This is an archive of past discussions about User:PeterSymonds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone already changed the Higher Education in BC page--what do I do now?
I see that two people have already gone to the Higher Education in BC wiki article that I started. It seems after you moved it they came in and copied stuff. I've notified my professor about this in case my grade is affected. I guess that's the problem with Wiki--there's no copyright and people can delete/add whatever even if it is for a class assignment. :-( (Dawnalee8 (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
A little help...
For the McGill University article, I have a small problem. Several cites do not have the sufficient information (i.e. some do not have access dates). Because I didn't support these, I do not know what date they were accessed. So what should I do?
And take your time, as I see admin duties have busied you. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to protect it after you declined, but Gladys is right about it being a copyvio; it reads word-for-word what is written on the Nickelodeon site, and the IP editors appear to be quite insistent about restoring the copyvio material and removing the warning template. Horologium(talk)21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What if I completely deleted what's currently on the Higher Education in BC wiki?
What would happen to my account if I took liberty and replaced everything in the current Higher Education in BC Wiki article with what I have done in order for it to be graded properly? I have noticed none of my classmates had the same situation as me so I found that very strange! Maybe because I came to the IRC Help someone saw what I was doing? I don't know how to explain why only my article was affected and not my classmates?(Dawnalee8 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
Image:Uyyi.gif
The image was previously speedy-deleted and then uploaded again, and the user appears to be a sockpuppeteer. I appreciate this may not change the situation, just thought i'd let you know. Ironholds22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! its nice to meet an accessible administrator :). What exactly is the procedure with images that are pointless/unencyclopedic? do i tag them as vandalism or have to prod them and wait a week? Ironholds22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused because the warning that my article could be flagged for speedy deletion only appeared when I added the information box to the left of the article. The article itself had already been up for almost 2 weeks with no problems. Why is it that the page got deleted once the info box was added?
I'm also wondering how you can assert importance without advertising the service. I tried to be objective by explaining what the service does and citing the sources. Would it be approrpriate to talk about why this would be a good service for people to use? Does that assert importance?
Also, would you mind sending me a copy of the deleted article so I can work on it?
Please help me to better understand the protected status of this article? An edit was made today by an anonymous editor. No problem was caused, and in fact, I would have considered this minor edit was an improvement ..., but I had understood that no anonymous edits could be accomplished because of the systemic protections which have been put in place? When you have time, could you please elucidate this minor matter? --Tenmei (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the Higher Ed in BC page is ready to be added to my class' Wiki article
You asked me to let you know when I was done as you were going to do some re-directing. I know I probably broke every Wiki rule, but blame it on the professor. I don't think the professor will do this again for the next class. Okay, hope to hear from you soon. Cheers. (Dawnalee8 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
I have to strongly disagree with the decision to decline the protection. The sheer number of times that this page has been reverted back to the incorrect middle name is causing other sites to cite wikipedia and say that this is his real middle name when there is absolutely no verifiable evidence showing that this is his middle name. Several of the regular editors of the page have had to keep a constant eye on it in order to revert back the vandalism. How many times does it have to be changed before it qualifies for protection? DanielZimmerman (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(in response to your comment on my talk page) The problem is that this figure is currently getting a lot of media attention and we have already found several pages that have used the incorrect information provided by those anonymous users. (And one of the editors contacted the writer of the article and that writer did indeed get his information from wikipedia in the brief amount of time that the wrong information existed. There is no way to have an exception to the normal rule for instances where the person is getting a lot of press? DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. This user wishes not to receive talk page comments for now, as he is semi-retired until further notice. Please refrain from recreating the talk page.
This seems not acceptable. This user is far from semi-retirement, he's still ravaging on all the nobilities pages. I would kindly suggest to check his behaviour. Gerhard51 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ibeji
Thanks for your comment, but check the Ibeji image again - and please go to my talk page for the instructions as to what to do. --Dumarest (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
CeraSport
Peter,
I need to ask why the CeraSport page was taken down yet again. WE have tried in the past to make the page acceptable by taking out anything that can be construde as advertising. The past versions were based almost exactly on the postings of Gatorade and Poweraid. This does not seem fair that our page is being removed and theirs remains untouched. The Gatorade page even references Cera Products which was also removed for being blatent advertising. I would apprectiate some insite on this. Thanks
It was deleted because the page was advertising and promoting the subject. Please see WP:ADVERT; when pages like these are created, they have to be speedily deleted under the criteria WP:CSD#G11. Please see the article wizard which offers a more step-by-step approach to creating articles; it will be far more useful to you than me writing a long paragraph about policies. Good luck, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to contact me! :) Best, PeterSymonds(talk)21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Granting me Rollback
Wow, you are the Lightning Speed Admin. Thank you for responding so very quickly (and favourably) to my request! --Bonadea (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Peter - I saw that you declined the speedy nomination on the above image with the statement "released into PD". However, the image source shows a noncommercial license. Are you seeing something I'm not? Thanks...Kellyhi!13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, normally the image page here can be deleted if the image exists on Commons - I see lots of admins do this. I assume you're talking about the most common situation, where people add categories here to images on the Commons - that's really not necessary since Commons has the comprehensive categorization scheme. The exceptions would be the templates for the naughty image blacklist and for featured pictures. Kellyhi!13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds, thanks for deleting that image. Just a heads up, this is the second time he's uploaded that same type of image (laughing man logo) into his userpage. YOu may want to keep an eye on him in case he tries it again.
Thanks
F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Image tagging question
Hi Peter, you de-tagged an image today that I had tagged for speedy deletion as invalid fair use [1]. That case made me aware of an inconsistency in our tagging mechanism, which I've brought up at WT:CSD just now. – This is assuming that your de-tagging was purely process-motivated. If it was meant as reflecting on the merits of my deletion rationale, I'd appreciate a comment on that, because I'd then have to take it to IfD. Thanks, --Fut.Perf.☼18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You delete my page "http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/AcmePlan".
Why pages of the similar companies/products are not removed?
Omniplan [[2]]
List of project management software [[3]]
Artemis [[4]]
Primavera [[5]]
Microsoft Project [[6]]
Merlin [[7]]
The article History of modern Macedonia is a POV pushing article because it is trying to assort the only modern Macedonia is the Greek Macedonia, when in fact Greek Macedonia is part of the region of Macedonia. The article is trying to monopolize the term Macedonia and should be looked at carefully.
A differentiation is needed btw Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia. Stating "modern Macedonia" is to state any part of the region of Macedonia, or the entire part of Macedonia... and this term cannot be used exclusively for Greek Macedonia. Mactruth (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain more fully?
I see you were the administrator who deleted Att Will.
But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Att Will doesn't contain a concluding statement from you.
Am I missing something? Shouldn't there be one? I am not about to defend the article. I know
absolutely nothing about it. I only went to the {{afd}} page because I was examining someone else's contribution history, and noticed what I saw as a curious anomaly.
I also have a question about this close. Given that you stated its closure as a speedy delete, what was the resolution to the two (ineligible for speedy) albums included in the nomination? Did you see my comment that the AfD shouldn't be closed speedily because of them? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate a little: I think it was completely appropriate to speedily delete Att Will. It's not that, but the closure of the AfD and the limbo it places the other two nominated articles into that I'm wondering about. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving this. I came online this morning to find that all three articles had been recreated; I G4'd and salted them. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a typo on my part--it was just an article starter upon which I will expand. Once I stop the people who add the speedy tag (I've had two already in its fist ten minutes of existance, plus your deletion :). Well, best regards. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]11:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the article now. It's far from perfect, but certainly not CSD worthy either. I hold no grudge against you, as you were just carrying out your administrative duties, as I di support you in your RFA. Anyway, other than this I think you have been an awesome admin! I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
American Mustache Institute
Peter,
My name is Aaron Perlut. I am the executive director of the not-for-profit organization the American Mustache Institute.
