User talk:Walton One/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction

There's no doubt that the fiction is published & referenceable, it's my contention that this amounts to OR by synthesis. From WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C." Pete.Hurd 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources would make it a valid article, but as someone else has pointed out, they would have to be sources explicitly discussing the topic of space warfare in fiction, and the article would more or less be about what those sources have to say. They aren't supposed to be sprinkled in there to support what the Wikipedia article author has to say. That's the essential problem with OR in this article. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 15:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: My editor review

Thanks for commenting on my editor review. I have a couple of queries about how to improve my standing in a future RfA:

• I've been patrolling new pages and started/commented on several AfDs; do these count as edits to the WP namespace, and are they helpful in improving my RfA standing? Should I also try and 'diversify' with other kinds of WP namespace tasks?
• More importantly, what kind of answer should I put to q1 of the RfA? I still don't get exactly what kind of thing the community is looking for.
• Generally, have I been doing enough on technical/WP tasks rather than purely content-related edits?

Walton monarchist89 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, some answers:

• Sure, XfD's count as WP namespace edits and are some of RfA participants' favorite things to see, they will probably help you. Of course, you need more than just participation: you need thoughtful, well-reasoned, polite discussion that shows you're familiar with policy (I don't remember your contributions, so I'm certainly not implying that you don't already do this). By WP namespace edits I just meant that when you look at your edits broken down by namespace, the number that shows up next to "Wikipedia", for example with your count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool. Sadly, a lot of people probably just look at numbers when !voting in RfAs, rather than your actual contributions. I hate to suggest that you "diversify", since I feel like that would be tantamount to suggesting that you change up your style to improve your RfA chances, which I don't see as being that good for the encyclopedia. But to be honest, yes, I think RfA !voters probably do like to see a variety of experience in tasks.
• The community is looking for 1) need of the tools (so no "well, I think they'd be handy sometime...") 2) you're not going to abuse them (e.g. protecting pages you're involved in editing, blocking people you're in disputes with...) 3)some experience in the areas you say you'll help out with. Read WP:GRFA for more info.
• I'm probably not the best person to ask about the technical/WP tasks since when !voting in RfAs I place much more importance on a user's interactions with others (must be friendly and level-headed). Obviously, RfA's are more likely to succeed if you have more. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller failed largely because he only had about 300, if I recall correctly. However, content-related edits are important, too; at least equally important. Lots of RfAs fail because the person doesn't have enough mainspace edits.  :*Maybe you should do admin coaching. whoops, just noticed you're already doing this (from further up on your talk page).
• My biggest suggestion would be to lurk around RfAs. You can ask someone that you notice is a hardass whether they think you're doing enough. It does look from some of your edits that you may not be that familiar enough with policy. The best advice I can give is to lurk around RfAs, and compare yourself to people that are passing and failing. Who are you more similar to? Could you answer the questions that they answer? Read the question, answer it yourself, see how they answered and how their RfA is doing. I suggest holding off for a few months and a few thousand edits. With less than 2000 you're very unlikely to pass. You don't want to seem to be too eager, and you may really lack a sufficient understanding of policy. Feel free to keep asking me questions, I'm glad to help however I can. delldot | talk 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but I have another question - it's about speedy deletes. As you know I do a lot of newpage-patrolling and AfDs - but when I add a speedy tag to an article, and the article is subsequently deleted, it disappears from my contribs page. Does this mean it won't count towards my edit count in RfA, and if so, does this mean I should focus on things other than speedy deletes? Walton monarchist89 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for you to keep asking me questions, I have no problem answering them and I like the attention :) It may be that those edits don't show up on edit counters, I'm not sure, some counters might count them and others might not. I'm sure that during an RfA you could just mention this. But I'd really recommend not worrying about it that much. Just do what you think is best for the encyclopedia. If anything, seeming to "preen" too much for an RfA or to be too eager for one is bad for an RfA! A lot of folks don't like to see RfA preening, for example you can read the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Editor review#Something has gone horribly wrong... and sections below it, plus discussions linked to within that discussion. It's apparently kind of a hot button lately. I'd just not worry about it. Hold off till you're really comfortable with your policy knowledge and everything. You're a good contributor, which should be enough, folks will eventually see that. delldot | talk 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did fine there. The note was friendly and informative and pointed the user to the relevant policies. You're right to be concerned about scaring them away, so it was good that you tried to keep them from getting discouraged. Of course, some folks are bound to get discouraged anyway just because their article was nominated for deletion, but that can't always be avoided, and you did as much as you could to prevent it. I think you handled it very well :) I don't think there's a specific template for "I nominated your stuff for deletion", I think a personalized message is better anyway, don't you? (Of course you probably already know about the {{prodwarn}} and {{nn-warn}} and various other speedy deletion warning templates). Peace, delldot | talk 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA Hint request

