I still don't think it's terribly notable, but it's well-written enough to be worth staying on Wikipedia - I haven't actually voted myself on the AfD, and I think it's important the process continue. However, I find it highly likely that the decision will be to keep since your overhaul, as already appears to be becoming the case. Well done for your rescue. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.
I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
Hi! Thanks for your comments in the FAC. I have provided citation for one sentence. Curbed one sentence and provided citation for that. Removed one sentence as citation could not be given. Please have a look. And a huge thanks for the edits you made in the article. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
When I reverted it, the link no longer re-directed to that short-storey but rather to the short-storey collection by the same name. DrWho42 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of 4 articles on Goblin's "funny translations" nominated for deletion, 3 were deleted. Can you please explain the difference between the 3 that were deleted and the 1 that was not? All 4 nominations to AfD were essentially about the same thing. Chronolegion 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fictional police detectives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AndyJones 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not yet convinced. this ref only includes tangential mentions of the person in a discussion of another subject ( Wikipedia:Notability (music)), and the other article here fails the non-trivial published works requirement, as it is merely a press clipping announcing the next concert in a small paper (not sure how notable the paper is). With only one disc, I still seriously doubt their notability. From here we have two options: (1) We keep the notability tag, and another user will look at it and may delete it in the future based on his/her decision. (2) We start a WP:AFD, where a number of users look at it and judge its notability. The second one has the advantage of being faster and less dependent on one person, and both of us can add arguments there directly. What should it be? For now i add the notability tag again, but let me know if you want the AfD process. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I do object, and not just because it would be Boyfriends (film). There's an actual film called Boyfriends, so it shouldn't be changed for a redirect. It might a good idea to put "You may have been looking for Boyfriend" at the top, though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, why was the Zeta Phi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi article deleted? On what authority? There was note vote to delete. Please explain.
Forget the alumni. The notability is in that the Zeta Phi Society, from which the chapter evolved, was the first fraternity founded west of the Mississippi River. That is an assertion of a historic nature and of a unique nature; I can't see how that doesn't qualify as an assertion of notability. — C.Fred ( talk) 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Any time. Congratulations on your victory! Intheshadows 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the Entertainment Reference Desk. BeefJeaunt 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen, do you think that I should have reported the suspicious votes at WP:SSP? My rationale for not doing so was: (a) I didn't consider them in closing, (b) I suspected that they belonged to A____ M____, and I didn't give his opinion much weight anyway, (c) WP:SSP was, and always is, backlogged, and (d), I couldn't be bothered with all the drama likely to result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to understand why you deleted my Woollybear Festival entry. I did everything as correctly as possible. How can I go back and correct whatever may be wrong if you've already deleted it? HonoluluGuy 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support you gave against this users allegations. I do not expect people to take sides in his vendetta against me but I appreciate that you looked at his evidence and were quite neutral in your response. I personally find his User:Travb/m page that he has created against me offensive and full of conjecture and assumption, but I will leave it to the admins to determine his true motives for this. Thanks once again for not taking sides. Mobile 01 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Turns out it's a legitimate nickname, I'm going to recreate. John Reaves 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Left a note to say hes offline till the 20th SatuSuro 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you've noticed by now your suggestion that futanari be afd'd was ill-advised. It is my very strong hope that you don't decide to ignore the discussion taking place there simply because the discussion has been posted to various forums. There are obviously dozens of people commenting there that are members of the project prior to your mistake here. ... aa: talk 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Proto,
You deleted the Comparison of BitTorrent sites today, under the grounds that it's a recreation of deleted content. I am, however, familiar with WP:CSD, and it specifically states that the article can only be speedily deleted if it is "substantially identical" to the original. This was not the case - as I stated on the talk page, the new article had much more detail (which was the main complaint at the AfD) and cited sources.
If you feel that you cannot recreate this article in the mainspace, please recreate it in my userspace. I'd like to at least have a backup copy.
