User talk:Jmlk17

Jmlk17 is: Offline

This is Jmlk17's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 /Archive11 /Archive12

This page is archived not upon a certain date or time, but rather just whenever I feel as if the page is getting too long. So if you don't see an old discussion, just check the archives!

Dan Carter Page

Um there something wrong with the page coz i can't edit it and only certain parts of text show up can you please try and fix it thanks

Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done... :) Jmlk 1 7 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... glad to help! :) Jmlk 1 7 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey mate, sorry about the nonsense article. Still testin Wikipedia... was about to delete it myself..thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire999 (talk • contribs) 16:43, December 19, 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem buddy. Welcome, and happy editing! :) Jmlk 1 7 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete the MetroHorse article?

Hello, why did you delete the MetroHorse article. This article is credible. You can go on Google and search for Metrohorse. You will see over 1100 results. Please recosider your decision as MetroHorse is a real and credible website.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk201 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, yet that alone does not signify notability. Jmlk 1 7 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the Kanzen Maid Sengen article

Why did you delete it? It was deleted 2 seconds after it created. It has its own Japanese wikipedia article too. Dasomcafe (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanzen Maid Sengen (JAP:完全メイド宣言) is the name of an all-female Japanese music group of seven members, who are all employees of one of the popular Akihabara maid cafes, @home Cafe. Their music is labeled under PINK BUNNY RECORDS. They made their first debute in 2005 and released one album called Kanzen best sengen 1 (完全ベスト宣言1). Their single, Kanzen meido no rokkurisumasu (完全メイドのロックリスマス) ranked 2nd on Oricon's indies chart.

ja:完全メイド宣言 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasomcafe (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems finding much of anything to signify notability however. Jmlk 1 7 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...."buddy"?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to kill me with kindness. Anyways, calling a random collection of people a "cult" is just asking for an attorney, briefcase and all, to file a class action lawsuit against Wiki. Then Wiki wont be free anymore...:( I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just being friendly. And honestly, while I can understand your concern(s), Wikipedia isn't going to be sued over an article like that. Jmlk 1 7 03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal disrupting articles for over a month

Hello. I just noticed your response [1] to mmy RFPP [2]. I have been reading the page protection policy. I refer you to my numerous WP:AIV complaints against what is, in all likelihood, a single user with multiple ips from the same domain [3] (previous complaints cascaded in the previous diff). I am uncertain as to which wikipedia policies apply in this case. A single user has been switching ips to attack/vandalize multiple articles over the course of a month. Please see the revision histories of the following articles [4][5][6][7]. Could you please look into this matter and take whatever action you deem necessary to stop this user? Thank you and happy holidays. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (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 administrator. I 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 admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though 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. --El on ka 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! :) Jmlk 1 7 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm not quite sure how to process the logic of the statement that you're confident in my abilities and you're pleased that I made admin, and yet you still opposed. ;) But, thanks, I guess. :) --El on ka 18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying I have faith in the RFA process and since you passed, you have my faith as well. :) Jmlk 1 7 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakic

I considered nominating it as soon as it reached FA. I was thinking though of either April 9 (start of the playoffs, of which Sakic should be part of again), or July 7, his birthday. Open to suggestions though. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking his birthday might be a good one... so that gives us plenty of time before we actually have to act! :) Jmlk 1 7 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your support on my recent, successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to use the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... best of luck! :) Jmlk 1 7 05:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Rant

YOU CANT STOP DUDE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO DONT TRY....WE WILL BE BACK NIGHT ALL— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougarspride (talk • contribs) 00:06, December 21, 2007 (UTC)

We shall see... goodbye! Jmlk 1 7 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Classwipe

Hello, may I know what's wrong with the username? --King Edmund of the Woods (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be a play on words of "asswipe". Jmlk 1 7 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Bell Music -- Why Deleted? (Continuted discussion from archived page)

Thanks for your prompt note, I just saw it. You asked "what you could do" to work this out. If you're looking for further evidence of "notability" other than what is already there, you could go to www.SoulTracks.com and see that, as of today, she has been selected as the "Featured Artist" a ranking higher even than spotlight artist, which this month they are giving to Mary J. Blige, Boys II Men, and other major-label artists who already have Wikipedia pages. SoulTracks is the number 1 soul music website in this country, so it doesn't get much more "notable" than that in Ms. Bell's genre of music. Please put her original Wiki page back up and add this new information? Or we will add it? Kind regards.

