User talk:SouthernNights

NOTE: If you are here about a deleted article: Before asking why I deleted your article please read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically concerning copying copyrighted text and notability of articles.

• If your article was deleted because it was "Not notable" or about "Unremarkable people or groups," please see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for more information.
• If the article was deleted for a copyright violation, but you wrote the material yourself and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on your external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

Hope this helps.--Alabamaboy 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

*Please note that I tend to post responses on this page (except when I don't :-).

Archives
Talk Archives 1 Talk Archives 2 Talk Archives 3 Talk Archives 4 Talk Archives 5 Talk Archives 6 Talk Archives 7

• Alabamaboy maintains a grab bag page of different templates and links which admins and other users may find useful.

DYK

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earl Kemp, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User and Talk pages

I will be collaborating with Johntex on a salvage effort on the Marshall, Texas article to avoid the need for a FAR. I would like my userpage and talk page unprotected for the duration of my activity on this project. Your opinions on the article renovation will be most welcome of course. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll also check out the article and any critiques. --Alabamaboy 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a change of heart after seeing that most of my work here is now worthless. I'd like my userpages deleted, except the Texan Cabal which I want given to Johntex. If you'd like to make a historical summary or soemthing that's fine, but I want the pages as they are now gone. Thanks. -Jay

Recovering data from a deleted article

Is there any way I can retrive the information from an article that has been deleted (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Star Empire)? I am working to set up a workable article which would include information from this article and several others and am hoping I would not have to completely recreate it.

Or, is it possible we could get this rebuilt as a redirect to Alpha Octant?

Thank you for your time.--Donovan Ravenhull 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. I did not want to risk sanctions for recreating the article, even as just a redirect, directly after a deletion.--Donovan Ravenhull 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I thought that the issue was resolved because Mrs.EasterBunny wanted some people to comment on if the comment "Groundless AFD" was inappropriate. Somebody said they wouldn't have used that phrase, I seconded the comment. If Mrs.EasterBunny is mad, I'm sure she will say so. Given that her comments are often very polite, I think she may be satisfied and, if so, the matter is resolved! If not, she can say so.

UTAFA 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Alabamaboy 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mmon ask me a question

p

You said "I left some links at the top of this page so you can learn more about Wikipedia. Welcome.--Alabamaboy"

I've been editing for 6 months, albeit not too much. I've seen cooperation. I've seen conflict. Ask me a question about wikipedia policy. Let's see if I can answer it. If not, it's something to learn. C'mon, hit me right here with a question. Free use question? BLP question? Sock it to me and see me either hit a home run or collapse while gripping my stomach :p UTAFA 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Good to see your page back. You are my friend and I will always be here for you. Tony the Marine 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. And likewise back at you.--Alabamaboy 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

re Email

Thanks for the advice, but i have already made it very clear in my last message to him that i have no desire to get involved in their petty disputes, in fact i may have been a bit strong, but i wanted to be clear. Anyway, thank you for your concern--Jac16888 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Alabamaboy 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

10,000 edits! Amazing. Thank you for all your hard work. Aside from your enormous contribution, you are considerate and reasonable - two of the most important qualities on these pages. You set an example for us all.Smatprt 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely kind words. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for breast protect

I substantially reorganised breast some months ago, and since then have kept an eye on it. There has been a lot of vandalism, as you know, and I want to thank you for semi-protecting it. I knew it had to be done, but wasn't sure of the steps necessary to officially persuade "the system" that that was an appropriate measure. I fear it may need to be a permanent protection -- as long as we have adolescents, we are going to have editors who think anything to do with sexuality, including sexual anatomy, is inherently worth putting their mark on. Kilroy was here. I imagine that knee and pancreas don't get so much negative attention. Anyway, thanks again. BrainyBabe 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--Alabamaboy 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

VRM

I have added a new ending to the article. It does not cover all of the connections between VRM and VRW, but it covers what I think scholars outline as the most important one. Sensibility would be the second most important one. Let me know if you think I should add sensibility. I was trying to avoid listy-ness. Awadewit | talk 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better. I still prefer the version that Kaldari worked up, but I can live with this.--Alabamaboy 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Killian documents authenticity issues

