User talk:PeterSymonds

edit count | edit summary usage

Unblock...

I noticed you took away the text on my talk page that told me I was blocked. Does that mean I'm not blocked? And just so you know, I have no idea why I got blocked in the first place.-Sector311 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks I was wondering what I was getting blocked for. Thanks for hekping me!-Sector311 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Query

The report I submitted on Deobandi had an error in it - I did not realise the anon-user in question was using a range. If you check [1], you will see the range 118.103.239.* has been vandalising Deobandi. I was hoping you could help me, as I am not an administrator. How do I mark a range of addys making the same edits? He's clearly vandalising - those edits are pretty hostile. Thanks so much! Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

where can i report the misuse/abuse of rollback by an editor? can i report it to you? or must i file an ANI? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. we can talk here if you don't mind. i am concerned that McJeff is misusing Rollback to claim 'vandalism' against users who attempt to re-add a 'controversy' section to the Tucker Max article. the thing is, there was an RfC for the merits of having a controversy section, about whether it was warranted or not, and only one outside editor ended up commenting, but he said that it was warranted. McJeff then proceeded to remove the RfC and removed the controversy section regardless, as if there were no question. then, there was an RfC about whether an anonymous blog was a good source or not, and all the (3 or more) outside editors unanimously agreed that it was a bad source. McJeff removed the RfC without asking anyone (i started the RfC), and he decided to still keep the anonymous blog source, and revert any attempts to remove it. I believe he is displaying ownership issues with the article, which brings me to the rollback misuse. an IP editor keeps trying to add the controversy section back, but McJeff has warned the person for vandalism. i don't believe this is obvious vandalism, maybe just inexperienced editing. i believe mcjeff has displayed that he doesn't want the controversy section, and he is using rollback to call it as vandalism when people try to add it back. it really just isn't clear cut vandalism to add it back. i believe that both the Tucker Max article, and McJeff's editing history (i just looked at it) has a lot of evidence of him using rollback inappropriately. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

forgive me if i have made some errors here, but i believe that most of these are evidence of the misuse of rollback. [[2]] here is an example of him using rollback to revert non-vandalism (I was removing an anonymous blog that he vehemently reverted for days, even after the RfC editors said it was not to be included. [[3]] rollback on non-vandalism again [[4]]

[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] Theserialcomma (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The only diff you provided me on my talk page that was even close to being inappropriate was the reversion of Theserialcomma during the content dispute. Two of the reverts were against an account who has been repeatedly both warned and blocked for making without-consensus changes to pages, and the other two were reverting vandalism exactly as the tool is supposed to be used for, unless you can show me a rule that says "Rollback is not to be used on anonymous IP editors who add malicious external links". McJeff (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll follow your advice, wait a couple weeks, reread the policy a few times and then reapply for the rights. 75.148.25.169 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me above, forgot to log in. sorry. McJeff (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've read the rules over again - I was under the mistaken understanding that the removal of Gamecruft was a valid use of the rollback feature, which I see now that it isn't. I also know that using rollback inappropriately during a content dispute was inexcusable, and should I reapply for rollback rights, I'll refrain from using it at all on articles I'm currently involved in a dispute on.

I do have a question, though - what are the policies on using rollback against editors who repeatedly insert unconstructive edits that they have already been warned against using? The wrestler moveset edits and the List of Characters in Bully edits are both of that type - the editors who were rollbacked were told that those edits weren't acceptable, and they did not attempt to start dialogue, just rewrote the edit.

