed it yet), but you are not in possession of all the facts. My talk page is open if you want to discuss it.--Doc^g 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus, Doc does not mean that OTRS actions may not be reverted, only that you you should find the reason for them, not just blindly revert. In this case, the author to whom the quote is attributed emailed OTRS, very offended, to protest that she said no such thing. You are welcome to follow up the reference and reinsert it if it is found to be accurate, but blindly reverting is not a good idea. Of course it would have helped if Doc had made this comment on Talk, but there are many cases where this kind of transparency cannot be offered without compromising confidentiality, so in the end sometimes you have to take someone's word for it, and responding to and closing an OTRS ticket is slow and laborious enough wihtout imposing additional burden on volunteers. Anyway, I don't think you are evil, or that OTRS is a magic talisman, only that the invocation of OTRS is a flag that caution is demanded; hopefully as an editor with long experience you will be able to accept that. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, my talk page is open. Reverting without discussion is always poor form, and especially in cases like this where you are not in possession of full facts. I sometimes handle dozens of OTRS things a day - I don't pre-explain unless I suspect they may be controversial (with the backlog there is no time), but I respond quickly to questions and e-mails. Once we've discussed it, then you can consider whether it is wise to revert me. In any case, if I've made an error, i will often revert myself.--Doc^g 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replied on Doc's talk page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WoW

Hi,

That MfD was ages ago, and in the intervening time, all vandal-naming pages have been deleted. A substantial portion of the deleted content is comprised of links (now RED links) of other similar vandals suspected of imitating WoW. I am reluctant to userfy the whole history to you, especially since numerous repostings have already been attempted in the months since the MfD. Perhaps you might give me some sense of what form you wish your recreation to take, and I could find the relevant information for you in the deleted diffs? It is good to see you back with us! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the "Stopbadware" image.

Thanks. It's linked from Stopbadware, incidentally; "What links here" will probably catch up to that overnight. --John Nagle 05:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for fair use image deletion: Image:Bhwii.jpg

(copied from User Talk:DESiegel) David, as an admin, could you please delete Image:Bhwii.jpg? This image is of very low quality (100x140), currently unused (and thus an orphaned Fair Use image, which violates policy), and it is redundant to Image:29472 jaqr bionicleheroesps2-1-.jpg (which is a reasonable 500x500 web-resolution image). Furthermore, inserting this image has been key to User:Toa Mario's disruption (six reverts in one day). I see no productive purpose served by the continued hosting of this image on Wikipedia and urge that it be removed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:CSD I5 or I6, images such as this must be tagged for 7 days before they can be deleted. What you are askign for is in effect a speedy deletion in hours rather than days. I was one of those arguing msot strongly for the time delay when these CSD were approved, and I am never comfortable with bendign the speedy delte criteria. So, i'm sorry, but no. But reest assured that I will keep my eye on this situation. DES ^(talk) 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toa Mario

I have now blocked User:Toa Mario and his obvious sock puppet (for 48 hours) for disruption and trying to game the 3RR. Perhaps that will let him cool down. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you

I never have interacted with you, but I read the Tony Sidaway arbitration case with a sense of sickening dread, as I thought that a total and outright ban on userboxes was way over the top. I added you to the WP:MW list [1] way back in June. I took a quick glance - and I hope those popular culture articles go down in flames! hbdragon88 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Hbdragon88's talk page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes

