David, User:Raphael1 has just reminded me of our idea to file an RfC in regards to Irishpunktom's repeated edit warring and demonstrations of bad faith editing. Well User:Tony Sidaway has filed and RfAr involving him and I'm thinking that we should add ourselves as parties to to it. What's your view on that? Netscott 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
In case you're interested, I just made a new userbox that you might like. I figured it would be appropriate. Peter G Werner 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ User AccusedZionist}}
![]() |
This user is frequently accused of being a Zionist. |
The user Bignole left warnings on my talk page for the express purpose of provoking a flame war. I believe the warnings are unwarranted, and to my knowledge he is not an admin. May I remove them? CmdrClow 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, you beat me to a self-revert by a minute. I thought at first that it was just an attack blog that someone had put at the bottom of the page, but then realized my error; apparently you changed it back before I had a chance. You move pretty fast! JDoorj a m Talk 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that you deleted Bush's Mistakes. A comprehensive treatment of this topic surely would have consumed all of Wikipedia's storage space. george 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.
The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C
Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For moving the process forward. I have never seen a 3-1 keep vote be overturned by a single admin (these aren't sockpuppets, if you check). If you could restore it to my user space, I can then have access to the interwiki links so that I can better show the deletion reviewers that what's encyclopedic in Croatian or whatever should be encyclopedic here. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, based on postings on the closing admin's talk page, at least two other editors would like to be kept in the loop on the deletion review process to press the case for retention of the article. User:Pasquale and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are the two, and in response to their inquiry at the closing admin's talk page, the closing admin is standing firm. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, re-reading my talk page I see that you notified me first. I'd been away a while and Motor's was the first comment I saw. I've no qualms about the procedure thus far and I certainly intended no criticism of your conduct. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi David. What do you think of the unsolved murders article? At the rate thigs are going it will be a very long list soon. -- Phildav76 09:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the criteria and I thought the page met "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." It is garbage and unencyclopaedic - why defend it. Maybe I am a little humourless this evening but Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. If one chose to make sense it fits into this category. I shall MfD it.-- A Y Arktos\ talk 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw your addition to the Signpost Newsroom. Are you going to cover this story, or would you like me and/or other writers to cover it? Let me know. -- Randy Johnston ( ‽) 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
David,
Re. your edit, "PC" is only used used for Peers because any sane publication would say "The Right Honourable" in front of PCs, and you can't tell with Peers from that because they already are. Also, I'm rather confused by your statement that it's not the house-style to use "MP", given that we have been doing so for years now on many of them...
James F. (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
David. Thanks for your note. Obviously, I cannot post a Support message on this - although I might try a Supportive Comment message if things aren't going too well. Have you looked at Good Article candidature?. That seems a much more relaxed exercise than FAC. The people who contribute to these FAC assessments seem to be a small group with very narrow preoccupations. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
David. I had just posted a "Supportive Comment" when I got your note. The article was just a stub when I started on it and worked it up to a point when I nominated it as an FAC for the first time. You rather took it over at that point (fine by me) but for me to post a Support would be a fix. It just would not be the same. See how it goes. If things are looking finely poised, then I might switch to a straight Support, and someone can strike that out if they are so minded. Bob BScar23625 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
David. Take care not to write anything that might indicate even a very slight degree of irritation. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dbiv. I read through the intro of this article and it is much better! Keep up the good work! QuizQuick 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
David. This has been going on since 3 July - which seems an unusually long time. The current state of play is : 1 "weak Object" (QuizQuick), 1 Object (TheGrappler) and 3 Supports (BScar23625, D-Rock, Robth). Perhaps you should press for the matter to be closed?. Bob BScar23625 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
David. See my entry on the Raul654 talk page. Note also that there is a new, minor query on the FAC discussion. I suggest you address that last item quickly in order to avoid another Object appearing. Bob BScar23625 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, David. Bob BScar23625 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the case "BBT Thermotechnology UK Ltd v Brainfire Group", you state that the domain name was transferred. However, the linked-to page states that while the arbitrator agreed that the registration had been abusive, he had not seen evidence that the complainant had rights to the name, and so he refused the complaint. – Smyth\ talk 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In this article, you state:
I would point out the Nominet's dispute resolution isn't a court, but an arbitration system that doesn't carry the force of law (only contractual obligations). JulesH 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, thanks for putting the article together, it's always nice to have people helping produce the Signpost. -- Michael Snow 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steve
Yeah I have read most of the sandpit stuff but really wanted to set up and to have something relevant to work on setting this little area for my training ground. The wards and constituencies correspond to each other in LBH and I wasn't certain if a political or geographical stub was what I wanted to produce. As I have only included the political so far and currently linking to the relevant geographical descriptions this evening, I thought better to use constituency in the title.