Best regards,
Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! I'll make sure I know what I'm talking about next time, rather than the most cursory of checks. Cheers. -- SigPig | SEND - OVER 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that this IP originated from a university and therefore shouldn't be indef blocked? (Just curious, that's all.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with the categories of the article. But I don't think removing some and leaving some is fair. French is not just a language of selected countries where it is an official language, be it France, Canada, Burkina Faso or Seychelles. If you don't think African countries should be listed as separated entities, they are separate countries unless you haven't noticed, then why should other countries from other continent be? Africa is not a single country and not all of its countries are French speaking. -- moyogo 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Proto, sorry to bother you, but got another IP vandal from another school it seems. Think you can help out this one? (And also, point me to where I'd report vandals like this? WP:AIAV?) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, the vandalism was from "are" to "is", and the revert you linked to undid that change. I reported the IP who made the ungrammatical change and has a history of vandalism. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo, and since you've commented on LoHo, I hope I can get your input. Thanks. Mosmof 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, given your recent misplaced comments without actually finding out what was right, and passing judgement on something that never happened, you've lost the trust I thought I could put in you when I supported you for the ArbCom. Please apologise for jumping to conclusions, I am quite unhappy at your comments which are way off base. – Ch acor 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto, what's the tag I add if I need a particular image I uploaded to be deleted? Also, I currently am undergoing Wikipedia: Editor review, so I'd appreciate it if you can help me out. Thanks! - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still unhappy with your afd with regards to the C&C stuff I wrote/created/edited. Having meditated on the loss of something I deemed valuable I have come to relise that you were only doing your job, insofar as any of us actually have one here on Wikipedia. For this I can not fault you, I have told many people to "never apologize for doing your job". In this case, I feel feel the need to apologize since I believe that I was out of line and out of order. In my meditation on the subject I have come to relize that my assumptions on how the page would be tagged were incorrect; I believed that any objections would be raised on the talk page first, allowing me a chance to reshape the page to keep it here. In this I was mistaken; I see that clearly now.
I still disagree with you descion to actively hunt down and eliminate the material you deem "cruft"; however, I understand the need for an encylopdia to be free of such material. If this is path you have choosen then so be it. I wish you good luck and happy hunting. Finally, I am sorry for anything that I may have said or done that my have upset you during the afd process. Have a happy new year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Cylonhunter removed your vote of support when he voted to oppose. I reinserted it for you and messaged him about it. Cheers, Jeffpw 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that Proto. I did not mean to cause you any harm Cylonhunter 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see you've been up to some disemvowelling. Are you making an homage to
PZ Myers, or does this have more ancient roots in dealing with comments on talk pages? Anyway, the process of disemvowelment seems highly insulting and very unlikely to bring about any positive response, so I would respectfully ask that you please stop doing it. If you don't like someone's comment, either ignore it or remove it wholesale, but chopping it up into little unintelligible pieces is not going to help anything. Also, I noticed that you seemed to be doing the disemvowelling manually. That's what programming languages are for, man! Here's a little line of Perl that would do it for you: $str =~ s/[aeiouy]//gi
Regards,
Cyde Weys
16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply by e-mail soon. Many thanks for remembering that I'm not a total retard... Marskell 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you reconsider your speedy deletion of the Happysad article? It is quite popular band in Poland and I'm sure that the article is going to be recreated soon. If you feel it should be deleted please nominate it for AfD instead. Thank you. Jogers ( talk) 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of LoHo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I would like to know what went into your thought process in the ultimate removal of the LoHo article. You seem to have made an arbitrary decision and perhaps, there may be room for further discussion with you or to ask what it will take to have the page placed back one day – eventually. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Check the permisisons emails, I sent in the owners' permisison as requested three weeks ago to the email given to me, and it was acknowledged. What the heck is going on. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like to talk about anyone behind their back, so I wanted to give you a heads up that a comment you made in an AfD discussion is being discussed at the talk page of an unrelated essay. ( Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You made a comment on today's Deletion reviews that ended up in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Speartip Alliance saying that it was a valid AFD. I suspect that the comment belongs to a different DRV, as that particular page never had a AFD. Would you care to sort it to the review you intended to comment upon. GRBerry 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Has the newly input references to bona fide media stories satisfied this? Juda S. Engelmayer 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am flattered you would revert to one of MY previous versions on one of the schiavo article pages, and I looed at the details of the edit:
However, I wonder the reasoning used here: Surely, Kevorkian is notable enough to have opined on the schiavo case. What was your reasoning? (you mentioned nothing in the edit summary) --although I did not make the edit, I support it.-- GordonWatts 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. As of now, I do not care about the outcome of it, I did not even ask to be nominated. I however would like to clear up a misunderstanding. I at no point claim that I plan on using reversion tools to handle content disputes. I made a mistake on RC patrol, and reverted a good faith edit as vandalism. That is what I am claiming will happen again in the future. I am human and I make mikstakes. If I were to say, "I will never accidently revert a good faith edit as vandalism again," as good as it would make me sound, I would be lying to myself and everybody else. If that makes me unfit to be an administrator, that I will have no problem withdrawing my RFA. To be honest, I am a little frustrated with it currently because it seems like a vote. So many, Supports per nom. I think those are people just perusing RFA's and going with the flow. I have much more respect for Oppose nominations (especially ones with a good explanation as to why, such as yours). You are an administrator that I have seen around alot, and have respect for. Do you personally reccomend that I withdraw my RFA, due to this RC patrol mistake?. If you honsetly believe that it shows I am not worthy to be an administrator, I respect that opinion much more than the torrent of empty Supports. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this articles, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jogers ( talk) 13:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of BitTorrent sites. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent "discounted" vote comments were obnoxious. I find your claim that you discounted the majority of keep votes because they were "based on no arguments applicable to Wikipedia policy or guideline" disingenous.
For example, you "discounted" my following comment: "Keep. Deletion nominators are relentless. This is a problematic but still salvageable article; it's way too soon for another afd; isn't this inappropriate?"
Actually, that particular concern is addressed in official Wikipedia policy:
Please don't respond by saying to take it up with Deletion review or that I should have included the word "speedy" to make it clear which policy I was referring to; I really don't really care what happens to that frivolous article you deleted; I'm saying your dismissiveness toward many established editors was ill-considered and will rub many the wrong way.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of tall men. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Black Falcon 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not happy with the current situation right now in regards to how certian people around wiki are trying to get rid of these articles. I would like to start doing a project in regards to those type of fields but feel that if I do somebody will decide it should be deleted. Can you discuss this with the other wikipedians and stop all of this back and forthness. It really makes anybody who wants to put thier time and effort to pull back. I wont start this project until the spring time but I want some type of consensus before I start. -- Mihsfbstadium 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:UNDEL, I am requesting that you undelete PopeofPeru's userpage, as I see no justification for the deletion of the userpage of an unbanned user. Instead, may I suggest simply moving the "'congraduations' messages" to PopeofPeru's talkpage? -- Hemlock Martinis 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you just edited this Wikipedia in popular culture. For some reason, it's been fully protected, and {{editprotected}} requests are piling up on the talk page. Could you possibly take a couple of minutes to make those edits? They're all very small, they'll only take a few seconds. Thanks – Qxz 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will watch my tone in the future, 1B6 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.
If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.
If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto. Do you think I could request you take a look at The Turk for some copyediting? I saw your name listed at WP:1FAPQ and I think it's pretty close, but the prose is what I got hit on a lot my last attempt, so I'm trying to get as many eyes as possible. I understand if you're busy/disenchanted with me at the moment, but any help would be greatly appreciated on this. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You just provided comment on a WP:BLP dispute earlier on the Anderson Cooper page. Since then, I added new content to the Personal Life section that was thoroughly sourced (and in one case, one of the sources was additionally defended as notable by two added sources, I mean how thorough do I have to be) and, as I noted in two places on the talk page, NPOV in my opinion. I further defended the relevance of the information to the page. An anonymous IP user User:66.255.146.202 blanked the entire Personal Life section today, without comment, after you specifically said on the talk page that such an action was going too far. This is also the second time this user blanked this section without comment or defending the action. I posted a simple please-stop notice on his user talk page that this was vandalism, explained why, and that I would complain before I reverted (as I suspect it might lead to a revert war). I would appreciate your review of this, and perhaps consider protecting the page, or semi-protecting the page, until at least, perhaps, other editors have weighed in on the addition? Thank you. I'm going to revert the blanking now, but I will not violate the three-revert rule. I think the content I added was proper, and the way I went about it also proper. NYDCSP 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As it seems fairly obvious that there is a sleeper sock returned to edit war, I've filed a checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramirez72 I would appreciate if you could follow up and block when it comes through positive (which it should). Part Deux 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