We are an advocacy organization and registered 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in St. Louis, Missouri. We make no money, as we pass all revenues through to charitable entities. We are a global membership organization, with a full-time support staff in St. Louis, which advocates for greater acceptance of mustaches in the workplace. There are dozens upon dozens of like-groups on Wikipedia and I cannot understand why you have delete our page. We are not trying to be difficult, just treated fairly, and we do not believe our deletion constitutes this. Thank you.
Peter, Thanks for responding so quickly. I do appreciate your guidance. I'm still rather confused. Would it help to add that we are the "only true organization dedicated to facial hair advocacy in the world." That aside from the Wikipedia entry for "moustache," we are the most visited web site online visited for information about mustaches? Would that help as I don't think it was in our original entry. I really want to do this the "right" way and in the appropriate fashion that's acceptable to you and your peers. Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.228.66 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aaron. You need to do two things: mention why the organisation is notable in a neutral point of view. Often when this is said, new users try to "sell" the notability and it turns into an advert. Try not to do this, but any corrections can be made when the article is written. Secondly, you need to verify notability with reliable, third-party sources. So for example, we can verify the notability of the British House of Commons because it appears in secondary books, magazines, newspapers, TV programmes etc. Is there secondary coverage of your organisation? (Hypothetically as an example) Does it get mentions in the media, and can you prove it? These are all questions you have to ask yourself. If the answer is "yes", login and draft a copy in your userspace: User:USERNAME/American Mustache Institute (replacing "USERNAME" with your own, of course :)). Hope that helps; let me know if you need anything further. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again Peter. This again is where I'm confused. On the 3rd party verifications. In the original article we link to 5 notable articles from well known media in the U.S. and U.K. discussing our work. Did that go unnoticed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.226.97 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I have again tried to post using the Wikipedia guidelines. Here is the link. I hope I have done this correctly. I'm trying. Really.
Thanks for your reply explaining the Pic Deletion bot. Please go to my Talk Page where I'd like to check I've understood. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Carnatic music
When it was unprotected, not only was there continued disruption and the like, but it threw so many editors from the entire project - I've completely given up on trying to work on it (after working on it for over a year - last year), with him and a few others being so tendentatious. In any case, I'm glad that finally it's beginning to go down the right track. Thank you for setting the point straight and keeping it protected. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Rollback thanks
Roses from Dorothy
Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for putting rollback priviledges on my account. Thanks, and hehehe! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Pete, regarding your comments on my talk page: 4! The Wiggles went through 4 FACs! It was hard, for all kinds of reasons. See here and here.Talk about brutal! Anyway, thanks for your support; believe me, I'll take advantage of your offer, I'm sure. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as most royalty-related questions get answer by you anyway, I thought I'd just come here intstead = ): Do you know where HM The Queen stays whilst in Wales? To my knowledge she doesn't have a residence there (or am I just being muddle-headed again?). I'm sure I read something about a residence in wales recently : S. --Cameron (T|C) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh no really, it's not that important! Besides, I have had a quick look myself. Apparently she stays in Hillsborough Castle whilst in N.I. I just can't seem to find a Welsh equivalent! Thanks for your help = ) --Cameron (T|C) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If I go through rrp, it will get laughed at since it is a tiny little page. User:StewieGriffin!/altsig is my alternative signature, with my name for more personal issues. I use it like this: {{User:StewieGriffin!/altsig}} ~~~~~. Could you put it as full protection. Basically this is because I won't keep checking, and it may get vandalised. Connor J. Turnbull • (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
G'day, I am writing to you because I believe that the page you have protected on Jerusalem is the definitive 'Wrong Version' and is an incredibly nationalist page as it reads now. The lead needs some changes - because it is not Wikipedia's job to 'create facts'. I am hoping you might be able to help fix this up, or point me in the direction of somebody who can. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A disruptive editor
Colourinthemeaning has been vandalizing and disrupting since the day he came to Wikipedia.
He goes from article to article, engaging in edit-warring whereever he touches down. At the moment he is engaged in wars on Jerusalem, Neve Yaakov, Ring Neighborhoods, Gilo, Pisgat Zeev, and dozens of other Israel-related pages. Several editors have written to me, after being bullied by this person. I spend enormous amounts of time copyediting, fixing links, and adding new information and sources, which are promptly reverted by him. The only information he has added is that "X is an Israeli settlement," which he inserts at least two or three times in each article, backed up with a variety of POV sources. Wikipedia is becoming a battleground and an unpleasant place to be. He has been blocked before, but as soon as the block is up, he goes back to the same articles and reignites the debate. Is there nothing that can be done? -Gilabrand (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My Wiki
I fully understand Wikipedia is not an ads agency. However, would you be interested in visiting my wiki Simland. It is a MediaWiki that really needs to get off it's feet. I would be happy to immediately give you sysop powers (although please don't edit until tomorrow). StewieGriffin! • TalkSign20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're sure
If you are sure! When you are ready, give me a note. I'm not asking you to get in trouble or to spam, but if you know anyone who would be interested in joining, would you tell them. You and my sis, are all the users I have! StewieGriffin! • TalkSign21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the email. There was another version that existed before deletion. Could you send me that one instead? Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There are now three articles on a small Arab fishing village that has not existed since 1948 - Tantura, Tantura expulsion and Tantura and the Katz controversy. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? Each page is very short, repeats more or less the same information, and uses the same sources. The editor who created two of them has a clear political agenda (as witnessed by the tags on her user page). --Gilabrand (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Simland
I thought it would be easiest to get you here. I am moving sever today, so you may have to recreate your account on the new Simland server. This is also one of my many rollback requests, but would you be willing to grant me rollback? See You. StewieGriffin! • TalkSign10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify something for me. This person has an article that has 3 references, yet there is no context, it doesn't say which company he works for, or even what his birthday is. We have no clue who this person is, other than that he works somewhere and likes the environment, and has 20 million pounds to spend on it monthly... I understand your reasoning behind not speedying it, but isn't this article candidate for deletion? Is claiming notability all it takes to not get speedied, even if the article is completely not-notable? Not attacking you, just trying to learn so next time i know what to do. Regards Shoombooly (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, does consensus have to be unanimous? On the Obama article, we have a small but very vocal minority (Scjessey and Wikidemo) saying, in essence, that there can be no consensus unless everyone agrees that Scjessey is right. If unanimity is required, how does anything get done around here? 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The page Wikipedia:Consensus will answer most of your questions, but no, consensus is taken from the arguments that people offer. It's not a simple vote, but generally if more people comment that they would prefer X, and provide a solid rationale, consensus would be taken from that. Unanimity is rare on Wikipedia, so you're right, if we went by that nothing would get done. :) Read the link and let me know if you have any further queries about consensus. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, thanks for your quick reply and your link. I've read it and there's obviously a lot of policy I need to learn. But at the Obama article, a two-thirds majority have said that they prefer X, and in my opinion have presented a rationale that is pretty solid. This is the path to ending the edit war. If Scjessey and his little group continue to edit war after that, can't they be banned? 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you've declined my speedy deletion request of Andrews Middle School, stating that the article is underconstruction. However, there hadn't been much activity in that article for more than a week, except for my request, your decline, and a couple of wikifying actions which didn't really add content to the page. Do you really see any future for it? Thank you, Victor Lopes (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
I greatly appreciate the rollback privilege you've just granted me. I used to be an admin here under a previous username, but I really don't want to go back down that road. On the other hand, I am more than content to be able to revert page-move and other forms of mass vandalism, aka MascotGuy and ClaimJumperPete. Many, many thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL! You're welcome. And I'm glad you caught me. Working late on my side of the planet and I was just shutting down. :)
Your comment on the protection page was deleted so quickly I had to check the history to find it.