Hello, I found your name on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Member_Statements page.

I'm hoping you can give me a pointer or suggestion on a disagreement I am having and tell me if I am full of beans, and if I am not full (or only slightly full) of beans, what steps I can next take.

On [1] there is an image [2]. This image is attributed to the subject of the article, but when I asked the original poster of the image for the source of the image, he stated that it was from his personal collection, he obtained it from directly from the artist, and you can see the artist's signature. [3] I believe that Wikipedia guidelines require a [WP:V Veriable Source] "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. I don't see how anyone can verify a drawing that has not been published by a reliable source, leaving the reader to trust the word of the Wikipedia editor instead of an external authority. I'm not claiming (and I haven't assumed) that the image poster drew the image themselves, but without a reliable source to verify the image, how can anyone know? How would this be different from posting a quote from a subject and claiming the source as a private letter that the poster had received directly from that author.

I have attempted to clearly and politely explain my position on the article talk page and asked the image poster for suggestions on how we can work through this, but have only received uncivil responses. [4]

Can you give me suggestions (or of course tell me if I'm full of beans about the Verifiability guideline).

Thankyou Uncle uncle uncle 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask

Is it Walton monarchist89 because you're called "Walton", or because you live in one of the many Waltons (on Thames, on the Naze, Merseyside, etc)? Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (who is called Walton)

Perhaps there just aren't that many Waltons (of either derivation) around who'd have noticed! Cheers, and thanks for the NP patrolling, Tonywalton  | Talk 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Clifford Orwin

Hi - no offence taken. I wrote the article during a lecture and on reading it when I got home I could understand the lack of notability. Some others have contributed and I added a couple things; I think it's probably good to go now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

time of AfD

I am really puzzled about the way procedure is interpreted. You reasonably sent to AfD & explained the trationale, hat good i it to send to AfD instead of speedy if the debate is closed after 7 minutes, as for Audrey Glaser ? This turns procedure into nonsense, but you're better placed to comment about it than I. DGG 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The 5.6.7.8's (album)

I noticed while patrolling recent pages that this page had been created, and that you tagged it for speedy as nonsense. It's not actually nonsense (though I'm sure if you haven't heard of them it looked like it) -- it's the track listing of an album, just in an unpleasant format with no explanation or introduction. I've cleaned it up and removed the speedy tag, and just wanted to let you know. -- Pinball22 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem -- I patrol the new pages myself, and understand that it's easy to mistake something for junk that is just badly-written, given just how many totally meaningless pages get created every day. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't go back and wonder what happened. :) -- Pinball22 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tarsina

I created this article a very long time ago when I was a newbie; since then there's been a flood of AfDs on articles concerning minor or non-canon fictional topics. As you're the only other significant contributor to the article, I wanted to ask if you think we should change the article's title to The Queen's Curse (the name of the book), to avoid it getting nominated for deletion at some point in the future. Walton monarchist89 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually considered this the other day. Perhaps it should be changed to #redirect [[List of Charmed books]]<!--The Queen's Curse--> or perhaps you could tag it yourself with {{db-author}}.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Afd on book

thank you for explaining this part, I was the nominator so you are right, it is self evident that i support deletion Pernambuco 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hoax?

