User talk:Noloop

Leaving a message?

Is it thoughtful?
- Is it important?
  - Are you sure it contributes something?

Consensus [1]

Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer.

That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole.....

....In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority.

Yes, and? It does not state that the minority is always right. It does not state that Noloop must get his own way. It doesn't state that the majority is always wrong. It doesn't state that WP has re-written the definition. Consensus still means the majority whether you like it or not. All the above states is that the minority should be listened to. You were listened to... incessantly. It does not mean we have to go with what you say, it just means that your opinion should be listened to before the decision is made. You were listened to and a majority of people decided that you weren't right. That's the way the cookie crumbles. learn from it, live with it, then move on. It doesn't mean you were right then, it doesn't mean that you are right now. --Web Hamster 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it state that consensus is met when everyone agrees with Noloop, which seems to be the way you have interpreted it. It still comes down to a majority whether you like it ot not. WP is not in the business of rewriting dictionary definitions. Your own personal definitions have no place here. You've been told that time and time again. You don't appear to want to do anything here other than attempt to get your won way and then blame everyone else until you do. That doesn't bode well. --Web Hamster 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that you are really listening to someone is in how you talk to them. Your comments speak for themselves on that score.
The problem with your blanket statement about "my problem" is that all this conflict originates with the Anti-Americanism group. That isn't my first controversial article. My first was Jesus: I was a dogmatic newb, and there was conflict. It didn't result in 4 ANI's, 2 RFC/U's, 3 blocks for edit warring, a 2-week page protection, 2 sockpuppet cases, and an Abritration committee request. Nor did any of those people follow me across a dozen articles to continue the fight elsewhere. Only you guys have done that, and that is the heart of the matter. Noloop (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, what is apparent to everyone else, that when it comes to you it's a question of everyone else being to blame, never you. This is regardless of the number of people telling you that. The irony of your current situation still hasn't sunk home has it? You complain about someone else's behaviour yet you end up getting blocked. Most people would analyse their own behaviour in that situation, yet strangely your unblock request consists of blaming everyone else. I wonder how long it will take for you to realise what everyone else in this debacle realised long ago? --Web Hamster 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but your opinion of my personality doesn't interest me, and after a point becomes trolling. I was interested in your opinion about how Wikipedia's principles apply to certain difficult articles, but you are unable to provide that without twice as much trolling in the bargain. Noloop (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

Noloop, your behavior is very disruptive. Please don't erase materials supported by reliable refs. ~~If you don't stop; you will be blocked~~. AdjustShift (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by whom? The material isn't suppoerted by refs, there is no consensus that it is supported by refs, and even if it was supported by refs it would violate WP:WEIGHT, systemic bias, NPOV, and multiple other policies. What do you think you contribute by showing up at an article only to edit war? Noloop (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop, your edits are reverted by multiple editors. You are erasing materials supported by refs.[2][3] Ok, let's start a discussion. Why do you think those two info about Pakistan and Turkey shouldn't be in the article? AdjustShift (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverted by multiple editors with a track record of edit-warring (WebHamster, 2x on this article alone, and SlaterSteven), by editors who only came to the article in response to conflict (all of them except WebHamster), and by editors who have a track record of following me around just to revert me (as documented in the AN/I). I will restate (for the millionth time) the problems with this article generally on the article Talk page. Noloop (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the heading to "Anti-Americanism", and strike the block warning. I've responded on my talk page. Let's see if we can reach a consensus after a discussion. AdjustShift (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed my basic analysis on the article Talk page. For about the 10th time. If it goes as it did the other 9 times, the reasoning will be ignored by the majority, or responded to in strawman ways, and then I will be reverted without discussion. This is how systemic bias works, and it is also how trolling works. Noloop (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing at Criticism of Human Rights Watch. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

It is completely false that the "consensus is against me." The material being added is new material, not part of any stable version. I reverted to a version preferred by another editor (Crotalus horridus) as documented. The editor I reported had a flat, absolute 3RR violation adding material undone by more than one editor, and a history of warring; it is absurd to block one of us but not both. I arguably was warring; he, inarguably violated 3RR with a general history no different from mine. Black Kite's notion his was "consensus" is flatly wrong. The blocking admin has previously distorted my behavior and been criticized by me for it, and probably should have recused himself for prior conflict [4]. Finally, where did the 48 hours come from? I've never even been warned before.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

OK, the guide to appeals says I should restrict myself to facts that may be wrong about the block. The fact that is wrong in the original block's reasoning is that I am editing against consensus. The obvious proof of that is that the edit war has continued even after I have been blocked. Ta-da. I also really don't understand why I was given a 48 hr block when I've never even been blocked for 12 hours before, and when I hadn't even violated 3RR.