Yours sincerely
Jed keenan 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steve
I have just done a peer review and checked Bradford of all places to compare their style and Brownswood (Hackney Ward) City (Bradford Ward) looks good.
Yours sincerely,
Jed keenan 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my deletion of the info on List of Life Peerages page. I do not know how I did it, I didnt mean to! Thanks! -- 86.3.90.100 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a reply tomorrow evening. -- Karl Meier 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. -- Vengeful Cynic 03:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support and helping me understand the rules here.
steve page
Dear Dave, I have looked at what you say and apologise wholeheartedly. I will desist further. I do very much respect the culture of wikipedia. With best wishes, Tim
and I am sorry to call you Dave when it seems on further reading that it is David.
Thank you for the edit for which I am flattered. It seems we overlapped in Cambridge and possibly in Westminster afterwards. Having looked at your profile, it also seems that there are a number of your fellow councillors who I know from my Tory days. Please pass on my best to Brian Connell and Justin Powell-Tuck if you happen to see them.
A few days ago you told me that there are notional results for constituencies in 1979. Could you give me a link to it? -- Jammydodger 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was impressed with the historic constituency maps you added. Much more impressive than the text I managed to produce. -- Gary J 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the reason for putting things like Independent National/meta/shortname in the main namespace? — Centrx→ talk • 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks -- User:Jaw101ie 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I initially did not think that Gibnews was engaging in sockpuppetry, me and user panchurret are having serious doubts now. Gibnews is beginning to show a more and more aggressive behaviour and launching accusations of "racism" (??) which are too similar to user: Gibraltarian to be ignored. You may have been right all along.
Could you please Please do a usercheck for Azmoc, Gibraltarian, bxlbaby and Gibnews. All possible sockpuppets of the same person (see RfC for Gibnews).
Since Gibnews has accused Panchurret and me of being the same user you can do the same for us: Panchurret and Burgas00, (to be fair). I dont know what the process is but I would really appreciate if you helped settle this issue once and for all.
I initially started the RfC in a conciliatory manner hoping Gibnews would somehow change his attitude. It seems he has now become more and more extreme. This is a non political issue, despite his constant efforts to picture this as a battle between Gibraltar and Spain.
Thanks alot for your help. -- Burgas00 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence before changing the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline. We've actually been discussing the "ref after punctuation" issue. See in particular Kirill's response to your change. [1] -- J. J. 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not anymore it isn't. See
Special:Whatlinkshere/The weather in London; I've eliminated all uses of it as an example of a red link. Now it's just an example of an edit war, and these deletions interfere with all attempts to end that edit war. A page title that looks like a potential article subject does not make
a good choice for an intentional permanent red link. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links, and discuss there before deleting. Seahen
Neon
Merlin 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dbiv,
I notice that this photo has no source information. Can you please add the appropriate information?
Sincerely, Kjetil _r 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A friendly note to let you know that I deprodded the above article not because of his candidacy for the national legislature of the US, but because he is a member of the KY state legislature, thereby squeaking by WP:BIO. Thanks for bringing the article to my attention (I am a bit of an OCD prod patroller), however, and I'll see what I can do to make it a better stub. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If I recall correctly (which I may not do, as it was some time ago), my sources were David Butler and Gareth Butler, British Political Facts for the second sentence, [2] and [3] for the third, and [4] for the final paragraph. In terms of how to fix it - I am quite happy to trust your judgement here, as I am aware of your wealth of knowledge on UK politics. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you would consider answering these two questions? Thank you.
