User talk:Causa sui/Archive 9

Leonidas I

Yes sir, I apoligize I was just testing it out. I had no idea of the "Sandbox." I love history trust me I have been getting A's in history class. I just did some more editing to Leonidas I today. I was serious this time, adding stuff I found necessary to add. Check it out and please let me know if you like it. If you would like to talk about history email me, i love history, "Williamkid123@yahoo.com"

Richard Gaiser

Why did you delete the page? All of it was true. We have had to go back and redo his page 3 times now. It is getting very frustrating. We are simply trying to add honest promotion for our band and you are deleting our pages.

--Evan

UFC 84

A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana, right?

WikiProject Indianapolis		An invitation to join us!
		Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Indianapolis, Indiana. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Indianapolis, a project for the creation, expansion and improvement of articles related to metropolitan Indianapolis. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Indianapolis!

Are you a member of the project? If not, join us! Cheers, Basketball 110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Carlsen

Hello,

In this diff dating april 2005, you have added a game Carlsen-Ernst with annotations from Carlsen. However, the source is not clearly mentioned, nor the fact that Carlsen allowed this contents to be published here, and under which licence.
Could you be kind enough to clarify the source of the comments and mention an authorization and licence ? Thank you. Mro en (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel

Hi, you redirected the Weasel-inline Template to Template:Who. This caused a problem for those articles that reference the Template:Weal, which is itself a redirection to Weasel-inline. Wikipedia does not resolve the double redirection correctly. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and see 'ya

Belated note for you on my talk page. 69.60.114.162 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article on EU Microsoft case

[1] Corporate whitewashing? On whose part? I see no pressing need to include this aspect of reaction to the decision, but your summary confuses me. Also the section summarized the position in the sources, it wasn't editorializing. It was reportage. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would we confine our talk on article content to article talk pages? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Right to vanish request (feedback)

I don't mean to disrespect all of the work you've done for wikipedia. But, I want to tell you that the language and tone you chose here really pissed me off. I know that may not have been your intention, but here are some things that bothered me.

You said: "It looks like your user talk page was protected because you continued to post unblock templates despite your unblock requests being declined multiple times."

I looked, but could never find any documentation that said using the unblock template three times was considered abuse, but I could have easily missed it -- it would have been nice to cite if it's out there. I was using it in good faith each time, and I all ready the reason given for protecting the page was that I had "abused" it.

You said: "Blocks and page protections are not punitive."

That doesn't prevent them from being used in a way that is punitive. I haven't been around wikipedia as long as other editors, but I've seen a lot of politics and questionable uses of authority.

You said: "It would be wise to look at the history of your actions and learn from how your behavior has lead you to the situation you are now in."

Of course, that's always wise -- in any circumstance. But what I was concerned about was minimizing the damages.

You said: "If you abuse this opportunity once again, do not be surprised if your future bleatings about how unfairly you are being treated fall on deaf ears."

No one ever explained how I "abused" it before. I don't know the value of scolding someone is if you can't explain to them what they're being scolded for. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In the news

1. Please understand that ITN is not a newswire. Its purpose is to link to articles that already have been substantially expanded (or newly created and brought up to a decent level) because of recent news. A stub that provides virtually no information beyond the ITN blurb fails to qualify and is not of value to our readers. The article should be added to ITN after it's been improved to the point at which it provides a reasonable amount of information, not before.
2. When editing a main page section, please make use of the "Show preview" button, and always check to make sure that an image still exists here (hasn't been deleted and isn't being pulled from the Wikimedia Commons) before reverting to it.
Thank you. —David Levy 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Hermeneutics; Structural Marxism; Democritus; Analytic philosophy; Young Hegelians; Marxist literary criticism; Proletarian revolution; Evgeny Bareev; Central Military Commission; Neo-Marxism; Antihumanism; Anglo-Chinese School (Independent); Curt von Bardeleben; Marginalism; Coprophilia; Jan Timman; Four Modernizations; Michael Löwy; Medieval philosophy

Cleanup: Market socialism; Property; Relativism
Merge: Socialist law; Classlessness; American Empire
Add Sources: List of chess world championship matches; Three Represents; The Communist Manifesto
Wikify: Attilio Gatti; CRY America; Feral children in mythology and fiction
Expand: Scientific Socialism; Fédération Internationale des Échecs; Richard Lindzen

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado article

And what do you suggest to protect the Tornado article that seems to be the target of a concerted attack lately? Pierre cb (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi5.com article remains

The hi5.com article remains, wasn't it suppoused to be deleted?

It smells of astroturfing. The fact that I avoid social networking sites makes me -ironically- very aware of them, and yet this one simply passed under my radar. I didn't know of this site a week ago and now i have two request from frends, users of this service. Also the article states it is one of the most popular social networking site in latin america? It smells of astro-turfing. Maybe is a self-fulfiling prophecy but the truth seems to be that they are advertising on Wikipedia and profitting from it.

hi5.com article remains

The hi5.com article remains, wasn't it suppoused to be deleted?

It smells of astroturfing. The fact that I avoid social networking sites makes me -ironically- very aware of them, and yet this one simply passed under my radar. I didn't know of this site a week ago and now i have two request from frends, users of this service. Also the article states it is one of the most popular social networking site in latin america? It smells of astro-turfing. Maybe is a self-fulfiling prophecy but the truth seems to be that they are advertising on Wikipedia and profitting from it. --Requiem 18th_(email) 23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I was just about to leave you a note to ask if someone had gotten into your account. It didn't seem like a typical edit for you. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for cleaning up my talkpage. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just a heads up on [2] concerning some of your edits. --BozMo talk 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bnetd

Thank you for improving the bnetd article by deleting suspected original research. Unfortunately, some portions of the text you blanked were properly cited to third-party references, or could easily have third-party references found, and these portions have been restored. I invite you to participate on the article's talk page if you have further suggestions for improvement. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenham texas

I live there. The people that were deleted are very minor as members of the community. If fact, Michael Bishop was just a football player in the junior college in Brenham. Gus Mutscher was convicted of a felony. Most of the people in Brenham are not really proud of him.

KALZOID-73-20METER (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete

I saw you were the closing admin on Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss, could I get it copied over to my userspace so I have the info on-hand? Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko

Hi. I don't know why you think I didn't watch the video, but I assure you, I did. The word he used was "have", not "having". I actually replayed that particular moment at least three times, in fact, because it was one of the things I noticed that was different than in the article. In addition, a direct quote is preceded by a comma, not a colon (unless one is using a quote template), and the number of periods in an ellipsis should be consistent, and is usually three. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry man.

sorry man

my bad.

Oh, sorry I forgot.

go and eat yourself you curly haired lesbian bitch,

www.mylazysundays.com

I am in awe

I had no idea vandalism reverting could be so fun. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts - Trivia

Hi Ryan

I have your message regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Vear

I am a little confused here??

The page clean-up stated that is discouraged Trivia, so I have edited the page, amended and added it within Personal Lide section.

Your assistance would help, thanks

--81.149.59.93 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Santamaría

It's redundant to have 2 boxes providing information of gubernatorial succession? That's my explanation for removing the less informative of the two.72.221.92.43 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note.

Which article did I add unsourced material to? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How wqas I vandalizing on porosity I was giving info that there are pores everywhere including your skin

All I wrote there is pores on your skin._71.112.203.21 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he made 3 edits, the first two of which were WP:vandalism and the third of which was as he described. How about this: if he vandalizes no more pages then get rid of the third warning, but if he vandalizes more then block him? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. Last change

Have you read Macmillan's King George: What was His Problem? I believe that if you do you will find that my edit was correct. I am offended by your refusal of this. 86.18.119.97 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism re Quahog (Family Guy)

I would like an explanation as to why you have put a vandalism warning on my talk page regarding my edit to the page. It was in line with the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quahog (Family Guy). Shereth 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful with what you are reverting. You also reverted this which was very clearly marked as an AfD result. Shereth 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOPS

Ryan,

You're right - I left that message on the wrong page. That's some accomplishment consdiering I was using a script too! When I mess up, I really mess up. ANyway, I removed it, and I appologize. I'll be careful with the scripts in the future!

