This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In response to your question, I wouldn't normally do that, but the user was involved in making unconstructive edits before, so he/she should know by now that it's not appropriate. ~ Troy ( talk) 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, check out the bottom of the current requests section.   jj137 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

203.152.117.77 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just days after you blocked this user, they are back to vandalizing again. Viriditas ( talk) 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Delanoy. I would like to recommend you find what's causing you to be on Category:WikiLove templates, and remove it.Thanks.-- Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich ( talk) ( contributions) ( email) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you By the way, what does the J stand for anyway?-- Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich ( talk) ( contributions) ( email) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have understood in my years using Wikipedia that it gives access for everyone to know everything about everything and everyone. For that reason i don't find the page i added inappropriate, especially not when i plan on editing it into a full article. I'm sure you have no idea who the man is or what he has achieved during his life and are in no position to state whether it's an inappropriate page or not, but i'd be willing to share more information if need be.

Sharps86 ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not intended to be purely negative. I have to edit and keep saving to make sure i know what i'm doing is actually coming up on the screen, once i'm better at that i'm sure i will add more before saving. I'm halfway through editing something by the time you delete it, is it so much to ask to have you just monitor something for more than half a second before considering it inappropriate?

I have read the deletion page, i am now satisfied.

Sharps86 ( talk) 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the Wikilove template category from my archive. I didn't even know it was on there (must have been accidentally added on there when I was given Wikilove. Saved me the time of Requesting for Unprotection, removing it, then requesting protection again. Thanks again. :) </wikilove> <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider the speedy deletion of this article? In my opinion, it doesn't seem to meet criteria G11. The article has been around for more than a year and the ASCO is certainly a notable organzation that Wikipedia should have an article about. I'd rather see it edited to remove any advertising rather than having it just deleted. Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry about the mishap on the sandbox the other day. You're the last person on the planet that I would've suspected to be the first guy to vandalize test my public sandbox ;). Cheers, ~ Troy ( talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion on my talk page; you were certainly well within the boundaries of common sense to assume that it was vandalism, and I'm grateful for your effort. However, I did feel it might be worthwhile to explain one point, which is why I restored his comments and left a note on his talk page -- essentially, I started it off, and I felt I should finish it. Thanks just the same for your efforts to protect me from this, and I'll look in on the AfD. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you rolled back some vandalism on my page, and I just wanted to take a second to thank you. So...thanks again! Miquonranger03 ( talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC):D

Ed Kalnins: I do not understand why you say I vandalised a page. These three pages were my first (except for an edit about composer JS Bach, and filmmaker Tarkovsky). I explained on the talk page of the editor, who requested I do so, why the expression "Sarah Palin's Pastor", should have its own page, especially since it refers to someone who is not her pastor, and has been used on cable news all day today.

1. "Sarah Palin's Pastor" The expression "Sarah Palin's Pastor" refers to Ed Kalnins, who is NOT her pastor.

2. Wasilla Assembly of God. The link for Wasilla Assembly of God on Sarah Palin's home page does NOT go to the Wikipedia page for "Wasilly Assembly of God". Why?

3. I have been repeastedly told that Ed Kalnins is NOT a notable person by editors. He has an entire congregation and is the liftlong pastor of the first female vice presidential candidate of the Republican party, who is distingushed precsely by her religeous pretensions, and he as made some extremely controversial remarks, like that half the country will not get into heaven for voting for Kerry, or that detractors of Bush' Katrina handling would go to hell), even though there was explicit reference to his own church site with videotapes of him making the remarks. What better source could there be? The quotes were sourced by a link to videotapes in which you can see and hear him making them, as well as other links.

Does everyone have to spend the whole day like this trying to get facts, which have a partisan impact, but are facts nonetheless, on Wikipedia? I thought this would be simple, but I have been all day.