Per your suggestion I'll post the article on my user page for consideration. I hope you will help me get the submission considered.
While I understand why wikipedia does not want every single candidate for every single democratic function being listed as an article, the Democratic and Republican nominees for federal office are notable just by being selected by the millions of voters in their respective districts.
Just a heads up - Laughing Man brought back the picture you deleted from him.
It's a slightly different format - but it the same image none the less. I left him a polite message at his talk page and tagged the image as G12 as before. That I'm aware of this is the third time he's posted the same image to his [[8]]. Just a heads up for you.
F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. I will go ahead and try and do my best in the next coming months. I will work on many of the concerns raised. :) Thanks again. <3TinkleheimerTALK!!21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, indeed, came as a surprise to me as well! To Aaron, it's looking pretty good so far; I'm just doing some formatting. :) PeterSymonds(talk)21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ecomapping page
Hello Peter Symonds,
This article was never intended to be read as an advertisment, It is purely an explaination of what Ecomapping is and where it started.Do you have any suggestions on how to rewrite the article in order not to breech the wikipedia advertising rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurore1985 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deathriders
Ok Peter Symonds;
Please explain why in your opinion is there a copyright violation or intellectual property infringement by having a Deathriders page based on precise encyclopedic content. It was an innappropriate action on your part to delete this page that was based on your opinion. Are you an Intellectual Property Attorney? Deathriders is a band formed in 2003 by the Original Lead Singer of Anthrax, Neil Turbin. They are also worthy of mention since they are a co-headliner on the Tri-Label Stage/North at this years Rocklahoma 2008 which is set to last 5 days with over 100 International acts (from your country included). Much bigger than Woodstock ever was. Why are you bent on deleting Deathriders when there are numerous cited sources and books with information about them. Is it perhaps to serve some sort of editing agenda and to make it near impossible for important encyclopedic information to everbe shared on wikipedia. I'm not here just citing youtube sources. What the problem is? Do you consider yourself a heavy metal expert?
Very true. Well, I was discussing on IRC the other day, and there is a chance that Radio Wikipedia will be nominated for WP:MfD. Mostly because it is a somewhat copy of WP:WEEKLY, it is rather difficult to understand him speaking, and that he is hosting it alone. I think your Stewie's adopter? If so, just thought I'd let you know. -- RyRy5 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think Stewie would be happy to see an MfD on it. He seems to be doing good so far. By the way, do you think I should make the info at User:RyRy5/Sandbox4 to templatespace? -- RyRy5 (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :D Although I'm wondering how I would add it to WP:BARNSTARS if it's not really a barnstar. A barnstar looks something like this at the top section (yeah, I somehow have too many barnstars. If they were to hold an election to who has the most barnstras, I'd probably win. But hey, i know users who have less than 2 barnstars and their admins.). This one I created is something like the ones listed at WP:BDC. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, regarding protection at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, I am currently helping out as an uninvolved admin at the talkpage. If I think that things are more stabilized, would it be alright with you if I lifted protection? If you think it should stay on for a few more days, I will respect that, but it could potentially be helpful to the discussion if I could take on the authority of placing or lifting protection for a bit. Thanks, and let me know, Elonka16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the quick response! I've placed some editing restrictions on the talkpage, and will be keeping a close eye on things. If things start heating up again, what I'd like to do is focus on the editors who are violating the restrictions, and warn them (and if they ignore warnings, then block them). Hopefully with my technique we won't need page protection again, but we'll see! Thanks again, Elonka16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No way, please do not lift page protection yet. The discussion on the talk page is going round in circles and more single-purpose accounts are appearing to promote their personal views. There is no common ground yet and in some quarters, not even an appreciation of the most basic policy requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO, it might be best to identify that you're here as a regular involved editor, not as an admin in this particular case. --Elonka16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My reply to ChrisO for reference:
I think that Elonka's plan might work, and I feel it's worth trying out. If you disagree, I wouldn't consider it wheel-warring if you re-protect it, but in my opinion most editors are reasonable, and it removes the restriction for uninvolved editors. I won't personally re-protect it, as I'd like to see if this works, but I won't object to re-protection. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(2)I didn't realise you were involved so don't reprotect it. :) If you strongly disagree I would take it to RFPP, but I'd ask you again to try out Elonka's plan. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
--PeterSymonds(talk)16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Laughing Man image
PeterSymonds,
First - yep, it's okay for you to leave messages on my talk page :)
Second - I don't want you to think I'm being difficult, however, I re-submitted the laughing man image as a speedy.
It's the same image as the one you deleted the last time, linked to the same page - the image is on that page
at eye level. The logo (image of the smiling face ) is a match for the logo on the website I mentioned.
The logo he's using is the "Laughing Man" logo from Ghost in the shell, hence the link to manufacturers of that Anime. I'm not sure what you didnt see - but both logos were the same, linked to the same page, and yes, both are copyright violations. Let me know what's needed, because this is third time that image has been brought back.
Thanks.
F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A class review.
I've heard about a type of review that has the wikiproject a certain article is part of be review by the wikiproject community. I believe it's called an A class review.
I can't see to find out how to get one for the McGill University one, though I've checked this.
Can you direct me to getting that assessment to A class?
Always thankful, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I downloaded it because I was told that it is the best tool for dealing with counter-vandalism. Is it true? --Checco (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why did you protected the Jerusalem page? It makes me and the Crusader Task Force to improve this article. Sincerely with no hard feelings Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've filed an IFD on the laughing man image discussion This isn't personal at all.
I'm familiar with the anime this image comes from and know this to be a copyright issue, additionally, he's placed this image in his webpage before as I stated earlier. I am giving you blanket authorization to alter any comment I made regarding your involvement in the IFD discussion if you believe it's inaccurate or in any way mis-leading .
Thanks F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If waiting for 1 hour and 20 minutes has become something one should consider "long", the world has become even worse than i thought. Nevertheless, thanks a lot for the upgrade! :-) ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I would also like to thank you for adding the rollback function to my account. ● 8~Hype@07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you please help?
Dear Peter!
Thanks for your helps in the past few days (the first one). Could you leave a warning to this user (Rahar1981 and Raja81) for his/her unconstructive edits to Wikipedia [9][10] and he/she did it repetitively. I am really dislike people who use Wikipedia as a fansite or a advertising. Thank you so much and best wishes to you.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How are you? I hope all is well? I am just writing to you to dispute the deletion of Samata Angel's post today.
Please allow me to explain from my persepective having read the rules on the deletion page.
Firstly - it is historically accurate - in 2007 Samata Angel became the first ever black British female to show during the New Yok Nolcha Fashion Week - an achievement which earned her a letter of congraultations and recommendation from Prime Minister Gordon Brown. As a result Mr Brown nominated her for the position of ambassador for the national Make your Mark campaign (where she joins the ranks of Sir Alan Suger, June Sarpong and Ruth Badger to name a few). This achievement garnered the designer national and international press.
In addition, her achievements to date out and her business associations far outnumber those for the likes of DaVinche or Rachel Roy for example, both of whom she knows and who have pages on Wikipedia (with arguably less noteworthy content). In addition Samata has designed for Jennifer Lopez, Halle Berry and Jamelia for red carpet events. I had not even had the chance to update this information before you deleted the post.
I am keen to know which element of her story is not significant or noteworthy (in your opinion) and what steps I will need to take to take this further. I appreciate the platform that Wikipedia offers and that is why I am keen to understand your process and how to ensure Samata gets the catalogue she deserves.
Kindest regards and I look forward to hearing from you!