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project, do you have some reason for suggesting this is a hoax? You just threw the word out there. — coelacan talk — 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of third party sources does not imply it's a hoax, just that it's non-notable. I ask that if you are going to toss around disputive words you ought to present some actual indication of the subject's implausibility. "... it sounds like a rather strange idea". Do tell? — coelacan talk — 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to alter your edits. But what you said matters to me because it just looked like WP:ABF without any presented evidence of a hoax. I have no interest in preserving the article; there's no way it passes WP:N. But I think there's every indication that the article was created in good faith by someone who just didn't understand our notability requirements. The Transgender Day of Remembrance is real. The two webcomics mentioned in the article are real. The website looks real enough, and it's hosted on the Closetspace website. A google search shows a few dozen different people chatting about it on forums. The usual minor non-notable web content, and I see no red flags. The article creator, User:LauraSeabrook, has been here since October 2005 and has no blocks or even warnings, no indication of any shifty dealings: just a quiet sometimes-editor who's doing a small part for Wikipedia. So why so easily and casually insult that editor's integrity? It's about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, that's why it's important. If you think there's no reason to believe it's a hoax, you should remove your own statement. If you think there's evidence of a hoax, you should present that evidence. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I just want you to take your own statements seriously and consider how they can affect others. — coelacan talk — 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for listening to my concerns. Your actions in response are appreciated. Have a good day. =) Peace, — coelacan talk — 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Criteria

1. Regular (once a week or so) XfD participation is fine. I actually prefer a mix of keeps and deletes, unless you're cherry picking. 2. I don't like, for lack of a civil term, whackaloons who think policy should be pissed on and everything kept. If you want examples of the kind of inclusionists I lampoon and cannot stand, check out Kappa. 3. I don't particularly like self-noms, and I'm always a lot, lot more critical of self-noms because I personally hate the idea of being an admin, and I don't see why in God's name someone would WANT to be one unless they had some use for the tools that might not be kosher. Typically speaking, I'm very lenient when someone with some time in the ranks nominates someone,even if it's my arch enemy The Dark Lord of Inclusion.

I hope some of this makes sense to you. Since I myself am not interested in being an admin, I tend to vote based on how mature I think the person is and how they present themselves. I'm more concerned with being right, common sense, and standing up than I am slavish use of edit summaries, or bullshit like images created or *yawn* FA. I want people who will use the tools to clean up and maintain, not to carry like a swagger stick. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

mm. I don't have a problem with you, even if you were an inclusionist. I'm suspicious of self-noms because I am. That being said, I typically don't like to lock myself into any particular rule. I will be more critical of self-noms if, for example, they have a long history of fuckups. A self-nom that has a good record is just looney for wanting the pain of the admin bit, but will get my vote. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Space Warfare in fiction cleanup

Hey Walton,

I userfied the Space Warfare in fiction page before it was deleted last week. I am currently improving it so that it may become an article again. I would be most appreciative if you helped me with getting sources and referances. It can be found here.

Thanks in advance,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. I'm not too good with referances, but I will do what I can. When you find it acceptable enough to repost, either do it yourself or talk to me again. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Hopefully all will go well and the article will reenter into Wikipedia mainspace. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, crap. Somebody already recreated the page again, this time a version that is less superior to the one that was just deleted. I'm going to go ahead and replace it with your version. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb Montenegro

The SRS party won less than 1% of the votes in Montenegro, so I don't really see the relevance - and neither do I see in the fact that it won a parliamentary plurality in Serbia, as there is nothing odd/unexpected/peculiar in there (that's traditional).