Avalon 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1625714_moore300.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My reluctance to close the arbitration case is based on this edit which you apparently made. Fred Bauder 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed. You have been desysopped and banned from Peter Tatchell one year. See the full details at the decision page. Dmcdevit· t 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but it has gone beyond that point by now. I will be posting a more complete statement on my user page when I have the time. However, for the moment, the situation is this: I reject the committee's findings and will continue to edit Peter Tatchell. To mark my rejection I will not edit any other page, save in connection with attempts to get the article ban removed, or Talk pages connected with editing of Peter Tatchell. I will not be disruptive: I will make good faith and sourced edits. David | Talk 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing Peter Tatchell until such time as a decision is made in your favor. I wish you the best of luck in your appeal, and I'll leave you unblocked so that you can participate in it, and that a decision might be reached more expediently. Once again, stop shooting yourself in the foot. — freak( talk) 21:08, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
You leave Wikipedia with little choice:
-- Tony Sidaway 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely because you are using it to evade a block. Regards, The Land 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
David, please don't edit that article again. You can edit the talk page but not the article. -- Tony Sidaway 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Are you, in fact, that clueless? Or do you assume gross stupidity on the part of anyone but yourself? -- Calton | Talk 15:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are a damned liar. David | Talk 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reinstated the references as the article is better for them. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason you've removed all vowels from this message. No doubt you have some reason for doing so but I'm afraid it's got me totally confused right now.
It appears to be a common state with you, based on your other comments in the same edit. As to your vowels, why should you care what's on my talk page? After all, you're dishonest enough to expunge MY words from your Talk Page completely, so you've no call to ask about what I do on mine. -- Calton | Talk 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
David, this type of edit isn't going to help your cause. Can you provide a link to the appeal of your ArbCom ban from Peter Tatchell? ( → Netscott) 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a statement that could only be written by someone who has not read (or not understood) the explanation I posted on my user page. Calton is late to this party and I suspect has no knowledge of the issues that lie behind the original editing disputes; he certainly has no knowledge of the background to the Arbitration case, a great deal of which took place in private discussions.
It is absolutely nothing to do with "attempt at control" nor with an inability to work with others. If that were the case, how could it be that long before the Arbitration case was closed, I had come to a full agreement with Irishpunktom who was the only person with whom I had problems on editing the article? As a point of fact I am very sorry that Irishpunktom was also banned from the article and I still think this was unwarranted. I am hoping to revise the article to take account of the valid point he made about it not discussing the objections some people have to Peter Tatchell's self-description of 'human rights campaigner'.
The reason I will not submit edits for approval to the talk page is everything to do with the unjustified ArbCom decision and the fact that an article ban can only be interpreted as judging my collective contributions to the article as harmful. Not merely do I not believe that is true, it is so far from being true that anyone who claims it as being true has either got a screw loose or is taking a deliberately contrary position. David | Talk 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw your notice to Mackensen because I have his talk page watched. I agree with most of your argument and thought all along that probation and revert parole would have been sufficient to put some teeth into your agreement with IPT. However, I think it is a mistake to personalize your appeal against Dmcdevit, especially bringing up the AaronS case. You may wish to consider revising it to be more about your behavior, your settlement, and your willingness to accept 1RR parole to enforce the settlement, for example. Just some friendly tactical advice. Thatcher131 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose you are an admin are you? never mind you can still have a comment if you feel so inclined. [5] Giano 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 5 support votes makes the motion pass. I will close the motion and move your request for appeal 24 hours after the 5th support vote. That is after 19:53, 22 September 2006. (UTC). [6] -- FloNight 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
David, User:Raphael1 has just reminded me of our idea to file an RfC in regards to Irishpunktom's repeated edit warring and demonstrations of bad faith editing. Well User:Tony Sidaway has filed and RfAr involving him and I'm thinking that we should add ourselves as parties to to it. What's your view on that? Netscott 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
In case you're interested, I just made a new userbox that you might like. I figured it would be appropriate. Peter G Werner 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
{{ User AccusedZionist}}
![]() |
This user is frequently accused of being a Zionist. |
The user Bignole left warnings on my talk page for the express purpose of provoking a flame war. I believe the warnings are unwarranted, and to my knowledge he is not an admin. May I remove them? CmdrClow 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, you beat me to a self-revert by a minute. I thought at first that it was just an attack blog that someone had put at the bottom of the page, but then realized my error; apparently you changed it back before I had a chance. You move pretty fast! JDoorj a m Talk 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that you deleted Bush's Mistakes. A comprehensive treatment of this topic surely would have consumed all of Wikipedia's storage space. george 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.