I'd also like to point out that the user who complained about me has an active thread on AN/I about him. I don't want to get him in trouble because after a determined effort on my part to be both civil and cordial he's begun to respond positively, but I did think that mentioning that AN/I report was worth mentioning. McJeff (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

while it's true that mcjeff has filed multiple ANIs on me, his last one was ignored by all admins the first time it was on the ANI page, and so he then decided to move the complaint out of the archives and repost it a second time. the only admin to comment ruled completely against him. also, i believe he is misusing rollback again. plus, he is also engaged in a slow edit war to push a pov in Tucker Max. he insists on placing a gigantic copy and pasted treatise into the first available spot in the RfC discussion, even though the copy and pasted material is available on the same discussion page already. i fear this behavior will dissuade editors from responding to the RfC as it now appears too messy to know where to even begin. rollback misuse (i don't believe he truly understands the policy on how to use rollback): [[25]] Theserialcomma (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hessel-(C/K)assel-related suspiciousness

Two users have since weighed in on this mess: UserTodkvi5832 and User:JLIBPB. Both ceased editing on the same day (November 17, 2007) only to return today to weigh in on this proposal by User:Cladeal832. Neither user has had any contributions after agreeing with User:Cladeal832's position. While I'm not prepared to make any statement about any connection with User:Cladeal832, the good money appears to show that UserTodkvi5832 and User:JLIBPB are one and the same. JPG-GR (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Pry (play) & Nevada Theatre

Thanks, Peter. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I added some diffs to my AIV report against User:Rebafan11, along with [this]. If you have any other questions, please feel free to message me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mysore mallige

Thank for the congratulatory message--Nvvchar (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DELETED PAGE- Endeavor (nonprofit)

The page Endeavor (nonprofit) has been deleted with no warning. It has been up since December 2006, and recently some edits were made to it. After several iterations of editing, the page no longer had editing warnings, and seemed perfectly fine. Now, it appears that there is another non-profit organization in the section, and our page does not exist. Please discuss and/or repost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalendeavor (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thief

You stole my userpage! I am calling the police ;) Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You blocked an article

You blocked this article [26] stating heavy IP-vandalism. Although there was hardly any vandalism at all. In fact, many of the IP contributions were removing vandalism from the article. 220.253.32.214 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision not to delete Susan_Bayh

Hi, I am contacting you at your user talk page in an attempt to follow the procedure set out at WP:Deletion_review. I protest the decision to retain the article, Susan_Bayh. Not counting a message by the creator and chief author, the AfD discussion registered three keeps and three eliminates or skepticals (the first eliminate wasn't indented nor given a one word heading). Here are my reasons for wishing the article deleted.

The article is a good example of the misconduct described under WP:COATRACK (note that I have added the Coatrack tag to the article). The article is not content to link to Evan_Bayh's BLP. There are several gratuitous "coatracking" shifts of focus, e.g., the sentence following the report of her marriage to Evan says the marriage occurred a few months before he launched his career as an elected official. The entire section entitled "Controversy" is really about her politician husband and not her, and its thrust is entirely POV, to advocate holding Evan Bayh to be caught in conflicts of interest due to the nature of his wife's career activities. This has nothing to do with documenting news *events*.

According to policies and guidelines, Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor a blog. Specifically, keeping up to the minute on current events is not part of Wikipedia's mission. This is true aside from the fact that keeping up to the minute with current events is an activity that often is compatible with what *are* Wikipedia's missions and an activity that many Wikipedians pursue vigorously. The conclusion I draw is that the notability critierion is not satisfied by a person being either a prospect for vice presidential running mate or the spouse of the person who is the prospect -- especially not spouse. The status of being a prospect for being chosen U.S. vice presidential candidate is labile, ephemeral. Furthermore, the verifiability criterion is usually not satisfied in the case of "VP prospects": usually, real evidence does not surface that a person *is* a VP prospect, only rumors. So, what else makes Senator Evan Bayh's wife, or more, specifically, the record of her income sources, notable? Only that she is an elected official's wife. Going back to the "Controversy" section, note that *she* -- the ostensible article subject -- is not accused of improprieties, *the senator* is. The impropriety he is accused of is being married to a corporate director.

There are many governmental and private entities dedicated to being watchdogs of politicians and attempts to influence them. I suggest it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to mirror the duties or databases of these organizations, e.g., by listing a senator's wife's income from her corporate board memberships and stock transactions.

