User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


September 2006

RE:Fade to Black (webzine)

Hello mate. Thanks for letting me know, but it's not actually my text. I was just tidying up the disambig page, which the text in the article was too long for. You might want to let User:Schmeitgeist know, who seems to have written it initially. Cheers. - Nzd (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Katie Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Katie Jackson, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Jackson. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Malber (talkcontribs) 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Billy Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Billy Jackson, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Jackson. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Malber (talkcontribs) 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for helping out with Little Terrorist :) -- Lost(talk) 08:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. thanks for the tip. I was wondering where you got the precise info about the category for nomination so quickly from.. -- Lost(talk) 08:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

RE:Fair Use

Hey, I'm actually glad you found it - back when I started I had that page full of album covers until I found out about WP:FUC. I removed all of them except apparently I must have missed one. Thanks for pointing it out. Weatherman90 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahinda Rajapaksa

Thanks for looking into the Mahinda Rajapakse article. A case could be made that the human rights abuses listed were listed since the person in question is the president, head of the armed forces, defence and finance minister and is ultimately responsible since he is the person in command. I will certainly raise this as part of my discussion for the page. I should just mention that the section Human rights abuses existed well before (there was some discussion albeit a small one) and it was repeteadly removed without a valid reason with false pretenses. I am not the original author of the section, nevertheless it may need a clean up. Regardless, User Snowolfd4 has gone on spree POV pushing numerous articles including Tamilnet and has not been in mood to discuss things I am afraid. The user repeteadly insists on putting original research and baseless allegations without any citations and has repeteadly removed the content in dispute tag. Please take a look at the discussion section on Tamilnet to see what I mean. Elalan 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the holes/cleaning up the human rights section. These articles really need constructive criticisms from neutral observers from time to time and unfortunately due to these revert wars, all of this gets lost in emotion. Where there is smoke there is a fire and so I'll certainly try to get the sources pinned down regarding significant increase in human rights abuses etc and where it links Rajapakse directly. That shouldn't be too hard to find, but I'll certainly look into it and move whatever else to the separate human rights section. I am agreeble to your suggestion of having a link to see also section. Elalan 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ricky81682, you might want to see what is happening at the Tamilnet page. In my opinion User snowolfd4 is using Mickey Mouse reasoning to try to remove some of the tags on the page. He has accepted that Ministry of Defence is not a reliable source and is clearly biased, hence I really think this false reporting purpoted by Ministry of Defence should go. Short of that, the fact that section is not Neutral and relies on unreliable source tag should be there. Allegations of false reporting that dominates the article hinges on the Ministry of Defence and Asiantribune citations. I have never seen any news source cite Asiantribune. Only the Ministry of Defence seems to cite it. Elalan 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have outlined a more detail set of problems with the two 'contreversial events' with citations by the Defence ministry. Your comments and citations with regards to the issues raised would be much appreciated. Elalan 04:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Velupillai Prabhakaran article

Hi Ricky, I had gone this biography on Velupillai Prabhakaran, which is in an utter state of mess and made a first effort of putting citation needed tags (probably more than 50 or so), since a lot of the stuff remains unreferenced and needs to be cleaned up. The article has been heavily vandalized and statement really sound like someone had too much time on their hands to play practical jokes or something. User Snowolfd4, reverted my changes with the following terse justification First of all everyone please remember referencs do not have to be websites only. Reliable books are also valid references Next all the citation problems have arisen from Adhoc's previous mistake where he changed the word "References" to "Further Reading"[39]. All the content from this article had been from those books that are mentioned. Therefore the citation tags aren't neccessary. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC). I am not sure what the reason for this statement and reversion was to accomplish. Was it to ensure the page remains in its present statement of mess or not ? I honestly think this is helping to perpetuate vandalism and needs to be stopped. Your input in this regard I am sure will help to ensure constructive changes occur. Elalan 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, I completely concur with Elalan, and you can take a look at the Talk page for all the mess that has been created and also the standard of discussion that is being adopted by snowfold and others. Most of the citation tags need to stay or be cleaned up to ensure a clean article. Thanks for your help. Sudharsansn 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Great Ricky, thanks. I will also go through your draft and add any citable ones if necessary, but I think your version is pretty trimmed down now and quite a lot of crap is out now. I will def'ly try to add on to the version with NPOV statements, citable and verifiable. Thanks again Sudharsansn 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ricky, I might need some help from you in creating a project, similar to Project India or Project Indian history for this issue. The vandalism isn't restricted to this page alone, the Eelam page, Tamilnet page and almost everything coming under the spectrum of Sri Lankan crisis is either vandalized or completely lopsided. I have an idea of creating something like 'Project: Neutral coverage of SL Crisis' or 'Project NCSLC' or something in those lines. Could you please help me with it? I'd want to know how to go about with the projects and stuff, etc..ThanksSudharsansn 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ricky, I wanted to thank you again for helping further enable constructive efforts to progress with regards to the VP article. Its certainly admirable that you have plunged yourself into the article when many of us were starting to think it was a lost cause. Elalan 04:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sudharsansn has got it right on by mentioning that a lot of articles related to Sri Lanka has undergone absolute devastation once the conflict flared up earlier this year and there is need for some sort of publicized/open joint effort to clean articles in a mess and then potentially police to ensure it doesn't get devastated again. What is also very dissappointing is that a lot of neutral/profesional editors were turned off and left in disgust due to determined efforts to propagate openly POV content mostly siding the govt. side, although there was also some on the Tamil Nationalist side as well. I am sure many will return if some level of stability is reclaimed. Elalan 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit done

I have done some work on this article and all claims made are explicitly verifiable from all the information, taken even from the Sri Lankan media and also the international media to ensure a NPOV. The issuing of death warrants, the thileepan incident, the alfred duraiappah incident are all cited with background information and some hearsay remarks about his family have also been added with citation tags clearly. Let me know what you think about this version, we can refine it.

Btw, I am working on creating the project. I'd sure would like to have you there. Thanks again for your help in cleaning this up. There is some wore work left to be done in the last few sections, I shall get this done and you can verify it and then the best option would be to protect this page. Thanks.

Sudharsansn 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Revamped version

This article Velupillai Prabhakaran as of now, is almost completely revamped with regard to completely cited information about VP in a NPOV and all evidence is verifiable as stated - SL media, Indian media and the international media. Complete rework has been done on this article. Please read through it again, with all the exact citations and references provided and also some redundant sections trimmed down.

As of now this article, IMHO, seems to be perfectly NPOV - his murders, assasinations are also cited with evidence and so are his achievements as a military leader, both sides are portrayed equally - This should be fine enough for the reader to make a good, informed decision about VP.

Let me know your opinions. Please read through it again if any fine-tuning is required. VP Talk page

Sudharsansn 18:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, User Iwazaki is bringing back info from all the sections which you had trimmed, including the cult of personality section which had not a single cited evidence.