A million thanks for your help :) I don't think I want them un-protected as long as I'm on RC patrol. I'm getting enough fan-mail on my unprotected talkpage as it is :) Vishnava talk 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Peter - I noticed you declined the speedy deletion on the above image, but the Flickr source shows a noncommercial license. I think this has happened before...do I have to go get a trout? :) Kellyhi!21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have also created a custom group Founding Members which I can assign to you. If you want, I could even give you webmail (petersymonds@simlandwiki.com) StewieGriffin! • TalkSign07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What Happened?
Hi Peter, I just wrote a history of wastewater treatment processes on the reclaimed water page. My reference, <P.F Cooper,2001,Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse,chapt 2, IWA Publishing, London, UK> was put into the editing, but did not appear in the article. Did I do something wrong? Thanks for your help.Notindustry (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: Come to think of it, I think Castles in the British Isles might be better. Thanks! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear how embarassing, sorry! The reason I was going to suggest British Isles was so that I could include Ireland as they more or less share their history with GB. I understand the term can be controversial. I will consider asking WP:RM but will leave it for now. Thanks for the advice...--Cameron (T|C) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I find disputes are generally annoying. = ) Especially the petty ones. The other day there was one about the order in which the articles in the "see also" should be listed! = ) Never mind, atleast there are still many many excellent editors on Wikipedia! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Maurice Vincent Wilkes → Maurice Wilkes
The Maurice Vincent Wilkes → Maurice Wilkes move appears to have been held up by your objection, which I think was without basis. It would be helpful to the process if you would comment on my reply over on Requested moves and either bring some new basis to your objection or retract it. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You said in your summary that the articles were legitimately deleted at the end of a 5 day prod period. They were not, I removed the prods because prod deletion was not appicable in these cases because of the prior AfD. Even if there hadn't been a prior AfD, removal of a prod is a perfectly legitimate editorial action. The articles were therefore deleted out of process, this should be made clear in your summary otherwise it is entirely misleading. RMHED (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your decision, which avoided dragging out this saga any further than the several years it already has. Since not even those voting to overturn the deletion supported the retention of these articles, at the level best all this was about was process for the sake of creating process, and what the benefit of that would be I've yet to see. Have a good one. RGTraynor 05:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Image deletion
Hi Peter,
I saw recently that you took down the Al Waxman Image (On june 7), and was wondering what I need to do to get and keep this image uploaded.
Al Waxman is my great uncle, and the picture I have been uploading of him is one given to me by my great aunt (and his wife) Sarah Waxman.
It is very important to my family that this image is uploaded in his memory and any help would be greatly appreciated.
Below I have also a letter from my cousin, Adam Waxman who is Al's son.
Dear Peter Symonds,
I am emailing you in regard to the "Al Waxman" article. My name is Adam Waxman. I am Al Waxman's son. Together with my mother, Sara Waxman, I own the image of my father that has been removed from his article. I am not very computer savvy, so I have asked my cousin Jonah to re-post it--as he had originally done last year. I'm not sure why it keeps being taken down, but it is very frustrating for me. Posting that photo, is obviously a constructive contribution, and not one that needs to be edited in any way, let alone deleted. Could you please let me know why it has been disallowed, and how I can re-post my father's image on his article? Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Adam Waxman
(User name: Acw1972)
If you could get back to either of us on this matter it would be very helpful.
Also if you could please reply to this at my email (<personal email removed>) as I check that more often it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jglass123 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you've removed the speedy deletion tag for Choliyal. Look at the deletion log for Sholiyar. You will observe that the content here is identical to the content of the Sholiyar article that was deleted by an AfD. Anyway, this article here qualifies on atleast five counts of speedy deletion. -RavichandarMy coffee shop20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-). The article was filled with extremely atrocious casteist propaganda introduced by an user widely believed to be the sock of User:Vyaghradhataki who has been indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. The article has no references at all. Besides, I get very few Google hits for Sholiyar and all of them lead to one or other mirror sites of Wikipedia. -RavichandarMy coffee shop20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has made several changes to UFO with-out asking and now he is in the process of fully revising the article with-out asking first if it should be revised. I tried resolving this with him but he does not even seem to care and has charged head long into this revision process which will probably change the article into a Skeptics article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
HMC INTERNATIONAL
Hi Peter,
actually you did not respond. So here's the question again: You deleted the HMC International page. We went through your guidlines and could not find a reason at all. Should we create the page again or what do you want us to do. Author Lars H.T. Lueders [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.87.193 (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I did respond, somewhere. Sorry if it wasn't in the place you wanted. I deleted it because it did not assert importance/significance. Unfortunately my hand slipped (I'm on an old laptop) and clicked the wrong reason (advertising). I suggest you look at the article wizard which will guide you through the creation process. You need to back up a a claim of notability with verifiable and reliable sources. Let me know when you've re-written it and I'll take a look. :) Sorry for the crossover of replies somewhere along the line. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)08:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Why have you blocked this person? Davidpdx was instrumental in ensuring the success of the Arbcom case against the serial sockpuppet/meatpuppet abuser Johnski, per this ruling: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision It is clear from the nature of the content he is attempting to insinuate into the Solkope article that Mattbray is merely the latest in the long line of Johnski meatpuppets/sockpuppets. As a consequence his edits may be reverted without reference to the 3RR. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Mattbray deleted half the content of the Solkope article - content dealing with the recorded myths of the island's indigenous occupants - and replaced it with a promotional insertion on the subject of the Dominion of Melchizedek, written by Johnski. The matter is an open and shut case of meatpuppetry by an Arbcom-blocked user. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
insert illustration?
Good Morning Peter. How do I proceed to insert a picture into the text? 96.228.211.209 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)96.228.211.209 (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Signed my name with the four tildes, but it didn't appear. I am notindustry, editing reclaimed water page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.211.209 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Michael Reagan / Mark Dice
It's issues like these that make Wikipedia such an unreliable source of information.
If you had EVEN BOTHERED to do a little bit of research, you would have come across VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Michael Reagan at least THRICE called for the unsollicited murder of Mark Dice.
You need to be ashamed of yourselves for allowing neocon fascists like Michael Reagan to get away with these despicable acts. This goes well beyond hate speech - this is a call for MURDER. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
If anyone gets killed, I'm sure Wikipedia will pride itself on their nice 'coverup' of the event.
With good 'administrators' like these, who needs 'bad' ones?
And the reason no MSM source has 'verified' it is because they are 'cowards'. Multiple people have sent them the Youtube clip - none of them have picked it up.
With respect, I don't need to do research. YouTube is not a reliable source, and therefore it can't be included. Simple as that. The page has been protected to prevent its addition, and will be unprotected I'm sure after tomorrow's announcement. Please read WP:Reliable sources, and do not use defamatory language on my talk page, or anywhere else. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of images
Hello.. I've noticed that you've deleted my pictures that I have uploaded for the gallery of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40BunarFest article. What seems to be the problem?
Oh, so it's in his 'own words', but because it's on Youtube (an UNRELIABLE source according to the 'unreliable' Wikipedia), it cannot be included and therefore you have to delete the segment that can be BACKED UP BY FACT, BECAUSE THAT YOUTUBE CLIP IS A VERBATIM COPY OF WHAT WAS SAID ON HIS RADIOSHOW.
Unbelievable. You live in denial.
What a reliable source of information, when their own administrators don't even bother to do basic fact-checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Peter. I am having a lot of fun on this project. My brilliant M.D./ microbiologist friend is helping me with that aspect, and an environmentally concerned wastewater engineer has been contributing to the "history" category. The next category will offer some possible ways to ameliorate the health/environmental problems of waste treatment. I'm looking forward to that one.