The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C
Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For moving the process forward. I have never seen a 3-1 keep vote be overturned by a single admin (these aren't sockpuppets, if you check). If you could restore it to my user space, I can then have access to the interwiki links so that I can better show the deletion reviewers that what's encyclopedic in Croatian or whatever should be encyclopedic here. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, based on postings on the closing admin's talk page, at least two other editors would like to be kept in the loop on the deletion review process to press the case for retention of the article. User:Pasquale and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are the two, and in response to their inquiry at the closing admin's talk page, the closing admin is standing firm. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, re-reading my talk page I see that you notified me first. I'd been away a while and Motor's was the first comment I saw. I've no qualms about the procedure thus far and I certainly intended no criticism of your conduct. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi David. What do you think of the unsolved murders article? At the rate thigs are going it will be a very long list soon. -- Phildav76 09:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the criteria and I thought the page met "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." It is garbage and unencyclopaedic - why defend it. Maybe I am a little humourless this evening but Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. If one chose to make sense it fits into this category. I shall MfD it.-- A Y Arktos\ talk 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw your addition to the Signpost Newsroom. Are you going to cover this story, or would you like me and/or other writers to cover it? Let me know. -- Randy Johnston ( ‽) 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
David,
Re. your edit, "PC" is only used used for Peers because any sane publication would say "The Right Honourable" in front of PCs, and you can't tell with Peers from that because they already are. Also, I'm rather confused by your statement that it's not the house-style to use "MP", given that we have been doing so for years now on many of them...
James F. (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
David. Thanks for your note. Obviously, I cannot post a Support message on this - although I might try a Supportive Comment message if things aren't going too well. Have you looked at Good Article candidature?. That seems a much more relaxed exercise than FAC. The people who contribute to these FAC assessments seem to be a small group with very narrow preoccupations. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
David. I had just posted a "Supportive Comment" when I got your note. The article was just a stub when I started on it and worked it up to a point when I nominated it as an FAC for the first time. You rather took it over at that point (fine by me) but for me to post a Support would be a fix. It just would not be the same. See how it goes. If things are looking finely poised, then I might switch to a straight Support, and someone can strike that out if they are so minded. Bob BScar23625 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
David. Take care not to write anything that might indicate even a very slight degree of irritation. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dbiv. I read through the intro of this article and it is much better! Keep up the good work! QuizQuick 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
David. This has been going on since 3 July - which seems an unusually long time. The current state of play is : 1 "weak Object" (QuizQuick), 1 Object (TheGrappler) and 3 Supports (BScar23625, D-Rock, Robth). Perhaps you should press for the matter to be closed?. Bob BScar23625 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
David. See my entry on the Raul654 talk page. Note also that there is a new, minor query on the FAC discussion. I suggest you address that last item quickly in order to avoid another Object appearing. Bob BScar23625 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, David. Bob BScar23625 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the case "BBT Thermotechnology UK Ltd v Brainfire Group", you state that the domain name was transferred. However, the linked-to page states that while the arbitrator agreed that the registration had been abusive, he had not seen evidence that the complainant had rights to the name, and so he refused the complaint. – Smyth\ talk 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In this article, you state:
I would point out the Nominet's dispute resolution isn't a court, but an arbitration system that doesn't carry the force of law (only contractual obligations). JulesH 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, thanks for putting the article together, it's always nice to have people helping produce the Signpost. -- Michael Snow 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steve
Yeah I have read most of the sandpit stuff but really wanted to set up and to have something relevant to work on setting this little area for my training ground. The wards and constituencies correspond to each other in LBH and I wasn't certain if a political or geographical stub was what I wanted to produce. As I have only included the political so far and currently linking to the relevant geographical descriptions this evening, I thought better to use constituency in the title.
