User talk:Usrnme h8er

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Government Scientist[edit]

Thanks - don't know why it didn't happen automatically this time - I was using Twinkle. Graymornings(talk) 11:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building a future[edit]

Hi h8er, in your comments on this AfD, you said you may change your mind based on good arguments. I've corrected the references section of the Building a future page and added several additional sources (two from Texas A&M University, two from Spanish newspapers in two different parts of Honduras). Would you please consider these in your assessment? Thanks, Robfurrball (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Charley Byrne[edit]

Ooops again. Okay. Fergananim (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Cheers! No hard feelings, Fergananim (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Just to let you know I have restored this as a contested PROD. If you wish to send it to AFD you are free to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kai Wong[edit]

Hi h8er, kindly remove the nomination for deletion of the page of American actor Kai Wong. This page has been up for many years and has been subject to attack by some red belt racists which has been trying to vandalize it variously, despite administrators who have corrected the vandalism. Kindly revert to page pre-vandalism. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.png

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


{{talkback|Tnxman307}} TNXMan 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fowler[edit]

Hey buddy enjoy Steve you will not see me editing his page anytime soon as far as I am concerned with all of the bickering from others over the article I will let you guys handle it tried to help oh well no sweat off of my back take care.Reallmmablogger (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Kotava[edit]

Thanks :) GerardM (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chess sets DRV[edit]

Can you confirm the content DS is attributing to these sub-stubs? How valid were the "references"? I'm unable to have a look as a non-admin (there should almost be another subset to admin, beyond rollback, which allows viewing deleted content, but doesn't give the tools themselves). And yes, I know being active in DRV without having access to the deleted content is weird - but in some ways I think it's important that a non admin-cabalite (you monsters :-)) hangs around there. Appreciate comments. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles each contained the text DS specified, a reference to a blog, a reference to either a personal website or a site selling the chess sets, an internal link, a navbox, a stub tag, and categories.
Mike Godwin has expressly ruled out any usergroup "below" sysop having viewdeleted access. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. DS appears to have provided sufficient part of the content to judge, even if he does seem to be a little more upset about the DRV than I would prefer to see from a three year admin (not to say I don't understand him, Green Squares hasn't exactly been entirely CIVIL). Regarding deleted content, I recognize the GFDL concerns with it. I guess it will remain a part of the Sysops "chores" to provide information on what was contained. No skin off my nose. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm rather new at this but I decided to take the fight when I thought the article was incorrectly deleted. Thanks for your help. The project seems to work... Ikterus (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The sons of Eilaboun Recreation[edit]

Sons of Eilaboun – Recreation permitted with sources. Can you please try doing this. AmirCohen (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 11[edit]

You might be interested in a response I left on the Dana L. French DRV in response to your second comment. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


You say your activity has been irregular--but it has been consistently substantial the last few months. If you plan to keep it up, you should consider joining the crew after a few more months of the same. DGG (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I say irregular because with a perspective that covers the past 5 years, it has been (ok 4 years, I did one edit in 2004 and then reverted it myself). I'm in no hurry to get a mop and broom, that day will or won't come when it's appropriate or isn't. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd vote for myself given my limited experience with article and policy authoring... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearne v Stowell[edit]

Thanks for this :). Always nice to meet someone else interested in law. I've been writing quite a few law articles myself recently; give me a poke if you'd like me to find some sources for something you are doing or would be interested in a collaboration. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I looked a number of times there. But I just looked in the list parts, not those "useless" introductory paragraphs. Opps. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV of Dan S.[edit]

Hello, could you head back to [1] and see if the sources provided on the talk page are sufficient to address the issues with WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer back to DRV 3 April, I'll have a poke at the sources and read the, frankly impressive, discussion which has ensued. The decision was a tight one and I hesitated for a substantial amount of time before issuing my opinion that User:DGGs controversial close was within reason. I'm a massive opponent of voting on wikipedia (I would probably abandon the project if it went officially "democratic" [spamocratic?]) but recognize that !voting (as close to voting as it is) is a concrete reality of the deletion process. For that reason I always try (falability is the me) to ignore vote counts (8 people saying "meets WP:N" is, to me, the same as one person saying it) when I study a close and focus on writing down the keep and delete arguements in non-repetitive lists. In this case I felt satisfied with DGGs decision at the time (keep being "meets WP:N" and "Not again", delete being discussion of how the subject fails BIO, ENTERTAINER, ATH and WP:RS concerns about available sourcing for V-N). I will however revisit it in the light of further sources provided and especially further discussion in the DRV. To be honest, in this case, I'm actually surprised there isn't more V RS out there given how cool this act probably is... :-/
As an aside, I noticed that you mentioned in the end of the current discussion that you were unable to see the deleted content. I invite you to have a look at WT:DRV where, close to the bottom and above User:S_Marshalls more Dan S related discussion, there is a less controversial discussion about the temporary review section of DRV policy and the idea that this could be made a standard part of DRV rather than something done on a request/provide basis. Now there's something we can all agree on! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already commented there, and certainly support that. I worry a bit about people gaming the system to keep bogus content around as long as possible, but I really don't think that's likely. Hobit (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Good point. hehe... Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


It appears that you have a template call in your signature; this isn't allowed for performance and other reasons. Please kindly amend it. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. Although technically discouraged, not banned as I was substing the template, I will replace this with the raw content. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    Substitution is discouraged; transclusion of templates is right out, and this is what your sig was doing [2] (it transcludes {{toolbar}}). –xeno (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Point taken. The literal sig in preferences was {{Subst:User|Usrnme h8er}} or some variation thereof (not 100% sure since I deleted the code I had when Stifle pointed out I was breaking rules), I didn't realize I was transcluding {{toolbar}} by substing {{User}}. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, just thought I would clarify. –xeno (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Noted. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood[edit]

In this case, why don't you just automatically merge it. (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [3]╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 08:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Usrnme h8er! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Godfrey III, Count of Leuven[edit]

Godfrey III, Count of Leuven, which you created, has been nominated to be moved. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments here. Moonraker (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ron Morrison[edit]

Hi, thanks for creating this article. It's been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for 4 years now. Could you look it over ands see if you can help improve it? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Usrnme h8er,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Usrnme h8er. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)