I am especially disturbed by "Wasilly Assembly of God" linking to a different article from the much visited Sarah Palin page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

- EricDiesel (I do not know how to sign yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandal on my talk page! -- ŦħęGɛя㎥ 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, you just won't stop huggling those vandals (for about an hour now). So, you get this shiny thing:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep up the superfantastic work! Schfifty Three 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy, I am res2216firestar and I have been editing wikipedia for awhile now. One of my main interests has been fighting vandalism, and I think that I will be much more capable if I have rollback right. I know from you beating me to reverts that you fight vandalism, so I decided to ask you. So look over my record, I'm not afraid of a "no". res2216firestar ( talk • contribs • count)-- res 2216 firestar 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!-- res 2216 firestar 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you semi-protected Republican Party (United States). Might be a good idea to do the same for Democratic Party (United States). Thanks for your efforts against vandalism! — KCinDC ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — KCinDC ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I was just going to report the vandal, but you had blocked him already :) Chamal ^Talk 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you need a HD TV to use the PS3? My friends tell me its the the Xbox Elite were it comes with a click that says HD and TV.-- Lbrun12415 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for uploading Image:Pshomelogo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn ( talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle must just send it to the first uploader. I saw it was sending to you and felt guilty, I hate sending those messages to established editors. J Milburn ( talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again. Were you going to consider co-nominating me on my RFA that Husond created? Well, you may go ahead, feel free to write a co-nomination for me if you'd like to. Husond prompted me that I should let you know tonight, which I decided to do so. I'll see how the RfA goes tomorrow, after I get some sleep and get done with classes (I'll probably get that question from Xenocidic!). Schfifty Three 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. As A Prodogy said on my talk page, I am back at school and studying for GCSEs as well as doing quite a bit of cycling. I may be back at some point to huggle with you again :) Tiddly- Tom 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't know, but date linking has been deprecated: MOS:UNLINKDATES -- NE2 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please remove the cascading option in your protection of the page User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin? Because of this protection Template:United States presidential election, 2008 is currently uneditable. Thank you.-- William Saturn ( talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it seems like the McCain signature is not loading. Maybe it's a temporary thing. 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Image:Mccainsig.svg. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 04:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Randomly ended up in your page and after seeing your contributions I was stunned! 70-odd thousand edits, mostly in reverting vandalism! You're crazy! But you truly deserve this barnstar.  S3000   ☎ 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		For your hours and hours of fighting vandalism, here's an award you really deserve!  S3000   ☎ 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. This is the best award I could find for you!  S3000   ☎ 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-alerts Prodego ^talk 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we meet again! I've added a 3RR report for this user, as it's been 4 reverts so far. It's not just him/her, though, and not just here. I can't find anything about this being true, though. Miquonranger03 ( talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

all those ips on Riskers talk page aren't open proxies. Grawp just goes to 4chan and says go this revision and press save page and of course all the nitwits there do so. They should still be blocked for their stupidity but a year seems excessive for residential ips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.25.156 ( talk) 04:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. A user you gave a final warning to has vandalised wikipedia again, and he is User:RawDog711. His edit was on Help:CentralAuth. Please block him.-- 79.74.1.98 ( talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! *high five* My goodness...the vandals are swarming tonight. Mating season, perhaps? miquonranger03 ( talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) :D

Oh, I've had this account for 2 years and...erm...7 months? but I've only been active for about 6 days. My absence was due to a particularly bad case of WP:BITE. I'll be here for a while, though. miquonranger03 ( talk) 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) :D

Thanks. I take it as a compliment that these people chose to spend their time on Wikipedia, and even beyond that, they chose to click "edit this link" and consistently take the time to ruin a large amount of typing. Especially on talk pages. :D miquonranger03 ( talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Beating me to reverting EVERY SINGLE edit that I have attempted to revert in huggle constitutes vandalism. I order you to cease and desist beating me before I beat you to beating.... Now i'm lost!! Anyways, good job man. Here you go. Vandalism destroyer ( talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, J.

You might want to consider semi-protecting your pages again, as they've come under fire recently by vandals you've reverted/warned. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 ( AVE· CAESAR) 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm getting tired of trying to revert vandalism when you're around :-( A Prodigy  ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me so many times last night, and again today. How could I not give you this?

Your message when one trys to edit your page is great! No I wasn't going to vandalise, just wanted to copy the codes for some of your userboxes, oh well, Theterribletwins1111 ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much! if you Could give me the coconut one that'd be great! thanks Theterribletwins1111 ( talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou! Theterribletwins1111 ( talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will study the links. Barliman Butterbur ( talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit history of Brian.  :) Corvus cornix _talk 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to an older version thinking I was removing the Britney Spears line from the Oprah article but accidentally I put it back in. I got confused with all the edits. I tried to correct my mistake but you beat me to do it. 99.224.137.2 ( talk) 23:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[1] Maybe we should protect the Earth ... imagine the headlines: "Wikipedia Administrators Save World!" .. reminds me of a Larry Niven story somewhere ... :) Antandrus (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A few questions.