If I cant add no copy writed original document informatio that is cited what is the point, how are people to see the truth...??? Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.170.37 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle reverts in Wael Abbas

Hi Ryan, did you mean to make this revert? The version you reverted to had probably been edited by the same person as the one you reverted, and I don't see the reverted edits as vandalism. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverted to wrong info..

hihi ok...so how does wiki work then,....the article i was editing and am about to again was tampered with some antifans for the group or whoever put in ridiculously bogus info... changing names and countries... so i was righting the article... how/who exactly looks over all of this...are you a moderator? You should realize you reverted the right changes to the wrong info...so how do i make it so it stays and the right info doesnt get changed to wrong info? Telling me to looka t intro to editing doesnt help..

ElementalMissHap (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)ElementalMissHap[reply]

Template:Peacock

The image is unuseful and should not be in the ambox without a very good reason. 'I like it' obviously doesn't qualify. user:Dorftrottel 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did also comment on your edit summary, appropriately at your talk page. user:Dorftrottel 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is a thread here. user:Dorftrottel 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalSniper application

Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool. You are now welcome to download the program - and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so.

Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to VandalSniper!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:District of Columbia v. Heller

... have been reverted. Please show more good faith before deleting other users' contributions. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ad tag on Cray

Some time ago you tagged the Cray article with an advert. Can you explain this? There's no mention of your reasoning in the edit logs or the talk page. I'm inclined to simply remove it, but figured you might have some concrete examples. Maury (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done! Cray Maury (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your help on Bacterial_conjugation. — 69.134.122.144 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Will do! The thing was that the CSD I requested won't go through because the articles assesses that they are professional athletes, so I'm replacing them with prod-s. - Aktsu (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user cat removal

Per a recent UCFD, you may want to remove the associated user category from your page.--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note Ryan. I didn't realize I'd reverted the links to (Category:Denialism and Category:Pseudoscience) twice on the same page. I found that some zealously sophomoric Darwinist had categorized several similar pages with the same naively pejorative POV. I had no intent of engaging in an editing war with anyone who's interested in TE. Thanks again for the note. Keep up the great work. Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

political society

helping hand needed. someone put again AfD on political society article. thanks in advance --77.114.201.83 (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor point

Thank you for making this change in wording. I used "intensely" because I prefer informative to strictly correct¹, but getting both is even better. --Kiz o r 10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¹: And silly to dull, but that's another can of worms entirely.

please read- question

Hi!

I'm Joe Hamilton, I was wondering why you deleted my page Mike Kerr? I took a long time interviewing people, researching and perfecting that article. It's OK if you don't put it back on here, but I would like to have the article so I can keep it for personal records. SO PLEASE re-consider re-posting my article or simply sending it back to me so I can keep it in a file. It took a long time to get all the info in with I have gotten.

Thankyou, Joe Hamilton --JoeHamiltonIs111 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed text addition to the policy

I see that you've worked on the Wikipedia talk:No original research page. Would you care to comment on this proposal? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate and Inquire

My partner Marthaerin1812 was unable to even edit her talkpage; she confronted me and represented that somebody marked a protection on her talkpage. I investigated and discovered some Wikipedia edit guy named Spartaz had put Marthaerin1812's talkpage on protections for "time-wasting" which was NOT true: Marthaerin1812 wanted to only make requests of unfair blocking which also happened around my other partners account and pages-she was demanding clean beginnings across Wikipedia on editing. How would Marthaerin1812 have wasted time? Please tell me? Not mentioning her talkpage was put under protection three weeks ago without any proper reasons.

Making matters worse, certain Wikipedia crew got into the habit of accusing us of sockpuppets and "vandalizing"-problem is it's harder to edit Wikipedia without Wikipedia people popping up and unexpectedly saying Please do Not sentences and accusations of sock puppetry even though these were actual partners editing Wikipedia were coming out like wildfire. We would NEVER be vandalizing articles over Wikipedia. How could somebody be under accusation of "sockpuppetry" when people face harassments on every level causing people to disguise their names-you have certain Wikipedia editors harassing you left, right, back and forth.

12.210.198.245 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person has used many, many accounts and has done so abusively. They seriously need to stick to one account - Alison ^❤ 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP special sanctions

Hi Ryan - regarding the special enforcement subpage you were editing, are you aware that its a copy of the remedy in the footnoted quotes case? I'm not sure that its open to community editing given its status as an ArbCom remedy. I'm also not sure that your edits have introduced more clarity - the sanctions, for instance, aren't limited to page protection and review isn't limited to "abusive unprotection" of articles. I'm going to restore the version of the page that is identical to the ArbCom remedy. It may be worth contacting an arbitrator to determine whether or not the page was intended to be open to general editing. Avruch^T 12:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see you are an ArbCom clerk - perhaps you know something about this that I missed? Avruch^T 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You

Is this Ryan Thomas Delaney? Did you at one time live in Corona Ca? If so I would like to hear from you. Email me at norcorocks@sbcglobal.net Its Quentin Cuellar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.214.211 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Hi Ryan, please note user:Kleinzach keeps changing the name of the opera article, "A Noite do Castelo" to reflect the wrong spelling. I have already undone his changing the title spelling once while also answering to his [discussion querry], as he obviously was later still in doubt of my undoing his changes. Yet, he has now, once again, renamed the page to reflect the wrong spelling; even after my careful explanation to him in the discusion page where he asked for input in the subject he clearly and self expressedly knows nothing about (ie. Brazilian Portuguese ortographic rules). I have finally undone this last change and requested him again to read the WikiProject Opera rules which clearly states that "Operas: original language titles"): "When listing operas by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), the spelling in the original language, including any accents and diacritics, should be preserved". This opera is in the Brazilian Portuguese language, not Italian, Spanish, nor French (or Portuguese from Portugal which uses a different rule than the Brazilian one). The title must not obey any other language ortographic rule, but the Brazilian Portuguese one. I have even given this user the sources and references for my saying so. yet, he seems to disregard what I have shown him, while trying to show me some non-existent rule for his doing such changes. Please help user understand that this opera is in the Brazilian Portugues language, while its rules calls for capitalized spelling of the whole title (as I have spelled above). He is starting to stubbornly behave in a manner-like to vandalize the said page. Your input would be greatly appreciated (all he needs to do, actually, and if in doubt, is to look under the pt interwiki of the page in the same article to notice how to correctly spell the article in that language). Thank you, much. KerrBr (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Weldon

Hi i notice you have reverted vandlaism on this page before now. an IP 195.128.251.167 has done a whole bunch. I don't know how to revert the whole lot - I started doing it one by one but there must be a better way. can you help please? 86.136.31.188 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Please reverse your unprotection. The page has been vandalised by a long-term abusive sockpuppeteer for over a year, with attacks as recent as two days ago. The minute he realises the page has been unprotected he's going to have a field day. --Hut 8.5 06:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the complete list of socks at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tile join. Did you ask anybody who is familiar with the history of the article before you unprotected it? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warnings. We can discuss this further on Talk:Evolution. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Thief (chess)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thief (chess), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thief (chess). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, again, please

Ryan, I have asked your help before. Could you please try and take a look at A Noite do Castelo, as user:Kleinzach not only continues to change the original language spelling but he also has found company (user:Voceditenore) now to obstruct the original and correct article title (capitalization spelling)? Perhaps you can talk to these guys who keep making up different excuses every time against my valid arguments. I have shown them sources and references in Wikipedia to no avail. Thanks for your help. You can look at the WikipediaProject Opera for the policy of foreign language operas as well as the links I have left for them in the talk page for usage of capitals in different languages/cultures etc. (Does Wikipedia uses "sentence capitalization" for foreign opera titles, at all? I donot seem to find that mention any where, but that is their latest excuse for changing the opera spelling form the correct foreign language style). Anyway, thanks again, KerrBr (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy •
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete edit?