What editor Eastlaw has produced reeks of snooping and nonnotability. For example, it is written that the Bayhs maintain a residence in Indiana, but reside primarily in the nation's capital, and it is written that the Washington, D.C. house is in her name. The last bit of info is trivia from a person's private life that does not normally belong in WP. The other info is not notable: of course a federal representative of jurisdiction X has to have a residence there, and of course senators and house members whose jurisdictions are far from DC are going to reside primarily in D.C. -- utterly nonnotable.

In summary: being the spouse of an elected official in itself does not pass the Notability threshold; being a wealthy, powerful corporate director does not in itself pass the Notability threshold; all things considered, Susan Bayh the politician's spouse and corporate director is not notable enough; most of the info in the article doesn't even belong in Senator Bayh's article; all the information in the Susan_Bayh article should either be merged with Evan_Bayh or deleted.

In the meantime, I will delete passages from the article which seem especially inappropriate. Thank you for your attention. 146.244.72.204 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your message. However, the article was kept by community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, so closing it as keep was the only thing possible. You are correct that the spouse of an elected official does not automatically qualify as notable, but the arguments there provided evidence that she carried enough notability in her own right to allow an article to exist. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/Sandbox

Did you really mean to switch Template:Citation to using its sandbox copy of core? That effectively undid the page-protection on {{Citation}} (because {{Citation/core}} is protected and {{Citation/core/Sandbox}} is not). RossPatterson (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Age

Hey I was just curious but how old are you? --Xander756 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hi, thank you for your help. The article has been a long-time target for vandalism or falsification on information with bogus sources (sources themselves are from reliable news, but they did not properly convey the content) by 2channel people. See WP:AN#User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

The news says that 330,000 would be the estimated number of prostitutes in South Korea, not 800,000. The report is done by not Korean Administration as the vandal allege but by Korean Institute of Criminology, according to the source. The figure, 800,000 is alleged by Feminist associations according to the source. Besides, the vandali's content that 1/ 25 Korean female are prostitute is also false. 1/ 25 of over 20's females are. If I can't read Japanese, I would be fooled by the seemingly properly sourced material. User:Azukimonaka did that a lot. Anyway, thank you for cleaning vandalism. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Kindly restore Adam Hemmeon, which you deleted as A7 but is asserted to be the mayor of Halifax Nova Scotia, along with a source!!. I know I could just restore it myself, but I thought best to let you know. DGG (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tfd top template

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit to {{Tfd top}}, and after reading your edit summary, I'm a bit confused. The way I was using the template, it didn't have that effect. I would write:

{{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''. Reason.}}, which (with the autosigning) produces:

I'm guessing from your comment that you would type something like:

{{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''}} Reason., which would produce:

Is that what is going on? Is what I was doing against common practice, and that's why the signature was going in the wrong place? Or am I completely off-base? I would appreciate anything you could tell me to make my understanding clearer. Thanks, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I started the discussion at WT:TFD#Autosigning template:Tfd top, if you want to comment.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Real life name exposure

Would it be possible to eliminiate this edit from the history of the article? It includes the real names of several high-profile (in that broadcast area) on-air DJs. To respect their right to privacy, it would seem prudent to remove the edit entirely. --Winger84 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

Thanks, I've been told about that one since. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, not sure if the message was automated or not, but thanks! Twas my first time :P. Ironholds 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For my next trick i'll be working on a missing greek city-state. You wouldn't know anyone who makes maps would you? Dropping it off at WP:GL takes a long time, and since the project is currently in my sandbox it'd be rather moot. Ironholds 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you in advance for your future co-nom., it means a lot to me. I never actually got your email but Malinaccier told me the contents. Thanks again! Regards, --Cameron* 09:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Move query

I'm not particularly bothered either way, but could you explain why you chose to close Talk:Latin_hip_hop#Requested_move as move? The move rationale was more than a little illogical ("other pages use hip-hop") and had nothing to do with the article content, something I pointed out. If you have time, I'd be interested - thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was against any unsourced move (I could have made that clearer though!) - the article is completely unsourced, and I didn't think we should move it until we found out what reliable sources called the subject. I would be surprised if there is absolutely no distinction between Latin rap and Latin hip-hop as claimed in the text and implicitly suggested in the move. Seeing as no-one else has volunteered any thoughts or sources however, I suppose this title is no worse than before, but it's definitely no better. No further action is required, I can see why you moved it - I just hope someone sees my comment at some point and decided to do some research and sourcing on the subject. Thanks for your quick reply, Knepflerle (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Eucharist and more...