In my effort to "pretty up" the page, I fell in love with an image I Googled of the inside of the Cloaca Maxima, the fantastic sewer system built by the ancient Romans. I looked up Cloaca Maxima on Wikipedia, and there was the very image I had googled.
Is it ok if I use that image for the reclaimed water page, as well. It is a very impressive picture and I thought it would go nicely with the photo of the "do not drink" sign that's already on the page, with caption showing the connection between ancient treatments and what we are now doing with waste.
If the photo is already being used on another page, does that mean I can use it without worrying about copywrite infringement?Notindustry (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008
Okay, I can't figure out your choice to semiprotect this. Only one involved editor is not autoconfirmed (User:William Saturn, who's probably a sockpuppet of User:Southern Texas, and you've protected it to his preferred version. Every other editor involved is autoconfirmed. Full protection would've made much more sense.
The whole affair is a litttle disappointing; you'd think Didd's campaign workers would've moved on by now, but I guess it'll have to wait until december. WilyD23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, but if you're going to protect the article, why did you protect the version by user Saturn and user Kendrick, both of which have attacked user WilyD? --Nat Miller (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply here to avoid repetition. I protected it as I saw it, which will nearly always be the wrong version. It was no deliberate thing; it's just how I came across the article. As established users, both of you can revert to the unvandalised version, because it's only semi-protected, but I'll do it now. I'm sorry for the apparent favour towards vandals; I can assure you that's not why I'm here. :) PeterSymonds(talk)08:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Err, for the record, I have absolutely no objection to your choice of which version to protect it on, only that it seemed odd given your choice of semi rather than full protection. WilyD12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No probs. :) I've fully protected the article for now. This is done very rarely and for short periods of time, so I'll unprotect it after 24 hours. If that fails then perhaps some sort of temporary general sanction should be discussed on the talk page for users who continue to add this sort of material. In my opinion these election-type WP:BLP infringements go away quite quickly, so if after two weeks things aren't getting better then general sanctions should be discussed. PeterSymonds(talk)08:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did you re-vandalize the article after protecting it? The point of the protection was to make the vandalism stop. And on what grounds are you accusing me of WP:BLP violations? -- Kendrick7talk16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree -- disruptively deleting sourced material from articles is vandalism in my book. There's never been justification for deleting half the article and the ones responsible have repeatedly failed to gain consensus for this since the deleting first began back in January. All I can imagine is this is due to some old personal grudge some editors hold again the article's creator who was banned for sockpuppetry back in 2006. -- Kendrick7talk16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, if nothing else, could you maybe give Kendrick some gentle reminders about WP:CIVL and WP:NPA as an uninvolved admin familiar with the situation? WilyD16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh huh -- this from the guy who just accused me above, without any basis, and despite having been politely informed back in March to the contrary,[12] of having a WP:COI. Peter did recommend mediation, but for the love of God, this is already the most WP:LAME edit war I've ever been involved with, and after five months of this I've had quite enough and I don't see why anyone else should have to deal with it. We're both long time contributors, so how about you just, you know, stop, and I'll owe you one, Wily? It would do wonders for my wikistress level. -- Kendrick7talk00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, sorry guys, but my talk page isn't really the place to voice personal disputes. I suggest seeking dispute resolution, as that will hopefully kill all your birds with one stone. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help! I'm going to go to "Rollback school" now haha. Is there anything special I need to know about rollback other than whats already on WP:RBK?
Thanks but you seem to have unprotected Template:Convert/km2(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) instead (an easy mistake: {{Convert/sqkm}} redirects there), also, I'll actually be wanting to move the page to preserve its edit history, it'll be up for deletion (the sqkm one not the highly transcluded km2 one). JIMptalk·cont18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Peter.I uploaded two images and cannot delete the extra one. The one I want to keep is Cloaca Maxima jpg. I have tried to say that it is a free license image, taken from Wikipedia, ( or Wikimedia)but it's not happening.
I want to write a caption under it and put it on the right side, under the picture that is there. I am computer illiterate. Is this as confusing for others as it is for me? Also, don't know where to log inNotindustry (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up from RfA
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've got the feeling from the process thus far that more experience will be a boon, which I can only agree with. Also thank you for elaborating upon your concerns, I feel which ever way it goes I'm going to get a lot of valuable constructive criticism. A lot of the opposition comments I've found to be very informative, giving me food for thought and areas to begin building upon immediately.
Hi Peter - I think you may have misinterpreted what went on there today - it was not an edit war, it was a new editor adding material that had previously been discussed and consensus reached to not include. I reverted it and asked the new editor to discuss on talk; the new editor put it in again and another regular editor removed it again. The new editor finally got the message and came to Talk to discuss it. I don't think full protection was warranted here - this was not an edit war. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil about how to handle the sometimes problematic editing of this high-profile article that you might be interested in - meanwhile, please reconsider the protection. Thanks Tvoz/talk06:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Was coming here to say the same thing, see my comment here. Appearances may have been deceiving but there was really no need for this in my view. Discussion is actually going fairly well on the talk page, and things have calmed down a lot - this was an isolated incident. I would unprotect myself but obviously want to talk about it with you first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs06:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I understand why you protected the page - I'm sure it looked like an unholy mess and in most circumstances would have been completely warranted. This article has had its ups and downs as far as peace vs. insanity, and unfortunately we're coming out of (I hope) one of the insaner periods. I am concerned about how it will fare for the rest of this year, but I'm hoping that enough people will be watching whose intentions are to have a good biography and the troublemakers will give up or at least be neutralized. The problems are frustrating, but it's satisfying to know we're editing something that is being read by so many people every day around the world - so we want to get it right, not have it hijacked by partisans. It ain't easy. Thanks for your help and for looking out for the integrity of the article - it's very much appreciated. Tvoz/talk15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Vandal IP 121.72.145.82 is back ...
Hi Peter, a short while ago you semi-protected the article Getting_Things_Done. Apparently it didn't do much to prevent the IP from vandalising the page, he became even more aggressive. Now he deleted the whole paragraph that contains his disliked reference using the name 121dot72dot149dot211. Is there anything else that can be done to keep this guy out? Thank you, cheers, Lausianne (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep the Youmacon anime convention wiki page in the state it was in with proper information given directly from Youmacon staff and it keeps being editted by TheFarix. I need to know if there's a way that the event staff can be the ones to update said page as opposed to have said user edit it without verifying information from said staff. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Schmoo (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey ya Peter, you've recently closed off an AfD for the singer Almamy, however the creator of the original page has just gone and recreated it under a different name; Almamy_(musician), and with the same lack of WP:RS as the first ones. Just because I'm unsure, but what is the are the steps we can take from here to nominate this one too? Cheers
Esradekan Gibb "Talk"06:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Angelo De La Paz
I see you recently granted this editor rollback. I left them a message here that it was not to be used in content disputes. Since then there has been the abuse of rollback with edits like this, this (whether Tang is singular or plural depends on the variety of English being used, and it certainly was not vandalism) and this. Not a single one of those edits is obvious vandalism, so I am concerned about this editor's abuse of the tool. BigDuncTalk11:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yah, I'm here.
For your own education, think you should. (I made it awfully easy!)
The {{further}} is just cut and paste. Take template: Tt0 contents and just lay them in using [ctrl]-[A] to capture the page contents. The graphics of the subpages is probably fooling you. The red stuff is part of tt0/doc subpage and won't go with the edit! (Hope not).
The other ({{see also}}, just adds {{{altphrase| ahead of the boiler plate and }}} after (BUT before the ':').