1. Does Wikipedia state anywhere that there is a limit on the amount of bias a review can contain, as long as we lay the information out neutrally?

2. If you apply a link to an article, does that count as contributing that information to the article, or is it separate? In other words, if I were to add a completely biased link to an article for a review, would it be allowed, or would the link have to be removed because it violates WP:NPOV?

Also, one more: Is refusing to reach a consensus on a talk page grounds for a ban? Because I think a user just threatened to attempt to get me banned, because I will not agree with his own logic. Thanks in advance. -- The Guy _complain ^edits 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply!

1. I don't know for sure. I think that as long as the source is generally reliable, and our article is neutral, it doesn't really matter.

That's what I thought. I have a user trying to tell me that the amount of bias an article we link could potentially damage the article, which I believe could be true except for the fact that Wikipedia has no scales on that. You'd have to use your own judgment and that would be a violation of WP:OR, I think.

2. A link, as in a reference or an external link?

An external link. Like the format for linking a review (Example: *Publication name/Review score/External link)

3. No, absolutely not. On any talk page, as long as you stay on topic, remain civil, refrain from making personal attacks, and do not edit war on the main article to instate your preferred version, you will never be blocked.

Also what I thought. I really don't know what the user is implying. He accused me of being purely antagonistic (as in not wanting to serve the article's purposes, but my own), he accused me of vandalism, and then he said something like "if you don't stop, I will have to bring a high power into the fold, because you're out of hand." (I don't remember the exact quote)

4. I would be interested to know... Which article are you talking about?

Same one I've come to you with three times now -- Indestructible.

The story is that he's questioning the bias of a review that was submitted, saying that the reviewer had clear bias, and that it would damage the article. I think the article needs the neutral score, because as it stands, there's 3 neutral scores, against 5 positive. So anyways, he's telling me "you can't just add a link to a review that's blatantly bias against the band, that's damaging." I asked him to link me to where Wikipedia defines "blatantly biased," because as far as I see, Wikipedia only mentions the word bias, it has no scales of degree, so he'd have to be using his own judgment to define how bias it is -- a violation of WP:OR. So instead of simply either linking me to a guideline where Wikipedia defines levels of bias, or telling me that Wikipedia doesn't, he tells me "it would be absurd to even consider that Wikipedia adds things that are blatantly bias." Again no link, just more original research, back with some talk of common sense -- to me, that's not viable or convincing. It's continued like that -- Me asking him to link me to various policies he's describing, only for him to say things like "I don't have to, your argument is so nonsensical, and mine makes sense." I want to settle the issue, but is he's defining things like measures of bias himself, I'm not going to let that take away from the neutrality of the article, and now its to the point where he's assuming bad faith, and accusing me of being purely antagonistic, with no helpful motives. -- The Guy _complain ^edits 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just replied to the comment you made on the talk page of the article in question, you might want to read over my comment, and re-read the discussion. I suppose I never clarified that said discussion was about 2 reviews. One was the Rolling Stone review (which we resolved) and the other about the IGN review (which is the one in question for bias). -- The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I ended up just slapping the poster with a WP:NPA template. He's both assuming bad faith, and personally attacking me with every post, and I believe that's uncivil, and if he continues, I will take appropriate action. -- The Guy _complain ^edits 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I think I messed up in slapping him with a template... Did I do bad or good? -- The Guy _complain ^edits 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So! Today brought my first legal threats. I think the lawyers of Cristina Schultz have been removing factual, sourced content that they believe to be slander (although it is perfect NPOV) against her, from the article. Diff They vandalized my user page, diff and also the RFPP page diff (which they had added a request to earlier diff after three times I reverted their removal of content). I placed the following message on the IP's talk page [2], referring them to the NLT page. Do you feel that that was appropriate? Also, is there anything else I should do that I haven't done? Thanks! miquonranger03 ( talk) 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. It was a bit amusing I checked the history when I saw it, and by the time I had gone to revert, you already had gotten to it. Thanks :) - Unforgiven24 ( talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting silly, various editors can't even make up their mind. I've put in a protection request. Is there any danger of me getting blocked for 3RR if this carries on and I revert more? Thanks Doug Weller ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Received a 6 month block on February 25. edits since then Enigma ^message 15:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, J.delanoy. Thank you for your observations. Please review the following (from a post to one of the challenging editors' Talk page) and advise. Begging everyone's pardon that I was *not* the one who started this firestorm/flame-out (or whatever the proper cyber term for it is), I merely made to parallel edits to two related articles in similar character to dozens if not scores of other ones like them I have made in the past. It was the immdediate and hair-trigger responses of the two hot-tempered "editors" which turned everything nuclear.