To:Proto, I'm here in your discussion page because I need your help. Someone out there is trying to sabotage me and damage my reputation as a good wiki-contributer. I recently found out in the Spanish article section, that User:FiLoco is impersenating me!! He is acting like me, and he is trying to get me into alot of trouble by making wrongful edits. This happened soon after i had a heated arguement with User:Howard The Duck and User:Sqeak-Box. Now every one thinks I'm a sockpuppett, When in fact it's not True... I'm un able to login in to my user:account, since I'm currently blocked. Please help!! If you have a heart, Please help me, I need your help..-- User:Ramirez72
Hi Proto. OK here are the articles I was talking about at ANI
Thanks for the help! MartinDK 10:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
hi, re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love and Rage (Australia), is it too late to get a 'userfied' copy? i only ask as u closed it, else who do i ask about emailing me a copy? d-review says this can be done, but doesn't say how to go about it. thx in advance, ben ⇒ bsnowball 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben. I've provided a userfied copy at User:Bsnowball/Love and Rage (Australia). The usual disclaimer applies - please do not restore the article without drastically changing it so it would be acceptable under Wikipedia policy. If it is fixed and improved, ask at deletion review if it can be restored. Proto:: ► 12:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Proto. You rock. Check [3] every couple of days. Proto:: ► 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course — the relevant Talk page would be the proper place to discuss it, if I thought that I had a snowball's chance in hell of having any effect. The problem (and it concerns many similar issues) is that the people who watch such Talk pages generally form a sub-culture working within the paradigm that I'm questioning. In other words, there's little point raising it there (not to mention the huge chunk out of my life that the ensuing arguments would take). By raising it in a more public arena, I have more chance that someone will read what I have to say and see the rationality of it. If a few people do, then there's more chance of changing what I think is an absurd policy — sired by lawyers out of bureacrats. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto,
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think it's terribly notable, but it's well-written enough to be worth staying on Wikipedia - I haven't actually voted myself on the AfD, and I think it's important the process continue. However, I find it highly likely that the decision will be to keep since your overhaul, as already appears to be becoming the case. Well done for your rescue. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.
I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
Hi! Thanks for your comments in the FAC. I have provided citation for one sentence. Curbed one sentence and provided citation for that. Removed one sentence as citation could not be given. Please have a look. And a huge thanks for the edits you made in the article. Thanks a lot. Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
When I reverted it, the link no longer re-directed to that short-storey but rather to the short-storey collection by the same name. DrWho42 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of 4 articles on Goblin's "funny translations" nominated for deletion, 3 were deleted. Can you please explain the difference between the 3 that were deleted and the 1 that was not? All 4 nominations to AfD were essentially about the same thing. Chronolegion 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fictional police detectives. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AndyJones 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not yet convinced. this ref only includes tangential mentions of the person in a discussion of another subject ( Wikipedia:Notability (music)), and the other article here fails the non-trivial published works requirement, as it is merely a press clipping announcing the next concert in a small paper (not sure how notable the paper is). With only one disc, I still seriously doubt their notability. From here we have two options: (1) We keep the notability tag, and another user will look at it and may delete it in the future based on his/her decision. (2) We start a WP:AFD, where a number of users look at it and judge its notability. The second one has the advantage of being faster and less dependent on one person, and both of us can add arguments there directly. What should it be? For now i add the notability tag again, but let me know if you want the AfD process. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I do object, and not just because it would be Boyfriends (film). There's an actual film called Boyfriends, so it shouldn't be changed for a redirect. It might a good idea to put "You may have been looking for Boyfriend" at the top, though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, why was the Zeta Phi Chapter of Beta Theta Pi article deleted? On what authority? There was note vote to delete. Please explain.