Please stop removing binary prefixes when they are relevant. If you want to change the MoS, you know where you can express your view. Sarenne 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that this particular section of the Manual of Style has any consensus from the Wikipedia community as a whole. As far as I can tell, no actual contributors to articles on 8-bit computers want these neologisms used. They keep getting added by drive-by editors without any consideration of the context and sourcing of the articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the consensus there [2]. The context and the style of the sources don't matter according to the current MoS : when binary capacities are used, you should accept the use of binary prefixes. What you want is to change the MoS and removing binary prefixes is not the right way to do that. Sarenne 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, none of those individuals are substantial contributors to articles on 8-bit computing. I'm saying that the MoS doesn't have the authority to override the original sources and the consensus of editors who are actually knowledgable in the subject matter. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course MoS have "the authority to override the original sources and the consensus of editors who are actually knowledgable in the subject matter". Why is there a MoS ? If each article can have its own style, it's just useless. Wikipedia is a consistent encyclopedia, not separate articles with inconsistent styles. MoS should be applied with flexibility, but there's no reason why 8-bit computers should be an exception. Sarenne 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that MoS seems to have become its own little corner of Wikipedia where "consensus" is made in the dark, away from the eyes of people who are actually building the encyclopedia. 20 people on an obscure MoS page does not make "consensus" for the entire project, especially since consensus can change. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those people should be aware that they are building an encyclopedia, not separate articles. They should go to the MoS by themselves, or at least when I put a link to the MoS in my edit summaries (and that's what I did when I added binary prefixes to MOS Technology 8563). Sarenne 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing binary prefixes only because you don't like them. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you thnik the MoS doesn't reflect consensus, try to chante it but don't revert changes that follow the MoS. Sarenne 10:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC) If you think there's a new consensus, it will be easy for you to change the guideline. Until then, you are reverting without a valid reason. Sarenne 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Racism

You've violated WP:3RR at Racism. I strongly recommend you revert yourself, before you are blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you re-added the "Zionism is Racism" section four times in a couple of hours, each time after it had been removed. Please revert yourself before you get blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether they're simple or complex reverts; you keep re-adding the information about the UN Resolution. The policy is very clear on that, and you'll end up blocked. I'm about to press the button to file the report, but I'll give you a couple of minutes to revert yourself first. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version reverted to: [3] (note: specific changes were made to ensure this was more neutral. This was not just a revert to a previous version, but specifically took into account talk page criticism.)
1st revert: [4]
2nd revert: [5]

Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding back the information about the Resolution, regardless of your justification. Just because you think it belongs, it doesn't mean it actually does, and it certainly does give you the freedom to revert it in as many times as you want. There's more to creating an article than mere insistence that the elements in it must be sourced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and, as explained many times on the article Talk: page, that particular piece of information teaches us nothing about Racism, only about late 70s geopolitics. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the concept of racism and how that term is used. The fact is that a highly prominent international organization claimed for 16 years that "Zionism is racism," some people agreed, and many others were strongly opposed to that statement and consider it antisemitic. That is what the article should say and that is what I wrote, with citations. Your claim that this "has nothing to do with racism but only 70s geopolitics" is purely your POV (again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and not a reason to remove sourced information. And there is no consensus to keep the information out; there are 3 editors (including you) who want it out and 2 editors (including me) who think it should stay. That's why I have requested further comment at article RFC. Hopefully a fuller consensus will be formed so we can avoid any more edit warring from here on out. If there is a genuine consensus to remove the statement (not just a handful of article regulars) I will defer to that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoi khoi 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crotalus horridus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have stated that I will perform no more reverts to the Racism article, but instead will wait for the article RFC that I posted to bring enough uninvolved editors to the Talk page to determine consensus. Per WP:BP, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure. Block duration varies by situation, and a block may be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior." I have already agreed not to continue the reverts that Jayjg finds problematic, and I have other articles that I would like to edit (I'm hoping to bring a few numismatic articles I wrote up to WP:GA or WP:FA status.) Please unblock me so that I can continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

A block of 24 hours for a 3RR violation is justified. You can continue contributing after the block expires. — Kafziel ^Talk 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you violated WP:3RR then generally, you get blocked for 24 hours. It's not really puntative, it's one of the few situations where the block rules are really clear & specific. I would just sit tight, and then do as you said -- wait for the RFC. It's only 24 hours. Dina 12:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Wild Law (book)

Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by your comments and some the others left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:

"The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for."

