Good luck with your interviews. I'll be following your progress and I look forward to seeing the final results. · jersyko talk 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support! -- Zanimum 20:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I just read the article instead of only the diffs, and saw that Dean Barnett is referred to as Hugh Hewitt's "Man Friday", and that he runs "Soxblog". Think it's him, or just a fan?-- SarekOfVulcan 13:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note, Jersyko. I understand the policy and won't object if you or others would like to remove the links. NIMSP 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I was wondering why you changed all of the edits I made to the Bellevue page. I felt after being around for 100 years, the page focused on a few unfortunate events and not on the ministry of the church. I think by posting the positive things and more about the church shows the blessings that Bellevue has been able to share with others for over a century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwdorris ( talk • contribs).

You removed several paragraphs of information that were verifiable in reliable sources and replaced them with non-neutral information that is not verifiable in reliable sources. While I might agree that the article gives a bit too much weight to the recent events, the events certainly warrant mention in the article. In any event, the article must remain neutral and verifiable in reliable sources. Thanks. · jersyko talk 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well I think that the part on controversy could be significantly shortened and much of the information came from the church website and material which is a verifiable source. It can be "neutral" and still promote positive attributes about the church because after 100 years the does not represent the church well. The history should be lengthened to tell about the tradition of the Love Offering which was is a big deal with lots of meaning to the church. There is nothing about communit and mission impacts. After looking at other prominant church articles, Bellevue's is rather pathetic and should be edited to include more history and the vastness of the ministries. Also, the Passion Play and Singing Christmas Tree should be mention, as they draw large crowds of 40,000+ every year. So I think this article needs major changes.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work on Immigration to the United States I award you this Barnstar. Keep up the good work. Murchy 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm leaning more toward 99%. Tvoz | talk 05:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Doug_martsch.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italia ^vivi 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry you won't be able to attend. Thank you for the well wishes! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Doin' my part to make us all famous... A few details not quite right - and I said a whole lot more that didn't make it in - but all in all, not so bad. Front page even. Tvoz | talk 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think your your work on the Sufjan Stevens article has much improved it's readibility. I don't have to time to lean how to edit, but if you are inclined, these facts would add to the article's accuracy; both may be easily verified.

"Maple River" as a clue to the possibility that Sufjan's next "state" album will be about Minnesota: There are a number of Maple Rivers in the U.S., and one of them, in the Northwest lower pennisula of Michigan, runs within or near the county where Sufjan lived for many years as a child and young adult- Emmet County, Michigan. This is the Maple River of the song title.

The reference to Sufjan reading a book about Robert Moses: As it reads now, the statement relates only to the fact that both Sufjan and Moses live/lived in New York City. For many decades, Robert Moses controlled urban development and renewal in NYC, and was responsible for planning and building the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the subject of the instrumental piece Sufjan has written for performance at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in November, '07.

Regards, 3cats1dog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3cats1dog ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersyko, I verified the info on the Rhodes College page. Apparently, the college had some folks updating some of the factual enrollment and other numbers on their page, and they were aware that they weren't allowed to update their own page or it would show up as a COI tag. There was no attempt to deceive; rather, some of their info was out-of-date... --Stacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truk mazzy ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Tony Alamo is a minister of the Bible and has many friends in the Christian community. Churches around the world have literally started churches under Tony Alamo's name. To delete a section in Tony Alamo's article entitled "Public Ministry" certainly would not fall under the catagory of NPOV. He is a minister and many have testified regarding this. he has had letters from reputable christian based colleges commending his literature within the last five years. The "Dubious source" and weasel words" as you (Jersyko) have put it are very wrong. I will be forced to bring this to arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Jerseyko Is deleting small section of a Christian Minister's public ministry section newly created by me, Tlthe5th. The minister's name is Tony Alamo and has had controversy surrounding him but to be nuetral i believe it should be said that Tony is considered a Christian minister by many including very well known and established Christian Universities. Baylor University in Texas for instance. Churches around the world have been founded and named after Tony Alamo because of the profound effect his literature has had.

there was a web site set up listing some testimonies of individuals who have found God (the God of the Bible) through Tony's literature and Jersyko deleted them citing "dubious sources" and "weasel words". Yet other web sites which are alleging slander against Mr Alamo are allowed to stay up. Is this NPOV? Matter of fact one of the web sites which is slandering Mr. Alamo was shut down by the host due to possible legal retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlthe5th ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your friendly reminder about sock puppetry, that is not what is going on in that case. I do not have more than one account on Wikipedia. Rather, as a Rhodes alum (as are you) and a Rhodes staff member, I was asked to help resolve the COI tag on the Rhodes page. While I've used Wikipedia as a information resource for years, I've never edited an article. And I'm obviously still new to, and ignorant of, many of the various Wikipedia policies, including COI, which I now understand and appreciate.

As a fellow Rhodes alum, I'm sure you would like to help remove the COI cloud over the Rhodes College page. Do you have any suggestions for how this page can be quickly reviewed by an impartial observer so that COI tag can be legitimately removed?