Pls go through this link:

Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. A strong msg needs to be sent out to Iwazaki who is violating almost every single policy of Wikipedia, Civility, NPOV, Verifiability, etc...I kindly request you to step in and take some action to avoid blanking-out vandalism and reverting to uncited versions of the article which transitively refers to Vandalism. Pls go through my posts here to justify removal of the sections and how he has responded here

The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page

This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn Sudharsansn 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject NCSLC

Hi Ricky, I have created a project titled NCSLC: Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis. Pls let me know your inputs and how to take it forward from here. I am eagerly looking fwd to have you there. Thanks again Ricky Sudharsansn 20:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamilnet Again

User snowolfd4 has come up with new ambiguous reasons to remove relevant content from the Tamilnet article as he did for the Vellupillai article:

Here is his justification:

Sudharsansn the reasons are given in the edit summery. Thats not vandalism. Get your facts straight. Practically everything I removed is irrelevant to the context of the article. The international news organizations don't say sympathetic to LTTE website. Its plain pro LTTE website. That means they support the LTTE. Plain English. Not sympathetic. Support. And stuff like

David Jeyaraj a Canada based freelance journalist known for his neutral stance in the current Sri Lankan civil war had written that Karuna, was personally involved in the murder of famed journalist Taraki Sivaram

is just not encyclopedic and doesn't belon in WP. So again I'm removing irrelevant content and restoring my previous version. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He claims David Jeyaraj's statement (with reference) is unencylopedic, so he decides to remove it completely. He also insists on mentioning the LTTE with the list of countries banned in detail. Is the article about the LTTE or Tamilnet ? But he wants to include as much negative detail about the LTTE in order to highlight his POV. He also insists on saying the website supports the LTTE, which is legally vague. Material support, financial support, political support what does support mean ?? The best word as far as I see it is that it is sympathetic to the the LTTE. Furthermore he blanks many other factual statements, with relevant citations without even discussing it. The reasons for these factual statements are outlined in detail on the talk page. Here is the diff ( Please also look into the section which labeled as "Time", because there is the added complication of old Sri Lanka time (5h30 difference from GMT) and new Sri Lanka time (6h difference from GMT).

I had also switched the title of the allegations section from "Allegations of False Reporting" to "Controversy" because:
  • Only one incident is where Tamilnet is accused of false reporting, the other two references, it is called discrepancies [1], [2].

So in my opinion, snowolf is adding words from his POV to fill in the gaps...

Thanks, Elalan 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New user Civility

Hi Ricky, there is a new kid, literally a kid, who is going beyond limits with scant respect for fellow editors and has gone overboard with his civility almost thrice inspite of friendly suggestions. Kindly intervene and warn him so as to avoid trivial conversations. He is dragging in things like how his parents brought him up, how we all should have been brought up, how he wants to honor the SL Army, how much of a pre-school kid 'I' am for all the good work I did on the VP page. I would pls ask you to interfere and issue him a strict civility warning and ask him to go through WP policies. The link is here and the user name is User:Iwazaki Thanks Sudharsansn 05:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on Zeest Deleted without any notice

Dear Ricky, the article u edited on Zeest, the major part of the article is deleted by someone without any notice. while i've contributed the article with reliable reference n sources. plus the article is according to the criteria mentioned in WP:MUSIC, on such points For composers and performers outside of mass media traditions

 Italic text  * Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
   * Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
   * Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

we all know that Zeest did really influence its music on major population. plus not frequently but it did appeared on some major newspapers & magazines too, and it can be viewed and observe through many web articles too . I've provided the whole article with the reliable and verifiable sources. but this guy deleted the whole article with reliable sources and references, leaving only introduction. please help me to recover that article again or tell me where i can complain abt it. Sohail981 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability breach

I need your help in explaining Verifiability to Iwazaki here because he is framing up two sections based on nil evidence. Pls check this diff. Thanks Sudharsansn 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

November 2006

User Talk

Hello , user [3] at my talk page . You have already warned him about this. Can I blank his comment on my Talk page? What can I do about this?
See the comment he made at my talk page here:[4]
Trade2tradewell 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edits by Bob Fink

Hi, I noticed your comment at User talk:, that said "Please don't spam this site with links to help sell your book. If you continue, you may be blocked.". It is an old comment, but the problem addressed persists.

He has inserted numerous links to his website throughout wikiepdia. A search for shows more than 40 articles that still contain links to his website, and I am confident that a review of the history of these articles will show that in every case that the link was added by him (every one I have checked up on so far has revealed this). I have compiled a list of IPs used by him at User:Rainwarrior/Bob Fink. He seems to have a dialup account which assigns him one of many IPs within a certain range; I don't think anyone else currently uses these IPs to edit wikipedia, but in the past,42,50,51 and may have also been used briefly by someone named Kate McMillan (see history). I have not found any other edits which indicate a different person in any of the other IPs listed.

I discovered this after I attempted to prune irrelevant material from Musical acoustics, which I later found that he had added, and is his own original research from his self-published books (to which I assume your older comment had referred). He has left lengthy diatribes on Talk:Musical acoustics in response to my assertion that he should not be doing this, and I've asked a few others to comment, but no one seems willing to do so given the sheer amount of text involved at this point.

This is not the only page this author has had such problems with. Any glance at the edit history of Divje Babe will reveal that he has been massively editing the article that is about his own research; the article about himself, Bob Fink has a similar history, et cetera...

Because he refuses, in general, wish to log in and make edits under a username (though he possesses at least two), I have no way of leaving messages directly for the author, and any points I have made at Talk:Musical acoustics have been met with pages of vitriolic response. I would appreciate if you would be willing to comment on the situtation at musical acoustics (if you find you have an opinion about the disputed content in the article itself, the section Talk:Musical acoustics#Please comment on the "Evolution of the diatonic scale" section is probably the most appropriate), or if administrative action could be taken (if you think it's appropriate), or otherwise leave a comment to this user about his actions.

Thanks if you could be of help in resolving these issues. - Rainwarrior 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

December 2006


You blocked this user indef for incivility back in the beginning of October. I am wondering if you think the two months this person has been blocked is enough, or if you think the block should remain. I personally think the user may have a change of contributing helpfully and will keep the user's talk page on my watchlist in case reblocking is needed.

Regardless of how I feel I will defer to your judgment in this case. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

February 2007


I made a huge revert on that day, and wanted to save that version of the page.Bakaman 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sure go ahead.Bakaman 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Djibouti Wikipedians

Hi. I see that you created that category and was wondering, with no members, if you'd want to keep it. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ok. Could you delete it then? It'd be faster. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Hi (Lata Mangeshkar)

Hi my username is shshshsh. I am the anon who wrote you the claim. I really have worked very hard on this page. according to you, all the written things are copied, but it`s not right. I`m going now to turn back some little things that as I see, are not copied, because some of them, has have written by me too.(don`t try to find it. I have a new username now.) If you find my new edits as wrong, please revert the page again. I won`t do enything else.


Hi Ricky. about the apology, it`s OK:). I know you haven`t done that deliberately, only to protect WP rights. In my opinion, your idea is very good. we really can`t write the names of every film here. Lata has sung in over 950 films in her career, so we really need to select the most notables films. Thanks!! User:Shshshsh

Thank you!