Thanks for removing this [3], may I suggest that you delete it from the article history as well? As you noticed, the source does not name this person, and neither should we (similar actions have been taken in the Norwegian article). You might also concider a less informative edit summary in this case. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Murray (singer)

Thanks for the suggestion and the removal of unsourced material. I was told of the newspaper article through the English Wikipedia mailing list and immediately put an alert on the talk page. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Watts

The admin who removed the db template was Zanimum. I did point out the policy but to no effect. I found the page whilst doing a bit of New Page patrolling. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

RE NPOV tag: The same problem is repeated on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy‎. I tagged the "Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence" section because it breaks elementary Wikipedia policy (see this one diff for example). JJJ999 keeps removing the tag, even though I have explained my objection in detail on the talk page. Tension is high and both myself and JJJ999 have reverted the page more times than is permitted. Without wanting to increase your workload, would you mind offering the same advice, very briefly, so that the tag is not removed until the dispute is settled? Dynablaster (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend non-intervention at present since I have already asked Lars to intervene, someone I am sure Dynaguy knows is an objective admin. We don't need a 4th admin asked by Dynaguy to look at it, and certainly not unless they intend to read the massive backstory with this, which is anything but simple as Dynaguy disingenuously claims here, and in which he has anything but clean hands. I have left a summary of the situation on Lars talk page.JJJ999 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JJJ999 (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)I just removed it because I wanted to prevent another admin jumping to conclusions as you told me you almost did. Since I've just asked Lars to look into it all, I don't think I can be accused of trying to hide it. I thought blanking the whole talk page might be extreme.[reply]

Lar said he is too busy to intervene. (diff) Dynablaster (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really need you (or a third party) to take a quick look at my proposal. I have highlighted areas of concern two posts below (in boldface). If you tell me that I have no serious objection, then I will respect that. Dynablaster (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question unrelated to our dispute. Since you are already involved, I thought I should ask you though. In the article one of the defenders of Moore is Chris Parry. Now I have no objection to both sides getting their say, but does this guy really qualify as a source? Some e-critic? I've linked his article here, it seems almost like a blog, with lines like "I dunno where Hitch is getting his crack". He's certainly not a journalist. http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=1150 JJJ999 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on. Will you look at this obvious meatpuppet he is now employing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Themeatpopsicle

At best this is a meat puppet, at worst a sock.JJJ999 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you commenting (I will ask others too). Not only on the Parry source, but also on the text I proposed which DGG (as usual) has not replied to. He wants it all ways, of implicitly challenging the text, but not engaging in actual proposals for text. He has also added an "unbalanced" tag (which he keeps readding) with no more explanation that his edit summary. The section he was tagging was approved by an admin earlier, even Dyna concedes that, and all that's happened since then is more sources and facts added. If he wants to put in contrary views, then fine, but it is ridiculous for him to just tag like this.JJJ999 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is just gaming the system. I've seen you in other conflicts like the sicko page tell editors who want tags there that they need to engage constructively to resolve conflicts. He once again has not done this. His reply to a severely edited paragraph I made (now that he has finally replied) is literally a single sentence, which effectively says "no good, go read wikipedia rules". This is not constructive. This guy is just gaming the system. In fact the rewritten paragraph attributes views to Kopel & Hitchens instead of as facts (his main criticism), and now sources everything by quote. His reply is "it's just more critical". I'm sorry but that isn't an objection based on rules here.JJJ999 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be expecting some input from you anytime soon?JJJ999 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dynaguy has not provided any sources to support his position that the article is imbalanced by the time the page protection expires, I hope you will support the removal of the tag. He has had a very long time to be constructive over this dispute, and I think he's lost the benefit of the doubt that allows the tag to stay.JJJ999 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on December 22 ("Moving forward"), in the hope that we might approach the longest running dispute first. (diff). The second area of dispute can be corrected without too much effort, but we need guidance on the first. Dynablaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

{{POV-section}} issues

Hi,

I've left a reply here, including a link to a fixed version. Can you sync the {{POV-section}} template with its sandbox, please? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJJ999

Hey Ryan. User:JJJ999, whom you blocked, is requesting unblock. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, since I have been watching his talk page for awhile since this whole thing started. Do you have a question about it? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just wanted to inform you. :) — Aitias // discussion 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock notification

Hello Ryan Delaney. User:JJJ999, whom you have blocked, is requesting unblock. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a new template. I'd appreciate your comment on the unblock request. Personally, I think the block was appropriate, but it may be a bit long for a run-of-the-mill content dispute and a few reverts. Sandstein 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

Hi Ryan Delaney, I was wondering why Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration was changed from semi-protection to full protection. I was in the middle of editing the page when you switched the page from semi-protection to full protection. Thank you. OCNative (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that! OCNative (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you let that protection expire? What the hell were you thinking? Only Today's Featured Article has to suffer from the lunacy of that rule. Anything else should be locked down. Especially something like that. Geez. Don't you know anything about how vandalism works here? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea the amount of work it would take to keep that article clean by blocking people? Approximately everyone in the United States, and a good number of people in the rest of the English-speaking world, are interested in politics right now. And an extremely high number of those will visit that article. Even though an incredibly low percentage of those vandalize the page, there is still no way that we could possibly keep up with it unless we had a bot automatically block anyone who is not autoconfirmed. In the time it took me to fill out and submit the protection form (~20 seconds), the article was vandalized twice. At what point do you draw the line between following process for process' sake and facing the reality of absolute necessity? And even past all that, why on earth did you remove my move-protection? Do you want Grawp to smear his glory in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I apologize. I'm just frustrated at everything now. I think I'm going to go offline. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

hey,i'm sorry about the Alpha and Beta page.that is not my work,i think someone hacked my account.i will be more careful to protect my password in the future13:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akadama Satoshi (talk • contribs)

Interference with TalkPage and then with ANI

Can you please explain why you thought the ANI here was a "content dispute"? The issues originally raised were interference with TalkPage messages (and edit-warring). A third issue arose when the editor concerned editted the title of the ANI from his own name to the name of the article. At that point, most people would have thought there was serious disruption going on, meritting action on the editor doing it - what made you think differently? Later - Jayjg has now taken to doing the same thing to a different editor. PR^talk 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerkship

Hi. I'm interested in the possibility of becoming a clerk. Can you give me more info and possibly get me a job? Thanks!A Patriotic Person. You'll see me in History someday. 05:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009

Hi. You recently reverted one of my edits[4] but your edit summary does not mention why, you only refer to your removal of decimals in the result (no problem with that part of your edit). Was it a mistake? Perhaps you edited an old version of the article. My rationale is that, as this is the first mention of C.A. Pérez (in fact the only one) we have to use his full name. JRSP (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine article content discussions to the article talk pages so that others can participate in the discussion. I usually do but I made an exception this time as this appeared to be a minor mistake and not an important content dispute. Anyway, I see you already fixed it, thank you. JRSP (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Causa sui/Archive 9's Day!