The page is not a lengthy one, so it may be easier to review than others that require a more in-depth investigation.

Truk mazzy 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersyko --

Someone from IP address 69.22.219.18 seems to be on a campaign to undo your edits.

See [1]

-- Terry Carroll 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

United States Senate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- RelHistBuff 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

User:MD12752 - Remind you of anyone? Like this guy? I mean, identical style username as a previous sockpuppet, identical edit style, identical scope. I'm not an expert bird-watcher, so I'll let you make the call. -- Haemo 04:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have no idea who this MD12752 guy is, but he left a bizarre message on the talk pages of several admins, including me. I'm very unfamiliar with anything going on regarding the Clinton article, but this MD12752 guy seems odd to me. Why would he, out of the blue, leave a cryptic message on my talk page regarding the Clinton article and some "error in the Prentice position" article. Also, he used to claim to be a doctor [2] which I see appears to have been the case with a prior sockpuppet. -- MatthewUND^{( talk)} 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Same registration date too, eh? -- Haemo 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I concur - same pattern on several levels. He's been busy today. Tvoz | talk 05:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

MD12752 just sent me two emails. One email focused on his desire for me to unblock Dereks1x. The other email answered my question of why he chose to contact me about this...mainly because I'm a North Dakotan and we are honest, helpful people...sure. My theory is that he is trying to find an admin who is not familiar with Dereks1x's history, confuse the admin with the bizarre types of messages he left on my talk page, and when the admin is thoroughly confused...convince the admin to unblock Dereks1x. -- MatthewUND^{( talk)} 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the guy that you banned was with we when we both started to edit. You know why you have such a problem? It's because you are banning several people, at least 3, maybe more. You think it's one person but who has so much time to edit? If you persist in this banning attitude, you just prove that you want to control a certain section of wikipedia. You are more interested in your power because if you weren't, you wouldn't be banning so many people, even those that are politically of the similar viewpoints as you.

You claim disruption but where is the disruption except you being disruptive bullying others? I am not my brother's keeper but the users that I see whom you accused of being a sock had valid points raised. MD12752 06:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Right, you are not your brother's keeper, you are your brother. This is clearly another Dereks1x sock, the third one uncovered in the last few hours. Tvoz | talk 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Clearly a sock. Blocked. Thanks everyone. · jersyko talk 11:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this more along the lines of what you had in mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf46 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started ( 2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I argued that official photos carry a POV incompatible with the Wikipedia philosophy and you asked me to elaborate.

Photographs tell a story; official photographs, whether distributed by government organizations or political campaigns have undergone careful crafting to project a controlled image for an ideological purpose. While no photograph (or statement for that matter) realizes perfect neutrality (because, even with attestible assertions, willful inclusion and exclusion shape a message), an official photograph in a Wikipedia biography counts as the visual analog of a subject writing his or her own biography.

I have attempted to offer photographs I took at a recent event meant to capture Edwards as he seemed on that day, attempting neither to vaunt him nor to paint him in an unflattering light. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have neither decided to vote for him or not, so I avow that I do in fact portray him from a neutral viewpoint. Dvfinnh 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have sources and if you continue to block these edits then i will have to report it to wikipedia mgmt.

Your attempt to conceal is very obvious. I have demostrated Harold ford dated the women and is FACT. They say so on their blogs and is known to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergn ( talk • contribs)

Just in case no one gets around to it before you log in. Two more Dereks1x socks.[ [3]] -- Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

wat did i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.89.102 ( talk) 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jones Green Apple Soda.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Jersyko! I was interested in post-Reconstruction political history, specifically the divide within the Republican Party (Stalwarts vs. Half-Breeds). Per chance, I checked out Kenneth D. Ackerman's Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield from my local library. It was a captivating work about the 1880 Republican National Convention, the internal conflict within the Republican Party, and the events that led to Garfield's assassination. I saw no article was written about the 1880 Republican National Convention, so I started working on it in my sandbox, until it was completed. :) Nishkid64 ( talk) 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've sent you an email. Picaroon (t) 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks like an IP you recently blocked is now making disrutpion on their talk page [4]. Semi-protection may be a good idea.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I know about the wrong version, but this is a vandal version that's protected. Can you at least go back before the IP vandal and then protect THAT version. It would be appreciated, and less embarassing to Wikipedia. ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersyko, while I commend you for protecting the article, I would say pretty much everyone would agree you did protect the wrong version (ya, those). If you're unsure, please take a look at the article history, at WP:ANI#Negro and at WP:3RR where IP 222.155.xxx.xxx has been active. This is a suspected sock of a banned user (Hayden5650 a.k.a. Nordic Crusader). If you're still unsure that this is indeed vandalism which should be revertd, I'll be moe than happy to discuss and provide further info.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The proof is in the history you'll see a number of editors reverting that vandal sock IP. Here's the last one before you protected it: [5] ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The article should be left as is. The template plainly states it is not an endorsement, and removing the picture would prevent good debate. Constructive debate has been started on the talkpage. -- 222.155.47.162 ( talk) 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I can assure you this is merely a content dispute, and discussion has been started. There is no vandalism, the dispute is over a portrait.