Hey. Sorry to trouble you, but something just came up. Several weeks ago, you placed Origin of the Eucharist on full protection due to edit warring and such. One of the editors involved in that little battle has since taken the fight to the history section of Eucharist, largely copying and pasting text from the Origin article. An editor started a discussion here, but I'm at a loss as to how to handle this so as to avoid having that page turn into a war/protect. Any advice? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Block per WP:SUICIDE"

I've unblocked this user... I think blocking users immediately after they make a suicide threat is a very bad idea - the last thing a truly depressed person needs to see is a big angry, impersonal "you are blocked" message. :/ They should be left alone while the Foundation and local authorities take action. I apologize for the overturning and don't mean to wheel war, I just feel it's rather urgent. krimpet✽ 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

English footballers

I noticed that you created a whole series of articles recently about [[English]] footballers. As a friendly reminder, English is a disambiguation page. Surely, you meant that they were [[England|English]]. --Russ (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, he made the pages in regard of me, I had already made the articles in my userspace with the mistake, and I was short for time so I asked Peter if he would make them for me, I take full responsibility for this error. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages

{{talkback|Gears of War}}

Gears of War 2 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted revisions of User:BenBurch

Can you explain on the AN thread why you deleted those revisions? I don't see what WP policy the information in them violated. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted his unwarranted vandalism as a misapplication of WP:BLP. He has no right to infringe on Mr. Burch's right to provide a statement which clears his good name. More importantly, it stands as proof positive that we musn't allow whiners and liars the opportunity to spin articles on themseleves. WP:NPOV always trumps WP:BLP, we musn't allow ourselves to be involved in advocacy on behalf of the subject. As is readily apparent, the subject was resoundingly denied her frivolous litigation. Any further attempt to vandalize this user's page will result in swift reversion. Please refrain from WP:BLP hand-wringing. Thank you and have a nice day. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New Messages From Mifter

{{talkback|Mifter}}--Mifter (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you SatuSuro 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

problem uploading image

Hi Peter. On reclaimed water page I am trying to upload image, kirby bauer disk diffusion test. I previously uploaded kirby bauer green, changed format from tif to jpg, then changed the name and tried to do it again, but couldn't. I must be doing something wrong. Thanks.Notindustry (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

You are the second admin, and third user, to endorse deletion of Fetish: Footage: Forum (and its unspaced counterpart). I would love to hear your rationale. Skomorokh 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottowa Wine Tasting - may I get a copy

Would you mind restoring (or otherwise getting to me) the table portion of the recently deleted Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981? (see here) I'll recreate it without they copyvio, but could use the table. Also, would you mind pointing out where it was copied from? That will help me avoid trouble in the new article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

recurring rollback misuse

after misusing rollback here [[27]], McJeff's explanation was that this was vandalism from a vandalism-only account. the "vandalism-only" account's contribs are here [[28]]. this was neither vandalism nor is this a vandalism only account (if it were vandalism, there wouldn't be a current RfC over whether this exact section should be in the article). here is another [[29]]. McJeff, for whatever reason, still misuses rollback even after it was removed and restored a few days ago for this same behavior. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what I said to Theserialcomma in regards to this absolutely appropriate use of rollback.

I will restate - according to WP:BLP, Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I did revert the controversy section and in the case of new editors I will explain why to them, but in the case of a revert-only account like Bill.matthews who has already been contacted about his inappropriate behavior, using rollback to revert his edits is exactly what rollback is intended for.