User:Causa sui/Archive 9 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Causa sui/Archive 9's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Causa sui/Archive 9!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Austria–Germany relations

I requested deletion because I was going to move Austro-German relations to that title. I figured it was uncontroversial so I tagged it for G6. The move is part of an ongoing project to create consistency within the titles of the bilateral relations articles. Tavix | Talk 00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Davenport

Hi Ryan, would you mind if I restored the article Hayward Davenport? His work was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1894 - this seems quite notable to me. I found a source which looks to confirm this, too. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks, it's my first day at my new job, so to speak. – Toon ^(talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campus studios

Out of curiosity, how does this article assert significance? The one reference is to their own website and all of their claims so far are pending on "what-ifs" that may or may not happen in future. I guess I'm just a little confused. If you could clear this up at all, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! --13² 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TienPhongBank

Hi, I believe TienPhongBank, which is a subsidiary of FPT Group, was deleted recently, overriding a hangon message and without concomitant discussion. The article was written from a website and tagged for speedy deletion due to possible copyvio, I then added the hangon tag and completely rewrote the article. I added a message to the edit summary "unable to reach main company website, will return to finish referencing the article soon". I also left documentation of my work on the talk page of the article. Upon return the article was gone. Is it possible to undelete the article and list at WP:DELT for a proper discussion? Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll continue with the article. Bank is owned by software company FPT Group and puzzlingly the bank's website seems to take a while to download to the browser. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh

You may wish to comment at User talk:Xenocidic#deletion of page Offley Place. P.S. your edit notice is a little big, no? I guess one can't miss it when it takes up half the page ;> –xeno (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too true, my friend, too true. =] –xeno (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynablaster

We never resolved our dispute of last year, and both left it on hold. I was kind enough to leave the POV dispute tag up, since I felt it would be inappropriate to alter the page without resolving the dispute, but that goes both ways. If I can't remove the POV tag that I feel he lacks any justification for, then Dyna should refrain from adding new tags without establishing any justification for them... especially when Dyna's last action was to concede they couldn't support them at the time. I am not inviting you to arbitrate our dispute at this time, we should find someone else, but if you're planning to watch over it and make contributions then a freeze while things get resolved has to cut both ways, not in favour of one person.JJJ999 (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Silverthorn Networks article

What is wrong with the "Silverthorn Networks" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicrazier2011 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at The Earwig's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burlodge

Have another look at this one; you deleted after I declined the db-spam. Seems more appropriate for AfD than speedy since it's been around for over a year and edited by Fabrictramp, Angel caboodle and Leolaursen. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfamily (molecular biology)

I would like to protest deletion of Superfamily (molecular biology) and request the page be restored, or at the least that the content be restored to my userspace.

The list of examples of superfamilies in molecular biology is significant content that took some time to research.

The page should exist to parallel the other pages listed in the disambiguation page Superfamily.

I do not feel qualified to write a prose explanation of "Superfamily (molecular biology)" and would defer to a molecular biologist on this. Therefore I haven't added other content to the page. --JWB (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

studio limited editions

Hi there,

You recently deleted a posting on a title studio limited editions. This was a brand name of a a company that went into liquidation in July 2008. The company does not exist anymore.

You cited advertising as a reason for deleting the article. there are many many many thousands of UK customers that bought the product and are interested in what happened to the brand.

It was very much like a record label.

Please reconsider or comment further.

Roger Tasker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.184.4 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bestcalls PROD

Hi Ryan, I'm working to improve the Smashwords article. One of the criticisms against my first drafts was that the company lacked notoriety. One of the more notable aspects to me was that the company was founded by the same person who founded BestCalls so I linked to the Wikipedia entry for it using the [[]] tags. And then days later, after having apparently been there for years I assume heavily vetted, argued and approved, the article disappeared. Another editor mentioned you had labeled Bestcalls with a PROD? I think there's no doubt by any notoriety measure that Bestcalls fit the bill, and without its article and the vast collection of references it contained, it makes it more difficult for me to explain the interesting connection between the two companies, which IMHO and the opinion of mainstream journalists I reference in the smashwords article, is notable. If in some way my insufficient attempt at my first article failed, it would be sad if somehow I caused the bestcalls entry to disappear as well. thanks. Feedmelit (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: message to batvette on Farenheit 9/11 discrepencies

You're right of course, that was a mistake on my part but if you look at the way the article page is set up it looks a bit like a talk page- I had clicked a link from (IIRC) the talk page on f 9/11 and thought I was on the discrepency talk page.Batvette (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hey, you indefinitely semi-protected this article because: "I really don't see why IPs should have any need to edit this page; everything they've done recently has been vandalism". Though most of the anonymous edits in the history are vandalism, I'm not seeing any evidence of a serious vandalism problem in this article. It has been reverted 3 times since April 20th, which is practically a snail's pace. I know that high-profile targets of regular vandalism have been subjected to indefinite semi-protection before, but this doesn't seem like a paradigm case to me. I'm inclined to unprotect the article. Can you rethink your position? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention at my talk page wizard, I don't object to anyone unprotecting a page I protected if they think it's justified. I do think my protection was reasonable, but won't stand in your way if you don't agree. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Boesch

FYI, I believe you meant {{refimproveBLP}} and not {{unreferencedBLP}}. No big deal, but I went ahead and corrected it. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD discussion now underway

Hey, for your information, there is ongoing discussion of CSD reform at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Fundamentals. --causa sui ^talk 01:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the notice Ryan!

I have been away for the weekend which led me to being less active with this matter as a could (and wanted) to be. I am currently busy reading trough what has already been said (Or technically, written) and once i did that, i will join the discussion

Kind regards, Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan., please take this to the VP, for broader community consensus. The proper course would be not for you or I to make changes piecemeal in the hope of getting a preferred version, but first get broad agreement on how much discretion an admin should have, and then work out a proposed version to express it. And then implement the changes. Teh wrording of the page should not be tinkered with in this manner.You are pushing the changes much too hard and fast on the basis of very limited participation. DGG (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD RFC

Hey, I was making some changes to the lead, and I guess you got there first, but I submitted them anyway (which reverted you). I'm not sure what the procedure for RFC is, and whether the proposer has free reign in the lead, but removing the neutral 'describe or specify' to say 'describe', and so on, and using words like 'strict and literal' rather than 'clear and concise' for the opposing side seems to make the lead a bit less than neutral. M 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF please. It's not an edit war, I just didn't want to lose my changes due to your revert (which was the first revert). A friendly revert should be taken as a suggestion, and may be reverted without me being upset.

The lead in an RFC does not present the situation from the point of view of the proposer. It must be neutral. Since there is a question of whether the policy describes or specifies, stating that it does in fact describe is not neutral. Further, the best source for the objections section are the same people who made the objections. The tactical information objection is mine, and your use of 'proscriptive' very much butchers its meaning. Prescriptive and proscriptive have very different meanings. M 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" should be interpreted to have an "original intent" to authorize administrators to delete without discussion." - I don't think this is so much interpretation, as historical fact: "whether the policy was intended to authorize". M 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my drafting changes to my own section. Please repair this. Perhaps we should avoid commenting and supporting until after the RFC has begun. M 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. Please actually read the entire diff when reverting! :) M 06:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "original intent" is very much important, because that's what we presume has the widespread consensus. If the consensus was that the page is for specifying, or permitting, or describing, or whatever, then that affects whether your proposal is to 'reinstate', or to change. But yes, this can probably be taken out. M 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"To avoid this in the future, it's better to make bold changes with more edits so they can be individually reverted."