Decline reason:

Incivility and personal attacks below suggest block is justified. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have around 8 people, including 2 admins, against your edit to the article/s then that can be consensus.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Read the definition of consensus. It is not majority. A majority seems to be harmful to it, since the majority can use its advantage in an edit war to blow off the consensus process. That's exactly what is happening in Anti-Americanism--as you know since you are one of the trolls on the article. Meanwhile, get off my Talk page. Noloop (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: If the consensus is against me, then why is the edit war continuing even now that I am blocked? Duh. Noloop (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, only two editors have once.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's your problem right there, as has always been the case since you started editing. Your total misunderstanding of what consensus is...
con⋅sen⋅sus
–noun, plural -sus⋅es.

majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

--Web Hamster 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can another one from most likely a different dictionary, if that would please you.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need one, but I'm sure Noloop will likely disagree with the dictionary definition as it doesn't agree with him so is no doubt incorrect. His definition will of course be the correct one regardless of any evidence to the contrary. --Web Hamster 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant definition is the Wikipedia definition, which explicitly states it is not a majority. Noloop (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia definition says that it is not merely a majority. In most Wikipedia discussions, a supermajority is required to claim a consensus. In almost no example could I think of a situation where a viewpoint of 2 or 3 in the face of dozens of experienced editors could be considered a "consensus". Nowhere does the idea that "consensus does not equal majority" mean that "consensus means whoever agrees with my side". --Jayron32 17:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that I find myself moving closer to WebHamster's view of Wikipedia. Increasingly, I regard this place as full of (to use WH's term) "fucktwits" and admins as a waste of time. another month of this and I'll have his attitude completely. Noloop (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that I'm more or less one of those "fucktwits" to you.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: It's "fuckwits", only one 't'. --Web Hamster 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron. What the consensus process means to me is that people are making a sincere effort to listen to each other and respond to reasons on the Talk page. That process is necessary even when there is a clear majority, and if it doesn't exist even where there's a majority, then consensus doesn't exist. This is doubly important when editing articles subject to WP:systemic bias like, oh say, Anti-Americanism. Any majority will have a "tactical" advantage in the "game" of edit-warring. So any review of consensus absolutely must do more than just count editors on each side--particularly in articles subject to bias. If you want to get a feel for who is making an effort to contribute to consensus, you have to read the Talk pages, and pay attention to what is being said sincerely, what is being wiki-lawyered, what's a sincerely stated disagreement and what's a strawman, and, yes, what looks a bit like trolling. No such care has been brought to any of these topics by any admin that I've seen. For most articles, it probably doesn't matter. Carelessly equating majority with consensus on a systemically biased article will reinforce the bias and alienate those willing to challenge majority views. Noloop (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honstely don't give a fuck about you deleting my comment. I'm just here to say, in the direction your heading, there may be another block. (i.e. personal attacks that you have been doing.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your comments because I regard them as trolling. I regard you as a troll. But, the last time I said "I think Abce2" is a troll, Daniel Case called it an uncivil personal attack and used it as an excuse to avoid a serious review of a block. But, whatever. You've stalked me across multiple articles, there's probably no way to get you off my Talk page. Noloop (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I called it an uncivil personal attack because it was. I don't feel I have to review your edit history if I see something like that, posted subsequent to the block. And I'm not the only admin who would do that. I also find your statement here demonstrates a failure to AGF. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, Noloop. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone. Thanks oodles. Noloop (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, calling others trolls is unnacceptable.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different from calling people edit warriors, vandals, or any other label for disruptive behavior. And, you are not "just saying" that. Look at your contribs. Of your last 200 edits, the majority are directed at me. Why do you think I think you're a troll???? Please, leave me alone. Noloop (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I even asked another admin(out of curiosity) and he agreed. But I will recognize your request and will not post unless something comes up.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least Noloop is blocked for now, and it was high time. Hope the next time the admins will increase the block lenght though, as the discussion only confirms that Noloop is not willing to stop his disruptive editing and the trolling. Pantherskin (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I have filed a report about your behaviour and editing pattern here. Doc Tropics 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Where have you "filed" any effort at actually communicating with me? Noloop (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing at Criticism of Human Rights Watch. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus at Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch that indicates that more than half of the article, including its entire introduction section, should be removed. A reasonable way to edit after a block for disruptive editing would be to carefully discuss edits in that subject, and only make changes after consensus is clear: after all, you already know that your previous manner of editing is unhelpful and leads to blocks. Perhaps, when your block is over, you could wait to make major changes until the consensus is with you? Or, if you prefer, you can edit in the same way when your block expires, which will lead to another, longer, block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