McJeff (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as the aforementioned RfC goes, the reason there is an RfC is because Theserialcomma refuses to accept that consensus is against the criticism section he wants in the Tucker Max article. The second to last person arguing in favor of the section, Atlantabravz, suggested that we wait until the Tucker Max Movie came out and The Smoking Gun investigated the claims made in the controversy section [30]. With consensus clearly against the section, Theserialcomma then decided to file an RfC because he didn't like it [31]. McJeff (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to add the part where you wrote "Out of all 25 diffs that you provided of my alleged rollback misuse, only one was found in the end to be actual misuse," which, of course, is untrue. and to be historically accurate, which you haven't been, you were the one who filed an RfC, not me. your personal memory of the facts are unbelievable. furthermore, there was no consensus for the removal of the section as you falsely claimed (evidence: [[32]].) but this is about your alleged misuse of rollback. let's keep this about rollback and not cloud the issue with irrelevancies. let's just find out if you are using your rollback correctly, as you adamantly claim to be doing so. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, however, it has to be addressed now. You demanded the RfC. I filed it because the last time you filed an RfC, you did not follow the directions and you used language favorable to your POV rather than neutral language. That doesn't change the fact that you are the sole reason the RfC was filed, and that you were the one that demanded the RfC in the first place. Incidentally I might remind you that it's the second RfC you demanded for the section - the first RfC found in favor of not including a criticism section, and you insisted on a second because you didn't like the result of the first. As far as the dif you provided, might I point out that it was again, just you refusing to accept consensus, and capping it off by attacking me personally as a rebuttal to my statements?

PeterSymonds, I'm sorry to clutter up your talk page with this stuff, but based on the two AN/I's that have been filed on him, his behavior on the talk pages, his determination to get me in trouble, and his reluctance to actually learn the policies of wikipedia, I feel that Theserialcomma should be written off as a troublemaking account. At the very least, I hope that if he complains to you about me again, you talk to me directly before taking any administrative action, as I think both this incident and the last incident demonstrate that Theserialcomma carries a grudge towards me over the Tucker Max article, does not truly understand how Wikipedia works, and has no inclination of learning.

By the way, would you consider reverting my rollback and then undoing his revert to be disruptive? What about repeatedly trying to remove a comment he didn't like from the RfC [33] [34] [35]? McJeff (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

actually, the only outside editor to comment on the first rfc (filed by you) voted completely in favor of my position. you then removed the controversy section anyway, without a consensus, and against the outside editor's comment. then i filed an rfc because you reverted my attempts to remove an anonymous blog. 3 or 4 outside editors and admins, everyone who commented, unanimously found you to be wrong. then you just moved the anonymous blog from a source to an external link, and vigorously defended and reverted attempts to remove that. this should have never happened for an anonymous blog, and you should not attack my grasp of wikipedia policies as someone who reverted attempts to remove an anonymous blog to the point of disobeying the outside editors and admins who commented on the RfC . you then removed my RfC and still wouldn't remove the anonymous link. finally an outside admin came in to remove it. that brings us to now. you filed a new RfC, and then you claimed here that I filed it. weird. and yes, you filed 3 ANIs on me. but they were all failures. the last one resulted in not a single admin or editor even responding to your ANI, so you decided to bump the whole complaint from the archives and respost it. the only admin to respond this time sided with me, and against you. i question your recollection of historical facts Theserialcomma (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Flat out lies, on both counts.

[36] The first RfC over the Criticism section. No outside editor "fully agreed" with Theserialcomma.

[37] The "anonymous blog" link, as mentioned, was removed not by an administrator but by me myself. Yes, I fought very hard for its inclusion as I felt it was useful enough to be worth ignoring rules for, but there comes a time to stop beating a dead horse.