Just a quick note to thank you for the speed you categorized my new article John Grady (author). I was really impressed.Gillyweed 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007


Cheers. Trying to create a more balanced article there. Hope I'm using this page for a reply correctly, please delete the comment if not! Arthur Jakubowski 17:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a warning about Weasel after some amendments. I noticed you removed some comments seen as smears by associaton, some have been added back. Various other slants added to provide a political point too. Arthur Jakubowski 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Brief footnotes on current events articles

Thank you for improving and combining a number of footnote-citations on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I had tagged the footnotes that needed to be filled out with full citation info...a while ago.
One problem with brief footnotes of the flavor <ref name= "ad-hoc-hame-here"/> on articles which rapidly change is when other editors come along, the first citation occasionally gets deleted by an editor unaware of the consequenses of deleting a named-footnote, orphaning all of the subsequent named footnotes. (Discussion here: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Ref_problem).

Although I haven't given that article a going over for footnotes, on occasion when I have corrected orphan footnotes there in the past, or occasionally simply just improved a footnote, I have made the subsequent named-footnotes full named ones, to eliminate the potential orphan footnote problem--the result being the second named-footnote carries forward and displays its citation information if the first is deleted. This is why I regret to seeing genuinely useful and helpful clean-ups that make potential footnote-orphans more likely.

If you have any better ideas on how to reduce this problem on current events articles, articles subject to rapid changes, the efforts of many editors, or subject to disputes--so that the footnotes can have less degradation, I'd like to hear of thim. I view this as a general policy problem for citations, and I suspect there is no better solution than full-named-citations this, but I admit I have not checked the village pump or other archives for the discussion that in all likelihood has occured on this topic. -- Yellowdesk 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)!

Agreed, it's not a big deal, and these things are quite recoverable. Cheers, -- Yellowdesk 21:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Little context in Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2006

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2006, by Jeepday, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2006 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2006, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Articles lacking sources from April 2006 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006, by Black Falcon, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

G6 (housekeeping). Empty maintenance category ... should not be repopulated.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyanide and Happiness

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cyanide and Happiness. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mrmoocow 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Thanks for your hard work!

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work you did fixing the references in the black billionaires article. Pacingcar 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on, by Quadratic, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I am the user of the account Nlitement, you blocked me for breaking WP:CIVIL 8 months ago. I had asked for an unblock recently, but was rejected by an admin on the grounds: "you don't sound convincing" followed by an apparent violation irrelevant to the issue that I wasn't even aware of. Anyway, as you in the summary of previous unblocking disapproval you requested me to "at least acknowledge violating policy before I would even remotely consider.." I would like to tell you that even if I didn't express it or express it clearly, I still acknowledge my violations, and would like to request to be unblocked. You may check my IP which I provide you as an example of me not violating any WP:CIVIL policy in the course of 8 months. I was redirected to the arbitration committee once, but it was based on the assumption that you wouldn't unblock me as the person notifying hadn't considered the fact that my appeal to you had been old and rather open (advising to do something before being able to be unblocked, in my interpretation). I also request an unblock based on the fact that it is by an infinite amount too long (indefinite). I happened to find a user, here, who had apparently received more than one warning, and merely a 72 hour block. My block may very well become a ban if more admins deny my appeal, and that one comes from an indefinite block after a single warning. If you compare his block to mine, one might conclude a large difference if the nature of the violation compared to the block's duration. I'd truly thank you if you'd take my request into consideration, I myself see no reason to keep my account blocked. I only need it to upload files or make edits to locked articles now and then, it hadn't come to my mind that I was blocked until I needed to do contributions with features which only those editors with an account enjoy recently.-- 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And no, you won't regret it. I'll keep WP:CIVIL in mind, it's something I've been spinning around for the past 2 days. :) I didn't ask much, so thanks a lot. And I doubt we'll see each other in terms of a block anymore. --nlitement [talk] 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you just recently unblocked this guy, after 2 indefinate blocks, and he has been vandalising pages.. for example.

f3llah1n (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007


Get a fuckin' job, dude. Most all these I upped before you little trolls starting bitching about pointless rationale, I barely edit shit anymore cuz of you faggots, so block me and "make your point". Do you not realize this is the most pointless shit in human history? "You can't have album covers on here unless you type 'oh this is fair use because blah blah blah'", go asphyxiate on a cock. --PDTantisocial 06:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CSI character list

No need to edit my user draft subpages as I have implemented them already. Sorry, should have clarified. Editus Reloaded 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cutout mini.jpg

You listed this image for speedy delete - despite it appearing in a featured article - you only added a tag to let me even get a clue that there was a problem with it an entire day after the image claims to be liable to be deleted!! That's not a nice way to behave!

No image that made it though WP:GA and WP:FA without problems should EVER be a speedy-delete candidate - that's lunacy! Yeah - maybe it slipped through and needs further consideration - but a speedy leaves essentially zero time for editors to get their act together - it's a blatent abuse of the rational behind the speedy process.

Anyway - I've added a fair use rational to the image comments - please undo all of the mayhem you have unloosed - I can't figure out all of the myriad of tags and bullshit procedures involved - and frankly I don't see why I should have to.

Thanks. SteveBaker 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe you don't remember me. We had a little talk a few months ago. I turn to you for an admin help. It is very important for me.

It was my request ro WP:RM:

Rekha GanesanRekha — This article has been known as Rekha and everybody knows this actress as Rekha. Someone decided to use her full name, while she is known as Rekha everywhere; Her stage name is only Rekha; She is credited as Rekha in every single film without exceptions; names her as Rekha, as well as every other reliable and unreliable site does. Even here on wikipedia, all the other articles related to her somehow, name her as Rekha. Please redirect her name. Her full name can be used in the introduction. Let's take Shakira for example. We can't move her page to Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll just because it's her real name. Her stage name is Shakira, and that's how it should be here. No-one prefers Rekha Ganesan over Rekha. It wasn't an established editor who moved the page earlier. It was a new editor, who is absent from Wikipedia now. Thanks, best regards.

The only reason for that, is that her name is only Rekha as per every source on the net, every every every film of her, and even here on WP, all the articles of her films, all as one, name her as Rekha. They decision was to shift my requst to an incomplete section there, since, as per them, it can cause to problems with those who disagree with this redirect. But the fact is that no-one disagrees. It was formerly moved by some user who is now absent (or blocked, if I'm not wrong). I turned to the user who shifted my request to the incomplete list, and he/she said that I had to debate this on her talk page and after some consensus this will be redirected. I know, they have their motives to do it, but it can take ages until this page would be redirected as it actually should be, as I gave all the sufficient and necessary explanations. And BTW, this page is a bit abandoned now. I've already posted a message on the talk page, but no-one reacts and no-one knows, since most of the users of WP:INCINE who were working on this page are not here. Please help me. Thanks, best regards, --ShahidTalk2me 14:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Abdalqadir as-Sufi


Certain images from the above mentioned article have been deleted and others have been tagged for deletion.

Could you please explain the reason for this and how the action taken can be reversed.