R. Patryk

I'm believing that I have made a mistake with the deletion. :( Jmlk 1 7 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi, I saw you were the admin who blocked the vandal who was removing templates from a bunch of D&D articles last night. He's popped up again under a new IP, doing the same exact thing. My recent edit history and talk page will show you I'm trying to fend off this vandal single-handedly, and I need help. Thanks much. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, the same minute I posted this another admin took care of it. Have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they're on top of it... happy editing! Jmlk 1 7 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P Bze

Hi my name is Anthony Lindsey you have just deleted my page P Bze not to long ago but now you prevented me from creating it again. I understand what i did wrong but now i can fix it so can you please allow me to recreate this page? (Bigboytony (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there Anthony! First off, welcome! Secondly, I deleted the page due to a lack of notability. It appears that the page had been deleted several times for that ver reason by other administrators before I even got there. Is there anyway you could show that P Bze is a notable rapper or person? Jmlk 1 7 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

jj137 ^♠ 01:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! :) Jmlk 1 7 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so quick!

I think you got that before I finished my AIV report, lol. Thanks dear! Ariel♥Gold 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I try my best and sometimes it even works! :) Jmlk 1 7 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, very much.

Ariel♥Gold 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! :) Jmlk 1 7 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Maybe not all of them. But new users certainly need a guideline on what's appropriate to say around here and what's not. But, I compromise and made the page more "family friendly".--M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the guidelines are on the page already. Jmlk 1 7 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of , but the list is incomplete. For example, the block bots have a definitive list. What new users need is a also a definitive list, and I'm the man to do it! My dad's a truck driving former Marine and would be happy to help.M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on; you are always more than welcome to help around here. But honestly, a list of inappropriate words isn't necessary. The article itself gives the guidelines, and what you were adding doesn't do much more than just list curse and attack slurs. Jmlk 1 7 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Lopez

New users don't even check that thing --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know... I don't think I ever even have, 2 years into my stint here. :) Jmlk 1 7 02:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the irony... --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurts even. :) Jmlk 1 7 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it sure got User talk:M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL. he/she/it got blocked... Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

shoot I almost broke the three revert tool. that was close one. Do you now if there is a tool that warns you about that you did three reverts

--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so... what didja do? :) Jmlk 1 7 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting vandalism, but luckily Bowbowbow stopped. It's not really considered edit warring since I did not made a fourth edit --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, when it comes to reverting vandalism, it really isn't as stringent. But good to be on top of it. :) If you're concerned about continuing to revert vandalism beyond a 3RR, just let AIV know. Jmlk 1 7 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you mean reporting myself (along with the report of the other user) that I was reverting vandalism, but broke the rule because I was reverting vandalism. --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! An admin is certainly not going to punish an editor for getting rid of vandalism... just reminding you of the option of AIV if/when someone won't quit on an article. :) Jmlk 1 7 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aww I remember mow, report them of the 3 edit rule before I commit it. how could I forget.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Jmlk 1 7 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Liberian page

Hello,

You deleted the Wikipedia page for the New Liberian while I was in the process of adding citations and outside references and altogether Wikifying it. Otherwise it meets the guidelines.