As far as the AN/I's go, more lies. First, there were only two - one got reposted because no one responded. At any rate, on both of the AN/I threads on TSC, his behavior was found "lacking but not enough so for administrator intervention". In administrator User:DGG's words, The discussions seem inappropriately personal for an article talk page, but fall short of what would be termed personal attacks, so I cant see how to intervene as an administrator. On the first AN/I he was also reproached for violating WP:BLP. McJeff (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

your cherry picked "facts" and blatant historical revisionism is really irrelevant to your alleged misuse of rollback. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to take this point to note that I provide proof with diffs whenever Theserialcomma accuses me of something, but his lines such as cherry picked "facts" and blatant historical revisionism have none. This is especially galling when you consider that my facts are all supported by diffs, whereas his usually are not supported at all, and on those occasions he does cite diffs, they rarely if ever say what he claims they will. My only improper action was the one misuse of rollback, which has already been dealt with, everything else was completely appropriate. McJeff (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion got a little unwieldy and off topic, i've filed an ANI so we don't have to burden Peter with this. [[38]] Theserialcomma (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The ANI was filed because Theserialcomma has nothing else he can say - I have debunked every point against him and turned most of them right around on him. This is ludicrous that I am being punished and he is not - I believe my rollback rights should be reinstated immediately and he should be forbidden from editing any articles that I work on, as he is unable to leave me alone. McJeff (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said you were going to leave a message on my talk page about your decision. I don't really care if you do that or not, but I am interested in knowing why, despite being one of the biggest problem editors I've encountered in my 2 years on wikipedia, Theserialcomma keeps getting ignored by the adminstration and no one is willing to step in and make him act right. McJeff (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

you have no right to make personal attacks against me. this was about your misuse of rollback, nothing more. you clearly misused it, and your privileged were permanently revoked - end of story. you need to leave me alone and stop making personal attacks, especially like what you wrote in your edit summary on your userpage. i'm not going to repeat it or link to it, but you should know that if any admin saw that, you'd probably get blocked or banned. that type of language and behavior is completely 100% unacceptable. you are way out of line. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal coronets

Hiya Peter. I need a little help — renaming Commons:Image:Monarch's Grandchildren Coronet.svg and Commons:Image:Royal Ducal Coronet.svg on the Commons (to Commons:Image:Heir apparent's Children Coronet.svg and Commons:Image:Monarch's Other Grandchildren Coronet.svg respectively). But I really can't figure out the process... Have you any idea, or do you know someone who has? Cheers ^† DBD 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. I got the impression it might be something like that... ^† DBD 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

All done, and the duplicates have been deleted. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK? update

Thanks for doing this! I don't care if I don't have the authority to present this; you deserve it. CB (ö) 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		Awarded to PeterSymonds for updating Did You Know? when all hope seemed lost.

Speedy G1 tagging

Hi there. Please refrain from tagging articles as G1. G1 is for absolute nonsense, incomprehensible content. An example would be a page with "ahhhhhhhhhsjsjdjjjjjjj!!!!!!!!!!!" on it. Articles which can be read and understood are not are not incomprehensible. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed the article on Jewelculture up for speedy deletion due to the fact that it made no sense and it seemed like some form of personal advertisement, which proved correct becuase the user that created the page, shared the same name as the article and had the same incoprehensible jargon on her talk page - no hard feelings Avi15 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Raywiki.jpg

What would be the right license for this? I know Ray's family and that image was just one of their own that they had on their computer. – Homestar-winner 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinarism

How come you've deleted the page about Chinarism? (Xizilbash (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Question

Re. "You claimed that it was necessary for context" – I never claimed that. Please explain.

I claimed removal of non-free content per policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...to alert the user that their comment has been removed, and wait until the discussion is concluded before actually removing it." – seems rather contradictory. The steps you propose are: remove, do something else, and then wait before actually removing. I can make no sense of that.

