SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanx, Fred. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care. If you don't find proxies, unblock them. I just blocked them because they were not ISPs but web hosting services.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to worry about me blocking them; I'm not an admin. However, they are a technical violation of the username policy in that they are shared accounts. It would probably be a good idea to put an explanation on the userpages explaining what school they are with and how the responsible person can be contacted. That may help alleviate some concerns but someone might still block them at some point. Gigs ( talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I've relied on the talkpage. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed in this section of the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Go ahead. Time will show whether he meant it. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Do whatever. I do not have any opinion about nor can I do anything concerning the rangeblocks at the moment.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the anti-aging movement article, please be very careful to stick as closely as possible to the sources. These people seem to be quite willing to sue individual Wikipedia editors if they dislike the statements that are made in the sources cited. As a word of advice, a "movement" or a "profession" cannot sue, so if you were to say "energy healers are a bunch of dangerous quacks", an individual healer cannot sue for defamation, but if you were to say "energy healing organization X is a bunch of dangerous quacks", then that organization has standing. I'm not saying I have seen anything incorrect, and all your content seems quite acceptable to me, but this is a dangerous area to deal with. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work! No objections here. - Vianello ( Talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Heya I noticed your recent addition of IP block exemption to an account. Ensure that you note this change (and any future IPBE additions) in this log here. The log is used to monitor IPBE usage, etc. Cheers, NJA (t/ c) 10:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The last time he was here was March 31 last year. I think it's unlikely you'll get a response. Half Shadow 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For tirelessly working behind the scenes answering e-mails on Unblock-en-l on the order of many tens, seemingly hundreds, daily, always with a polite word and a large amount of patience. English wikipedia would be swamped without your near incessant work. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive
User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head. signed - The REAL Zeraeph -- 109.79.193.159 ( talk) 09:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Merry Christmas
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Hi Fred
I have proposed the deletion of Category:Suppressed Chinese history, which you created. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Suppressed_Chinese_history. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Chinese war crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do so; I've been away from the site for a couple of days. I can help keep an eye on it as well. Thanks again for all you do! -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Fred Bauder! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
825 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Did some communication happen over e-mail, or on another wiki, to warrant this user's unblock? So far, he has used his account pretty much entirely for self-promotional editing and multi-project spam, so I'm not sure what benefit there could be in unblocking him unless he's given you a clear statement of what he intends to do here. (If he has done so that's fine; I just wanted to ask.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Gigogag ( talk · contribs) (see User talk:MuZemike/Archive 4#Gigogag) has socked again as EnchiladaMan ( talk · contribs). I just blocked and tagged the sock. – MuZemike 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
...for your courtesy email. Unfortunately, when I attempted to reply, I received a bounce notification - host not found. As the host site came up readily, it seems likely there is an issue with the mailserver. You may wish to check on this. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 11:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Remember me from Yahoo! Answers? Anyways, just wanted to say hi! Cheers, Razor flame 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred. Re this: does the common knowledge of Denver residents somehow obviate a citation? Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a perfectly reasonable edit, but I'm not interested in a big discussion about it. Do they generally serve white rice and refried beans on a Mexican platter? We don't need published sources for commonplace facts. Fred Talk 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it ito WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred,
I noticed your name in the MUD Wiki. The MUME article did not survive the deletion process (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=347733127#MUME ). This seems to to fit within the scope of MUD Wiki but is not on the "Imported from Wikipedia" list. I'd really like to see MUME added to the MUD Wiki, if someone has time to do so! Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 15:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what was the change here?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just sent you an e-mail. Mjroots ( talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw a recent comment you made on the definition of the word maroon, and I believe it was being used in the Bugs Bunny sense, not the sense you referred to. Neither the Wikipedia page or the Wiktionary page ( wikt:maroon) mention this Bugs Bunny sense, but it is extensively described at the Urban Dictionary page ( maroon). While that source is not always the most reliable, it is largely correct here about maroon being used to mean 'idiot'. Not an ideal use of the word in Wikipedia discourse, but as I said, not what you thought it was being used to mean. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator. [2] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Another user detected a recently published book written by Elvis’s personal physician including a new theory about the cause of Elvis’s death not previously mentioned in the Elvis article, and this user thought it should be added to the Wikipedia article. As this user was an IP and the Elvis article is semi-protected, I added a short quote from this book to the section dealing with Elvis’s death. This edit was immediately removed by another user who argued that this book is not a reliable source, because Elvis’s doctor was exonerated of over-prescription of drugs (which may have contributed to Elvis’s death) and his license was revoked in the 1990s. After some heated discussions containing different opinions about the relevance of the source, I re-included the quote in the Elvis article and it was again removed. Then a participant in the heated discussion took the matter to the administrators’ noticeboard (see [3]) accusing me of trying to post fringe theories about Elvis into the singer's article, thereby bringing up again all the old arbcom cases of 2005 that led to my probation which reads as follows:
Now administrator(?) TFOWR argues that I have violated this probation, as "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification." Therefore TFOWR likes to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." However, I do not think that I have violated my probation, as I have not inserted poorly sourced information or original research . What is your opinion? Did I actually violate my probation? Onefortyone ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The ex-doctor's self-serving opinion on Elvis' death could be considered for the article, provided it's balanced with sources making the ex-doctor's checkered situation crystal clear, so that the readers won't place undue weight on the ex-doctor's opinion. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Blue-box-cheesiest-7.25.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Good day. An IP range you blocked, 115.134.0.0/16, has an IP address within it requesting unblock. As you are likely to have the most knowledge of the scenario, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and possibly advise the user if they appear to be legitimate. User talk:115.134.178.88 is the relevant page. Thank you for your time. -- Taelus ( Talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
While you have the box out, could you please fill out the Info box? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 18:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Kraft Dinner, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
SummerPhD (
talk)
00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
01:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit only removed a wikilink - take care to note that my edit retained the hyperlink itself. A later edit, by yourself, actually, removed the entire copyright notice, see [6]. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to be too procedurally oriented but... Did this get run up the flagpole anywhere for the community?
Just because she asks for it, doesn't make her banned. I don't object to her being banned, but people should really not be added to those lists w/o the proper process, because then someone can say "Oh, but X is here and wasn't really...", and call the whole thing into question...
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a question on why you deleted User talk:Tolgagurcan, U1 doesnt appear to apply to user talk pages (and the request had been removed by another editor on those grounds) and the page had an active block notice on it. Just curious why it has been removed. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Jiujitsuguy when he emailed the functionaries list regarding possible misrepresentation of his views by other activists. I was aware of his frustrations as voiced in the web page referenced, although I'm not sure who controls that webpage, but stressed that although editors with a point of view background or motivation were free to edit that they were expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and culture, once they had an reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them. Fred Talk 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Help, I've been outed again, this time by someone else, but from the same Wisconsin community/issue. Please work your magic or steer me in the right direction. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Guessing you are not editing at the moment, I just sent an email to Oversight, guessing that was the right way to go. Thank you for your past assistance (5 days ago). This new incident may get resolved before you ever see this message. I must be making great edits for people to feel the need to out/intimidate me and ask me to voluntarily stop editing. ;) -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Would like advice on what is considered "outing" and what is allowed in providing other editors with information to demonstrate an editor's personal involvement in a controversy, especially when the editor himself provides many of the very same links on his talk page, as well as in other public online forums such as blog posts discussing the actual controversy at issue (links provided upon request.) I would not have normally included personal information about the editor, but thought it was acceptable since the editor himself already publicly disclosed and acknowledged his identity. Bibliolover ( talk) 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred, I encountered the following citation in the above deleted talk page that did not have a corresponding article. I'll copy it here so you don't lose track of it: [1]
Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanx, Fred. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care. If you don't find proxies, unblock them. I just blocked them because they were not ISPs but web hosting services.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to worry about me blocking them; I'm not an admin. However, they are a technical violation of the username policy in that they are shared accounts. It would probably be a good idea to put an explanation on the userpages explaining what school they are with and how the responsible person can be contacted. That may help alleviate some concerns but someone might still block them at some point. Gigs ( talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I've relied on the talkpage. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed in this section of the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Go ahead. Time will show whether he meant it. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Do whatever. I do not have any opinion about nor can I do anything concerning the rangeblocks at the moment.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the anti-aging movement article, please be very careful to stick as closely as possible to the sources. These people seem to be quite willing to sue individual Wikipedia editors if they dislike the statements that are made in the sources cited. As a word of advice, a "movement" or a "profession" cannot sue, so if you were to say "energy healers are a bunch of dangerous quacks", an individual healer cannot sue for defamation, but if you were to say "energy healing organization X is a bunch of dangerous quacks", then that organization has standing. I'm not saying I have seen anything incorrect, and all your content seems quite acceptable to me, but this is a dangerous area to deal with. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work! No objections here. - Vianello ( Talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Heya I noticed your recent addition of IP block exemption to an account. Ensure that you note this change (and any future IPBE additions) in this log here. The log is used to monitor IPBE usage, etc. Cheers, NJA (t/ c) 10:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The last time he was here was March 31 last year. I think it's unlikely you'll get a response. Half Shadow 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For tirelessly working behind the scenes answering e-mails on Unblock-en-l on the order of many tens, seemingly hundreds, daily, always with a polite word and a large amount of patience. English wikipedia would be swamped without your near incessant work. Thank you! -- Avi ( talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive
User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head. signed - The REAL Zeraeph -- 109.79.193.159 ( talk) 09:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Merry Christmas
![]() |
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
![]() |
Hi Fred
I have proposed the deletion of Category:Suppressed Chinese history, which you created. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Suppressed_Chinese_history. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Chinese war crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do so; I've been away from the site for a couple of days. I can help keep an eye on it as well. Thanks again for all you do! -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Fred Bauder! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The
biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure
verifiability, all biographies should be based on
reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current
825 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Did some communication happen over e-mail, or on another wiki, to warrant this user's unblock? So far, he has used his account pretty much entirely for self-promotional editing and multi-project spam, so I'm not sure what benefit there could be in unblocking him unless he's given you a clear statement of what he intends to do here. (If he has done so that's fine; I just wanted to ask.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Gigogag ( talk · contribs) (see User talk:MuZemike/Archive 4#Gigogag) has socked again as EnchiladaMan ( talk · contribs). I just blocked and tagged the sock. – MuZemike 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
...for your courtesy email. Unfortunately, when I attempted to reply, I received a bounce notification - host not found. As the host site came up readily, it seems likely there is an issue with the mailserver. You may wish to check on this. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 11:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Remember me from Yahoo! Answers? Anyways, just wanted to say hi! Cheers, Razor flame 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred. Re this: does the common knowledge of Denver residents somehow obviate a citation? Cheers, Rivertorch ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a perfectly reasonable edit, but I'm not interested in a big discussion about it. Do they generally serve white rice and refried beans on a Mexican platter? We don't need published sources for commonplace facts. Fred Talk 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * YES! 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it ito WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred,
I noticed your name in the MUD Wiki. The MUME article did not survive the deletion process (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software&oldid=347733127#MUME ). This seems to to fit within the scope of MUD Wiki but is not on the "Imported from Wikipedia" list. I'd really like to see MUME added to the MUD Wiki, if someone has time to do so! Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 15:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what was the change here?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just sent you an e-mail. Mjroots ( talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw a recent comment you made on the definition of the word maroon, and I believe it was being used in the Bugs Bunny sense, not the sense you referred to. Neither the Wikipedia page or the Wiktionary page ( wikt:maroon) mention this Bugs Bunny sense, but it is extensively described at the Urban Dictionary page ( maroon). While that source is not always the most reliable, it is largely correct here about maroon being used to mean 'idiot'. Not an ideal use of the word in Wikipedia discourse, but as I said, not what you thought it was being used to mean. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator. [2] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Another user detected a recently published book written by Elvis’s personal physician including a new theory about the cause of Elvis’s death not previously mentioned in the Elvis article, and this user thought it should be added to the Wikipedia article. As this user was an IP and the Elvis article is semi-protected, I added a short quote from this book to the section dealing with Elvis’s death. This edit was immediately removed by another user who argued that this book is not a reliable source, because Elvis’s doctor was exonerated of over-prescription of drugs (which may have contributed to Elvis’s death) and his license was revoked in the 1990s. After some heated discussions containing different opinions about the relevance of the source, I re-included the quote in the Elvis article and it was again removed. Then a participant in the heated discussion took the matter to the administrators’ noticeboard (see [3]) accusing me of trying to post fringe theories about Elvis into the singer's article, thereby bringing up again all the old arbcom cases of 2005 that led to my probation which reads as follows:
Now administrator(?) TFOWR argues that I have violated this probation, as "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification." Therefore TFOWR likes to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." However, I do not think that I have violated my probation, as I have not inserted poorly sourced information or original research . What is your opinion? Did I actually violate my probation? Onefortyone ( talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The ex-doctor's self-serving opinion on Elvis' death could be considered for the article, provided it's balanced with sources making the ex-doctor's checkered situation crystal clear, so that the readers won't place undue weight on the ex-doctor's opinion. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Blue-box-cheesiest-7.25.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Good day. An IP range you blocked, 115.134.0.0/16, has an IP address within it requesting unblock. As you are likely to have the most knowledge of the scenario, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and possibly advise the user if they appear to be legitimate. User talk:115.134.178.88 is the relevant page. Thank you for your time. -- Taelus ( Talk) 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
While you have the box out, could you please fill out the Info box? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 18:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Kraft Dinner, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
SummerPhD (
talk)
00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
SummerPhD (
talk)
01:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This edit only removed a wikilink - take care to note that my edit retained the hyperlink itself. A later edit, by yourself, actually, removed the entire copyright notice, see [6]. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to be too procedurally oriented but... Did this get run up the flagpole anywhere for the community?
Just because she asks for it, doesn't make her banned. I don't object to her being banned, but people should really not be added to those lists w/o the proper process, because then someone can say "Oh, but X is here and wasn't really...", and call the whole thing into question...
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a question on why you deleted User talk:Tolgagurcan, U1 doesnt appear to apply to user talk pages (and the request had been removed by another editor on those grounds) and the page had an active block notice on it. Just curious why it has been removed. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I engaged in a lengthy correspondence with Jiujitsuguy when he emailed the functionaries list regarding possible misrepresentation of his views by other activists. I was aware of his frustrations as voiced in the web page referenced, although I'm not sure who controls that webpage, but stressed that although editors with a point of view background or motivation were free to edit that they were expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and culture, once they had an reasonable opportunity to become familiar with them. Fred Talk 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Help, I've been outed again, this time by someone else, but from the same Wisconsin community/issue. Please work your magic or steer me in the right direction. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Guessing you are not editing at the moment, I just sent an email to Oversight, guessing that was the right way to go. Thank you for your past assistance (5 days ago). This new incident may get resolved before you ever see this message. I must be making great edits for people to feel the need to out/intimidate me and ask me to voluntarily stop editing. ;) -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling talk 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Would like advice on what is considered "outing" and what is allowed in providing other editors with information to demonstrate an editor's personal involvement in a controversy, especially when the editor himself provides many of the very same links on his talk page, as well as in other public online forums such as blog posts discussing the actual controversy at issue (links provided upon request.) I would not have normally included personal information about the editor, but thought it was acceptable since the editor himself already publicly disclosed and acknowledged his identity. Bibliolover ( talk) 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fred, I encountered the following citation in the above deleted talk page that did not have a corresponding article. I'll copy it here so you don't lose track of it: [1]
Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)