And besides that, the subject was mentioned only once. There is no other instance of the alleged thing (and that only source we have dates from 6 months ago - and in that half a year, no one has even heard of a desire for Serb autonomy in Montenegro, be it by the Serb Radicals/or not). --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Emissions

I've added some more links. I think it would be worth a look into how many artists use Music Emissions reviews on their websites.

http://www.zachphillips.com/emissions.php http://cdbaby.com/cd/electricbill http://www.deepelm.com/sum/439_sum.html http://www.jadetree.com/press/article/25/401 http://www.kieskagato.com/press3.htm http://www.silbermedia.com/plumerai/rescogitans-reviews.html http://www.veedevice.com/press/121204.htm http://www.jakestigers.com/press_reviews.php http://www.mousikelab.it/press/presswwmskcd04rev.htm#musicemissions http://cdbaby.com/cd/adamklein http://www.sijis.com/sijis_index.cfm?mainspace=release&catalogid=siji16 http://www.futuresq.com/autumns/News/news.html http://amiestreet.com/thepayolareserve http://lostbarrioartists.com/index.php?id=56 http://www.viasatellitemusic.com/index.php?textNum=5 http://nokarma.com/nokarma/reviews.asp?ProdId=con032 http://www.divineindustries.com/Spaceship.html http://www.shiloe.com/press.htm http://www.jadetree.com/press/article/68/804 http://www.dimmak.com/crossmyheart/

Just a smattering of what is out there. Most likely you have never heard of these bands. That is because Music emissions focuses on the obscure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dscanland (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

What do you know about the world's Jews and and Judaism?

Hi Walton monarchist89: I have addressed the following comments to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bet Shira. IZAK 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE to User:Walton monarchist89 you should not have nominated these two articles together as one vote. One article is about an established synagogue and the other is about a new rabbi (how can you know the importance of either?) You could have placed a {{cleanup}} template on the Bet Shira article, and I have now WIKIFYd it. In future, when coming across an article relating to Jews and Judaism could you please place a note or call upon the many editors editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. IZAK 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Irwin Schiff

See the talk page on Irwin Schiff. You successfully created a duplicate paragraph, whereas I'd moved it (and explained the edit on Talk.) 206.124.31.24 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift amiable response. 206.124.31.24 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I neglected to annotate the edits. Ironically, I was trying to complete the edit swiftly in two parts so that it wouldn't be considered a removal. 206.124.31.24 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Becoming a User

Thanks for the offer, but I've been offered the opportunity to become a user before. I'm not in any hurry to be added to a list for my edits in support of liberty and self-ownership. This is why I remain anonymous. 206.124.31.24 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm still seeing the "You have new messages" banner, even though I have viewed the talk page since the last edit. Do you know why that is? It's sorta irritating. :-) 206.124.31.24 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymundo Rodriguez

Hello ! Thanks for concerning about vandalism . I do it , because I don't know if I do everything right...I wrote this article using that book (it's a book with notes about all participants of mundial) and you know it's only a little information about him . However I do a lot not to do plagiarism , but only take information...You know what I mean...I'd be glad to hear your opinion.

Ok.I know I was doing everything right . I found a clue in wikipedia help :-)

Bartekos 11:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Another couple of questions