Further, "...comment has been removed..." is incorrect: I didn't remove a comment, I removed copyrighted text per policy. Steve had removed my comment when reverting ([39]): my comment started with "Shortened per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text [...]", ending with "[...] per WP:V#Non-English sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)" --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheetah Girls

Hey, you deleted this yesterday. Someone tagged it as spam but it clearly isn't. I'm sure you were just being careless but thought I should let you know I've restored it. Flowerparty^☀ 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

KFC

What was going on with the KFC article today? MMetro (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK updating

The DYK update is ready, I believe, mainly including all of the expiring hooks that were good, although it's possible that I'm missing another one in there. If you're available to do the update right now that'd be great. I can always help out with the article talk page and user DYK credit notifications if needed. :-) Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of new article - Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

You deleted the new article I inserted for the IIROC. It is an organization in Canada equivalent to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in the United States. That is, it is not a commercial enterprise but a recognized self-regulatory organization that has a public interest mandate to protect investors aand the integrity of the securities market. This article, although very short so far, is justified as part of a series of articles explaining the system of government securities regulation and securities industry self regualtion in Canada. If FINRA rates an article in Wikipedia, why would you delete the IIROC article? Midstream (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you want evidence of IIROC's notability, just Google it. You'll see numerous news references to its activities in halting the traidn of stocks on Canadian exchanges and disciplining brokers. It's a fairly new organization, formed just two months ago from the merger of two predecessor organizations. One of them, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, has been around for about 100 years and would meet the notability tests itself. The other merger partner, Market Regulation Services, Inc, was of more recent vintage, having been formed about 6 years ago, but it was also very significant on the regulatory scene. Midstream (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Bwanga

Whoa ... you just deleted an article with a HANGON tag that was added 3 seconds ago. Slow down, delting valid articles doesn't make you a good editor. Get the article undeleted ASAP so that I can add the information to the discussion page. I'm not sure what idiot PROD'd it yet, because it only takes 2 seconds of research to find the person on Google, and determine that the article belongs. BMW(drive) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem so reasonable, I'm sure Peter will consider this request. However, I endorse the deletion, which wasn't the first time the article was deleted. Just because the information can be verified doesn't mean this subject meets WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Also, no "idiot" put a PROD tag on it, it was tagged straight for speedy deletion. Adding eleven different cleanup tags to an article (as you did) is probably a good indication that deletion should at least be considered. Tan ǀ 39 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks (I supposed) ... I was doing NPP and did a quick 2 second Google search for the person, and found that yes, Wikipedia should have an article for this person, and they are notable enough, so I felt the article should stay...albeit, extremely cleaned up (hence my tags) BMW(drive) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you show how this person meets WP:MUSIC, instead of just stating that a Google search shows we "should" have an article for this subject? Tan ǀ 39 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ermm...4 African-produced albums, touring with one of Africa's biggest exports, a big North American release, airplay that includes Christian radio (ever tried to get that?) ... in the typical UK/US music industry, that may not seem like a big thing, but it's huge coming from Africa (and I only know a FEW African bands/artists). Of course, taking all my time explaining this is taking precious time that I have to fix the article this evening ... again, I did't WRITE the original, I merely NPP'd it to find it met Wikipedia's standards BMW(drive) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, until you actually address WP:MUSIC, there's not much to be done. Having four African-produced albums does not create notability. Touring with one of Africa's biggest exports does not automatically create notability. Having a North American release does not automatically create notability, unless you mean a hit that ranked on national charts, then it does. Etc, etc, etc. You need to specifically address the policy/guideline, not just state vague criteria. Tan ǀ 39 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, now some other editor has page-protected it. God, I tell you ... it's so hard to find good help these days :) BMW(drive) 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Blatant Advertising

So, I agree that Collarity is not blatant advertising anymore, but it sure is advertising. It looks like it only exists to get the company's name out, because it's a short sentence and then a lot of buzz-wordy "see also's." What to do, if not call it advertising? I'm rather new. Should it be tagged in some way? Stijndon (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be tagged for expansion :-) It's pretty sad, and yes still sounds a little like an advert, but not enough to be horrifically removed! BMW(drive) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)