There was no consensus to ADD the material, which is why it was removed. I did carefully discuss the edits, as did another editor. Nor did I revert the revert of my change. The situation now is that other editors can make whatever changes they want without discussion, and I can't. I don't get it. Why can one add mass material without consensus, but not remove it?

Decline reason:

I am declining this request because, after the block, you have continued disruptive personal attacks above, such as calling other editors names. Please cease this, or you will not likely be unblocked early. Jayron32 03:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I didn't call any editors names after this block. I don't know what Jayron is referring to. The material I removed was added without consensus. The Talk page is clear about the concerns: A concern that the article should be merged into the main article, to eliminate the POV fork and one-sidedness in its definition. And, a concern that the criteria for adding material should be very strict, because it is a platform for bashing an organization. The concerns are clearly stated in Talk by Croatlus and myself. The edit history is also clear: both of us were trying to stop the torrent of material being added. The material in question was being ADDED without consensus. The main basis for this block is factually wrong.

Decline reason:

I don't see the attack either, let's move on to the real issue. You were blocked for disrupting the page in question. Your first edit once your block expired was to revert again, without even attempting any new discussion. Nor has your attempt at discussion been productive -- you seem to think that just because you disagree with certain edits, they cannot possibly be made with consensus. Consensus is not a simple majority / minority situation but when there's an overwhelming supermajority, trying to hold the article hostage to concerns most people disagree with is disruptive, a form of asserting ownership of an article. Your block is now 1 week. When you return I expect you to (1) stop reverting, (2) return to discussion of the merits of the edits in question rather than points of Wikipedia process. Your current approach is disruptive. Mango juice^talk 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

And if only you'd established clearly on the talk page that it should be removed (which will be easy to do, if you're as clearly in the right as you believe yourself to be), then there would be no problem. Articles do need introductions, though- I'd be surprised if you gained consensus that this article should start in the middle. When your block expires, just be careful to establish on the talk page that others agree that your desired changes are the best way to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and you'll be fine. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it here: [5]. The material was being ADDED without consensus. I had no plan to continue reverting, and proceeded to work on another article that interests me Women's rights in Saudi Arabia after it, and discuss the points on Talk afterwards. a one-week block for a single edit? Huh?

"I've blocked this user for one week; he seems to have leaped back into the dispute he was blocked for disrupting, without any attempt at reasonable discussion that I can locate." Well you're right about one thing: I am clueless. It seems to me I've filled the Talk page with "attempts at reasonable discussion." Noloop (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind.

This is just factually wrong: "Your first edit once your block expired was to revert again, without even attempting any new discussion. "

I quit. I don't trust the admin community to be careful or fair. There is a strong sense of being pre-judged to be an asshole and the impossibility of a fair hearing in the future due to my reputation. A few thoughts and a suggestion:

Consensus is process of communication. Generally judging consensus merely by looking at edit histories is a mistake. It will consistently disadvantage minority views.
The rule is not "Mass addition of material doesn't require consensus, but mass deletion does." Yet, admins act that way.
Admins clearly default to a position of supporting each other, and making the accused bear a high burden of proof.
The admin community values quantity over quality. Maybe that's necessary, because of the size and complexity of Wikipedia. But, it leads to a lot of hurtful mistakes, and to errors like judging consensus just by looking edit histories.

That leads to my suggestion for change: Maybe Wikipedia needs an "Editor Advocacy" team of admins. It would have the narrowly defined mission of looking at conflicts with admins from the editor's point of view, and taking more time than usual.

The idea comes from a dispute I had with my broker. They botched a stock trade. I complained to customer service. It was denied very automatically, like the person handles dozens of such issues a day. Quantity over quality. I complained again, and was told it was being referred to a Customer Advocate. The role seemed to involve examining the issue from the customer's point of view, with a quality-over-quantity approach. The problem was fixed. They've probably found it helps with customer retention.