Forget the alumni. The notability is in that the Zeta Phi Society, from which the chapter evolved, was the first fraternity founded west of the Mississippi River. That is an assertion of a historic nature and of a unique nature; I can't see how that doesn't qualify as an assertion of notability. — C.Fred ( talk) 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Any time. Congratulations on your victory! Intheshadows 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the Entertainment Reference Desk. BeefJeaunt 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suz Andreasen, do you think that I should have reported the suspicious votes at WP:SSP? My rationale for not doing so was: (a) I didn't consider them in closing, (b) I suspected that they belonged to A____ M____, and I didn't give his opinion much weight anyway, (c) WP:SSP was, and always is, backlogged, and (d), I couldn't be bothered with all the drama likely to result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to understand why you deleted my Woollybear Festival entry. I did everything as correctly as possible. How can I go back and correct whatever may be wrong if you've already deleted it? HonoluluGuy 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support you gave against this users allegations. I do not expect people to take sides in his vendetta against me but I appreciate that you looked at his evidence and were quite neutral in your response. I personally find his User:Travb/m page that he has created against me offensive and full of conjecture and assumption, but I will leave it to the admins to determine his true motives for this. Thanks once again for not taking sides. Mobile 01 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Turns out it's a legitimate nickname, I'm going to recreate. John Reaves 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Left a note to say hes offline till the 20th SatuSuro 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you've noticed by now your suggestion that futanari be afd'd was ill-advised. It is my very strong hope that you don't decide to ignore the discussion taking place there simply because the discussion has been posted to various forums. There are obviously dozens of people commenting there that are members of the project prior to your mistake here. ... aa: talk 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Proto,
You deleted the Comparison of BitTorrent sites today, under the grounds that it's a recreation of deleted content. I am, however, familiar with WP:CSD, and it specifically states that the article can only be speedily deleted if it is "substantially identical" to the original. This was not the case - as I stated on the talk page, the new article had much more detail (which was the main complaint at the AfD) and cited sources.
If you feel that you cannot recreate this article in the mainspace, please recreate it in my userspace. I'd like to at least have a backup copy.
Best regards,
Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! I'll make sure I know what I'm talking about next time, rather than the most cursory of checks. Cheers. -- SigPig | SEND - OVER 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that this IP originated from a university and therefore shouldn't be indef blocked? (Just curious, that's all.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with the categories of the article. But I don't think removing some and leaving some is fair. French is not just a language of selected countries where it is an official language, be it France, Canada, Burkina Faso or Seychelles. If you don't think African countries should be listed as separated entities, they are separate countries unless you haven't noticed, then why should other countries from other continent be? Africa is not a single country and not all of its countries are French speaking. -- moyogo 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Proto, sorry to bother you, but got another IP vandal from another school it seems. Think you can help out this one? (And also, point me to where I'd report vandals like this? WP:AIAV?) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, the vandalism was from "are" to "is", and the revert you linked to undid that change. I reported the IP who made the ungrammatical change and has a history of vandalism. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo, and since you've commented on LoHo, I hope I can get your input. Thanks. Mosmof 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, given your recent misplaced comments without actually finding out what was right, and passing judgement on something that never happened, you've lost the trust I thought I could put in you when I supported you for the ArbCom. Please apologise for jumping to conclusions, I am quite unhappy at your comments which are way off base. – Ch acor 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto, what's the tag I add if I need a particular image I uploaded to be deleted? Also, I currently am undergoing Wikipedia: Editor review, so I'd appreciate it if you can help me out. Thanks! - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still unhappy with your afd with regards to the C&C stuff I wrote/created/edited. Having meditated on the loss of something I deemed valuable I have come to relise that you were only doing your job, insofar as any of us actually have one here on Wikipedia. For this I can not fault you, I have told many people to "never apologize for doing your job". In this case, I feel feel the need to apologize since I believe that I was out of line and out of order. In my meditation on the subject I have come to relize that my assumptions on how the page would be tagged were incorrect; I believed that any objections would be raised on the talk page first, allowing me a chance to reshape the page to keep it here. In this I was mistaken; I see that clearly now.