Here goes:

Bob Ross deletions

Please be specific about what you objected to in the deletions and why. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They were inappropriate removals of properly sourced, relevant content, in particular you removed basic biographical information from a biographical article for no valid reason. Do not repeat such actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Number one, mind your tone. You are acting *VERY* imperiously and not in keeping with the Wikipedia community ethic. Number two, I was very clear why I deleted the content: it did not contribute to the article; moreover, it was not up to Wikipedia standards (using only first names for wives as if readers are or should be familiar with them on that basis). If you would like to research and rewrite the content in question, please do, but do go around weilding authority in the threatening fashion that you are. When you rewrite it, please integrate why these marriages and their outcomes are relevant to the article and Mr. Ross' career. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Number one, stop vandalizing articles, period or get blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing articles: I was very clear why I made the edits I did. You, on the other hand, have an attitude. Viz your own User page:

"These articles are ones that are of special interest to me, but that I may have only made minor contributions too, or where my editing has been limited to mostly vandal smacking.

....Bob Ross - grew up watching him and use his painting technique; his article is unfortunately frequently vandalized by childish idiots"

I am not a "childish idiot". I did not vandalize the page. Please provide your rank and authority as a Wikipedia editor to make the threats towards me that you are. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You did vandalize this article and Joy of Painting, hence multiple editors reverting your wholly inappropriate removal of valid, sourced content. If you remove valid content from either article again, you will be reported to the administrators for blocking. Period. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not vandalize it. My reasons are clear; your defense is not. You are not an administrator, yet you threaten as if you are one. You should be blocked the way you treat another Wikipedian: this is not how the community is supposed to act and react towards one-another. Please advise the proper procedure for escalating this difference of opinion so that the matter may be amicably resolved with the assistance of a moderator. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way is for an admin who happens to have this talk page watchlisted to drop in and suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down for a little bit. Wikiuser100, the best way to go about discussing article content is to take it to the article talk page and bring in other editors for a civil discussion about the benefits to the article of a) removing the information, or b) leaving it and improving sourcing. Generally, it's better to improve an article by adding sources, than it is to just delete, in my view. Repeatedly deleting when other editors are trying to engage you in discussion is often considered disruptive, and I can understand the warnings you received in this case. Please discuss rationally with involved editors on the article talk page to find consensus. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping in, Tony, and your calming words. Point of clarification, however: I was not the one doing multiple deleting/undoing, and other editors did not engage me to discuss things before making threats: I had simply made similar changes to both the Bob Ross and its related Joy of Painting page: in the first case to seek to clean up a below Wikipedia standard paragraph on Ross' marriages - which did not bring anything germane to the article as presented, employing only wives first names and adding divorce and in one case death date but without establishing any relevance to the subject of the article, Bob Ross; I also deleted what amounts to a promotional/pop cultural reference to a video game that has not been produced and is only being "shopped around" after being rejected by a major manufacturer. Similarly, this does not meet Wikipedia standards for relevance.

The edits to the Joy of Painting page were parallel: first, deleting the above - which is not an actual product, just a concept being pitched -, and second deleting trivial pop cultural references to minor parodies of Ross's personna and work. None of this content was significant (or would warrant a page of its own), and its removal was not injurious to the articles; rather, it streamlined and kept them more relevant rather than less.