Hey Walton, yeah, many would probably vote against you based on edit count. Many insist on 5000. Swear to god, I've seen "Oppose per low edit count." I share your feelings about RfA being too strict - I think it's discouraging to many good editors and it makes adminship more of a status symbol for it to be so difficult to achieve. (As I may have mentioned, I've been around since October 2005 and have over 10,000 edits and I'm still too scared to try it. So you may benefit from the advice of someone who's less shy about it). I think you will benefit most from the bald truth so I'm going to be blunt. I'm not sure whether you really do have enough policy experience yet: some of your edits, I don't remember which, gave me the impression that you weren't entirely familiar with policy. But you can answer this question better than me: When you look at the questions posed to other editors in RfA, do you answer them similarly to the way they do? I don't want to help you formulate your Q1, since that seems kind of too close to gaming the system to me. Also, as I think I may have mentioned to you earlier, some folks will oppose if you seem like you're too eager for adminship, like you're preening for it too much. In fact, concerns about "RfA preening" have led someone to decide to MFD both WP:ER and WP:ADMINCOACH (though I'm not sure he's done it yet; see Wikipedia talk:Editor review#WP:MFD). Per all of this, I'd advise waiting a longish time, say three or four months, even though it's annoying to have to tug on admin's sleeve for what you need done. The best advice I can give is don't worry about adminship for a while. Don't worry about spreading your edits well across namespaces or try to get your edit count up for the sake of it (not that I think you would do that), just do whatever you think is best for the encyclopedia. I think you are a good editor and have made substantial positive contributions, and in time that should be enough. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news. Definitely keep in touch, I'm certainly willing to keep discussing stuff with you. Peace, delldot | talk 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your openness about it, and I totally agree. I really understand what you're saying about adminship being a status symbol, and I certainly identify with your desire to get through it (more than I would like; in fact I felt like kind of a hyppocrite saying to not worry about adminship, since I want to submit an RfA myself). It's frustrating to me, since I feel like a big part of the reason why adminship is such a status symbol is because of how hard RfA is to get through, you know? If adminship were just something every yokel could get once they'd been around a while and not destroyed anything too badly, no one would act like it's a special class. I mean, have you ever seen anyone throwing their weight around because they qualified for VandalProof? Now there's a status that's actually "not a big deal". Anyway, I ramble on. I had a vaguely incoherent diatribe about it at WT:RFA#Decreasing the promotion margin to 70%. Best of luck. Keep in touch, Peace, delldot | talk 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Davies

Hello. Thanks for contributing to the Donnie Davies (3rd nomination), but I just recently posted new evidence and sources for the reversal of the deletion that perhaps you were unaware of before including a variety of sources. The sources discuss the significance of him as a fictional persona and the controversy that revolves around the use of that and the magnitude of his reach. If the Wikipedia Amnesia Test was applied, the article would hardly be biographical, but more along the lines of something address an urban myth/spoof. Please review my new evidence in light of the timing. Again, thanks for your consideration. --SquatGoblin 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Space warfare in fiction merge

Hey Walton,

I've been very busy IRL lately, and I was wondering if you could merge the Space warfare in fiction save I had from before with the current article (which, although extensive, has almost no overlap with what the old article was about).

Thanks a bunch,

S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls)

Hey, did you want to rewrite the plot summary on this? Thanks for your help! Salad Days 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NaturalNeil

Yes, thank you for replacing that tag. You acted correctly. If you ever need to know which warning tags to use on talk pages, they are all organized here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace -GhostPirate 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: After removing the tag several more times, and vandalizing my userpage, NaturalNeil was blocked and his article was deleted. GhostPirate 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Colquhoun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Colquhoun

I have done as you suggested and would now like you to revise your decision to delete.

Thanks

Thank you fellow loyal subject

Thanks for your support. Please spread the word to get people to sign Steve's petition. You know I am also a subject of the Queen of Canada (whom you refer to under a different name). Alex756 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

About 3 months have passed since the failure of my last RfA, and I was wondering about nominating myself again. I've done the following to address your previous concerns:

• More than tripled my number of edits (I now have over 2,000, which I realise is still on the low side for an admin candidate, but it should give me a fighting chance).
• Regular recentchange patrolling to demonstrate my commitment to vandal fighting. I'm also fairly conscientious about warning vandals using the template, and have reported some vandals to AIV.
• Regular participation in AfDs, which has given me more understanding of deletion policy.