My changes[5] were not intermingled, and were about 5 hours apart from what you reverted, and had an intermediary edit by another editor - which I think you reverted as well. M 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG has not yet been informed, and is certainly involved in this RFC. I don't think this should be published until they have been given a chance to give their statement. M 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:WereSpielChequers's comment, as you stated, seems to be entirely irrelevant to the RFC, except for the very first paragraph. They have also not participated at all in the preceding discussion. Perhaps they are confused about what the RFC is about. I don't think that statement belongs there - perhaps you could notify them of the intent of the RFC, and ask them to either severely modify or remove the statement? M 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be posted asap. M 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented there what I think should be done: that we add the statement from arb com, attributed to them, plus miscellaneous good technical changes, and leave it at that. I would not try to tamper with it. M, its not as precise as if you & i were writing it, but I think they knew what they were doing when they worded it & I would leave its interpretation for more specific discussions over particular cases, not interpret it further in the policy page. Just what version do you propose as the final one. I'll look here. DGG (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of The Red Peacock

Hey, Ryan. You blocked The Red Peacock (talk · contribs) for one month and he is requesting an unblock. He does seem to have a point in the request. He left a message on the talk page, waited over a week with no response, then made the edit. A month seems a bit excessive in this situation, but I'd appreciate any insight you can provide on his talk page. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that The Red Peacock should be unblocked, but that the duration be reduced a bit. 2 weeks rather than a month? Either way... --auburnpilot talk 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar by the sea and Lake Silver

I don't know why the articles of Oscar by the Sea and Lake Silver. They are the famous buildings in Hong Kong, and I have enough passengers and photos to show their existances. (If you don't trust me, you can access their official websites and even go to Hong Kong to have a look!) There are many private housing estate in Hong Kong mentioned in English Wikipedia. Their Chinese version can be preserved, but why its English version cannot tolerate these two little articles!! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your action, please!!

Please stop your action, please!! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) You cannot delete the articles just because you don't know about them! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my explanation in talk page of Ocean Shores

Please see my explanation in talk page of Ocean Shores (Hong Kong) before you raise deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about your proposed deletion actions

I am very confused about the deletion actions suggested by you and other Wikipedia masters. Some suggested speedy deletion and you sugguest cancellation or proposed deletions. Could I have any explanations on why the articles should be preserved on talk pages? Ricky@36 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my explanation of the proposed deletion articles

Please see the talk page for my explanation of the proposed deletion articles on why it is worth preserving them. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My DB nominations

I've noticed that you've reverted a lot of my DB nominations. Some i think we're a bit pointless despite that thanks for letting me see where my mistakes are.
I've renominated FC Steaua Bucureşti season 2009–10 since no new content has been added since you declined my db. NPervez (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Fowlie

Hi there; I note that you disagree with my speedy deletion of this article. I will, of course, not revert your decision. But I do not agree with you; I feel that the article, as presented, clearly qualifies for WP:CSD. But, what the h**l, a little variation in opinion makes wikipedia what it is today, does it not?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutrality

As someone who always strives to write in a gender-neutral manner I'd like to offer a hint after noticing this. Pluralising, e.g. "it would obligate all administrators to be ready to explain their deletions", can often lead to much more fluent language than clumsy "his or her" constructions. Of course it's a trivial matter when it comes to discussions, but you might want to bear that in mind when writing article content.

On rereading what I just wrote I see that it comes across as a bit patronising - please accept that it isn't meant that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speedy deletion templates

Hi, I noticed you removed a couple of speedy deletion templates I added to articles, not because you disagreed that the article met the deletion critera, but because the article had "only just been created".

If you check out the new pages patrol, you will see that it is common practice on Wikipedia to review new pages and tag for deletion any that do not meet critera for inclusion.

There is no requirement to leave an article hanging around on the off-chance that the creator will come back and revise it to meet the inclusion critera. Mainspace is not intended as a place to work on articles that do not meet the inclusion criterea. You can always move the article to the user's namespace if you wish, but removing db templates is unhelpful as it doesn't inform the author that their article is not up to standard. Also it means that unsuitable articles get left in mainspace possibly for some considerable time, as reviewing newly created pages is the easiest way to identify them. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

ha. i was just editing redirect pages and saw your name here. interesting. - Cammy 207.237.41.202 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editing wikipedia according to the rules is soooo confusinggggg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#May_25 Roastporkbun (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought "Jewry" was an actual, non-racist term. 207.237.41.202 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Editing my userpage

My reply can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCAASoftballSeason

The articles I created (and update) are the only ones that use it, and I will switch them to the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdmuch (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Several hongkong residential articles

Why are those not deleted. It seems you removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with a normal deletion tag and then the creator of the article even removed those tag.

This seems less than proper wikipedia procedure. Residential buildings without any notable characteristic should not be present on wikipedia. This is not a house selling site. hAl (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

wasn't me who did it. I was the one who cleaned it up! --69.3.84.101 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I have been trying to talk to that user but to no avail. He seems unable, incapable or unwilling to have a discussion. I have reported that user to the noticeboard btw.--23prootie (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Could you still have that page protected. I'm kinda tired trying to deal with it.--23prootie (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

I have just posted a request at RFPP for an article to be full protected. As you seem to be the one doing the protections most recently I wanted to clarify my reasoning. Both editors involved seem to be editing in good faith, IMO. They are however edit warring. I don't particularly want either editor blocked, as I said before, they seem to be editing in good faith. That is why I requested a page protection instead, to force the editors to talk it out on the discussion page and reach consensus. However, I am not an admin, and you are, so I won't question whatever decision you (or someone else if they beat you there) eventually make.Drew Smith What I've done

Thanks for taking a look at that.Drew Smith What I've done 04:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Removing unreferenced material from a BLP, that has been questioned, is exempt from the WP:3RR. See Talk:Patrick Holford. This was not contentious as the editor I was reverting had questioned this material, and I explained in edit summaries, on the talk page, and via correct warnings on their page. I'll remove your warning, thanks. Verbal chat 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I have been trying to talk to that user but to no avail. He seems unable, incapable or unwilling to have a discussion. I have reported that user to the noticeboard btw.--23prootie (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Could you still have that page protected. I'm kinda tired trying to deal with it.--23prootie (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

I have just posted a request at RFPP for an article to be full protected. As you seem to be the one doing the protections most recently I wanted to clarify my reasoning. Both editors involved seem to be editing in good faith, IMO. They are however edit warring. I don't particularly want either editor blocked, as I said before, they seem to be editing in good faith. That is why I requested a page protection instead, to force the editors to talk it out on the discussion page and reach consensus. However, I am not an admin, and you are, so I won't question whatever decision you (or someone else if they beat you there) eventually make.Drew Smith What I've done

Thanks for taking a look at that.Drew Smith What I've done 04:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Removing unreferenced material from a BLP, that has been questioned, is exempt from the WP:3RR. See Talk:Patrick Holford. This was not contentious as the editor I was reverting had questioned this material, and I explained in edit summaries, on the talk page, and via correct warnings on their page. I'll remove your warning, thanks. Verbal chat 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Matthias I of Hungary

Hello. Before I begin, I would like to assure you that I wish I wouldn't be involved in a dispute about the Matthias I of Hungary article, or any article for that matter. But, when you wrote your message, you did not read the discussion of that article, or followed the editing history of that article. Hungarian revisionists are a strong and organised group on the English Wikipedia, and they take advantage of the indiference of the neutral administrators here. I do not understand how they can remove my information from an encyclopedic article, since I quoted 4 contemporary sources. History might be debatable, but I think contemporary sources - by 3 Humanists and a king - are reliable enough to maintain the "theory" of his Romanian ancestry on his father's side. I don't even want them to remove the "Cuman" claim, I give up - but if it is an encyclopedic article, I fail to understand how they can delete my valid sources. Thank you for your time. --Venatoreng (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP soft blocking for 21st Century Breakdown

It didn't stop him. I still think that semi-protection is the best option. He's inserted the same unreferenced OR now at least 20 times today, from 3 different IPs, and there have been several other unrelated IP vandalism/OR/POV issues over the last few days. Would you reconsider semi-protecting the article? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Kovac

Thank you for protecting the pages involving the ER character John Carter. Another editor and I have struggled to get Q102josh to work toward consensus to no avail. There is a similar problem with an edit he persists in making without a rationale and despite repeated warnings and requests for consensus on the Luka Kovac page (also an ER character.) Could that page be protected as well? Drmargi (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will follow up with a report on the admins board, since we cannot get this guy to work within the system at all. He's convinced he's got it right, despite two of us laying out for him how he's wrong, and he won't let it go. Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Black Jesus

It's a common nickname for him. And don't spout notability/verifiability arguments, you know damn well that Obama is called that. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use warnings for content disputes. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading this? 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You watch out for WP:DICK but you clearly assume that I am a troll. Please know that I supported Barack Obama in the election and continue to support him. Racism or trolling is not an issue here, it is an edit referencing satire. I would at least appreciate an explanation to your disagreement without systematic warnings in what is again a content dispute, not the replacing content with "GAY". 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my last message. At worst it's a block for BLP violations, but not vandalism. Instead, replacing content with "Black Jesus is an idiot" is vandalism; there's a clear difference between BLP and VANDAL. I'd prefer not to be called a "vandal". 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to hold off on that warning...? 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIME is a reliable source for a simple disambiguation page. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the cooperation, thank you.