"until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete"

"It needs cleanup"

"too promotional in nature"

--Lesley Fairbairn 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi, could you sort your signature out please? It's obscuring parts of the lines of text above and below it. Thanks, EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was on the Chastity Houses AfD. The latest one is better, but still nicks the lines above. I'm using IE7, btw, but I've just tried it in Opera as well and it's the same. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig is obscuring text at RFD, can you please consider a change? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom motion regarding your probation

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the proposed motion regarding the date for termination of your probation by a vote of 6 to 1. The motion as adopted provides that "Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later." Good luck. Newyorkbrad 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilos and kibis

Please take a look at kibibyte and the articles linked from it. There appear to be fifteen or so articles all dealing with the same information. I believe some creative merging is in order. >Radiant< 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good-faith edits

[6] [7] [8] [9]

Don't. It is inappropriate, especially without explaining what you are doing. ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 08:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it was inappropriate to remove those logos without first seeking consensus on the issue. It has been discussed before, and consensus has repeatedly failed to have been reached. I did explain my justification on the TFD page. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is clearly at variance with established Wikipedia rules. Please don't do it again. ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. In turn, I encourage you to seek consensus on the appropriate Wikipedia pages (WP:IUP and WP:LOGO) rather than unilaterally removing these logos in the future. *** Crotalus *** 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism Deletion Review

Matrixism is covered in depth in The Joy of Sects by Sam Jordison. This is a reference book on cults and new religious movements. It treats Matrixism equally alongside Kaballah, Scientology and Freemasonry. Matrixism is also discussed at length in Phil Johnson's blog Circle of Pneuma. Phil Johnson is the author of several books including; Jesus and the gods of the New Age Clifford & Johnson Victor Books 2003 and Riding the Rollercoaster: How the Risen Christ Empowers Life Clifford & Johnson Strand 1998. Therefore the blog Circle of Pneuma is a reliable and citable source as defined by Wikipedia policy. The arguments for deletion have been made without considering these facts.

Perhaps you will want to revisit your decision to "delete" the article in light of this information. D166ER 03:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

currency copyright question

I'm trying to improve the copyright tags on numismatic images. I saw that you commented on the deletion debate for {{Banknotes.com-image}}, so I wonder if you'd mind letting me know what you think of {{PD-banknote}}. One of the problems we have is that people don't understand the difference between owning the scan and owning the art on the coin/banknote. What I'd like to do is suggest a policy for the numismatics project that each image should have (at least) two copyright tags, one for the scan (such as {{WorldCoinGallery}} or {{PD-banknote}}), and one for the country (such as {{money}} or {{Money-US}}). I don't want to go to far implementing it though just to see it deleted later. I tried asking at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., but there hasn't been much traffic there recently. So, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts about this, if you've got the time. Thanks, Ingrid 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Your understanding of the situation matches my own, that there is no need for a copyright tag for the scan of a banknote (as the template I created says). The reason I think it might help is to clarify that even if a website says that they own the copyright on the scan, they don't. Ingrid 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Crotalus horridus, would you consider trimming down your sig? It is visually overbearing, and occupies a good deal of text in the edit window: [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt>]]Proabivouac 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Petros471 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Such a large and colorful signature is painful to look at in discussions. And frankly, the more decorative your signature is the less likely people will threat your posts seriously. Please obeserve our signature guidelines and consider simplifying to something such as [[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]][[User talk:Crotalus horridus|talk]] which will result in Crotalus horridus^talk. Thanks. Michaelas¹⁰ 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM

Yes, I see your point, but I'm not at all sure if your solution will work. It would seem that the problems (filibustering and such) are caused by that 2005 poll, so I fail to see how these would be resolved by having another poll. Two wrongs don't generally make a right. I think we should call for the anti-red-tape-squad. >Radiant< 09:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mediation, this would appear to be a situation of a few editors dissenting with a large consensus. Am I correct about that? >Radiant< 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you for agreeing to this. Edit wars are not a good solution. >Radiant< 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of prefixes

On the 7th, you gave a history of the prefixes, including this, for instance:

"In the 1990s, hard drive manufacturers deceptively began to use "megabyte" in the decimal sense — that is, 106 bytes — even though this clashed with common practice in the computing field."

I've seen this sort of claim before, but never supported by any evidence. You seem pretty sure about it, though; do you have references?