Read up on parameters in wikimarkup. Let's see if M:parameters still reaches... nope... Hmmm. Help:parameters Dang it! Should at least have left soft redirects! Stuff got moved to mediawiki. I forget the prefix, but a search there of those two labels will find the pages that used to be on meta and were echoed here for years. (and should be still!) // FrankB
NO thankyou... both checked under their hoods, and look fine. Gotta run, gone for 2-3 hrs. // FrankB21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
re: Good, glad I got it right! You're welcome. :) The edit to the see also template crashed Wikipedia for about 30 seconds...! The guilty feeling of "I did that" as IRC became flooded with "is it down for anyone else??"! All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Woops! Template:See also(edittalklinkshistory) Ah! Whew. Don't do that to me! 'Still there, so you mean the cache needed major update waits... Whew! Sorry, my bad. I shoulda told you to wait on that 'til late morning hours. Good things to put off on such as Commander Kane or woohookitty, who're normally alive and online when most of the English world serviced by the Florida servers goes to bed. Good time of the day to edit though... things go fast. Alls well as ends well. You think that cache hit was bad, try changing {{tl}}! or such like! <G> Nobody said wiki's have to be efficient! (Still, is much better since the /doc page system went into effect--no longer get zapped everytime a popular template gets an updated category or interwiki! Was a real pain!. Cheers // FrankB00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the note about not citing sources on the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts page, please note that I have added sources and in line citations and will continue to do so while working on the entry. I'm not sure why the notice is still up. please let me know if I need to add anything else in order to get rid of the notice, or why my sources are not reliable. I work for the Chan Centre and have all first hand sources.
I am writing to you because you deleted an article I created, Almamy (singer). I understand that it was deleted because it failed to indicate the significance of the subject.
Well, a revised version of my article, titled Almamy (musician), was then offered to Wikipedia. With more indication on the significance of the subject, providing references to reliable published sources but it was also deleted.
The subject, Almamy, is a rising figure in the New York City electronic music scene. He has released few notable recordings and has been written about in the local press and in reputable blogs such as HX Magazine, The Hype Machine... I do think that he, and his work, belong to Wikipedia.
I was hoping that you give me some pointers. Should a new article, with more references and indications of signification should be written or would you "revive" the revised version, Almamy (musician)?
Dear Peter, Thank you for evaluating the Gerald Guterman semi-protect nomination. Yet again, after your decision, a new editor appeared to remove almost all critical information (from the NY Times and an academic economics text). I find it very suspicious that every day a brand new editor comes along who wants to remove anything which points to difficulties Mr. Guterman has suffered. It reeks of self-interest and sock puppetry. I ask again that you look at the edits. Thank you for your time, Smilo Don (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi,
I have contributed to an article, which has since been amended, deleted and edited countless times by other parties. The articles i have put in are true and give an accurate reflection of the specific industry. This seems to bother other players in this industry which is perhaps why they edit it etc.
Because they kept deleting it i kept reverting it back to my earlier post, and i now notice that you have sent me a message asking me to stop changing things. However, as i said, i am merely changing things back because of the deletion and editing all these other people have done.
I do admit that i had a link on there and i was not aware that i could not do so. I am therefore going to try and edit things again, in a much clearer, better manner, and i would ask that you please check this that it is ok, and if yes,then please note that this is the correct format and changes made to it by others are the problem you need to combat - not my posts!
Sorry, but I don't know who you are. According to your talk page, I've never sent you any warnings...Can you provide a link please? Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will use the undo function to revert vandalism, poor edits, etc. And I will always assume good faith, in about two weeks, I shall reapply. Will Thompson (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Psychiatry vs. anti-psychiatry
There has been an anonymous user that has been blanking the section on anti-psychiatry in the article on Psychiatry. I and another user reverted the edits before the ananymous user blanked the section again. His/her reason was that there is already a standalone article on anti-psychiatry. To make things worse, the anonymous user mocked my message to him/her and called my edits "page-adding." What is your take on this??? Willking1979 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to manually archive Not done RFR's. But the last edit needs to be marked as notdone - i.e. if there is further input the bot will not archive - just add another notdone tag at the very end and it will be sorted! Pedro : Chat 21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake - hadn't realised the bot was not working. I'm not implying deleting declined requests - they should be archived as well - bad communication on my part - I thought you were wondering why not dones wern't going and that has been an issue historically. Pedro : Chat 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Catherine Deneuve (part three)
As you may or may not know, the RfC for Catherine Deneuve was recently removed by the RFC bot (talk). Shortly afterwards, user M06ff1 (talk) made edits that in part dealt with the dispute at hand. I thought that maybe that meant it was OK for me to start editing the page again, which I recently did. Now that I think about it, though, I should have probably consulted with you on that; so, I apologize in advance. I just came by to let you know about that. Also, in regards to the RfC, no one responded to my last RfC comment, which in a way has to do with one of the edits that M06ff1 (talk) made. I'm not saying that the lack of responses means that my suggestion should be accepted, but if you have strong disagreements on the matter, please let me know. I'm simply implementing the same standards that have been used on featured articles of actors/actresses.
Anyway, thanks again for your input on this matter, and as always, you can respond to my post here on your talk page. In fact, I would probably recommend that, just in case others who are editing the Catherine Deneueve article stop by, given that you've seemingly been the most recent administrator dealing with the article. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Luke. I have no objections to you editing the article again, providing you don't play with any of the info in the RfC, because it hasn't been resolved yet. But yeah, editing the article for other things is fine with me. Furthermore, I don't have any disagreements with the argument you placed on the talk page, but so far the only outside comments have come from Jeremy McCracken, who has objected to them. Therefore I suggest waiting, say, another week for more opinions, and if none have come in, edit with your preferences. And if someone objects later on, another discussion can be held. :) Hope that helps. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)08:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I have unprotected the article and blocked the IP for a month instead. I know it's a bit harsh, but it started his edits right after the protection expired, which showed no intent to stop. I don't think there's a reason to block any potential edit to the article when we can simply show the guy the door :) I have no issue if you think I'm wrong and wish to undo my actions :) -- lucasbfrtalk20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for help
Hi, Peter,
It took me quite a while to find you after I read your tip. I'm afraid I'm just not up to what it takes to contribute to Wiki. Sorry... But thanks for trying to give me a hand.
Sorry about anything that occured in NE2's recent request at RfR. I had a concern, and wanted to have it addressed. Thanks for your civility and understanding during the matter. Acalamari20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I haven't checked if everything still works, but I'll let you know if anything is broken/needs further fixin'.
As for the removal of "|CAT|Cat|cat|Category|category", just search the source code (copy+paste in search box) and you should find 3 instances of it (don't remove the equal!).
Done. I think everything works fine now. I think you had a problem because if you did exactly what I said, you left an "=category" and it could very well have screwed things up. I think it would be a good idea to leave the page unprotected for a little while, as I may get other ideas for the template (your call). If you hear nothing from me by tomorrow morning, re-protect it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you deleted the talk page of Wikipedia:Advice for parents recently - and I think you slightly jumped the gun! - There's an active deletion discussion at the moment, but I think (and hope) that it's going to be a 'keep'. Could you take another look, and undelete if you think it's the right thing to do... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was the wrong diff--I just corrected myself. I wasn't talking about Phishing. Please be mindful of how many times in the past two weeks anon users have been making disruptive reverts over this Italian/Croatian business.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The only vandalism going on is those who used unsource information in a desperate attempt to convince the public that this woman is Italian. --24.56.137.185 (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Review
Ohai PeterSymonds. I was just wondering if you could review my recent edits, maybe the last 100 or so. Just wondering if there are edits I should and shouldn't do. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha, its all good. I just protected the page and then went to WP:RFPP and saw that you had already commented there and I was like "What...?" Then I figured it out, and realized that we must have protected the page within seconds of each other. I just had a little quicker draw ;) Haha, have a good night/day. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter! You've protected Leo McGarry, and I understand why, however the anonymous editor who's inserting the text about Leo McGarry's appearance will not discuss this, either on the article's talk page or on his/her talk page, or on other editors' talk pages. Attempts to discuss the matter with this editor (incidentally, they're on a dynamic IP address but their MO is the same) are met with a tirade of abuse (check out my talk page for an example). This has recently been discussed at WP:ANI. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated.