Does Huggle allow you read edit summaries? Just curious. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the lack of communication and those vandalism warnings? I'm not angry or anything (it's the internet after all), just curious. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, admin work can be exhausting or so I hear at WR. :p Good luck I suppose. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calc

I think you missed the point. I removed an emotive statement and added a direct comparative limitation which you promptly reverted. How about letting an edit be tweaked before hitting the undo button so promptly. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Long

While it was a derogatory name, Teddy Long was in fact referred to as Peanut Head; the unflattering moniker was given to him by Jim Ross in 1989 during his first heel turn. As always J.R. was a supporter of the faces and the sheepish fans began using the term almost immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texbooty (talk • contribs) 06:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZOG is not anti-semitic, your a fucking idiot if you think so. Its a valid theory held by countless educated people, unlike your self. Get an education and realize the truth. --Runstaffers (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)The guy whose can see what your too blind too.[reply]

Irfan Yusuf

I would suggest you contact Irfan Yusuf directly. Wikipedia is being used to defame him, and he is filing court proceedings in this matter. Would you like his contact details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncewereradicals (talk • contribs) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

John Patterson

Well I added two references to the patteson edit I made. I dunno how to use this site very well, (sorry) but in the intrests of truth please clean it up for me if you want. Patterson is mentioned in many phych texts as a total lunatic. There is no libel in reporting that Tabloids of the time reported he abused women. (see chris brown) Patterson has been the subject of a number of books which include subjects like Howard Hughs and examine the clear mental illness they suffered from. The reason I came here to edit this is that the article before the edit is totally biased and even goes so far as to call Patterson a "progressive". It references the only one of 100s of biographys that paints patterson in anything other than a monsterous light. I mentioned that the choking reports are suspect becuase they are of tabliod source. But the man was clearly a control nut and mentally abused everyone who ever met him by those individuals own multiple and verifyable accounts. I referenced a Web article and a paper and spine book. There are so many references to Patterson's extreme mental and verbal abuse of everyone in his life that it is absolutly not in question. Violence towards women may be more difficult to prove as it always is. But I can prove he was accused of it in print and report that accusation. It is also worthy to note PAtterson did not sue the tabloids for Libel, perhaps to prevent them calling his wife or others to the stand to recount his behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.21.154 (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

3RR template

([6]) Please; I have been here for over three years now, and whilst I appreciate your intentions, I must admit that I do not hold the same level of appreciation for the template :p ninety:one 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* - what I was trying to say was Wikipedia:DTTR. I know the 3RR rule applies to everyone, and I had no intention of breaking it... ninety:one 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennents Vital

The changes I made to the article were genuine. I added in the link to the actual press release where it was cancelled in 2007. I fail to see how this is advertising or false. In fact it adds to the article because people can read the whole press release! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.203.189 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Your protection of Cold fusion; gaming of protection by Hipocrite

Thanks for protecting the article. One aspect, though, you may not have considered, it's not clear to me, and you did not comment on it.

The protection was presumably at the request of User:Hipocrite, who, in the request, misrepresented what was taking place. Hipocrite was the only clear edit warrior involved, and apparently gamed the system, making his last highly controversial edits after requesting protection, knowing that it would be likely that protection would come down fairly quickly, protecting his edits, and not standing article consensus.

Hipocrite has been highly disruptive at Cold fusion and related topics and discussions, on many pages, but I'm not asking you to review this; rather only this specific incident, on its own merits, and a reference to the last protection. Here is the history with my comments:

Edits by Hipocrite

00:03, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎(It's sourced. It's also true, and just because some patent examiner missed claim 14 doesn't mean it's not true. WP:V.) 1RR
- reverts edit by GetLinkPrimitiveParams (at 1RR)
Cold fusion 02:42, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎(Further developments: Absolutly not - OR by synth) 2RR
- reverts edits by Abd and Coppertwig (both at 0RR)
02:43, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎ (rv to coppertwig, this has been discussed and rejected scores of times) contiguous edit
- reverts different edits by Abd (at 0RR or 1RR, depending on interpretation, was partly an assertion of previously reverted content -- more than a week earlier -- with additional sourcing, plus an addition of a recent major publication to the bibliography.) Revert was a bald revert, no attempt to use what might be usable.
02:51, 1 June 2009 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Current requests for protection: Cold fusion)
- At this point, Hipocrite was at 2RR, other editors were at 0RR (Coppertwig and maybe Abd) or 1RR (GetLinkPrimitiveParams or maybe Abd). Hipocrite is the principal edit warrior at this point, in opposition to three other editors; his report implies quite the contrary, plus his claim that changes were not discussed is just plain wrong, but I won't add diffs now.
02:59, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎ (time for tags, into per talk page)
- Having requested protection minutes before, Hipocrite now heavily modifies the introduction, without consensus in Talk, making a change he'd know would be controversial, and makes other major modifications, plus he tags as unsourced a section that has three asserted independent reliable sources.

03:02, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion (Proposed explanations: source tags)
03:03, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion (more uses of this same unreliable source)
- With this and the last edit, Hipocrite continues to challenge the credibility of a source that has long been accepted for the article. These were not edit warring edits, though.
03:34, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion (Further developments: this is redonculous. More shitty sources.)
- Adds credibility tag to primary source. Not edit warring.

You then protected the article at 03:50, 1 June 2009. There was no controversy, however, requiring protection if Hipocrite were banned from editing the article, at least pending review. The other editors of the article are generally able to negotiate consensus in his absence. Some editors, on one end of the spectrum, however, may support Hipocrite because his extreme rejection of cold fusion is closer to their POV, but they do not behave in the disruptive fashion that he does.

The last protection was by William M. Connolley on May 21. On that occasion, there was edit warring, with Hipocrite at 3RR, and myself at a level that depends on interpretation of what is edit warring and what is a normal process of modifying edits to satisfy objections. At the extreme end of interpretation, with that incident, I was at 4RR. Normally, I self-limit at 1RR, I do not use edit warring as an editing technique, that incident was quite unusual for me, I can't think of another example. As can be seen then and with the current incident, Hipocrite's editorial behavior invites reversion, thus GetLinkPrimitiveParams reached 2RR as well. I did not use reversion on 1 June.

The common factor in both article protections is Hipocrite, edit warring with both, and, if we look back, prior to the previous protection, there was extensive use of bald reversions and the only reason that these did not become edit wars was the patience of other editors. I lost patience a week ago, because every objection had been satisfied, and objections were simply being multiplied. This time, I did not lose patience and other editors stepped in. The abuse of an article protection request by an edit warrior should receive immediate attention; I would suggest, in fact, unprotection of the article at this time, accompanied by a block or ban for Hipocrite, pending review. His positions at Cold fusion and elsewhere show contempt for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which established that alleged fringe opinions cannot be excluded based solely upon claims that they are fringe, and the sources used for the Be-8 theory section (which is only claiming that a theory has been advocated, not that it is true) clearly meet ordinary RS standards, except for arguments that they are "fringe." Which is actually preposterous for the latest source, but at least it's a debatable assertion. (RS is determined by the publisher and the nature of the publication, not by authors or opinions expressed in a document.)