Yours sincerely
Jed keenan 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steve
I have just done a peer review and checked Bradford of all places to compare their style and Brownswood (Hackney Ward) City (Bradford Ward) looks good.
Yours sincerely,
Jed keenan 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my deletion of the info on List of Life Peerages page. I do not know how I did it, I didnt mean to! Thanks! -- 86.3.90.100 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a reply tomorrow evening. -- Karl Meier 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. -- Vengeful Cynic 03:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support and helping me understand the rules here.
steve page
Dear Dave, I have looked at what you say and apologise wholeheartedly. I will desist further. I do very much respect the culture of wikipedia. With best wishes, Tim
and I am sorry to call you Dave when it seems on further reading that it is David.
Thank you for the edit for which I am flattered. It seems we overlapped in Cambridge and possibly in Westminster afterwards. Having looked at your profile, it also seems that there are a number of your fellow councillors who I know from my Tory days. Please pass on my best to Brian Connell and Justin Powell-Tuck if you happen to see them.
A few days ago you told me that there are notional results for constituencies in 1979. Could you give me a link to it? -- Jammydodger 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was impressed with the historic constituency maps you added. Much more impressive than the text I managed to produce. -- Gary J 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the reason for putting things like Independent National/meta/shortname in the main namespace? — Centrx→ talk • 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks -- User:Jaw101ie 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I initially did not think that Gibnews was engaging in sockpuppetry, me and user panchurret are having serious doubts now. Gibnews is beginning to show a more and more aggressive behaviour and launching accusations of "racism" (??) which are too similar to user: Gibraltarian to be ignored. You may have been right all along.
Could you please Please do a usercheck for Azmoc, Gibraltarian, bxlbaby and Gibnews. All possible sockpuppets of the same person (see RfC for Gibnews).
Since Gibnews has accused Panchurret and me of being the same user you can do the same for us: Panchurret and Burgas00, (to be fair). I dont know what the process is but I would really appreciate if you helped settle this issue once and for all.
I initially started the RfC in a conciliatory manner hoping Gibnews would somehow change his attitude. It seems he has now become more and more extreme. This is a non political issue, despite his constant efforts to picture this as a battle between Gibraltar and Spain.
Thanks alot for your help. -- Burgas00 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence before changing the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline. We've actually been discussing the "ref after punctuation" issue. See in particular Kirill's response to your change. [1] -- J. J. 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not anymore it isn't. See
Special:Whatlinkshere/The weather in London; I've eliminated all uses of it as an example of a red link. Now it's just an example of an edit war, and these deletions interfere with all attempts to end that edit war. A page title that looks like a potential article subject does not make
a good choice for an intentional permanent red link. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links, and discuss there before deleting. Seahen
Neon
Merlin 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dbiv,
I notice that this photo has no source information. Can you please add the appropriate information?
Sincerely, Kjetil _r 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A friendly note to let you know that I deprodded the above article not because of his candidacy for the national legislature of the US, but because he is a member of the KY state legislature, thereby squeaking by WP:BIO. Thanks for bringing the article to my attention (I am a bit of an OCD prod patroller), however, and I'll see what I can do to make it a better stub. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If I recall correctly (which I may not do, as it was some time ago), my sources were David Butler and Gareth Butler, British Political Facts for the second sentence, [2] and [3] for the third, and [4] for the final paragraph. In terms of how to fix it - I am quite happy to trust your judgement here, as I am aware of your wealth of knowledge on UK politics. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you would consider answering these two questions? Thank you.