Would you mind taking at look at the Killian_documents_authenticity_issues page? An edit war has been going on there for a few weeks between User:Callmebc and others such as this. One of the issues is the definition of original research. It'd be a great help if WP:OR could be spelled out for all of us. Sorry to bother you with this, but I saw you had worked on the same issue with Callmebc last spring. Thanks, Jmcnamera 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll need to contact another admin. Due to possible conflict of interest issues due to previous personal attacks on me by an editor of that article, I will not involve myself in this issue. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of William Shakespeare

I didn't have a problem with your protection of this page the first time - it had been vandalised over 30 times in 2 hours. However since I unprotected it 3 1/2 hours ago, it has only been vandalised about a dozen times. That's pretty standard for the main page FA. Do you really think protection is needed at this time? WjBscribe 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at WP:ANI for input from more administrators so we can reach a consensus on whether protection is still needed [1]. WjBscribe 13:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I responded there. I should note, though, that the vandalism you referenced happened in a relatively short period of time and was justified in my view.--Alabamaboy 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Valley Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Valley Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Best selling author of all time

Is factual and referenced. Greatest writer is subjective and not factual. Both claims indicate the importance of Shakespeare. Sad mouse 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the info that Shakespeare is "now widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist" is both heavily cited (see the references), factually accurate, and also the consensus wording on this article. Please do not change that wording without first gaining a new consensus to do so.--Alabamaboy 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, you are an admin which means you are completely familiar with policy and interactions so I have no concern that you acted in bad faith at any point. I was personally put-off by your comments “that should end the debate on this” and “I am through with this debate. Every time someone presents referenced and accurate info for you, you split hairs”, because I don’t think you made an honest attempt to understand my position before slamming it down (and I felt that your response “considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time” in Britannica means we can write “greatest writer of all time” here was relatively weak), but you are under no obligation to try to understand my position so no harm done. The personal attack I was referring to was “fueled by personal opposition and nothing else” which was not by you and not something I would bother taking further, however I cannot consider this person to read my position in good faith after a remark like this.

I will not make any changes to Shakespeare, or further comments on the talk page or your talk page, because without others being willing to consider my point dispassionately no consensus will occur. I just found it incredibly frustrating because it seemed like people were assuming that my purpose in rewording the intro was to belittle Shakespeare’s importance. I was upfront in stating that I don’t think he is the greatest writer of the English language, but also in stating that that was not the reason for my proposed change. You stated in your reply to me that “the general public along with critics see Shakespeare as the greatest writer”, and this is what I just don’t see any justification for. I understand and agree with your point that critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer, and indeed I would be fine with a line saying “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer”. But I feel like you didn’t make an effort to understand my point that even if he is the greatest writer and acknowledged as such by every scholar, that doesn’t mean the broad public would have that opinion. As the polls that I linked to indicate, Shakespeare’s works are not included on the list of the public’s all time favourite book, which indicates that they do not consider him the greatest writer. It seems like so many people in this discussion have also assumed that “widely regarded” refers to the general population which means that the introduction sentence is misleading unless there is strong evidence for the general population’s sentiment. Afterall, the scholars were making their assessment of Shakespeare’s critical value and influence, all the references they make are saying that “Shakespeare is the greatest writer” not “the wide public think that Shakespeare is the greatest writer”. In fact, a literature scholar that I know recently moaned that so many people she knew outside literature thought more of Dan Brown than Shakespeare. She would have absolutely stated that Shakespeare was better, but would not have said that the general public think Shakespeare is better. This is why I think that a comment like “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer” or “Shakespeare is the best-selling author of all time” would be more factually accurate statements (and don’t reduce his importance). Anyway, that is it from me. Sad mouse 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare "greatest" debate