I believe that if Hipocrite were not a factor, there would be no article protection needed, neither this time nor the last. My own edits from the last time were half-accepted by the time the protection came down, and the others from then were accepted in Talk, one without objection, the other with explicit acceptance and modification by me to increase consensus; it was all rejected by Hipocrite, without any compromise. Nevertheless, an ad hoc ban by an admin need not prohibit him from editing Talk. Just the article.

An alternative, if you wish to leave protection in place, would be to revert the article to the time of Hipocrite's request, thus removing the changes to the introduction which no non-COI editor other than Hipocrite has accepted, and countering his gaming of protection process, or to the version before his edits that immediately preceded protection, or to a version before the edit warring began, any one of these would be better than the present state, where the introduction is highly biased, whereas the lead should reflect the highest possible consensus. Thanks for your time looking at this. Note that there is discussion begun on the Talk page of what version to revert to, but that may take time, and, meanwhile, we have an awful lead.

I would notify him of this request, but he has prohibited me from editing his Talk page and has explicitly waived notification.--Abd (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-notice

Your edit notice has a line <h2>'''Please read these policies before posting.'''<h2>. The second hs need to be a /h2.

Secondly, I am happy to discuss whatever changes Abd wants to change in the protected article, and have already offered (and been rebuffed) to support a consentual change of the article to the pre-edit war status-quo, with his preferred introduction and my preferred lack of poorly-sourced theoretical explanations. I don't think that asking admisntrators to block your opposition on a protected page is really in keeping with the concept of page protection, is it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you may assume that my position on Cold fusion is incorrect or even "POV-pushing," for purposes of reviewing Hipocrite's behavior. You will note that, above, I actually suggested what he now states as a "rebuffed" suggestion, but, beyond this, I think the evidence is clear and I only inflict this on you because you could cut the Gordian knot most efficiently. If you think the article needs protection from me as well, though I certainly did not edit war in what led up to your article protection, please impose a topic ban on me such that I may not edit the article page, pending resolution, or you could similarly impose a 0RR restriction. I would have no objection if this would result in quick protection of the article from Hipocrite, while allowing other editors to implement consensus or otherwise attempt to improve the article. The only serious, repetitive edit warrior here has been Hipocrite.

However, I had no history of using reverts to enforce a position on the article (or anywhere) and that one incident only arose because of how totally preposterous his bald reverts seemed to me, and there had been much complaint about my discussion of article issues on the talk page -- from him -- so I decided to take the more efficient route (when it works) of actually making the edits; and, in fact, the result with the first edit war was progress, because Hipocrite, instead of totally taking out one section, did a much more proper thing of balancing it -- though even that, in the long run, will probably not stand as-is because he was balancing secondary peer-reviewed and academic source from 2007 (and, later, 2008 and 2009) with weak, passing-mention, non-PR secondary and tertiary source from 1998, I think, and 2002, as I recall. But it was better than a pure revert, and so I accepted it and have not attempted to alter it. First things first, and the first thing is to start to get into the article the abundant information available from reviews published in peer-reviewed journals or by academic publishers, and Hipocrite has steadfastly opposed this based on continual assertion of "fringe" and whatever argument he could find, subverting the very foundation of how we determine due weight and verifiability of text; if his position were confirmed, it would make every article on a controversial subject into a battleground, as editors from different points of view wikilawyer about source details that, legitimately, only arise when there is conflict of sources, where we must then investigate degree of reliability. Sorry, again, to inflict this on you.

--Abd (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted Abd's offer of mutual restriction on his talk page. We will hash out some sort of agreement and return to RFPP. with some sort of consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Abd#0rr I have proposed specific terms covering how the ban expires, as you can see. I accepted the total article ban, instead of the more complicated alternative Hipocrite proposed; my text becomes effective if Hipocrite accepts it or if it is ratified or imposed by an administrator (or as modified by an administrator), but I think it creates a very simple and minimally disruptive set of conditions that can cause no harm. Because, as I noted above, the edit warring requiring protection (both times) would almost certainly not have existed if Hipocrite had not revert warred, I believe that, if Hipocrite has accepted my response, or if you decide to impose this agreement or some altered version of it on both of us, you may go ahead and unprotect, the apparent need having disappeared. Thanks for your consideration of this. It will enable the other editors to fix the article and proceed without undue hindrance. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because lack of response from you to my request on my Talk page, and here, regarding accepting the ban as adequate to allow unprotection of the article, I'm assuming you do not desire to pay further attention to this, so I will go to RfPP and request page unprotection under the conditions of the agreement with Hipocrite. We have a major article with a bad edit protected by you into the lead, so there is some level of urgency, and the time it could take to negotiate consensus on a version to return to will be too long. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan Delaney. Some guy (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of administrator misconduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,. Final step. I expect to receive plenty of criticism from this, but please try to be WP:CIVIL. Some guy (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your RfC

You may want to take a look at these [7],[8], & Edit Summary [9] where another user had a personal attack against him by 69.105.172.180. Just a little more evidence that you made the right call in blocking him. The guy was way out of line.TransPerTationist (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: General Motors

For:

"By 1958, the divisional distinctions within GM began to blur with the availability of high-performance engines in Chevrolets and Pontiacs.^{[citation needed]} "

Why would this require a citation? If statements like this required a citation then by that logic I would assume that every sentence in every article/stub, whatever it's called, would require a citation.

Here's a link to some kind of a citation as I have no idea how to include the citation myself:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1T9jZkrgZMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=1958+performance+chevrolet+pontiac+blur+cadillac&source=bl&ots=HWnIzDMSrM&sig=rn994p19_ScHJKhobghajGezSO0&hl=ja&ei=AX0nSrT_Oo6W6wPOh_GQBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

Check out the top two paragraphs on the left side of page 14.

211.5.250.117 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

3RR

I have not made three reverts within a 24-hour period. I judiciously edited already disputed material on that page and was reverted three times. I then removed the disputed material to the talk page and it was reverted to the biography page by the same editor. I suggested on the talk page that the dispute be worked out on the talk page. That idea was rejected by revert. In fairness, I then added material and citations to balance the false claims that the subject of the article had falsified his background. Skywriter (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CF

Apparently you're on hols (thats my excuse, though I admit I've only noticed now) but I'll tell you that I've unprotected Cold fusion and imposed peace. Who knows, it may work William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21 June

Why is it inappropriate?

(Grahamivers (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for protection Honour and Passion

I forgot the template for reporting that vandalising IP and the only thing I could do was firefight--Zhanzhao (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In more detail

Consider it this way:

A hates B and breaks policy to hound A. After six months of abuse A gets sitebanned.
Months later, A appeals the ban.
B is unaware of the appeal.
Admin X unblocks, not seeing a problem.
B learns of the block, and protests "My userspace was vandalized five times in the last week. I think it might have been A."
Admin X replies, "Well A is unblocked now. We'll wait and see if there are further problems."
A renews vendetta against B, gets rebanned.
B retires in disgust.

This is one of the ways that Wikipedia loses good editors. Doesn't it make sense to let B into the discussion? Durova^Charge! 02:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Durova, in a sense. The problem is that Admin X unblocks but then doesn't closely watch A. In addition, the belief of B that A had vandalized wasn't investigated and verified. What we are seeing here is the unreliability of Wikipedia structure. The way you tell the story, B's concerns are simply dismissed. Why did it take six months to stop the abuse of B?

Does it make sense to let B into a private discussion before ArbComm? Perhaps. That depends, I'd say, on the behavior of B. Why did A hate B? Sheer perverse and senseless animosity? Or had B, perhaps subtly (knowingly or unknowingly), trolled for it?