I still disagree with you descion to actively hunt down and eliminate the material you deem "cruft"; however, I understand the need for an encylopdia to be free of such material. If this is path you have choosen then so be it. I wish you good luck and happy hunting. Finally, I am sorry for anything that I may have said or done that my have upset you during the afd process. Have a happy new year. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Cylonhunter removed your vote of support when he voted to oppose. I reinserted it for you and messaged him about it. Cheers, Jeffpw 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that Proto. I did not mean to cause you any harm Cylonhunter 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see you've been up to some disemvowelling. Are you making an homage to
PZ Myers, or does this have more ancient roots in dealing with comments on talk pages? Anyway, the process of disemvowelment seems highly insulting and very unlikely to bring about any positive response, so I would respectfully ask that you please stop doing it. If you don't like someone's comment, either ignore it or remove it wholesale, but chopping it up into little unintelligible pieces is not going to help anything. Also, I noticed that you seemed to be doing the disemvowelling manually. That's what programming languages are for, man! Here's a little line of Perl that would do it for you: $str =~ s/[aeiouy]//gi
Regards,
Cyde Weys
16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply by e-mail soon. Many thanks for remembering that I'm not a total retard... Marskell 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you reconsider your speedy deletion of the Happysad article? It is quite popular band in Poland and I'm sure that the article is going to be recreated soon. If you feel it should be deleted please nominate it for AfD instead. Thank you. Jogers ( talk) 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of LoHo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I would like to know what went into your thought process in the ultimate removal of the LoHo article. You seem to have made an arbitrary decision and perhaps, there may be room for further discussion with you or to ask what it will take to have the page placed back one day – eventually. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Check the permisisons emails, I sent in the owners' permisison as requested three weeks ago to the email given to me, and it was acknowledged. What the heck is going on. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like to talk about anyone behind their back, so I wanted to give you a heads up that a comment you made in an AfD discussion is being discussed at the talk page of an unrelated essay. ( Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument). - Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You made a comment on today's Deletion reviews that ended up in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Speartip Alliance saying that it was a valid AFD. I suspect that the comment belongs to a different DRV, as that particular page never had a AFD. Would you care to sort it to the review you intended to comment upon. GRBerry 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Has the newly input references to bona fide media stories satisfied this? Juda S. Engelmayer 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am flattered you would revert to one of MY previous versions on one of the schiavo article pages, and I looed at the details of the edit:
However, I wonder the reasoning used here: Surely, Kevorkian is notable enough to have opined on the schiavo case. What was your reasoning? (you mentioned nothing in the edit summary) --although I did not make the edit, I support it.-- GordonWatts 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. As of now, I do not care about the outcome of it, I did not even ask to be nominated. I however would like to clear up a misunderstanding. I at no point claim that I plan on using reversion tools to handle content disputes. I made a mistake on RC patrol, and reverted a good faith edit as vandalism. That is what I am claiming will happen again in the future. I am human and I make mikstakes. If I were to say, "I will never accidently revert a good faith edit as vandalism again," as good as it would make me sound, I would be lying to myself and everybody else. If that makes me unfit to be an administrator, that I will have no problem withdrawing my RFA. To be honest, I am a little frustrated with it currently because it seems like a vote. So many, Supports per nom. I think those are people just perusing RFA's and going with the flow. I have much more respect for Oppose nominations (especially ones with a good explanation as to why, such as yours). You are an administrator that I have seen around alot, and have respect for. Do you personally reccomend that I withdraw my RFA, due to this RC patrol mistake?. If you honsetly believe that it shows I am not worthy to be an administrator, I respect that opinion much more than the torrent of empty Supports. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this articles, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jogers ( talk) 13:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of BitTorrent sites. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your recent "discounted" vote comments were obnoxious. I find your claim that you discounted the majority of keep votes because they were "based on no arguments applicable to Wikipedia policy or guideline" disingenous.
For example, you "discounted" my following comment: "Keep. Deletion nominators are relentless. This is a problematic but still salvageable article; it's way too soon for another afd; isn't this inappropriate?"