Barnraisers Article

Hello, I noticed you had taken the time to add a review to the Barnraisers article. Thank you. However there seems to be an effort by a handful of editors to delete the article despite any good reason for doing so. The main criticisms have been that the references are questionable and the band has not released any recordings. On the matter of the references I've pointed out many times that two of the main references are The Wilmington Star-News which has a circulation of 50,000+ each day and is owned by The New York Times Company and Encore Magazine, an entertainment magazine which has been in print for 22 years and circulates 20,000 issues each week. On the point of released recordings I see nothing in WP:BAND that requires recordings, in addition to meeting another criterion. Your help on the WP:DRV would be much appreciated. Thanks again. Emerson1975 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:album cover fur

Hello, Is there anything you can do to help me here, or advise me how to go forward? The edit-warring started again tonight, followed by an admin wading in to protect the infamous "wrong version". So instead of having a text we can discuss and fine-tune, we now has the message transcluded on 500 bona-fide image pages, "this image has no rationale, please go ahead and speedy it in 5 days". And the response of the admin who protected it is just "stop bugging me".

I don't know what more I'm supposed to do. There's broad support - at least so it seems to me - for the template in the discussion at WT:FAIR#Template:Album_cover_fur.

Is someone like User:NedScott allowed to ignore all the discussions and unilaterally just blank it? Is that how wikipedia is supposed to work?

Jheald 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (a bit despondent).

re:Image tagging

Geez, how tired was I when I posted that :) Thanks for telling me, I'll try not to make that kind of mistake anymore.. — Moe ε 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good day admin

Isn't this image below a non-free image ? it was taken from a public forum i guess.

Image:Jeddah House.jpg

Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 12:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to respond. No, I wouldn't consider it a free image, unless we know exactly what the creator of the photo thinks. Just because it was on a public forum doesn't mean it is free. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to ask for permission for images from other people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks boss , i was justtrying to prove it to someone. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 5

there is one check G4 on tv--Physik 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

there is also another rumor also o G4 but it was on July 5


Thank you. It's just that, apparently there was a plan to give every orbital frame its own article. But, I have played the games, and there is not enough info on them to warrent an article. And I do not know too much on deleting articles. So, once again, thank you. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


The Jeddah house picture was from a forum which i had permission under GFDL to use on wikipedia. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal Saddiq (talkcontribs)

Lier , you often copy your images from search engines and license them as Self Made. for example , the following image is stolen from this link : (This Link) , this user has uploaded tons of non free images and when he reach the limit of warnings he create a Sock puppetry account and start again . his old username was Unites , they both donno how to sign their comments with the ~~~~ , and they both vandalize pages by the same way , and they both only interested about cities wealth. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 06:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


August 2007


Leave me alone and mind your own bussiness, if you think these images are nonfree images then delete them if you like, I'm not so bothered. Delete them then.

Thank You. Bye Faisal Saddiq 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Simple Answer:

are you a wikipedia deletionist??

Thank You very much Ricky.

No I'm Not Faisal Saddiq!

I'm Unites

national party template

okay -for deletion CatonB 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007


Thank you for letting me know about the missing rationales. Rationales have now been provided for the images you mentioned.

Wikiburger 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

there, now stop bugging me for such trival matters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter (talkcontribs) 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales on promotional images

Hi. Thanks for telling me about adding the parameter, I didn't know that I should do that. Bláthnaid 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks and sorry for the mess up. I checked and someone already corrected the mistake. I responded to the previous days in a similar manner (I think) -- are they okay (I looked and they seem to read correctly, but I'm new to AFDs so am unsure). Thanks much, Renee 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

it's addictive...easy, clean, no conflict, just your honest opinion and then it! thanks again, Renee 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical parties

I am neutralin this issue. My project is creating the template with present relevant parties. Other editors can add more info, but usually the boxes are limited to present parties. Electionworld Talk? 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for cleaning up Nartopa. I tripped across it because it had an editprotected request on it (who knows why?) and I didn't have the energy to fix it. You did a great job. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Chasnalla Academy

Thanks for your excellent job. I'm glad the very rough-and-ready emergency rescue I made to save it from Speedy wasn't wasted and could be developed so well. DGG (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

please see Hindawi and the pages linked there, and the comments from User:hi pedler on my talk page. I could indeed use some help. DGG (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you are violating some or the other rule when you put the ad message on Hindawi Programming System page. Please justify your edit action and why you think it is written like an ad. Hi pedler 10:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Abhishek choudhary

Why have you redirected the article on Abhishek Choudhary to Hindawi Programing System? You should have started a discussion first. there were enough refernce available. I request you to undo the changes and open it up for discussion Hi pedler 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

October 2007

Fair use

I have fixed the fair use in the images, however may I add Copyright paranoia is more of a stress and a unnecessary annoyance to most editors who would much rather be doing constructive edits. Thanks. - Mike Beckham 08:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, i've noticed that you're the one who blocked user:Winky Bill for repeated vandalism and assaults on user:Parsecboy. I just want to let you know that today he started again and maked over 30 vandalism acts. Could you please block him again? Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I just wanted to let you know that he started again. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your action. Looking over the recent edits of this user, I hope you might reconsider and make an immediate block. Some of the more disturbing (although admittedly juvenile) include these: [5] [6] [7] and others. I'm not losing any sleep over this, but I think this person has clearly lost his right to edit here.Notmyrealname 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

and some more commercial silliness here: [8] Notmyrealname 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we'll see what happens next. Notmyrealname 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Winky Bill

It's self evident, Ricky. He's been placing AfD tags on articles I've created or substantially enlarged. You blocked him 3 days ago for harassing me, and 48 hours apparently wasn't enough. I had hoped you would've taken the fact that he is without a doubt a sockpuppet of Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs) into account, and blocked him indefinitely. I ask that you consider this fact, and take appropriate action. Parsecboy 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The reasons I didn't file a checkuser are twofold. The near identical editing patterns (barely stub-class articles on obscure weapons, transgender people, harassing me) are, at least in my opinion, incontrovertible, along with other information, such as block date/creation date, etc. Therefore, I didn't want to bother a Checkuser with a case that didn't seem to require it. Again, thanks for your assistance in this matter. Regards, Parsecboy 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be online so I thought I'd ask you first - can you intercede with User:Secparboy, another presumed User:Winky Bill/User:Jetwave Dave sock created to imitate Parsecboy? Note that he has literally copied Parsecboy's user page and talk page to this new account. This is the second new harassment account created since a checkuser was filed on the 17th; no action has been taken on that yet, apparently. Maralia 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action, Ricky. This guy really needs to grow up. Regards, Parsecboy 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Ricky, thank you so much for your help on my archive attempt! I was so tired last night I did not even know what Iw as doing so I am wondering how I even did what I did LOL! I appreciate your help and if I can ever return the favor, please just let me know! Junebug52 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that you fixed the extra brackets problem on Template:Orphan, but there is still an issue of there not being a space before the end of the text and the date in parentheses when a date of the origin of the notice is listed. (see, for example Eightfold Path (policy analysis)). Can you please fix that as well? -Bonus Onus 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


I just noticed how much of Contaminated haemophilia blood products was your doing. I thought you did a lot of useful work there and just wanted to say thanks. WhatamIdoing 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


You're right on the money. It's so frustrating when people use AOL to try to get around guidelines and policies. Appreciate you looking in on it! --Tenebrae 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, that's me. DWM is Doctor Who Magazine, a disgustingly overpriced but reliable BBC publication. I don't know if it did confirm it, because I can't afford it :-) but the convention is to cite a page-number, journalist and article title with DWM. Cheers,--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I referred him three times to WP:CITE on how to cite it, but all he did was keep removing the tag... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:ALCO 0900.jpg

I'm sorry, but there is a fair use rationale on that image. If you disagree with the specifics of it, please state your specific objections to it instead of templating me with meaningless boilerplate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Also note that (1) fair use rationales do not have to be in {{rationale}} template form to be valid; and (b) the presence of ANY image-specific rationale disqualifies speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for bright-line cases, not for disputed cases; I'd appreciate it if you read the speedy deletion criteria more carefully and remember that if there is any doubt about whether a speedy classification applies, it does not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Add the Dalit descriptive term to the Ezhava community page.