Who should make the decision? In this case, ArbComm should decide what it wants to admit to its discussions. Basic principle for deliberative bodies: they decide their own process. In some cases, prior notice of an unban consideration could create far more disruption than would a quiet unban. Reblocking if a problem appears should be swift, but, in the other direction, blocked and banned editors should, themselves, be protected against harassment, with warnings and blocks. B should have ready process for appeal of the unban, after the fact.

Biggest problem I see: use of noticeboards for decision-making by the community. Very, very bad idea, cause of much disruption. AN/I, in particular, should be a place to solicit a neutral administrator for prompt temporary action, pending more careful deliberative process. The police arrest, they do not convict, and neither does a crowd gathered at the police station convict. Bans of various kinds should probably be much more liberally issued, but they should be temporary, pending a more definitive process that gets as wide as is needed. Any ban should have a responsible administrator who can make temporary, ad-hoc decisions, and an unban action or unblock action should have the same, normally, the one who actually makes the decision.

While any administrator can decide to enforce an ArbComm decision, ArbComm should designate an administrator to monitor specific decisions and handle first-level appeals and enforcement with an assumption of priority. I.e., suppose an admin blocks a based on an ArbComm ban. The designated admin could unblock without further ado. Essentially, the blocking admin would be acting as the police, based on probable cause and discretion, the supervising admin as an administrative judge. Disagreements with a supervising admin would be immediately appealable to ArbComm, though ArbComm might set up a panel of admins to filter these.

Much of the community is averse to bureaucracy; but the aversion is an error. Bureaucracies develop where they increase efficiency. ArbComm has the responsibility and authority to organize its own structure and process and to set up means whereby the community can effectively and efficiently advise it. Why, indeed, did it take six months for A to be banned? Lack of efficient structure to filter out the real problems from the noise. --Abd (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki/brett_docherty

What are the guidlines for creating a page about a real person? What significance requirements do you hold? any feedback would be helpful ... save your time and keep it brief. thanks Artbymungo (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danras

Danras (talk · contribs) responded to your attempts to explain to him why his behavior made us conclude he couldn't be allowed to edit with this, which I consider to be GFDL revocation. In light of this and his plagiarism, you think we should start a ban discussion, or consider him old-style banned? Blueboy 96 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome

Thanks. I guess with having made more edits in the last ten minutes than the whole of June I can sort of consider myself in wikimood again :P Cynical (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dawn Geary

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dawn Geary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Geary. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examine and modify page if needed

Hi Causa sui - can you look over this page and alter if/as needed? Regards Manning (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

In May, you blocked an account, User:Xtinadbest (contributions) as a vandalism only account following a series of edits that included repeated changes to discography content for Hayden Panettiere and a number of odd articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and related Eurovision articles. I noticed today that a similarly named account, User:Britneyrocks (contributions), has now popped up, making the same types of changes to Hayden Panettiere and interestingly, Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and related Eurovision articles. I also note a number of warnings left on that talk page regarding unhelpful edits. There is little doubt in mind, given the specialized interest of the accounts, that this is the same person, avoiding the block you placed. I thought I would let you know. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sock templates

If you're going to remove templates on pages because they allegedly don't belong there, please replace them with one that should be there. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the link I added to the five pillars page. I'll probably never need to add another link to meta, ut I looked at the history and I've learnt how to do it. Thanks again. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mark Ellmore

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Ellmore. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature...

I noticed in the edit window of the BLP1E discussion that your signature does something I've never seen before. The cursor size is enormous, and this makes the lines of your sig enormous. Why does it do that? Lara 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the sig renders in my browser/machine. Firefox 3.0.12, Windows XP. Feel free to delete this once you've seen it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been having problems as well (more like Lara's than KC's). The whole line is bloated up vertically, and this character (⟳) is very difficult to deal with. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft is notorious fail at representing unicode characters. (I use Ubuntu.) I think Betacommand had some luck fixing this on XP by installing Unicode character support here [10] and by going to the View menu (in Firefox) and setting Character Encoding to Unicode. Please let me know if that helps or not. ⟳ausa کui × 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people using IE, for example, won't know what's going on, so won't be able to fix it. I'd like to see your C, but I don't want to install a font pack, since it'll render me blind what most users will actually see. IE is pretty bad, but the letter doesn't render even in chrome, which has pretty reasonable support. If you have trouble finding out which letters will show up, paste in a few, poke my talk page, and I can try them out in IE for you. M 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a hardened linux nerd I feel some righteous indignation about conforming my behavior to accomodate those using inferior software :-) But on Lara's talk page some folks were indicating that it is quite annoying to have to scroll past 5 lines of empty text every time I signed something on a talk page, so if it really can't be made to work, I'll either change my sig or make use of images. ⟳ausa کui × 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use images as that is explicitly against the signature guideline (the wording is must not be used, so it can't get any more clear than that). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke son. Take it easy. ⟳ausa کui × 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, you'll be able to pinpoint who the really crippled windows users are when they all start calling you "ausaui" ;) M

Speedy deletion

I noticed your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#NFT_Straw_Poll in relation to a proposed new criterion:

"Support I and many others have been deleting articles on this basis for a long time, for obvious reasons. Might as well bring the policy into congruence with what's being done."

Can I check that I understand you correctly? Are you saying that you have used your admin rights to delete articles under the CSD procedure which don't match the current criteria? If so, could you give some examples of such articles.

The policy on the use of Administrator tools states that "When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable." Can you explain whether you have complied with this or not?

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I've had a look through your deletion log and most of your deletions are marked with a CSD code, but those that aren't might just be deletions following PROD/AfD. Do you recall this one:

> 19:38, 28 May 2009 Causa sui (talk | contribs) deleted "Kosh panama" ‎ (WP:NFT)

Is this one an example of a speedy deletion of an article that didn't fall into a CSD category? In that case, can you explain why this is a reasonable exception to the then-current policy? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I hope the move went well and you're feeling settled in! M 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup cite listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cleanup cite. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cleanup cite redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otrs

Hi, I want to thank you for your comment/support at my OTRS volunteer application which I am pleased to report was successful. I will be starting steadily but look forward to contributing and assisting in this new area, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas I

Richard Gaiser

Indiana, right?

Weasel

Thank you, and see 'ya

article on EU Microsoft case

Re: Right to vanish request (feedback)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Tornado article

hi5.com article remains

hi5.com article remains

No problem

Hi

Brenham texas

Undelete

Sicko

sorry man

Oh, sorry I forgot.

I am in awe

Reverts - Trivia

Thank you for your note.

R.E. Last change

Vandalism re Quahog (Family Guy)

OOOOPS

Huggle reverts in Wael Abbas

reverted to wrong info..

Template:Peacock

Your VandalSniper application

Your edits to Talk:District of Columbia v. Heller

ad tag on Cray

Thank You

Edit summary

user cat removal

political society

A very minor point

please read- question

Investigate and Inquire

BLP special sanctions

You

Need your help

Evolution

AfD nomination of Thief (chess)

Help, again, please

RfA thanks

delete edit?

Joseph Watts

NPOV tag

{{POV-section}} issues

Tags

Unblock notification

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration

sorry

Interference with TalkPage and then with ANI

Clerkship

Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009

Happy Causa sui/Archive 9's Day!

Re:Austria–Germany relations

Campus studios

TienPhongBank

eh

Dynablaster

Question regarding Silverthorn Networks article

Talkback

Superfamily (molecular biology)

studio limited editions

Bestcalls PROD

Re: message to batvette on Farenheit 9/11 discrepencies

Protection level on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

AfD

WP:CSD discussion now underway

CSD RFC

Block of The Red Peacock

Oscar by the sea and Lake Silver

Please stop your action, please!!

Please see my explanation in talk page of Ocean Shores

Confused about your proposed deletion actions

Please see my explanation of the proposed deletion articles

My DB nominations

Gender neutrality