I think when he/she is talking about attacks she is reffering to when you said she was splitting hairs and being nit-picky. I don't think that's really an attack, but it's the closest there was in the discussion. Anyway, just wanted to clarify what I think is her POV. Take it as you will. Wrad 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I shouldn't have said that. My apology.--Alabamaboy 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on my use of admin powers

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_William_Shakespeare_.28main_page_FA.29, several editors and admins feel that I misused my admin powers in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article when it was linked to by the main page. I initially semi-protected the article during a spurt of vandalism, reprotected the article the next day when vandalism picked up again, then removed the protection when concerns were raised. I said I would monitor the situation and if the vandalism picked up, I would reapply protection. That is what eventually happened. This article is one that I have worked on and monitored for a number of years. The article is heavily vandalized during the school year by kids. My position on protecting articles is that once vandalism passes a certain point, I feel it is unfair to ask editors to spend all their time reverting said vandalism.

I ask that people comment on whether I violated any conflict of interest in my actions, if I acted in bad faith, or if I abused my administrator responsibility. Based on the comments, I am prepared to no longer use any admin powers with regards to the Shakespeare article or even give up being an administrator if people feel that is warranted. Please comment below.--Alabamaboy 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't really a serious abuse of admin powers... especially since as far as I can tell you've been civil at all times. There was a disagreement, maybe you didn't know the full implications of using admin powers here, it's not like you protected a page to gain advantage in a content dispute or something. Maybe consider a personal "1 revert rule" for using protection in the future? --W.marsh 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any need for this, Your doing fine, just be open. Mercury 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• With regards to the small amount of interaction we had on the Shakespeare article I don't think you violated conflict of interest and you certainly did not act in bad faith or abused your admin powers. I think it is unnecessary for you to limit your use of admin powers on the Shakespeare article and I certainly think it would be an over-reaction for you to give up your admin status. I think that every editor who has heavily invested in an article is over-protective of it, but you didn't violate any policies with your revisions. I personally believe that as a matter of style (not policy) the people who got an article FA status should sit back and see what happens to the articles as the general effect is positive and the quality of the changes can be debated after it is off the front-page, but I don't think our disagreement on style has any relevance on your admin use. Sad mouse 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Protecting the TFA is a long on going debate, there are entire essays on it, WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia:For_and_Against_TFA_protection. Personally I think we should protect it because it's nothing but a vandal target and good editors waste time fighting it--but all that's a separate issue. But back to the issue at hand. You asked for this review yourself, and to me that says enough, and speaks to your integrity. You have always been civil and I've never seen you abuse the admin bit. Just learn from this and move on. Rlevse 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that you acted in good faith, that this appears to have been an isolated dispute, and that no further action is needed. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Good faith actions undertaken in the quest to better the encyclopedia are never discouraged. I disagree with you that protection is the best course of action to take (and I'll explain why a bit further on AN/I hopefully later tonight), but that has no bearing on your judgment or your administrative actions. Keep on keeping on. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think you were not correct to protect, but it was not altogether unreasonable, and your good faith is obvious. DGG (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have always found you to act reasonably and responsibly. I support you here and believe you have acted in complete good faith.Smatprt 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the other users here. It is clear that you were acting in good faith. I don't personally feel that the protection was warranted, but I don't think you were out of your mind for doing it. While I may have disagreed with your particular action in this instance, I see no pattern of incompetence or malfeasance. Your continued access to sysop tools furthers the interests of the project. ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Personally I believe that there is no case for a misuse of admin. powers here. The William Shakespeare article has always been a target for vandals and you have done everything possible to fight those who vandalize said article. I can understand that being linked to the main page would attract more vandals and that a semi-protect in this particular case on your behave was an act of good-faith and not bad-faith. I support you because you have proven to be one of the best editors and admins in the pedia. Tony the Marine 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• There was no abuse of admin powers, and there is very rarely any "abuse" - people confuse "mistake" with "abuse" a lot around here. You obviously felt strongly about the article remaining pristine, to the extent of preventing editing during the day it was featured (and a lot of improvement can come from anons when an article is featured, as well as an opportunity to bring in new users), and perhaps should have recused yourself from making any decisions about protection or unprotection. Neil ム 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Looking back, that sounds a little harsh - just to clarify, I have no concerns that your actions were taken in anything other than good faith, and I don't think there's any need for any kind of restrictions or any such nonsense. Neil ム 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no problem that I am aware of with your use of admin powers in general. In the very specific case in question, I realise that having an article you have worked hard on be the FA is a bit like being asked to stand in front of an automatic staple gun for 24 hours. This said, any vandalism to the FA is usually removed within seconds or minutes, and is nothing to be concerned with. There is genuine value in asserting and demonstrating the openness of the encyclopedia and the project. Your close involvement probably gave you a lower threshold for such things than would usually be the case and so it would likely have been better to leave repeated decision-making of that kind to the admin corps at large. Your actions were entirely good-faith based, however, and you need have no worries about your adminning in general. Splash - tk 09:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did fine. There is always a clash between admins on the issue of how much a page should be protected, and there is a wide range of views about front-page protection. It's no big deal. Thanks for all your efforts against the vandals yesterday.qp10qp 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did good. Keep up the good work. Nothing to worry about from my perspective. WAVY 10 Fan 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Alabamaboy is an excellent editor who I've had a lot of contact with over the last two years because we're interested in editing some of the same topics. He always uses his admin powers with civility and good sense. Even if his judgement call was wrong (on which I don't have an opinion, and I don't even feel there IS a demonstrably correct opinion) he exercised that judgement for a good reason and in good faith. He has my support. Is it time to close this discussion per WP:SNOW, yet? AndyJones 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I was surprised to see the article protected so often, especially when the levels of vandalism seemed low for a Main Page FA. While the page was on the Main Page, you should have left the decision whether to protect or not up to other admins - you were clearly too involved to be objective. The issue of whether the article should have been protected as much as it has been before and after it was on the Main Page is another issue, and one that should also be examined, IMO. It is important to get the trade-off right between vandalism and allowing interested new editors to edit constructively. Having said that, I would echo the views of others that this was a good-faith mistake (the loss of objectivity - not the decision about when to protect, which is a much more subjective thing) and nothing to get worried about. Learning from mistakes is the important thing. The next time an FA you have been involved in appears on the Main Page, I am sure you will have learnt from this and will recognise when you need to recuse from a decision like page protection. Carcharoth 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and thanks for starting this review - that in itself shows a high level of integrity. I also liked Splash's staple gun analogy! :-) Carcharoth 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nods, I'd snow this one. Good sysop, minor dispute. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think it would be a tremendous loss for Wikipedia for you to give up your sysop bit - and I'm the one who wrote the guideline that you violated (that you shouldn't protect the daily featured article. Raul654 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• One more with the chorus. You were wrong, but it was debatable, and even more important, you were civil at all times and eventually accepted that the consensus was against you. Being nice when you are wrong is all we can ask for, we can't demand being right all the time, it would be beyond human. Carry on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Echoing the chorus above. I think your protection of the article went against the accepted guidelines, and I would hope that you don't do so in future but I have no other issues with your admin actions. We have not to my knowledge interacted before but you seem to do a good job - the comments from those above with more experience of you strongly support that. I don't think there any need for wider review - this was a one off incident - and I hope you don't think I was ever calling for such a review. I certainly don't think you acted in bad faith either. WjBscribe 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Who in the hell thinks that you abused power is ridiculous! what administrators stated that you abused power? Ignore some of these clowns! 149.68.105.27 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clowns? Where? <looks round> Ah. You've been looking in the mirror, I see. :-) Seriously, this was an exemplary review, with thoughtful comments. But I suppose a little soupcon of unneeded, redlinked outrage may spice things up a bit, but I don't think that was your intention. Carcharoth 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not serious abuse, and in fact, I believe it is necessary, since the William_Shakespeare page is vandalized often.  Involuntary_instance  talk  22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who commented and gave feedback on this issue. I will keep all of this in mind. Sincerely, --Alabamaboy 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright resolution