The Ezhava users have vehemently opposed edits that correctly label their community as Dalit perhaps due to insecurity, despite the fact that the caste tag has almost no relevance to modern day India except for caste reservations. "It is a well-known fact that Ezhavas have no varnas under the Hindu caste system" and the definition of Dalit is "a Dalit, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste, is a person who according to traditional Hindu belief does not have any "varnas"". Ezhavas are known to be untouchable to both Nairs and Namboothiri Brahmins so this is a common feature shared by them with other Dalits in India (untouchability to upper castes). There are also references that support the fact that the community are Dalits. References:

Thanks. B Nambiar 05:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is my error then. I have already commented outlining the changes but they have and will continue to be ignored, or taken the wrong way, so was hoping an admin can sort it out. B Nambiar 05:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac Montana

Hey there Ricky, and thank you for blocking that IP. Well, the reason why I did what I did was because this whole month, I have been dealing with a large number of IPs (which I believe is the same person)who kept injecting large amounts of POV into the GM minivan articles. This IP was reverting to a version what was of blatant POv (it said such things like "you cna get a good deal on a used Montana anytime" and "[It] equaled or beat the Dodge Caravan in value". Frankly, I have reason to believe that this Ip was the same guy who I have been dealing with all this time (who is that Ip you just blocked). He knows what he is doing is not permitted here, but he for some reason is utterly determined to gloss up the articles about the GM minivans. Frankly, I am running out of patience with him, fast. Karrmann 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten the articles targeted by this guy semi protected a couple of times, but they were all temporary, and he simply waited it out and went back to his usual ways. Karrmann 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I know this may sound like a ridiculous question, but do you happen to know if User: is some sort of reoccurring vandal going after you? I'm just curious why he chose to attack your user page so fast? See all the discussion at WP:AN. He's blocked anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Him? He's very recurring -- take a look at the histories of some of the pages he changes. This has been going on for quite a while.
His usual range seems to be 216.95.17.* and 216.95.15.* actually, do you think you could range-block those two ranges, for a week or so? And we'll see if the vandalism stops, 'cause I think the other couple ip's are just flukes. Gscshoyru 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who can I get to help me?

Please give me a name of an admin that will be fair? Please! I am trying to get myself together and I can see the ANI is useless by the way it is being handled. I need help desperately. Please. I do not know any. Perhaps the LessHand guy. Do you think he would help? He seemed fair. Sincerely, --Mattisse 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see it is hopeless. Never mind. Sorry to have bothered you. Sincerely, Mattisse 08:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to cooperative but I see you are not getting it and you are partial to Cybor Nina so you view will have less believable in my eyes. I prefer the straight out in the open approach rather than all the hidden agendas. Thanks anyway. Sincerely, Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:

To be honest I'm aproving more and more WP:DENY for obvious troll unblock requests. "Rollback, protect, walk away". That's often the cruelest thing to do to a troll (Ok, arguably, I reply once in a while :) -- lucasbfr talk 08:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Cyborg Ninja

As you probably know, the following warning has been placed on Cyborg Ninja's talk page by User:LessHeard vanU expeditiously on the basis of the diffs provided I provided him: [9] That is all I wanted, as there was no need to confuse the issue by dragging out muddy past history as was happening on the ANI page. I do thank you for you time and your response in being at least willing to try to look into the problem. LessHeard vanU is just a little more able to look quickly at the issue directly at hand, perhaps because he had no need to mollify Cyborg Ninja, and act fast. Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about confusing you by striking it out. Yes, the copyvio stuff had nothing to do with Cyborg Ninja. There is a bot User:CorenSearchBot that tagged two of my articles that were two sentences long and footnoted as copyvio within 25 seconds of creation and I was self-righteously indignant as the articles were on Supreme Court decisions and such articles have quotes from the Supreme Court decisions. After discussions with the bot people and others on ANI, I was stressed out and made a very poor decision to nominate all the articles I had created in the last couple of months as copvio. Wmarsh said on ANI that I was being disruptive, would be blocked if I continued as the articles were not copyvio, and sternly told me to remove the templates from the articles and from the copyvio list. So I did. Cyborg Ninja was not involved in any way. Thanks for being open minded about all this. Sincerely, --Mattisse 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, M.march told me on my talk page. [10] --Mattisse 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for templating Tennard v. Dretke

I forgot to and it makes it look a little more official. I have referenced it to death so that bot won't delete it! I'm bogged down in in the case. Maybe tomorrow inspiration will come. Regards, --Mattisse 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for adding "indicated". I had used it originally but then changed that and other words that are commonly used in decisions, fearful of the copyvio bot! --Mattisse 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up on the parameter on the FUR template... if he is going to be that much of a stickler over images... comment declined... then maybe we need a bot to start filing pages used into the "Article" parameter. I personally don't have the slightest clue how to do this, but it would be better than me doing hundreds upon hundreds of sports logo edits. DMighton 10:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


I provided a rationale for the use of this image. However, I never found anywhere it was listed for deletion. Why did you say it was? Daniel Case 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I know how this process works; of course it wouldn't have been listed for deletion but speediable. The rationale includes a valid backlink now. That bot has been giving me quite a lot of work lately. Daniel Case 02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean you're putting in rationales? Thanks. As I promised during my RfA, I've been busy since then moving all of my free images to Commons and rationalizing all the fair-use ones. This is on top of uploading new images. So any help is appreciated. Daniel Case 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pontiac Montana

To tell the truth, I have had it up to here with all the GM minivan lovers either adding bias or making those comments cause they are in denial that GM is leaving the minivan business. I say that you should indefinite block that account, and give that IP a month long block. I am really running out of patience, if it were up to me, I would just lock the pages and their talk pages down indefinitely and end this. It is hard keeping those articles pure, because those users are utterly determined to gloss up the GM minivan articles. So frankly, I have never seen anything useful coming from those two, all I have seen them do is editwar and add false info on the Pontiac Montana page. Karrmann 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Undefined

Replied on my page. *Cremepuff222* 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Could use some help

Excuse me, kind administrator. How can I effectively stay off Wikipedia for awhile? I want to take a break, but I impulsively return every second. Mr. Carbunkle 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-blocking is impossible, as I'm not an admin... yet. But before you block me, I'd ask that you do not. I'd like my block log spotless when I nominate myself a few months later when I understand polic well enough. As for the scripts, I'm considering it somewhat. Thanks for the much-needed advice. Mr. Carbunkle 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh. Thanks, man. Mr. Carbunkle 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I took that off of User:Miltopia's userpage (it's archive, now it's just a page that says he's been blocked indef).I liked it so much I want to keep it. Mr. Carbunkle 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing question