Oh, hell no. You are gaming the system....again. This is not merely a content dispute, and you know it. It is incorrect information, in fact it is trolling. And you know that too. Putting "crispy negro" lynching photo in before. ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

THANK YOU! ~ Jeeny ^(talk) 00:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Jersyko,, while I may have problems proving just by this article that this is indeed vandalism, please take a look at the list of contributions of all the different 222.155.xxx.xxx that have reverted on the article over the last 24 hours. I trust you will find a definite pattern of vexatory edits, on user talk pages, at ANI, at 3RR and here. If you look back between 24 and 48 hours, you will find that such a series of edits by a 222.xxx (such as this: [6])even changed the intro to say that Negro was a term describing a species of mammal falling midway between Humans and the common Monkey.

I rest my case.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! :)-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

tlthe5th is apparantly back to vandalising the page on Alberto Rivera he is just not logging in. He is revising under the IP address 69.22.219.18, you may want to consider blocking that IP. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmerian ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

who are you trying to fool posting a threat on my talk page and supporting the agenda pushing vandals? Cliché Online ( talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew Kohut, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{ db-author}} to the top of Andrew Kohut. β^_command 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack and rexella.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Response to Primalchaos and Jersyko concerning use of the phrase "also known as The Democrat Party". I understand what you are saying, but is WIKI about accuracy or about political correctness? Regardless of the positive or negative connotation some choose to place on the noun 'Democrat' or the adjective 'Democratic', the issue here is not one of spin. The specific issue is whether the 'subject' of the Wiki article, the American political party commonly known as 'The Democratic Party' is 'also known as' -- or known by -- other words. And also whether those words are ones commonly applied to the subject, and commonly understood to mean the subject. If the answer is yes, then incorporating the words that the subject is 'also known as' is a valid and appropriate usage, and that includes whether or not one chooses to interpret those 'other words' in positive or negative light. I will also post this message on the article's discussion page. Fungible 09:40, 05 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Differing views ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of Ourshalf ourshalf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought you were on line, I took it to AIV. Regards.-- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Jersyko, I noticed that you removed the tags from the Steve Cohen page. Am I breaking a rule by doing this?

Thanks, Danielc192 ( talk) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It sounds to me like the situation has to be toned down. Striking out comments is not the answer. I denied the RFPP anyway! The most important question for WP seems to be who is David Saks and should he be in Memphis? Why not RFC it? Who is David Saks?

The question is not who is right or wrong. The question should be who is David Saks? Archtransit ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Discussed ad nauseam, consensus reached. That is not the question anymore. The question is why David Saks continues to post on Wikipedia in violation of his block for a legal threat. · jersyko talk 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Received your e-mail. Replying with commentary about how to resolve problems. Archtransit ( talk) 18:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, boy. You know, I was just thinking the other day that it seemed like a long time since this one had come up.

I've checked out the posts, and it's clear from the style that this account is a sock of User:Reneec. So the next step should absolutely be an SSP report, not dispute resolution. I doubt a checkuser is even possible at this point (those logs don't hang around all that long) but I really don't think one would be needed anyway.

I can appreciate Archtransit's desire for harmonious editing, but given that this is pretty clearly Reneec, and considering the threats Reneec made, I don't think there's much of a chance for that. Further, unless there are any new arguments to be made that justify revisiting the matter (MiSoDS's comments at RFPP and some quick google web and news searches for Saks's name tell me there isn't), there's really no point in dragging a long-settled issue into dispute resolution. This isn't a dispute between two editors, or two groups of editors. This is one very tendentious editor trying to act against consensus. -- Vary | Talk 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Filed at ssp. -- Vary | Talk 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Heh, sure. Glad that finally got sorted out. -- Vary | Talk 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I should have said "yet to be determined by me". I should also say that I doubt I will make such determination. (I have no desire to join the Memphis Police Department-Wikipedia Police Station or the prosecutor's office of Memphis.) You have page protected the Memphis talk page so a valid discusssion is impossible. These are just observations and not a request for you to do something. Archtransit ( talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A valid discussion already took place and consensus was reached. · jersyko talk 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated David "None of the Above" Gatchell, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David "None of the Above" Gatchell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Redfarmer ( talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarity. I assure you that the unwieldy (undue weight) nature of my entry was unintended. Also, I am Canadian and far left (whatever that means), so I can also assure you that I am not working for the Hillary Campaign; my only desire was to help complete the picture. Actually, I rather wondered if Obama's criticism of another candidate's position had any place amongst the " Political positions of Barack Obama" at all. It seemed more like an embedded criticism of Clinton than an example from his platform. Still, I shy from contesting the work of others and so simply added to it. - horseytown 2008-02-18 04:30 UTC

The Office (U.S. TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan ( talk • contribs)