Dear Alabamaboy -

I was unable to find a method of communicating with you other than this... In your position as "veteran editor," you deemed my biographical material a "copyright violation" and deleted my bio from Wikipedia in 2006. On your user page you instruct users facing such deletions to insert an "authorship" notation on the page with which you asserted there was a copyright violation. I have done that. Could you please restore my material? Although I am certainly not a copyright expert as you are, I'm quite sure it is not a copyright violation to self-use material from a web site (or sites) completely created and authored by oneself without having to insert on every page of every such web page/site a gift-of-citation to Wikipedia. Perhaps self-citation is a violation of some Wikipedia rule (with which I am not familiar), but it's not a copyright violation. (There is no need to reply if you prefer not to waste your time. I don't frequent your user page to seek conversation. But I would, truly, appreciate your restoring my bio.) With deepest respect, thank you for your time and attention. Ralph Begleiter (real name, not pseudonym) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbegleiter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct--using your own material is not a copyright violation. However, Wikipedia sets its own rules with regards to our use of copyrighted material. The most accurate way for us to know that you are indeed the copyright owner of some text on a particular website, and to make sure we are using GFDL-copy, is for you to insert that statement on your own webpages. If you don't want to do that, feel free to recreate your article using original text. However, you should also know that many editors here frown upon people creating articles about themselves and may try to delete the article b/c of that. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more.--Alabamaboy 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. So, I have added the text you requested to the page you deleted. What else do I have to do to inspire you to restore it (you didn't mention any other "conditions")? And, would your reply also mean that the following page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy) should be deleted by Wikipedia editors because it is an "article about yourself?" Somehow I doubt it (and I don't advocate it). In short, I suppose my question is: There are lots of bios on Wikipedia. They do not all appear to be written by others. But would the solution be to have "someone else" create the page? Surely this can't be a "new" problem. Thanks again. (not "unsigned") Ralph Begleiter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.80.208 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be snarky and sarcastic, please do it elsewhere. If you had taken the time to read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would see that user pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy are different from creating an article about yourself. Anyway, I've restore your article at Ralph Begleiter. As for your other question, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest basically says that instead of creating an article about yourself, other editors should do that chore. But it's not an absolute rule and has been broken many times; as a result, we just try to manage the process the best we can. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear's daughter

I just wanted to make sure you saw this: [2] Raul654 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My School's IP

I am contacting you to tell you that the IP 204.38.47.182 is for my school and almost every time I access Wikipedia, the school is blocked from editing because another student has vandalized a page (or to prove at point at times, teachers). I am suggesting that you permanentaly ban this ip from editing to save the people that clean up a lot of work. Ketchuphed 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to User talk:204.38.47.182 and added a template indicating it is owned by the Saginaw Intermediate School District, Saginaw, Michigan. There does seem to be a steady pattern of abuse during every month school is in session. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lupin is MIA

Hi. I've noticed that Lupin has not edited since Sept. 5 and am concerned. No indication of a deliberate break. Since you have some experience checking in with users, I thought I'd mention it. No obligation. You may know of Lupin as the author of useful popups and antivandal scripts. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could help but I don't have enough info. However, after looking at Lupin's edit history is appears breaks like this aren't uncommon.--Alabamaboy 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Curly Joe the Puppet Deletion

I had just completed a fairly thorough article titled Curly Joe the Puppet when I found you had already placed it up for a speedy deletion based on the fact that it did not assert it's importance. I was curious why you felt that way and placed my reasoning in the discussion page (as well as making a very small edit to the page itself). To find the reasoning, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curly_Joe_the_Puppet.

Like I stated in the discussion page this character has gained national attention and has fans throughout the nation. I feel this page was important and needed to be put up. Within the article itself I thought I had supplied as much information as I needed to on it's importance. I didn't want the article to be about why people should know about Curly Joe, instead I thought it was more important to put up information about him.

If you have any suggestions on how I should modify the article to provide this information or any other necessary information, then I would gladly make any changes.