I got some messages on my talk page regarding image licensing. The images in question are album covers of a band. I received permission from the band to use their covers in Wikipedia. I stated that reason in the description. I guess that's not enough - could you please tell me how I would go about using the appropriate license/reasons for the images? Image licensing always confuses me! --vi5in[talk] 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Ricky. The band is my cousin's band, so I've got permission to use their images in Wikipedia. They have seen the article and they don't mind that the image are in there. --vi5in[talk] 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


What's a rouge admin? The policy page is unclear about what they are. Mr. Carbunkle 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat rescinded

User:BadMojoDE has rescinded his threat, and should be unblocked? --Stephen 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

You have removed many sourced content from the ezhava article. Refer page no 27 of this book.,M1. The above refs says that ezhavas also a martial class and served all important kings of travancore, kochin and calicut. I dont think you need any more ref. At the end of the page you have more more ref as well. If you have any personal enmity with the commnunity, this is not the way to show. do discuss these changes before removing. this is so cruel and total partiality. Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

please tell me whats not refered in below article section

The Ezhavas form a major progressive community, and also one of the largest in Kerala, a south Indian state. They have made a mark in the economic and political panorama of the state and have contributed enormously to the literature and culture of the state. They are also found amongst the Malayalee diaspora around the world. They are a social group sharing a common history from the pre-social reform era, when caste was an integral part of the political, economic, legal, and social order across the Kerala State.

Folklore and written records show that Ezhavas were a martial class.[1][2][3][4][5] The folk songs, Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, are full of descriptions of the military exploits of Ezhava heroes. Ezhavas served in the armed forces of all important kings of the region, such as Zamorins of Calicut, and the Kings of Travancore and Cochin. Many from community became Kottaram Vaidyan(Palace Physician) of important kings in the region.[1][2][3][4][5] They enjoyed better status before the arrival of the brahmins from north. Historically, they never found a place in the four-tier caste system of hinduism. They were engaged in many professions, and many were warriors, ayurvedic physicians, astrologers, arrack brewers, traders, roddy Tappers, spiritualists, traditional toxicologists, devil worshipers and dancers, sorcerers, farmers, and weavers. The Ezhavas are also known as Thiyyas or Billavas in some of part of Kerala especially Malabar areas.


  1. ^ a b Bardwell L. Smith, Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. (BRILL publications, 1976,ISBN 9004045104), Page 27 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ezh1" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b "Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. Page 27". Bardwell L. Smith. (BRILL publications ,1976. Retrieved Aug 17, 2007. 
  3. ^ a b Bardwell L. Smith, Vadakkan and Thekkan Pattukal. (Sri Rama Vilasom Press, 1967), Page 128 - 148
  4. ^ a b Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya
  5. ^ a b "Alummuttil". Radhakrishnan. (Alummuttil. Retrieved Aug 17, 2007.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ".22.22ezh4.22" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken back my allegations. The folk songs, Vadakkan Pattukal, composed about 400 hundred years ago, are full of descriptions of the military exploits of Ezhava heroes The statement can be found in the ref book which i have mentioned above. please discuss about that. thank you.Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep your head up

Hey Ricky,

Keep your head up. Just from personal experience, I'll tell you that getting into caste-based articles turns a little ugly. You need a thick skin. When I decided to clean up these articles, I knew I'd be experiencing a lot of problems. I experienced this before in Nair. I think you have been doing a good job. I feel personally vindicated by your edits because I thought that the edits I made were objective. I was trying hard to make the article good. I started wondering if I was being subjective and biased. But I can see that you've pretty much been doing the same thing I did - you were looking for unsourced content and removing it. Or, you were trying to find references for existing content. You were also improving the article by fixing grammatical mistakes and such. All these accusations you face of "personal enmity against the community" are ridiculous. It seems that certain editors somehow assume (rather illogically) that because we try to make an article better, and if by doing that we remove some information that is "aggrandizing" and include material that is "unfavourable", we are somehow "against" a particular community. You've got my support. --vi5in[talk] 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vivin, i have taken back my allegation about Ricky. for your case i have not since i and other editors found that your edits were totally biased. cheers Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava : martial tradition : Reference

You can use this as reference Waht I meant by "Else Wwe will get you" is "If no reference, we will get you the reference" -- Panikkar 12:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would request you to take a look at "Nair" page. You can find the same generalizations there aswell. Panikkar 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava Page protection

I assume you have protected this page from editing. How long are you gona protect? I see lot of stuffs deleted. Panikkar 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Pedo Movement Talk Page

Hey Ricky -- just wanted to say thanks for your timely resolution regarding my negative comments on the above article and talk page. I'm still in disagreement with one or two editors who claim that the pro-pedo movement is valid and worthy of an encyclopedic entry. That being said, I'm not going to take it any further. I appreciate you restoring my editing privileges. All the best! BadMojoDE 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Ricky - Please Help, Man!

This pro-pedophilia article is really making me sick. I honestly believe it has no ground in fact. How can I STRONGLY recommend this article for deletion?

BadMojoDE 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Animals on the Underground image rationale

Hi, Thanks for pointing out the missing information on the Hammersmith the Pig image. I think I have fixed it now. Can you check I have done it OK and, if so, ensure that the image doesn't get deleted? Many thanks --Grid24 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ventillator 202 - Zoran Modli.jpg

Guy in the picture (Zoran Modli) is the one who arranged it to be taken. He is also my friend and let me use it. How do you qualify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar Šušnjar (talkcontribs) 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DT466 image

Ricky, I put a rationale for fair use on this image [11] page. Can you tell me if it's valid and if I can remove the delete tag? Nick L. 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, nevermind, I see you've already done it. Thanks very much! Nick L. 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: RPP page

Guidance appreciated - still learning my way around. Jackollie (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Annie Nightingale

I have two issues with this. One is that this editor, both now and as User:Gnome Economics is treating me like a twat, and I get enough of that at home, thank you. The other is that he is prepared to abandon User:Gnome Economics and resort to anon IPs to do whatever he's doing. He may well be right, but he's avoiding something. I'm old enough not to be patronised, thank you; there is a perfectly good reason for including the image where it is, and if I'm given a chance I will spell it out in big, brightly-coloured crayon, if that will satisfy him. Meanwhile, he should not be doing things for which the only rationale is to call me a "fucking dickhead". I'm 54 and I don't need this shit. Bedtime, assuming I'll actually get any sleep. Sorry, but he's not playing the game. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any progress on unravelling this one? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, you said to Phoenix741 "the Foundation has said that anything that doesn't have fairuse rationales should be deleted immediately on March 23, 2008" - this only applies to projects with no EDPs, doesn't it? Wikipedia does have an EDP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Funguszeppelin block

I didn't even catch that at first. I've indeffed him, he's obviously not here to construct an encyclopedia. Cheers, east.718 at 05:31, November 22, 2007


Yes, you're quite right but I prefer to take these through WP:IFD though, as I don't think it's a clear enough case for speedy deletion. There's an essay on it here, which highlights the arguments for/against obeying the rule verbatim. Thanks Papa November (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: User Talk:Patriciataijiya (the deletion request for the fairuse of the Image:YuriShucrell.jpg

Alright, I will not remove the warning, but I have modified this according to the rational fairuse terms, so if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.