It was the reactions of the two editors who near instantaneously posted their hostile and threatening rebukes on my Talk page within moments of one-another that started the firestorm. It is not cricket at all for such pedestrians - like myself - to go around making imperious threats and posting intimidating looking icons next to them to increase their apparent authority and bully a timid editor into submission, in one case invoking automatic "vandalism" reversion software to enforce their unilateral decisions to not challenge, partially incorporate, or improve but imperiously overrule my edit - which has just as much validity as their own.

So, now we take to the article talk pages, but how do we end up anywhere else? I have made clear to both editors who undid my edits why I made those I did - even invited one to do a rewrite - and still hold to my views. They, evidently, to theirs. How do we move forward? Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

-end of entry-

I hope this makes it clearer for you just who ignited the firestorm - though their whys remain unclear; my reasons have been given. Please advise on the best way to proceded. Thank you. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been told several times now how to proceed -- on the article talk pages to seek consensus from the Wikipedia community. Please stop the wikidrama, it is perfectly permissible for editors to leave cautions and warnings on another user's talk page when that user's edits are done in such a way that they appear to be vandalism.  –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from your continued hostility that we are not going to accomplish anything meaningful trying to arrive at "consensus" at the user pages for either the Bob Ross article (guarded against the actions of "idiots" by Collectonian) or the Joy of Painting (policed equally assiduously by yourself). Please see my expanded comments at Colectonian's Talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collectonian as a point of departure.

And, no, the edits that started off this tempest in a teapot were not vandalism. My reasons for the parallel deletions were stated in the Edit summary field at both relevant websites. The responses, however, cavalierly treating them as such when patently they were not might be better construed as such.

With a heavy heart - this is not life and death, folks, it is a volunteer effort, one where Ockham's Razor began as Wikipedia's guiding rule - and a heavy keyboard it is off to dispute resolution we go. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An obvious vandalism only account, I've reported him to administrators and don't expect to hear from him again. UniversalBread ( talk) 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I had seen his posts indicating imminent vandalism of the site on a related forum and decided I'd help out. Can you also lock the Newgrounds and Tom Fulp redirect articles in case he returns with a different proxy? UniversalBread ( talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess not although when it occurred multiple times I made a request, it will likely be denied. Thanks anyway! UniversalBread ( talk) 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy! What is the situation on the article Merlin Gill? Since it's been considered deleting ( here), why has it not been done? I think, since it's not backed up with references, as well as poor content of information about the person (birthdate, etc.), it should be deleted. Panmaker ( talk) 07:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Track Palin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Track Palin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Grutness... wha? 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Think you were a bit quick to revert these edits. I tracked down a reference, and cleaned up the wording, making a clearer new version. But having done this, the article still seemed rather thin - more a definition than an encyclopedia entry. It struck me that fire pots, of which a Kangdi is an example, are an interesting subject with a long history. So maybe the entry for Kangdi should redirected to a fuller article on fire pots around the world and through the ages. I made a start, but before I do much more, is this going to be rejected for some reason? Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

O.k. Will continue. Thanks. Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a mistake. See current version of Fire pot. This is just scratching the surface. Maybe if I focus on my day job for a while, someone else will clean it up ... Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I keep seeing your talk page being vandalised by IP's. If you want to stop it, you can semi-protect the page. That will stop them. This is just a suggestion to stop the vandalism that happening on your talk page. Thanks. Techman224 ( talk) 20:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone's vandalizing my user page, block them please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techman224 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect my talk page for lets say, 3 hours. See if it stops? Techman224 ( talk) 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page! Techman224 ( talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for stopping vandalism on my talk page! Techman224 ( talk) 20:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's me again. I saw under your user page that you will take requests on rollback, and I'm here to request it. I want to help clean wikipedia of vandalism. I have been very good lately with twikkle and want to use rolback to help revert vandalism more quickly. Thanks for reading! Techman224 ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I protest the granting of rollback to this user. He has been better in the past few days using Twinkle, but he has received numerous warnings over the past month for reverting legitimate edits and reposting copyrighted material and vandalism. In every case he has refused to acknowledge his mistakes and instead excises the warnings from his talk page. In my opinion he is not careful enough with the tools he has and could do some damage with rollback privileges. Wronkiew ( talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, because even if his accuracy has improved, his reticence to admit mistakes is going to be a problem when he interacts with new users. However, if you're willing to watch over his diffs, go ahead and leave it. Wronkiew ( talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I report users for vandalism? I'm assuming I can to you, since you're an administrator: if not, point me in the right direction. I'll try and keep this short.