Everything I've seen from the 60s and 70s seems to indicate that the decimal meaning was predominant, and it wasn't until Mac OS that the power-of-two meaning started to become common.

An easy demonstration would be marketing literature for a hard drive that uses the binary meaning. — Omegatron 18:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Userspace proposal

Sorry, i didn't realize that article was in your userspace until after i'd edited it. Foobaz·o< 03:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

I'm afraid that your signature is both distracting and almost unreadable; could you change it to something less obtrusive and legible please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I hoped the Commodore 64 lookalike sig would work well, but, despite numerous refinements, it keeps drawing complaints. Changed. *** Crotalus *** 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better. I didn't recognise the Commodore 64 reference, I'm afraid; I never had one. I started with a VIC-20 (I've still got it in the loft I think, with the massive 32k memory expansion cartridge), and I didn't have another PC 'til I bought an Amstrad 1512). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! Boo! Don't give in to the unwashed masses who are unappreciative of the glory of the Commie! :) (Psst - did you notice that Lou Sander is an active editor here? How cool is that??!!). --ElKevbo 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that as well. I don't care how long a signature is in HTML string, I happened to see that it was covering text after rendering. Appreciated! Teke 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Standing Liberty Quarter.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Standing Liberty Quarter.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a non-free image; it is a scan of a non-circulating US coin (and thus in the public domain); I took the scan myself, and in any case under Bridgeman v. Corel it's very doubtful if non-creative "slavish reproductions" of coin obverses and reverses are eligible for copyright at all. *** Crotalus *** 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Darius (Highlander).png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darius (Highlander).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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article maintainers no longer needed this image, I marked it for speedy deletion (G7) and it has been deleted. *** Crotalus *** 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler MFD

Excuse me, but the MFD was closed because it was an inappropriate form for the discussion, not because it was concluded. A great many Wikipedians have not even had the chance to even know about this discussion, so chill out man. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MFD attracted a great deal of comment. Consensus was clear. If you think there is a need for further discussion, then re-open the MFD. It's not reasonable to stop discussion when a consensus appears to have been reached, and then claim that this consensus was not clear because there wasn't enough discussion. That reminds me of the classic definition of Chutzpah. *** Crotalus *** 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Three Triangles.svg

Hello Crotalus horridus, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Three Triangles.svg) was found at the following location: User:Crotalus horridus. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Three Triangles.svg

Hello Crotalus horridus, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Three Triangles.svg) was found at the following location: User:Crotalus horridus/3D Zelda only. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That tag was inaccurate. The correct designation for the image (a simple geometric design implemented in SVG format by me) was {{PD-self}}. It has been changed. Previous discussion around this image made it clear that Nintendo could not copyright a geometrical construct this basic, and there is no evidence it was ever trademarked either. In newer Zelda artwork, Nintendo has often used more elaborate constructions of the Triforce, presumably for this reason. *** Crotalus *** 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Speedy close?==: Your justification for a speedy close of the Qian Zhijun DRV doesn't make sense: "Having a DRV discussion while an AfD discussion is going on, is fruitless. Wait until that discussion has run its full course, and then after it's been closed, if you still have concerns about process, feel free to start a DRV discussion about it." There is no AFD currently going on, since it was closed (out of process) less than 1 hour after it started. Furthermore, the article is still deleted, which would not be the case if AFD discussion was still ongoing. I'm reverting this inappropriate closure. *** Crotalus *** 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, thank you for the note. It seems I read too many things at once.. YOu may be surprised how many times this has been under review in one way or other. I'll adjust it. Thank you again. - jc37 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reopened it. No problem; errors happen, especially in a fast-paced situation like this. *** Crotalus *** 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think it probably should be speedily closed for other reasons. HOwever, extra time should hopefully be a good thing - jc37 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif

CSD G7: Author request. This image has been superseded by Image:SpeedScript 128 in action.png on Commons, and is no longer needed or used.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:SpeedScript 128 In Action.gif, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Portable Computers

Includes the curious article "User:Crotalus horridus/Sandbox/Commodore SX-64". tooold 04:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out now. *** Crotalus *** 04:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal

Considering the heat this subject generates, I can only think of two things, neither of which is particularly likely to help much. One, strongly encourage people to not take action until the DRV concludes (that includes both deletes/undeletes as well as creating forks of the article). And two, take it to ArbCom (not the article, but the behavior of people involved; which arguably is spinning it out of control). Radiant! 08:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your very sober and sensible comment on Mangojuice's close. Thanks for keeping your head in this. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A few days ago I was concerned the issue might break out into a wheel war, but it seems to have reached a rough consensus that, if not optimal, is at least acceptable to most established editors. "Redirect and protect" was a reasonable interpretation of that DRV and of the desires of most Wikipedia editors. *** Crotalus *** 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom case

You aren't supposed to post in my evidence section, as it says at the top of the page. I left it there because I don't know where else to put it. Also, a small factual error: JzG also lives outside of the US, in England. The way, the truth, and the light 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved my response to a different section. *** Crotalus *** 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey

Hey, you can't just edit WP:NOT. Too many people protecting the illusion, don't you know. 172.159.93.208 (talk · contribs)

Image:Voodoo_5_6000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Voodoo_5_6000.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a justification on talk. This card never saw production; only a handful exist, and obtaining a free photo may not be reasonably possible. *** Crotalus *** 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I reviewed the image and agree it's probably not easily replaced. The image does however need a fair use rationale written to explain more in depth why it's needed in the article and how it complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, non-replacability is only one of 10 points. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for some tips, thanks. --Sherool (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a fair use rationale to the image. *** Crotalus *** 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be helpful

As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request notification

Hi there. I'm leaving a courtesy note to let you know that I am asking the closing admin to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth in popular culture. My arguments are laid out at User talk:Coredesat#Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request. As you took part in the original AfD, I'm notifying you so that you can add your opinion, either there or later if it goes to DRV. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Afd-tally

Template:Afd-tally has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compact disc#Logos

Why did you remove this section (which I've partially restored)? And why did you do so without any communication? This format was specifically suggested to me. Suggest you all get on the same page, and show a bit more courtesy. Thank you. --John Navas 05:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wal-Mart logo.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wal-Mart logo.svg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:X-Padlock.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:X-Padlock.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packet monkey

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Packet monkey, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. --- tqbf 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Script kiddie, which is where I originally had it pointed. *** Crotalus *** 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ultra Hi-Res Cube Demo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this message was the result of a bot malfunction. *** Crotalus *** 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DID

Thanks for your edits on Satanic ritual abuse to revert edits made by User:Abuse truth to try to force false claims that the Dissociative identity disorder diagnosis is now uncontroversial, etc., into the article. I should note that the Dissociative identity disorder article itself is under attack by a couple of individuals trying to make the same false and POV-pushing claims. If you have time your input over there would be very helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus: Thanks for bringing some sanity to the Satanic ritual abuse article. I just left a message in DreamGuy's talk page that you may want to read. Cesar Tort 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse and mediation

Would you care to post at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Propose formal mediation, where I have asked if involved editors might agree in principle to formal mediation? <eleland/talkedits> 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Deaththreatblock

Template:Deaththreatblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion: SVG trademarks

I notice you discussed the fate of {{SVG-Trademark}} at TfD (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007_May_7#Template:SVG-Trademark). That same issue is being discussed again at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#SVG Logos, so I thought I'd drop you a line and give you the chance to weigh in. Dylan (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Tatiana

No problem :) I wanted a free image of just Tatiana for the Wikinews article: Tiger that escaped enclosure at San Francisco Zoo may have 'climbed' over wall and for the related news article at the bottom of that. I had one from the Zoo's website, but fair use is so lame sometimes :-) I suspected someone somewhere had images of her, but was only a matter of time before they uploaded them. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Satanic ritual abuse.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Lumber Cartel

I appreciate your gracious withdrawal. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Troutslap

Template:Troutslap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RichardΩ6 12 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your edits which greatly improved Asian fetish. миражinred 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