Hello, Peter. Surely, I should have said this earlier, but I'm very sorry that you found me to be making incivil edits. This is the first time anyone (except maybe Rezistenta) has accused me of incivility on Wikipedia, so I must say, I was somewhat shocked to see your message on my talk page.
In fact, I believe I can explain most of the edits that I made and you cited. However, I may not have enough time to explain them right now; perhaps, I might clarify what was going on later. For the time being, I will simply admit that I was somewhat frustrated when I wrote this. When I saw other editors saying it was a personal attack, I decided that I must have made a mistake and needed to make amends. So I striked out the comment and apologized [15] in my next edit.
Tried - he just ignores and continues to revert back to "his" version. the enitre talk page of the article in question Talk:First Battle of El Alamein is entirely about trying to reason with him: it is 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand trying to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events, but he simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times (violation of 3RR) and together with his socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours. he clearly has no will to accept that Radio Rome broadcasting to english personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source. also he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors: [16]"you sound very young and naive although very energetic. Maybe you are the grandson of a famous partisan? But then again you may mean no harm." Anything but a block for 1 day (insults, 3RR, refusal to discuss) will be a farce. --noclador (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:UAA - Bu11monkey69
Dear Peter, I am curious to know how/why you decided the above username is not a violation of policy, as you stated here? It's clearly masked for "Buttmonkey69". Bstone (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you tell me if there is an appropriate space on Wikipedia where I can post information about this non-profit foundation? I noticed a related organization, which also has a profit-making arm, the NACM (National Association of Credit Managers (sic) - should be Management, has an entry.
I may have put the article in the wrong place so could you tell me the appropriate place to put it.
why was picturebox inc "blatant advertising" and not Fantagraphic books. and what part was "blatant"? would it not be considered "blatant advertising" had it been written by an outside party? I keep asking wiki members what is the proper protocol to get this wikipedia page up and running but no one has provided any answers, only deletions. I would really appreciate some advice. thank you.
I am surprised that you Deleted my ExtremeWiki article.
Can you please mail me that article so that I can try to post it later when ExtremeWiki is more established?
I added EW to List of wikis as well and now that is deleted as well. That is more than strange as it is was after all, list of wikis??
Can you please comment (perhaps on the article talk page (Talk:Rehan_Qayoom), why you think a speedy deletion is inappropriate for this one? It was already deleted once, and it's pure autobiography. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
Thanks for saving an article I was creating from being deleted (Redstone American Grill). I am new to editing on wikipedia and I am finding it difficult to track down all the resources I need to edit an article. Miller.12b6 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Software and A7
Re: "software is ineligible for a7" on DELTA (VMS). That's what I thought too, so I did an AfD on the last software article I thought should be deleted for A7: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Auditor's Research Assistant. However, that was speedily closed for containing "no indication of importance", which is A7, saying it was web content. So I guess I was right the first time? I'm a little confused now. swaq17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, on the template talk:wikify page you said that the current template was "agreed on by consensus elsewhere". Should my proposed template changes have been located on a different page? Not sure what you mean by "elsewhere". Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, would you mind taking a look at my RfC on template talk:wikify? I tried to implement the instructions you linked to, for creating an RfC, but the way it renders (just firing up the current template) is not quite what I expected. I expected a visual that communicates a request for comment, doesn't just picture the subject for comment. Do buzzers go off in some other place? :-) Thirdbeach (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have rules and regulations that you have to follow when it comes to blocking users but I fail to understand why I should have to waste my time looking out for these two clowns to strike again when that same time could be spent making constructive edits to Wikipedia. It is as clear as day that they only intend to vandalise this encyclopedia and unless they are below the age of five shouldn't require warnings to know that it is wrong. That said the IP:203.59.132.210 that you removed has a list of warnings longer than the Eiffel Tower so surely that is 'sufficient'? Crickettragic (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, I declined the report on AIV as the IP address has only made one edit in a fortnight. I'd call this insufficient activity, one edit in one fortnight, vandalism or not, is not grounds for blocking. If they continue to vandalise, please re-report them. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. When I reported the two I was working under the assumption that they are the same editor using different IPs. Both IPs vandalise in the same way, and even though one of them as you mentioned has only one edit in a fortnight I believe that if you take into account his warnings and the several recent contributions of his 'sockpuppet' then that should be enough. Crickettragic (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if you would undelete the above to a subpage of my user space, please. I have been helping the original creator with the article and they are looking for references to support notability. Thanks.
How notable must a subject of an article be before it can be included into Wikipedia? This morning I heard on a major radio station's morning show about the phrase "nuke the fridge," and its definition. This show is called the Sandbox, and the Radio station is WFNX in Boston. I know that just because something is mentioned in passing or as a flavor comment doesn't validate its fitness for Wikipedia, but I would like to know, if the mass-media reports on this phrase, whether this could be changed. Thank you for taking time out of your day to read my message, and I hope that the status of "nuke the fridge" will someday not be a foregone conclusion for deletion. K, thnx, bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.28.173 (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter. As you normally protect articles labelled as "Requests for Protection", there are two articles that have been laying at the bottom of the top section for a whole day, see here and the request directly below it. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason why there's no vandalism in the history of my talk page is because I asked Oversight to remove them because it had personal info in it. If you were to look for "deleted contribs" or whatever they should be there.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to explain why you have fully protected this page? I see know reason for this; there have been no edit wars or vandalism, and even if there had semi-protection would be enough. There's some good work going on there. U-Mos (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably - and correct me if I'm wrong - because it was getting filled with Eleventh Doctor speculation? I have reason to believe that there will be no elevent Doctor yet, but that's a different matter...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a bit of everything; the sheer weight of editing was clouding the good from the bad, the unsourced from the sourced, the speculation from the fact. As I say, this happens extremely rarely, but it was deemed necessary. It will be unlocked as soon as possible. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This will undoubtedly increase over the next few hours, so I'll reply here. The sheer weight of editing was getting problematic; we couldn't sort the vandalism, the POV, the reliable sources, the theories and the speculation. It was decided at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that this page should be locked for the time being. This happens rarely, extremely rarely, but two administrators and one editor agreed that this should be implemented. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that if there were issues with vandalism and reliable sources then it would be an better to Semi protect and then see if this continues rather than protecting it first off. I think there has been a knee jerk overreation here. BigHairRef | Talk20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If you actually read the content of the edits you would see that there was hardly any "vandalism, the POV, the reliable sources, the theories and the speculation" at all. --Mark J (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with BigHairRef, I agree with protecting but I think semi-protection would be enough and it would allow the other editors, who dealt with such things before, to complete the article. --SoWhyTalk21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I have to disagre with both Treasury Tag and Peter, there has been no report of vandalism on AIV and the reasons you decided to protect appear nowhere else in the protection request. I also think the responses to your protection on the request page are worth looking at. I think you'll find consensus is that the vast majority of edits were constructive. BigHairRef | Talk21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, and there are numerous admins and users on both sides of the debate (actually, all three sides - there are some who support semi-p). ╟─TreasuryTag ╬ contribs─╢ 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It needs a break. It really does. A lot of the edits were constructive, but there were too many non-constructive edits. I will reconsider page protection in one hour. In the mean time, I will not be prepared to unprotect. PeterSymonds(talk)21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied from the protection request page: "I see where you're coming from now (although a hint in your protection edit summary would have been nice), but I still think semi protection would be preferrable. And 24 hours seems a bit much too." But hey, I see your point, and the article is at least good right now. So que sera. U-Mos (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a fair response all I would say is that when the hour is up I would look to the number of people who have left messages both here and on the request for protection which support the protection and those which oppose and compare numbers in terms of consensus. BigHairRef | Talk21:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