Avalon 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:1625714_moore300.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My reluctance to close the arbitration case is based on this edit which you apparently made. Fred Bauder 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This case has closed. You have been desysopped and banned from Peter Tatchell one year. See the full details at the decision page. Dmcdevit· t 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but it has gone beyond that point by now. I will be posting a more complete statement on my user page when I have the time. However, for the moment, the situation is this: I reject the committee's findings and will continue to edit Peter Tatchell. To mark my rejection I will not edit any other page, save in connection with attempts to get the article ban removed, or Talk pages connected with editing of Peter Tatchell. I will not be disruptive: I will make good faith and sourced edits. David | Talk 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from editing Peter Tatchell until such time as a decision is made in your favor. I wish you the best of luck in your appeal, and I'll leave you unblocked so that you can participate in it, and that a decision might be reached more expediently. Once again, stop shooting yourself in the foot. — freak( talk) 21:08, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
You leave Wikipedia with little choice:
-- Tony Sidaway 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely because you are using it to evade a block. Regards, The Land 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
David, please don't edit that article again. You can edit the talk page but not the article. -- Tony Sidaway 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Are you, in fact, that clueless? Or do you assume gross stupidity on the part of anyone but yourself? -- Calton | Talk 15:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are a damned liar. David | Talk 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reinstated the references as the article is better for them. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason you've removed all vowels from this message. No doubt you have some reason for doing so but I'm afraid it's got me totally confused right now.
It appears to be a common state with you, based on your other comments in the same edit. As to your vowels, why should you care what's on my talk page? After all, you're dishonest enough to expunge MY words from your Talk Page completely, so you've no call to ask about what I do on mine. -- Calton | Talk 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
David, this type of edit isn't going to help your cause. Can you provide a link to the appeal of your ArbCom ban from Peter Tatchell? ( → Netscott) 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a statement that could only be written by someone who has not read (or not understood) the explanation I posted on my user page. Calton is late to this party and I suspect has no knowledge of the issues that lie behind the original editing disputes; he certainly has no knowledge of the background to the Arbitration case, a great deal of which took place in private discussions.
It is absolutely nothing to do with "attempt at control" nor with an inability to work with others. If that were the case, how could it be that long before the Arbitration case was closed, I had come to a full agreement with Irishpunktom who was the only person with whom I had problems on editing the article? As a point of fact I am very sorry that Irishpunktom was also banned from the article and I still think this was unwarranted. I am hoping to revise the article to take account of the valid point he made about it not discussing the objections some people have to Peter Tatchell's self-description of 'human rights campaigner'.
The reason I will not submit edits for approval to the talk page is everything to do with the unjustified ArbCom decision and the fact that an article ban can only be interpreted as judging my collective contributions to the article as harmful. Not merely do I not believe that is true, it is so far from being true that anyone who claims it as being true has either got a screw loose or is taking a deliberately contrary position. David | Talk 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw your notice to Mackensen because I have his talk page watched. I agree with most of your argument and thought all along that probation and revert parole would have been sufficient to put some teeth into your agreement with IPT. However, I think it is a mistake to personalize your appeal against Dmcdevit, especially bringing up the AaronS case. You may wish to consider revising it to be more about your behavior, your settlement, and your willingness to accept 1RR parole to enforce the settlement, for example. Just some friendly tactical advice. Thatcher131 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose you are an admin are you? never mind you can still have a comment if you feel so inclined. [5] Giano 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 5 support votes makes the motion pass. I will close the motion and move your request for appeal 24 hours after the 5th support vote. That is after 19:53, 22 September 2006. (UTC). [6] -- FloNight 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)