You're welcome. But what I don't understand is, why could you not have done that yourself? You must forgive me, I was never good with those image tags.

Vala M (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Ultrachronic Demo-CD-Cover-Art 350.jpg

Fair Use Rationale has been added. Thank you. Sysdev (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Seriously, you tell me that making a single complaint about this user is "constant" prodding, but take no action when he calls other editors "bastards" [12]? I can see why Wikipedia is described as a bullies' playground. Vizjim (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PeWiHrMn

I've removed all of the accounts listed in this category. I did this because User:PeWiHrMn is a sock also, a sock of User:PWeeHurman, so the users in the category you created should have been in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PWeeHurman or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PWeeHurman (the category with the original account). Thought I'd let you know. Rjd0060 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That one should be deleted since it should remain empty. I just wanted to make sure you knew why I removed all of the users from it, because User:PeWiHrMn was a sock too. They are all socks of User:PWeeHurman. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Many so called List of Ezhava or nair tharavads deleted because there seem to be no valid resources to varify it. Now the List of Notable Ezhavas consists of entries/items which has an article in wiki. I think there are list like this [13]

So what your opinion about List of Nairs, whih also consists of some items or entries doesnt have an article in wiki? Also Its just list of Notable ezhavas,(not the list of all ezhavas) unlike List of All Nairs. Also If you see Nambiar (Nair Subcaste), its also has alarge list of family names and list people from that community. None of these entries are varifiable there except one or two which have an article in wiki. thank you Vvmundakkal (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not replied to my points. When its got deleted it was just a list of entries without reference and entry details(in wiki). Now most of the entries are part of wiki as article. The ezhava article has been edited by the people who are ignorant abt the subject and Nair fanatics. All these issues have been actively discussing in Orkut forums and we have planned to contact Mr Vayalar Ravi GOI Federal minster,(in order to reach a amicable solution) as we cont simply sit and enjoy vandalism done on ezhava article in wiki aand hence to the community while other articles like Nair has a look of high complexion. Need you support . thank you

10:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding martial tradition, i am going to upload scanned copies of Books for additional referances since they are not avilable on net. thank you

11:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)~

I have seen this violation policies and love to say i have not violated any.I have said that and everyone admitted that). there are/were lot of vandalism happened(continueing) on ezhava page. Thats why its got protected for some time. We have informed you about what are our next plan since this vandalisms cannot be accepted for long. It is not a legal threat you. I have not told that you will face legal problems. thats not the case. Also I have not told any thing personal. However you have threatened me saying blocking to a newcomer to wiki like me. is that something falls under Wikipedia:NPA? i would like your coopetaion for keeping this article nuetral.Vvmundakkal (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
please see my reply at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎. Thank you

11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to settle the issues as per WP:DR abd Wikipedia:Truce Vvmundakkal 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning about edit warning

While we already talked about the articles of Geography of Mexico and Metropolis, even we talked in the main Mexico's article, the other user simple didnt like the result and continues to changing it. About Northern America (disambiguation), the other user simple wont respect the result in a discussion page, also the other user provided sources where Northern America is América Septentrional. JC 30 November 2007, 08:30 (PST)

What result? Not necessarily in your favour. There may be a tenuous consensus (if that) at 'Mexico' (which will be revisited) regarding syntax, but not all things are equal, and none exists at the other articles: in fact, I had the last word regarding this at 'metropolis'. As well, attempts to engage one of the culprits in the edit-warring (by admin Picaroon, who also tried to intervene at that article and made a proposal which I supported -- ask him) ultimately went unanswered.
And, while I would like to edit more, I really don't have time to deal with this, hence my limited focus to a few articles that succumb to POV-pushing by a few pernicious ... mustards. :) Corticopia 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007


Saw your exchange with Vvmundakkal and the related issue on ANI. I'd like it if you didn't leave the article. You're doing great work. I was actually going to ask you to help out with the Nair article next. I was warned by more than a few people to watch out for people like this. It can get pretty tiring. He is a very disruptive editor. He has already been blocked once for a 3RR violation that I reported him for. He has removed that info from his page, but it is visible in the history. At this point, maybe we should engage him in some more debate. If he continues his disruptive behavior, we may need something new in ANI specifically addressing his disruptive behavior. --vi5in[talk] 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SIR, Sorry,you are mistaken. i am one of the memeber of orkut forum. the issue is being discussed there among 1000s of members in the forum. i dont who is vmundakkal. I have edited as per the request from forum moderator. you can block . i dont know whats blocking. however want to say that there are 10000s people in the forum who may edit(from difrent parts of the world)hese pages as all hurt by the comments there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I am a member of Orkut. I ran a search for "Ezhava" and "Ezhava wikipedia" under Orkut and came up with some interesting results. Basically one user has been posting on all Ezhava-related forums there, asking for help against "vandalism" by Nair editors. --vi5in[talk] 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not Only in ezhava forums. also in ezhava/thiyya forums

Tn pillai 05:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added my opinion. As is made evident by Tn Pillai's comments, they seem rather unremorseful about their actions. This definitely isn't going well. Especially that threat about "100's of edits". --vi5in[talk] 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of referenced information has been removed from ezhava article. A lot of unreferenced information is still there in that article too. There were so many content dispute with User_talk:Vivin by many editors and he seems to be having biased editing in ezhava article(Editor himeslf accepted that he is nair editor! and ezha-nair fight has a long history). Most of the content were properly referenced with discussion going on talk page of the article. Many article in wiki is written without much or no references. for example Nambiar (Nair Subcaste), Menon, Kurup . Nambiar (Nair Subcaste) has large list of family names and list of people , none could be varified, even the content are unverifiable. Still the article is there in wikipedia. I have brought this to attention ofyour notice and you have put Refimprove template there. Same thing can be done to Ezhava article too. There are some content which is accused of not having proper references. Just wait and allow the editors to bring some references. Simply removing content is not the proper way handling the dispute. . Vvmundakkal 10:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased Edits

Its true that the Ezhava article need more attention since edits of Ricky81682 and User:Vivin biased. A simple example List of Nairs alive while List of Notable Ezhavas are deleted. Is this Wiki the forum to hurt sentiments of millions of ezhavas or just right place to give in formation to the whole world. Nair article is full of Nonsenses and why so much interested in this article? Tn pillai 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone says anyone biased, please go ahead and block. i dont have any issue. There will 100s of people who might be joining to target biased edits. probably this would be my last edit wikipedia and i will reply my exp in right forum.Tn pillai 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The User_talk:Vivin was working on Ezhava and nair related pages. He including POVs in naor page and while adding false information about ezhavas in ezhava article and was removing a lot information in that article like this. Its true that the issue is being discussed in orkut and i am one of the member of the that forum and even some went and faxed to SNDP yogam(an organizatuon of the ezhavas).