168.103.120.25 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

````

D. Maass Sat. Dec 22, 2007

Hello there D. Maass. Unfortunately, I deleted the article due to a lack of notability. Do you believe this to be a mistake on my part? I have been known to make them! :) Jmlk 1 7 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmlk17

I think it might have been a mistake. If there can be entries for the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune, then I think it makes sense to also have entries for news media outlets in Liberia, especially as history is being made in the West African country. These Liberian newspapers are all intertwined in a greater culture of conflict and exile, and as such, very notable.

If there's something I need to do to add to the page, just let me know. In the meantime, can be reinstated so I can add to it?

Dave

67.131.72.210 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Dave. If you have a registered name here, I can restore the page to your personal sandbox, and that'll give you the ease of working on the page without anyone scrutinizing or deleting it. This is usually a good way for people to save deleted articles, building them up for keeping and eventually restoring them to an actual article. Just let me know! You can also email me if you like, so we don't have to keep playing talk page tag. Jmlk 1 7 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maassive (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that sounds okay. My username is Maassive.

Right on. I have restored the page to it's pre-deletion state at your personal sandbox here. If you can find some outside sources and expand upon the article some, it should be good! If you'd like, when you are finished or have done some work, I'll be more than happy to stop by and take a look at it for you. Just let me know! Best of luck, and happy editing! :) Jmlk 1 7 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Standings...

Actually, I did not fix your edit, I created my own. I am completing an excel spreadsheet that imports the NHL Standings on ESPN and wiki-codes the standings so all I have to do is refresh, and do 6 copy/paste operations to update the entire league. After I complete it, anyone who has Excel who might want it I will be more than happy to share. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Good idea... Jmlk 1 7 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that beyond Points, fewer games, and wins, I cannot at this time break any ties any other way, so there will be instances such as on Template:2007-08 NHL Northwest Division standings where I cannot automatically break a tie between Colorado and Minnesota as they have equal games played and the exact same record. While I could obviously use goal differential, I could not easily gather the common home-home record (which in this case is tied too) which is the first, so it will simply show the tie and sort in the order that it was posted on ESPN. This particular edit anyway will only be critical at or near the end of the season anyway. --Pparazorback (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I agree it'll only be truly important at the end of the season, but what about just for correctness? :) Also, ESPN has been known to mess up with NHL stuff sometimes, so I go with the official NHL.com website's standings. Good job on the templates by the way... Jmlk 1 7 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a good plan to check NHL.com, except I have even seen them break ties incorrectly during the season. tsn.com too for that matter. ESPN's method of presenting the standings is the only one of the three that allow me to create a consistent web query, plus ESPN updates fairly quickly, while TSN and NHL take forever. I'll make attempts during my updates to check for correctness whenever possible. --Pparazorback (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good buddy. Jmlk 1 7 09:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. Confused

I am the sexy one. Duh...— Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha! :) Jmlk 1 7 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

As I've repeated elsewhere, Ceoil does more helpful things on Wikipedia one day than Betacommand has done in his entire time editing Wikipedia. Your block was punitive as Ceoil said, and censorship of free speech as far as I am concerned. He's been very helpful to me on Wikipedia, and has been helpful to a lot of others. He's penned several FAs, and saved several FAs at FAR. Also, he's done his fair share of copyediting which I am the first to admit has helped me through four FACs. Thanks a lot for driving away a very good contributor, and one that contributes a fair amount of content. On the subject of content, feel free to take a cursory glance at how much content Betacommand has contributed. I'm not too sure what good things you did to gain adminship, but this is certainly not reflective of them at all (I'm hoping). If it is reflective of how you go about on Wikipedia, then the 41 people that supported your adminship are frankly mistaken. Trying to initially block Ceoil indefinitely was utterly disgraceful, and even the 48 hour block doesn't rank too high either. He isn't the first, and certainly not the last, editor to tell Betacommand what he truly is. I 110% support Ceoil's words, and echo them. I might be only one of a few brave enough to say that, but dozens others agree with Ceoil's comments. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was not a good block. It was perhaps not a polite as desirable, but not truly a violation of WP:NPA,. Please remove before it goes further. Your colleague admin, DGG (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has now brought it to AN/I. DGG (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to congratulate you, and apologise if the message I made above caused offence. I definitely feel this isn't reflective of your usual edits, and the 41 people who supported you were right to do so. Thanks for your time, and good luck being a decent administrator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and all... thanks for the wishes. :) Jmlk 1 7 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i too apologize if I implied anything beyond a simple error. keep up the good work. At least this did spark a useful discussion of a serious problem elsewhere involving someone else altogether. DGG (talk) 00