With due respect to you, this isn't a debate. Peter does not need editor consensus to act. Two admins, Peter and myself, who have loads of RPP experience decided we should protect it. While an appeal or so is okay, badgering is not. I urge Peter to stand by his decision. Tan | 3921:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've looked. Of course I don't make a habit of going against consenus. Also, anyone who is responding both here and at RFPP, please centralise the discussion here. RFPP is backlogged as it is. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Per Peter's request I'll respond here rather than on Tanthalas's talk page. Tanthalas, I'm not suggesting he needs consensus to act, however when the consensus ex post facto is that he should act to restore the status quo then it makes sense to follow that if it exists which is a decision for him. What I'm saying is that there is no breach of policy which allows a protection and I'm suggesting that the consensus is that there was no breach of policy. I'm not sure how we're badgering him as we have no other way to contest a protection we think unnecessary as I said I was happy to let the hour pass but I htink that after being accused of badgering someone when all I'm doing is making a suggestion and leaving to him, I think there's an amount of losing the point of the discussion where wanting to win for the sake of it is losing the point rather than actually making a valid one which I think several poeple have done. BigHairRef | Talk21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, Peter said he'd review in an hour, so let's leave it at that. Right now the discussion is "Unprotect?", "No.", "Please?", "No.", "Pretty please?", "No.". Tan | 3921:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your protection of the article. I had tried to make edits to the page, but everytime I had edit conflicts. I think it would be best to leave the full-protection for at least 24hours to let things calm down a bit. Apparently there will be a 'Next Time' trailer up on the BBC's youtube page tomorrow afternoon (1pm). I think leaving the potection as is, until that is up would be the best idea (especially in regards to the 11th Doctor speculation that crept in). Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Page deleted before any discussion on the Talk page
Dear Peter,
It appears that you have deleted a page I had written about the Korean punk band Couch, the wider importance of whose actions I described on the Talk page, to which I was asked to contribute. I think I gave a reasonably clear account of my reasons for requesting that my page not be deleted. Wikipedia is prepared to make exceptions for subjects which are important in their own right, even though they may be disallowed under the usual criteria. But unfortunately you didn't reply to me on there, and my page has simply been deleted. I have to say that I don't understand why you didn't engage in discussion with me prior to deletion, particularly as during the intervening period (between notice being given and the deletion occurring), I had then edited the page several times to take account of the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion: that it would be justified if there is a wider significance. Here were the reasons I gave:
Talk: Couch
Please don't delete the page I have created. It is not any attempt to create a fan site. It is important to refer to it because its actions on national television mirrored the Janet Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction' controversy in the US, and led to a similar national outcry and soul-searching about the decline of traditional standards across society. The incident with Couch also led to a very thorough review of Korean broadcasting, the effects of which are still very much evident today.
And here was the newly edited page (which I hadn't finished amending) before it disappeared just after 06:00 local time (approx half an hour ago):
Couch (Korean punk rock band)
Couch was formed by two young South Korean musicians, Shin and Oh in Seoul in 2003. They remained relatively unknown to the wider public until they gatecrashed a Korean TV show (Music Camp on MBC), featuring another Korean punk band, Rux in 2005. They dropped their pants on stage, and were promptly arrested for exposing their private parts on national TV.
Their importance was in sparking a national debate about the decline of traditional behaviour among the young, which in many ways mirrored the outcry in the United States about Janet Jackson's accidental exposure of her breast on a live CBS show. In Korea, the incident caused a thorough review of Korean broadcasting output, and calls for punitive action against the broadcaster. The Music Camp show, although already well established, was promptly cancelled by the MBC network as a direct result of the incident.
Please could you look into this? I'm happy to rewrite any parts or to have them added to. But I believe that, as already broadly stated, the information about the band does meet Wikipedia's criteria of exceptions, as its actions were of as great a significance as Janet Jackson's accidental exposure (in what was widely described as a 'wardrobe malfunction') on the CBS network. I believe that both cases are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia due to their wider ramifications.
I would very much appreciate your reviewing the decision to delete the article.
Thanks very much. Yes please, I would be very grateful if you would restore it to my userspace, where I could improve it over the next few days. This incident has had a very significant effect on Korean society and for that reason I believe it does merit inclusion, but I do appreciate that its significance needs to be emphasised more clearly and it needs reliable sourcing. Thanks again.
As I said you just can't go deleting pages without discussion. It is a notocieable news service as it is the only LGBT news service in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osakadan (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks. And I've written 4 DYKs also, but none of them are even GAs yet. ;) I do quite a lot of reviewing and as you can see from the above 2 above sections, I'm quite involved with it. I'll help make sure his possible DYKs are good. Tell me whenever he has done one. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Could you consider this user's unblock request in view of the discussion at the bottom of his talk page? Thanks, Sandstein 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you weren't seduced by this user's grovelling. His behaviour yesterday was appalling, and he was lucky it was a chilled guy like you that came along. This guy, as you undoubtedly can see for yourself, was totally incompetent as well as rude and misbehaving, yet chooses to make himself the face of wikipedia that non-wikipedians see first. I hope you and other admins keep your eye on him. 81.215.73.199 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
According to what it says on the tin: "The Special Barnstar may be awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation for a specific reason..." I think you know why I'm awarding you with this :) ——RyanLupin • (talk)07:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question
I trust you should think that most of the edits I've made so far using Huggle after you granted me rollback have been good, but I'm unsure about one revert I made, and whether it was appropriate - this. I reverted it in the spirit of WP:BLP - unsourced material about a living person. Do you think that it's acceptable to revert this sort of edit using Huggle? Almost everything else I reverted was blatant vandalism or test edits, bearing in mind that I should assume good faith, and that rollback should never be used in content disputes, but this one I need further clarification on. Thanks.--Les boys (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
RFR
Just thought I'd let you know I created stole a template from keeper (he stole it from someone else) and put it at Template:rfr/granted so you can {{subst:rfr/granted}} on people's userpages when you grant them rollback, if yar like. –xenocidic (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick question, I tried looking for the stats page that shows the amount of edits per each user on a certain article, but I can't seem to find it. Can you help me?
And while we're on that, how do you find out how many edits you've made throughout wikipedia alltogether?
Thank you, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(I've been trying, but you telling me to listen has made me edit conflict twice)I did. Being lucky to be in the background of a film does not equate to notability. Please see WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V. We simply can't have an article on everyone; it is still an encyclopedia, even though anyone can edit it. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned in my semi-retirment message, I really think you made my time on Wikipedia great. You have highly motivated me, and with your contributions related to me... well it's great. Thanks. StewieGriffin! • TalkSignListen20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. When an article is repeatedly subject to vandalism and removal of large sourced paragraphs, it should be protected. This cannot be solved in 'dispute resolution'. He has been removing a large and essential paragraph which is backed by over a dozen very reliable sources. User:Itaqallah has also intentionally lied and said in his edit summary that 6 users think the citations are inadequate, when this is clearly not the case. Three of them, anyway, are not fit to make a judgment, particularly on this article. I ask you to please protect the article because the edit war will most probably go on for a while. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:PeterSymonds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not done RFR's. But the last edit needs to be marked as 
Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tose_Proeski.JPG&diff=217309367&oldid=217054036){kind=link}
Already blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