There are many books written on Sambandam(literally means Sexual relationship). And all the books says One section of the nair woman did prostituion which like americal prostituite which is actively dicussed in Talk:Nair. A lot of infromation is lost in ezhav article by the edits of Ricky81682 and User_talk:Vivin. List of Notable Ezhavas being deleted however each local link in that article points to another artcile in wikipedia. However List of Nairs active.

A reply to Ricky81682

You have told only article is varifiable in List of Notable Ezhavas

What about Narayana Guru, Nataraja Guru, C. V. Kunhiraman, Mithavaadi Krishnan Tn pillai (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your notification! I have made a reply regarding the incident. Cheers. Aran|heru|nar 11:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are those guys?

We seem to be the place of battle for a sectarian conflict of some sort. Is there an executive summary somewhere? Guy (Help!) 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images that are too big

Thanks! I appericate that :) Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for removing them from IFD, but with JPG-GR, it is just another fight/arguement with him and I am just so very tired of it. Again, I am sorry. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, with him, I let my temper get away with me. Not an excuse, but something I am working on...especially with him. Thanks for being cool about it. Take Care and Have a Good Tuesday...NeutralHomer T:C 06:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again for pointing out {{non-free reduce}} to me. Just another useful template to commit to memory (sometimes I wish there was a large guide to all of these useful, non-vandal templates - but how one would navigate that one... yikes). JPG-GR 06:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The first one I was familiar with, but the other two. Well, it's always fun to see how much useless data can be shoved into this brain. :) Have a good night. JPG-GR 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

user talk vandalism

ay, thanks for the heads up. i agree that that contribution was not vandalism which is why i chose to revert the page and place user warning template "test1" on his talk page as oppose to vandalism. i assume he is concerned about the edit summary on the page, since that is the only mention of vandalism. in that case, i apologize (and i'll let him know on his talk page as well) for this, as i clicked "roll back vandal" which provides the edit summary automatically, instead of just "rollback" which would have let me place "rv sourced contribution" or whatnot. thank you for your time, i'll smooth this misunderstanding over with the user. MatthewYeager 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezhava OBC

Ezhava OBC status should be mentioned at least once?. It is quite a significant descriptive term as OBC status "socially and educationally backward classes" allows significant benefits from the government to members of the OBC community. It also gives an indicator to the relative social and educational status of the community.Nambs (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Master with laser screwdriver.png

Thanks for the note. Better now? Rob T Firefly (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User: report

I have to admit, that's a first. However, I see what you mean. I tend to go back on vandal's past edits and revert the changes. With TW, the AIV report is somewhat automatic. Jauerback (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I was going on the habitual misuse of Wikipedia. The particular uses might not have vandalized extensively today, but he still has shown a pattern. This is why I chose to report him. I assumed to report habitual vandals. Thanks PGPirate 06:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Guess what? He's at it again, sort of... *sigh* -Ebyabe (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but he appears to be at it again. Technically he mayn't be violating, but he does seem to be flouting the spirit of the law, as it were. I think he's heading back to the way he had things, but that's just my opinion. C'est la vie, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. He's doing the nonfree images again on his userpage. And I'm curious what you think about this edit. Since usually one only adds oneself to a project. And the beat goes on. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I do try to believe the best of people, honest. But after dealing with this goofball's unending stream of sockpuppetry for the last several months, I suppose my attitude's become more "nip potential wackiness in the bud," rather than "give them a chance." But that's why I pass this stuff on the admins. Wiser heads, and all that. Much danke-ness, and g'night. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't really seemed to learn. Still keeps trying to upload copyrighted stuff, and turn his userpage into a bizarre Myspace-like page. Just about all the articles he's created have been deleted, and they seem to be all related to this band he appears to be hyping. I don't know why this bugs me so much, it's silly, really. But still, if you could take a look, it'd be appreciated. 'Night. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Email

Copied from User talk:Daniel. 10:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Email sent from me. I don't think it would be smart to publish on-wiki that discussion so just a confirmation please. If I'm wrong, then I'll drop the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied via email. Daniel 10:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


I am a bit puzzled over your comments over at ANI. I completely explained my edit on the Laura Ingram article on the talk page before making it, and though the edit summary was sufficient on the Hersch article, because the citation had nothing to do with KAL 007. I report a user who was following me around to other articles I was editing, (and contrary to what was said there, I offered valid reasons for the removal of information that I did [14]), and reverting me, because I made an edit Eleemosynary did not care for, and then you say you are going to keep an eye on me for stating the obvious that if Eleemosynary does not watch his actions he will likely be blocked?

He has confessed to edit warring, calls other users “miserable disgrace” and hurls some of the crudest insults I have had the displeasure of hearing at other users, especially Sanchez., and has now followed me to another article Talk:Joe Lieberman. I don’t know why you are so quick to ignore it. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated I'll be watchlisting the pages DJ edits, as he seems to be on a blanking campaign. His latest campaign with this troublesome editor to have me blocked is, thankfully, crystal clear by this edit. His characterization of my edits is inaccurate, but such disingenuous is hardly surprising. Sorry, though, for having to waste your Talk page space responding to this nonsense. --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I thought I ended up in the wrong place, but no, I was at a user talk page gone awry. I was going to engage the user about but see that you have already. --Spike Wilbury talk 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

hello, about Corticopia

Hi, I'm Supaman89 a couple of weeks ago I got engaged into an editwar with user Coticopia (you may remember him) you warned him so he'll stop with this editwar, so he waited a couple of weeks so you'd forget about it, but now he came back and he's doing exactly the same stuff he was doing before, unfortunately I just can't be watching him all the time; just to let you know he's being blocked God knows how many times (even for longer periods), here are just some of his warnings (which BTW he deletes), so I thought I would remind you so you can do whatever you think is necessary, because otherwise I'll have to keep reverting his edits, and you just get tired of dealing with users like that, regards. Supaman89 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I've being waiting for your response and I hope the delay is because you've been busy for the holydays, I just wanted to ask you again to check on Corticopia and as you said in the message that you left him, block him for a month if he continued with the editwar (which he did). Since I left you my first message I haven’t even tried to revert his changes because I thought you were going to block him, so please check what I said in the message above and then just tell me ok? Thank you. Supaman89 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I have replied to your comments, R. Supaman89 is undeserving of reply, since this editor also has a penchant for edit warring, sock-puppetry, gang-bang and disingenuous behaviour (e.g., conditional agreement, then reneging, regarding Mexico's location/notation in 'southern North America'), and general dickery (e.g., recent disruption regarding largest cities at North America). End of communication. Corticopia (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have more refs and details abt the article

I have more details and references for ezhava article. why wont we work together to make it a beautiful article? thanks daya Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008


I saw that you were hoping to get the aXXo article started up again. I've started a aXXo-beta that I hope you can expand and make better -- Esemono (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How Do iCreate A Template

How Do iCreate A Template?
Please Tell Me Please Tell Me How Cause iHave A Great Idea For 1 Its Against Necrophilia And Beastilty So Please Tell Me. -- NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rama Kandra

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rama Kandra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Rama Kandra. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008