Do you think this is enough to give me a chance at RfA, and would you be prepared to support it? Walton monarchist89 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been hanging around RfA too much recently. However, I would suggest waiting a bit longer because, regardless of the !vote I might offer, I doubt you'd be able to pass. Editcountitis can be overlooked by some, but not by most. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think you should wait a little while longer. You have made great efforts to do RC patrol and participate in the XfD process, but I think you should also go back to article contributions. Sometimes people will oppose a user because he/she is not involved in article-writing and has not worked on a group of articles, in particular. I think if you raise your mainspace edits by participating in article expansions, cleanup, article writing, then you'll be fine come April or so. Nishkid64 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm jumping in a bit late here, but I suggest you hold off for at least another 3 months. 6 months is the minimum expected time between RFAs. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

so, then

(this is a side point, not necess arguing for a keep on cogim) notability becomes a kinda silly criteria when you can recognize that millions of what looks like fraudulent or wasteful dollars can be flowing into a company, but we still need like a NY Times or somebody to give it a good solid mention, before it can have an article.

it looks like this corporation may have done extremely shoddy work, financed haphazardly w/ american tax money. but a few more people have to publish about it in order for it to be a thing? IWannWikYouLikeAnAnimal 05:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

myabe you didn't see my newest source on the cogim page- the pdf at sigir.mil? that's an independent external source, right? HisNameIsMyNameToo 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, actually- I think you had seen that source when you comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cogim. could you give a little more info/context to help me understand- what is not independent and/or external about that source? thanks, HisNameIsMyNameToo 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

opinion request

I'm seeking your advice as you seem more well versed in the notability & inclusion criteria than I. I have nominated Vancouver Furious George and several other ultimate frisbee teams for deletion, and I am not gaining any traction. They are all local, amateur club teams, which I thought would make them not suitable for inclusion based upon Notability {organizations & companies). What are your thoughts? Am I way off base here? Cornell Rockey 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Okay, thanks, I appreicate the 2nd opinion, and probably should ask for one more often. I think this is one of those times when it would be best for my deletionist attitude to go have a bagel across the street and take a break from wikipedia before I snap and yell at people for putting their Saturday morning activity up on an encyclopedia. Sigh. Cornell Rockey 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

(Moved barnstar from User:Sharkface217 to my user page.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On Bass

Please look over the revamped Bass article and see what you think of it now. Artsojourner 13:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ode to billie joe

with respect how old are you.in 1967 the consenus of my generation was that billie joe and the narrator threw a baby off the bridge.what exactly is wrong with my submission to this page besides your weak excuses.if you can give me a valide point i will cease if not it is an expansion of the paragraph about what it was that was thrown.

myfro

Katharine of Aragon

Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? CheersPaul75 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the debate, greatly appreciated! Paul75 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Spirit an Resistance

Thank you for your comments. I did not find them overly agressive, and I see you are quite within your rights. I see Wikipedia has a lot more credibility than I originally supposed. I believe there may be a book review or two that I may incorporate. In response to your coments made on my talk page, I did not mean the word radical in any sort of political sense, though it can be understood in that way. Rather I believe the book represents a particular strain of thought that has become popular and influnetial in the modern world. Incedentally, I am discovering that the book has had a lot more influence in academics than I had originally supposed.

Flashback (media group)

I've added a number of references and some additional material to the article. Would this change your stance in the AfD or is more work on the article required? --Nyp 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Banana Roulette

Thanks for the comments on this AfD. Useful info. Jules1975 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On Bonney Eberndu

Thanks for your comments - I've added mine to the AFD page. Regards. Robinson weijman 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Same topic, I guess I'll post here also. Thank you for the expanding (expandation?) of the article. I changed my VFD to a question. Jeff503 01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Concubine

At your convenience, take another look. Thanks, -MrFizyx 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage

Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibraimage. I posted some more detail on the references used in that article. When you have a moment, please let me know what you think. Thanks, -- Shunpiker 19:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Shunpiker 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MECWA

I added some references to the MECWA article. You may want to revisit the article's AfD. --Eastmain 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WPAIV

Hi, it would ease some of the pressure at WP:AIV if you would {{subst:test4}} the vandal before reporting them. Ideally, they need to vandalise after your test4 to be a simple candidate for blocking. But thanks for keeping an eye on things. Kaisershatner 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; yes I saw the previous warnings from days ago, but it's an anon ip - how do you know it's the same person? I think they're entitled to one more test4 before blocking (but as they say, your mileage may vary). Cheers, Kaisershatner 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)