45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all. :) Jmlk 1 7 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re block of User:Ceoil

Hi. I am advising you that I have unblocked the above editor following consensus arrived at the discussion here. Your comments are of course welcome. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on your apology to Ceoil, and the manner in which it was given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Thank you for the unblock while I was gone. :) Jmlk 1 7 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by 116.14.1.232

Seems to be an autoblock that is attributed to you, although the log shows no active blocks nor any in the past. Can you look into this? Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's from the block of 116.14.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) (block log). Who is the puppet master? This is a long block for such a huge range. --B (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap... I believe my rangeblock went a bit out of control. As per the history of my talk page, a sock was IP-hopping through that range. I ended up under attack from them for some time, and tried a rangeblock to fix it. Seems I'm no good at those. Jmlk 1 7 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Jmlk 1 7 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A holiday wish

You know, I sincerely believe that we all make mistakes and as humans we cannot be expected to do otherwise. I'm in no way asking for someone to be perfect. What I am asking for is that when mistakes are made, the person responsible for that mistake apologizes. If you truly see yourself as just another editor, and not some sort of WikiGod, then I would encourage you to really and sincerely apologize to User:Ceoil. If I may speak frankly, Ceoil has done more for the encyclopedia than 99 percent of the editors on this project -- you can look at his contributions to verify this. And to indef block, without even discussing as far as I can tell, (even if you changed it to 48 hours, he still has an indef in his block log) is really an unfortunate way to treat such a valuable user. As you say, we all make mistakes, but it's clear that Ceoil isn't even remotely close to a serial offender who deserves such a massive block without a good faith discussion first. We could, conceivably, lose one of our best content contributors because of your action. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, and I think that a really sincere apology would be a gesture of good faith quite appropriate for the season, which would help restore the morale around this place a little bit. We've lost a lot of good content contributors lately; let's not allow that to happen again. Happy Holidays! --JayHenry (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a really beautiful article that you might enjoy reading: Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. I remember when it appeared on the Main Page. I was incredibly proud to be a Wikipedian that day. Are you ever overwhelmed by the beauty of the content that we sometimes create? I find myself filled with wonder on days I find articles like that. Cheers again! --JayHenry (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded (actually fourthed, after DGG and Lucifer). Either you did not check the quality and quantity of this user's contributions or you did check and decided to block anyway. In either case, it was a serious lapse in judgement as an admin. Marskell (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody makes mistakes (probably me more than others); Im not angry at you at all, I said these things happen, It was the reaction after. Your apology is appreciated, and my last number of posts have nothing to do with you. Actually, I was only angry with you for a few minutes. So, peace. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be on more peaceful terms. :) Jmlk 1 7 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Jmlk, its a wider issue im bitching about, not really anything to do with your account or mine. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man... I can sympathize with many of the issues around here. :) Jmlk 1 7 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmlk, I really admire your straightforward and sincere apology. If that bot person had a similar tone and attitude, there might not have been a problem (and I think I now see the source of the friction). You have my respect. Happy holidays and best wishes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays to you as well! :) Jmlk 1 7 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Marskell (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say, my impression of you as an admin, Jmlk, has always been very favorable and now I remember why. You're one of the good guys. In an ironic twist, I think it's me that owes you the apology now ;) The tone of my initial post was actually pretty nasty, and you definitely aren't the sort of admin who thinks he's a "WikiGod". I apologize for making such a stupid and undeserved insinuation. --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

116.14.0.0/16