Actually, that particular concern is addressed in official Wikipedia policy:
Please don't respond by saying to take it up with Deletion review or that I should have included the word "speedy" to make it clear which policy I was referring to; I really don't really care what happens to that frivolous article you deleted; I'm saying your dismissiveness toward many established editors was ill-considered and will rub many the wrong way.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of tall men. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Black Falcon 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not happy with the current situation right now in regards to how certian people around wiki are trying to get rid of these articles. I would like to start doing a project in regards to those type of fields but feel that if I do somebody will decide it should be deleted. Can you discuss this with the other wikipedians and stop all of this back and forthness. It really makes anybody who wants to put thier time and effort to pull back. I wont start this project until the spring time but I want some type of consensus before I start. -- Mihsfbstadium 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:UNDEL, I am requesting that you undelete PopeofPeru's userpage, as I see no justification for the deletion of the userpage of an unbanned user. Instead, may I suggest simply moving the "'congraduations' messages" to PopeofPeru's talkpage? -- Hemlock Martinis 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you just edited this Wikipedia in popular culture. For some reason, it's been fully protected, and {{editprotected}} requests are piling up on the talk page. Could you possibly take a couple of minutes to make those edits? They're all very small, they'll only take a few seconds. Thanks – Qxz 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will watch my tone in the future, 1B6 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.
If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.
If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto. Do you think I could request you take a look at The Turk for some copyediting? I saw your name listed at WP:1FAPQ and I think it's pretty close, but the prose is what I got hit on a lot my last attempt, so I'm trying to get as many eyes as possible. I understand if you're busy/disenchanted with me at the moment, but any help would be greatly appreciated on this. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You just provided comment on a WP:BLP dispute earlier on the Anderson Cooper page. Since then, I added new content to the Personal Life section that was thoroughly sourced (and in one case, one of the sources was additionally defended as notable by two added sources, I mean how thorough do I have to be) and, as I noted in two places on the talk page, NPOV in my opinion. I further defended the relevance of the information to the page. An anonymous IP user User:66.255.146.202 blanked the entire Personal Life section today, without comment, after you specifically said on the talk page that such an action was going too far. This is also the second time this user blanked this section without comment or defending the action. I posted a simple please-stop notice on his user talk page that this was vandalism, explained why, and that I would complain before I reverted (as I suspect it might lead to a revert war). I would appreciate your review of this, and perhaps consider protecting the page, or semi-protecting the page, until at least, perhaps, other editors have weighed in on the addition? Thank you. I'm going to revert the blanking now, but I will not violate the three-revert rule. I think the content I added was proper, and the way I went about it also proper. NYDCSP 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As it seems fairly obvious that there is a sleeper sock returned to edit war, I've filed a checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramirez72 I would appreciate if you could follow up and block when it comes through positive (which it should). Part Deux 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
To:Proto, I'm here in your discussion page because I need your help. Someone out there is trying to sabotage me and damage my reputation as a good wiki-contributer. I recently found out in the Spanish article section, that User:FiLoco is impersenating me!! He is acting like me, and he is trying to get me into alot of trouble by making wrongful edits. This happened soon after i had a heated arguement with User:Howard The Duck and User:Sqeak-Box. Now every one thinks I'm a sockpuppett, When in fact it's not True... I'm un able to login in to my user:account, since I'm currently blocked. Please help!! If you have a heart, Please help me, I need your help..-- User:Ramirez72
Hi Proto. OK here are the articles I was talking about at ANI
Thanks for the help! MartinDK 10:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
hi, re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love and Rage (Australia), is it too late to get a 'userfied' copy? i only ask as u closed it, else who do i ask about emailing me a copy? d-review says this can be done, but doesn't say how to go about it. thx in advance, ben ⇒ bsnowball 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben. I've provided a userfied copy at User:Bsnowball/Love and Rage (Australia). The usual disclaimer applies - please do not restore the article without drastically changing it so it would be acceptable under Wikipedia policy. If it is fixed and improved, ask at deletion review if it can be restored. Proto:: ► 12:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Proto. You rock. Check [3] every couple of days. Proto:: ► 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course — the relevant Talk page would be the proper place to discuss it, if I thought that I had a snowball's chance in hell of having any effect. The problem (and it concerns many similar issues) is that the people who watch such Talk pages generally form a sub-culture working within the paradigm that I'm questioning. In other words, there's little point raising it there (not to mention the huge chunk out of my life that the ensuing arguments would take). By raising it in a more public arena, I have more chance that someone will read what I have to say and see the rationality of it. If a few people do, then there's more chance of changing what I think is an absurd policy — sired by lawyers out of bureacrats. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Proto,
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)