An Editor Advocacy team of admins could fill a similar niche. It could be by referral, to avoid trolling. It could help retain editors, especially those interested in minority views. It would reassure editors who feel admins are just supporting each other that their concerns are taken seriously.

I won't come back, because I feel completely unfairly treated. The unfairness partly comes from being pre-judged to be the asshole, and partly because the standard "quantity-over-quality" approach disadvantages minority viewpoints. Noloop (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to correction if I was wrong. The first edit you made after your previous block expired that wasn't to your own talk page was to revert the material in the article. That's all I was saying. You were building up your argument about WP:CON implying that edits to the article cannot go forward without your consent, but that isn't discussing the issue either. Look, you can't seriously expect that anyone who objects vigorously enough to any change in any article on Wikipedia could just invoke WP:CON and get all the things they object to to stop while they discuss as long as they want to. In such a model no progress could ever be made. So I was trying to say that you are mistaken about what WP:CON means for a situation like the one you were in. There are ways to try to make progress for you, such as opening an WP:RFC on the question. But what you did instead was revert pointlessly and then argue about the process based on an unrealistic interpretation of WP:CON. You aren't a bad guy, it's just that this approach is so unhelpful, it was necessary for the good of the project to block you temporarily in order to jolt you into reevaluating your approach. If you were to do that, an early unblock could be considered. Mango juice^talk 06:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said, but not that it applies here. My point is that WP:CON requires engagement with the minority, not submission to it. There was no such engagement. The minority expressed concerns based in policy and common sense. The majority plowed ahead. WP:CON implies there should at least be a pause in editing, and discussion. This isn't supposed to be an adversarial courtroom contest. We are supposed to be on the same team. The majority is supposed to care about what the minority thinks.
I don't know why admins keep framing this as solely about me. I wasn't the only one expressing concerns about the article's direction, nor the only one reverting the incessant addition of material. On a community-wide basis, there's no clear majority at all. The deletion discussion provided a community-wide forum: few voted to delete, but several voiced concerns about the POV-fork and bashing inherent in "Criticism of ..." articles.
I'm not interested in an early unblock. I'd rather have an indef block, so I'm not tempted to edit anything but my Talk page again. Noloop (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I assume the left hand knows what the right is doing. Admins here know there is a pending ArbCom case involving SlaterSteven, most editors posting here, and myself....right? You know SlaterSteven brought a fight to the Criticism of HRW article, right? We had a conflict elsewhere, I edited the HRW article, and he followed me to it and opposed me there also. Noloop (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am framing this about you because I was reviewing your request for unblocking. In other words, I was asked to review your behavior (by you) and the decision to issue you a block given that behavior. Mango juice^talk 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, every admin here has said that the material I reverted had consensus, because I was the only one objecting. That's not true. I was not the only one with POV-fork concerns in the article, or wider community; I wasn't the only one reverting.Noloop (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop, there are currently discussions here proposing that you be unblocked to participate in the case. I have asked the blocking admin to comment. If this request is granted, you would likely be restricted to only editing the case pages, and if you edited any other pages you would be blocked again for the remaining duration of the original block. If you would prefer to submit your evidence by e-mail, to be posted on the case pages, please indicate that here. If you would prefer to wait two days until your block expires, that is also an option. Please be aware that further disruptive editing during the case will almost certainly lead to longer blocks and a severe sanction as a result of the case itself. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per an agreement on the RFAR page, you have been unblocked in order that you can participate in the case. Please note the comment above about your editing practices whilst the case is in progress. It would probably be a good idea not to edit the article which led to your two blocks during this time. Black Kite 20:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review status

Hi, Noloop. I wanted to follow up with you regarding the good article review you started for Ayn Rand back on 4 August. I wonder if you still plan to complete the review, or if I should request a new reviewer since you have other matters to attend to. Not trying to pile on to your worries, but I'd like to make sure the review doesn't get lost in the process. Any reply you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply on my talk page. I'll see about getting a new reviewer. --RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop case extended

As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've extended the deadline in the Noloop case for the posting of the proposed decision. I know you stated you do not intend to participate in the case, but you now have until 13 September to present further evidence, or start presenting evidence. I've explained further here. If you have any questions, please ask there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]