I see you've unblocked this range. I must wonder about the wisdom of this. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_2_range_blocks, where I just got another range blocked by the same vandal. If there was ever a need for a range block, this was it; we have used range blocks for far less vandalism. We have a user on this range who has been relentlessly vandalizing userpages and user talk pages. If you do not wish to block this range, then please be willing to watchlist all the user talk pages I listed at that discussion, as we have been suffering vandalism on them for days (including the talk pages of the vandal, as he likes to go back and vandalize his old pages). I believe you will find the task far more arduous than is worth the effort. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been the target of the IP's wrath lately myself. I had the range blocked, but per the thread above, it seems some disagreed with me. Do you have a recommendation beyond that? :) Jmlk 1 7 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's wise to unblock. Cause your also blocking countless others. The so-called "vandalism" is justified. What do you mean? Vandalizing HIS OLD pages is also not allowed? This is really totalitarian. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay... :) Jmlk 1 7 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are totally unrepentant and that you are still reverting others user pages while at the same time accusing others of editing their old user pages. Have the "shared IP" notion gotten into your head? -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you stop adding nonsense messages (that are wrong and ill-informed), I will stop reverting them. Jmlk 1 7 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read through and analyse everything. They are not nonsense, not wrong and they are justified. What rubbish is this? Of course you can't revert when there are no additions. Merry christmas, nows a good time to repent. Maybe I will put it clearer: Nonsensical templates on the talk pages are unwarranted and unfair to others using the IPs. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why there are the usual "shared IP" notices. I have nothing to repent my friend. Jmlk 1 7 05:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have another nonsense left on my talk page. See it before I delete. Surprisingly you are not responsible for it. Must be one of your lackeys. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Please do not post on my page again unless it is on another issue. Your complaint(s) have no bearing, and you deletions of proper warnings are unwarranted. Jmlk 1 7 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have to say I am so sorry for you elitist and stuck up admins. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. :) Jmlk 1 7 05:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing request

This message has been addressed to you because you happened to be around at the time. I've sworn not to close fiction AfD's, and will likely get yelled at even if I do so purely on procedural grounds. It's on the latter that I ask you to speedily end Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination) as premature if that's in accordance with your own judgement. The article was just nominated for deletion twenty-nine days after the last nomination ended, for the very same reasons as the last time around. Yes, "consensus can change", but in a month? Renominating rapidly with the same arguments in the same situation bases decisions on tenacity and luck, rather than article merit. That's not something that Wikipedia can withstand.

Neither would a month have been a reasonable amount of time for a cleanup and fix - that tends to be a slow process, this being a voluntary organization - if there had been such a provision in the last closing, which there wasn't.

Neither can local experts - volunteers too - be expected to improve our coverage if they must rally to the defense of their surviving articles monthly. AfDs are non-trivial in their costs of time, effort, and morale. Improving includes making sure that our the coverage of their subject remains good in light of AfDs, and fixing the problems identified that led to AfDs. I've sadly seen plenty of evidence of WikiProjects being run ragged in recent times, and D&D is the foremost. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 07:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Kizor. I can easily understand your concern(s), and if the consensus had been for a "keep" before, I would close this one without hesitation. But I am a bit reluctant to do so in this case, especially since the previous AfD was so heated and ended without any result. Jmlk 1 7 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, that's a point against it. Note, though, that the heat (such at it is, but 'so heated' is a subjective term) emanates almost entirely from one editor and arguments against him, and that whether the outcome is a nc or a keep doesn't affect that concern about editors' limited strength. Some offers about looking into finding more sources have been made, too - I see one statement about those being findable snuck into the second statement as we were talking. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 07:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you gotta "love" those sort of debates huh? I've watchlisted the debate, and I'm going to keep a close eye on it for the time being. Sorry not be to be more of an immediate help, but if the debate goes nowhere, I'll close it. Jmlk 1 7 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist Nancy Reagan

I am in an edit war with user HappyTalk22 over the Nancy Reagan article. My edits are not vandalistic, do not offer any poor info, and only improve the flow of the article. Please assist.