I thank you for your time and request the permission to recreate this page, Soli Deo Gloria 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal website to promote items of little notability. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you wish to appeal this, feel free to. But I'm just not seeing where this puppet has the notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not using wikipedia to try and promote a business or hobby of mine (the videos aren't even mine) as you suggest. I and many with whom I spoke felt that this character and the many associated videos which have, as I already said, begun to gain national attention are worthy of an informative article. My interest is simply in furthering wikipedia and expanding its content. I do not wish to see this article permanently blocked so I will not at this time, recreate the article. I do however believe that it is only a matter of time before an article will be created by another of the characters and the associated movies many fans.

Disappointed with your conclusion, Soli Deo Gloria 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Burning questions

I've got two, and since you're an admin and I know you, I figured I'd ask you. 1) How do I delete pages from my userspace? and 2)How do you move a page to a another page that already exists as, say, a redirect? Wrad 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what user pages you want deleted and I'll handle that. As for moving pages, use the move tab at the top of the page you wanted moved. If you have any problem with that let me know and I'll assist.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, could you delete these? User:Wrad/Sandbox3, User:Wrad/byulead. Wrad 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

Hi, I really like the page a lot. I do feel however it would be better at the multilingual meta.wikimedia rather than here on en.wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a mirror Deceased Wikipedians there. I'd thought several times about doing that but I wasn't familiar enough with meta.wikimedia to know where to put it. One question: do we maintain the english version or simply redirect to the meta site?--Alabamaboy 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We can simply use {{Softredirect}} on wikipedia side. All information should be kept in one location. -- Cat ^chi? 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also moved left over images to commons. En.wikipedia copies should be deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I now see that you brought up a MfD on the item. I don't have a problem with having the memorial page on meta and a redirect to that works for me. However, I see Newyorkbrad's point and we can leave both of them up for now. I'll just be sure to update and watch the meta page along with this English WP page.Best, --Alabamaboy 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The MfD was merely intended to gather consensus for the move (well I have done it in a bold manner anyways). The intention was not a delete at all, if you check my nomination I make no mention of a delete. It would be very demanding to pay attention to seperate discussions on two wikis. We will end up having parallel discussions on same topics. -- Cat ^chi? 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk, userpage, etc

When I first joined Wikipedia, we were encouraged during the account set up process to use our real names to add credibility, so in good faith I lent mine to this project. In my years here I mediated many disputes, most of them in the confidentiality of e-mails. I tried to protect minority opinions by coming to the aid of users with unpopular opinions and stop them from being railroaded by mob rule; even when I did not share their opinions. I contributed much of my free time to this project for years; most of it dedicated to mediation. I do not agree with the path Wikipedia has taken, but I did not go to some hostile forum and whine about it or write some tell all blog of all the behind the scene drama I saw; I just left.

Yet even in retirement, I am not left alone. My talk page exists for one reason alone; that its history is still accessible to average users. My talk page is protected and clearly states that I am no longer active; yet bots and admins still post on the page. Since I still have friends at Wikipedia, this is eventually brought to my attention, and once that is done, I feel obligated to respond and because I voluntarily gave up my administrator privileges—so that my account would not be too dangerous if compromised—I cannot remove the clutter or respond on the page.

I am also saddened to see that my work here is considered sub-standard and that as “the founder of Esperanza” I am seem to be a greater boogie man to some than WillyOnWheels, whose vandalism so many admins—myself included—fought against. I realize that since I was here so long and served in various positions, blanking or deleting my user page would leave a particularly bothersome red link.

Therefore, I request that my user page and its history be deleted and replaced with a brief and fair synopsis of my time here and that the protection of my talk page as an archive be enforced. I believe I have been more than patient in responding when someone contacts me, thus I do not feel that after this post I am obligated to provide my e-mail to Wikipedia or respond to queries on my talk page.

During my time here, I had my share of personality conflicts and disagreements over article content, but I resolved most of them on my own. I never went before ArbCom nor was I a Request For Comment ever filed against me. I endeavored to treat other users with respect; even if I sometimes failed. I do not feel it is unreasonable that I ask to be treated the same. -JCarriker 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)