As you already know, everyone is limited to three reverts in a 24 hour period. I think you just used up yours today. User:Tkguy seem to have used up his 3RR for the day as well. Cool Hand Luke already posted a thread about Tkguy and hopefully appropriate actions will be taken. миражinred 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I am going to post on the reliable sources noticeboard to try to bring more attention to this situation. *** Crotalus *** 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your post to ANI—which only partially chronicles the user's Wikipedia career—was convincing. Good work. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a good idea to shun him until there's action taken. миражinred 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can wait until action from admins are taken and then revert his edits... миражinred 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. Maybe other editors like Cool Hand Luke can collaborate also. миражinred 07:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied and pasted the article at my sandbox. User:Saranghae honey/Sandbox миражinred 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Death Cookie

I have nominated The Death Cookie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death Cookie. 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. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding Ashida Kim

Thanks for nominationg Ashida Kim for deletion, but the person's been nominated for deletion 3 times, so it'll probably have to go to AfD (again). Andjam (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish - a work in progress

I expanded the article a bit and deleted section that uses obscure or fringe sources such as AsianWeek. The article at my sandbox includes brief mention about the use in the gay community (uses an article from GLAAD as a source) and an incident about Bloodhound Gang's song "Yellow Fever." (now with better sources) Would you like to take a look/edit? Feel free to offer comments at the discussion page. миражinred (speak my child...) 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --El on ka 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Request granted. <insert usual patronising lecture about not misusing/>--Doc^g 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Moff

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Moff, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Moff was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Moff, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moff

That's a good explanation. I was unsure, hence the edit summary when placed. Thanks for clarifying the situation. Best regards, Rudget . 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAS

But you are reverting all the citations when all you want to do is revert the image. The cites were a mess and needed to be fixed, and the References section has to be trimmed down. Please let me do it. I've added the in-use tag, but it could take a few hours because it's very fiddly work. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll stand back and let you finish. Thanks for updating me on the status of this. *** Crotalus *** 07:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration regarding personal attacks on Asian fetish

I have issued a request for arbitration case involving you. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Unfettered_Personal_Attacks,_Bullying,_and_Stalking_on_Asian_fetish. Tkguy (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you insist. I've responsed on the arbitration page. *** Crotalus *** 08:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion wanted on ANI

I would value your contribution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish. Cool Hand Luke 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Very interesting, thank you, I'll read it carefully. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Death Cookie.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles

You prodded three articles (Miniatures: Views of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and Jihad in the West) with concerns that they did not cite original third-party sources; I eventually deleted them because of an expired PROD tag. The original author requested the pages be undeleted, and said he would work on the sources. Would it be all right if you if I undelete them? jj137 ^♠ 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you ask him if he has reliable third-party sources for any of them. I did a cursory search and was unable to find any such sources. If he does cite such sources, then I would be OK with undeletion. Be sure that they meet the reliability test, and aren't just random political blogs or some such. This user has a history of tendentious editing related to this issue. *** Crotalus *** 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment to AIN

I think your recent comment would be very valuable here as well. :) Fnag aton 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus

I am notifying you that I have made an official complaint against you. I want you off "Ed O'Loughlin" because of incivil and unprofessional behaviour contrary to Wikipedia precepts. Your false accusations of "sockpuppeting" against me are intolerable. You seem to have a POV to push on Ed OLoughlin rather than to behave in a civil and co-operative manner. You previously created a bogus consensus to achieve the goal of deleting an article. You completely ignore the cogent arguments put forward by Avraham. All you do is repeat "CoatracK" which Avraham has already dealt with.

Adon Emett (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adon Emett I reviewed your edits and I also think you're a sock puppet due to the single purpose nature of your edits so far. I'd like to remind you that newly created accounts don't have much (if any) weight in AfD discussions. Fnag aton 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re participation in mediation

Hello. I'm just trying to be helpful here, and very likely there's no problem, in which case you can just ignore this message. I noticed that you put a message at User talk:Jayjg re mediation, in which you said "It's up to you whether or not you want to participate". This wording leads me to suspect that just possibly you're not aware of the following words on the mediation page, "If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected." I just thought I would bring this to your attention. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]