TheSickBehemoth violated the 3RR on Death Magnetic, so I reported him for it. I added the warning tag for the 3RR violation to his talk page, and he removed it and proceeded to say to me, "You didn't need to report me, you big baby," a personal attack. So I tagged his page with the personal attack template, which he removed. I'm thinking that is a violation of conduct, to remove validly added tags, so I added a removing conduct tag. He took that down and added it to my profile, vandalism and another 3RR violation on his own talk page. So I removed the tag from my own profile, and slapped him with a few vandalism tags (He repeated consecutively, so I kept re-adding tags of the next level until it was level 4). He removed the level 4 tag from his own profile, and added it to mine. More vandalism and removal of content, after being warned consecutive times. Go ahead and look through my talk page history and his. If I'm mistaken in reporting him to you, point me in the right direction. If I'm mistaken in reporting him at all, tell me. If you'd like to know anything else, just ask ;) -- The Guy _complain ^edits 22:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude :)

I just thought he already did it, so he can get banned for it. Didn't realize bans were like that, but, thanks for the insight! (For the record, I'm not sore about him calling me that :)) -- The Guy _complain ^edits 23:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I needed a break from article writing/sourcing, so I thought I would check out Huggle. Anyways, I found out you need rollback, so I applied and was turned down because I haven't cleaned up any vandalism. That's fine and I get it. I installed TW and have used it a few times and tried the warn feature as well. Would you mind looking over my use of TW to make sure I am on the right track? Thanks so much. XF Law ( talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the review. I'll keep plugging away, and request in a few weeks! Bye. XF Law ( talk) 06:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

on wikipedia : fictional article that needs to be deleted immediately

Someone created a fictional soccer player on wiki and the page needs to be deleted immediately. read this blog http://sizandinho.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html , and scroll down , and it would become obvious that this infact is fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.27.216 ( talk) 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has loaded a lot of rubbish into this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen.

J.J. McVeigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmcveigh ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You rv'd this guy here and they came back here. Obvious indef sock blocks needed! Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Utan Vax ( talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this reversion is actually true in the episode, it is, however, not needed in the description, so I reverted the warning on the IP's talk page. Hope this is ok! :) Ctjf83 Talk 19:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem...LOL, thanks for fixing my talk page! I was just looking at the history to see what I deleted of Cirt's post to fix your post from running into it, and you already fixed it! :) Ctjf83 Talk 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was I blocked for a second there? Message from XENU ^{u, t} 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, accidents happen. We're only human. Message from XENU ^{u, t} 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth does the status indicator work on your user page? And have you got any advice on making a good user page? Tahnks. Message from XENU ^{u, t} 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! Message from XENU ^{u, t} 19:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind giving my a second opinion on this RFPP request please? If you need more information, please ask....there is alot. Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just looking for IP protection (that is Full Partial, right? :S). I think it we take out the IP access, it will be harder for them to vandalize the page. Plus, if they wanted to use registered accounts, like Chrismichelle (which made the same edits, only once, today), they would be caught quicker than the IPs, which can be changed quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah...hey, not bad for, I think, my 6th RFPP (only my 2nd checkuser). I will keep an eye out come tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully they get the message, but I don't think they will. If you want to close that RFPP, that is cool. Take Care and Have a Good Evening... NeutralHomer • Talk 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think giving them a level 5 vandalism warning is a little harsh for their first edit in a few weeks (don't get me wrong, what they did is unacceptable). But your and administrator so I trust your judgement, there may be things I am not aware of. But they vandalised the page again so if your online right now you might want to block them for a few hours. [3] – Jerry ^teps 04:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is a very vulgar word. But I trust you more than regular users because the community has put their trust in you and made you an administrator. Hmm, "Also, just because I'm an administrator doesn't mean my opinion is more valuable than anyone else's. ", I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about your judgement, not your opinions worth. – Jerry ^teps 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I don't know if you can help, but the email me icon on my talk page menu is invisible, any idea why? Thanks for clarifying tl;dr, that was a doh! moment for me as I should have known that. Also, further to the stale report discussion, as it looks likely that in a few days I'll be expected to block vandals, not just warn them, I was looking for guidance on the IP issue - I know about dynamic IPs, so what length of time between warning and blocking do you usually use for them - (or decide the report is stale)? Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I just looked at my pages and the icon is there. I don't know when it appeared, but after this [4] mention by someone else that it was invisible. Ah, no fair, that was incredibly fast! I see why it didn't work. Thanks, thanks, thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here, have another barnstar for your collection. I am very happy that you are still fighting vandalism although you became an admin. You are an example to us all and living proof that admins are (or at least can be) just users with extra buttons. Have a nice day! So Why 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not vandalize joshcc's page. I informed joshcc that the edit was innapropriate because it was a promo piece for Steve Samuelian and was not documented.Read the Steve Samuelian page that joshcc wrote and tell me it met wikipedia's standards Flackthehack2008 ( talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT guilty of sockpuppetry...I have the right to edit pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79times ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UMMMMMM...what seems to be the problem? I don't have multiple accounts...I was not logged in when I edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79times ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user is my IP, but those two edits were done by my cousin from my laptop. I didn't think that them being on the same network gave them the same IP. I would appreciate it if you could ban my anon IP yet still make it possible for me to post from this account. Ghost109 ( talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but the thing is the laptop and the Computer have the same IP address. When it's used it shows up as the exact same anonymous user, even though the IP's are different as they're from different computers. Ghost109 ( talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the barnstar! :D All the real thanks goes to Gurch, though, for developing Huggle. I've never been able to wrap my mind around Twinkle... miquonranger03 ( talk) 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi J.delanoy. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama 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.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm just here to notify you that it looks like the above user ( Logs| Contribs) is the same fellow as 68.99.161.21 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (quote: "stop removing relevant entries"). ~ Troy ( talk) 02:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A level 1 warning after a level 4 warning? I would start at level 2 instead. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

These are the same editors, did you look at the edits they made before removing your block? Looks like they are stale now, but replacing content with I love skateboarding and other skateboarding wording is a fair indication that they knew they were not providing encyclopedic content. But that's why your an admin and I'm not. Just wanted to give you a heads up. I warned him twice at Smuckerbob, but saw that he was also the anon and decided he needed to be nipped before he destroyed more articles. Cheers.-- «JavierMC»| Talk 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've 'borrowed' your talkheader, I hope that's ok. Presuming you don't,what's the best way to give you credit for it (best from your point of view I mean). I'm also going to use versions of your sub-pages. I don't have the coding skills myself, and borrowing seems pretty common. Thanks for your help and your support. I hope I haven't made a mistake. I really, really was tempted to unprotect a page that some Admin had dashed in and protected just after all the sourced content had been removed leaving an illiterate sub, that is not a good way to handle a content dispute when you have experienced editors writing a page and, hm, different editors deciding certain academics are right and others wrong. But wheel warring is bad. I think. Always. Usually. Things were simpler before. :-) Doug Weller ( talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions? It's a school, vandalism 9 days ago with final warning, then yesterday and just now. Thanks. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Ryan? Vinson 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong is that some 13-year old boy is harassing Ryan and J with sexual comments. J, could you rangeblock the range these are coming from? Most are from the 90. and 81. ranges. Erik the Red 2 ( AVE· CAESAR) 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello J, what's happened while I was busy for the last month or so?-- Xp54321 ^{( Hello! • Contribs)} 02:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you get me a look at OTRS ticket #2008091610055854? I am trying to find out why all the television market templates are being deleted and it has something to do with that ticket. Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An apparently new species of moth appears in Wikipedia : Hornbackicus Attamothus , common name : Hornback Moth. Only one answer by Google  : en.wikipedia.org. All references to this extraordinary animal are made these days by a single editor : User:BarnabyLOLs. LOL ? Who said LOL ? I think this article should be erased. Elagatis ( talk) 23:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block this IP for edit warring. In addition their edits are identical to another IP: Special:Contributions/82.194.41.167 that has already been blocked for a day. Good night.-- Xp54321 ^{( Hello! • Contribs)} 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They've already been blocked by User:Kinu. Schfifty Three 05:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Youre 34th RickK Barnstar :P Enjoy. I had to put it here, since your userpage can only be edited by admins. Cheers! II MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That was quite funny. ;) Cheers! -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't block the anon user there was because I issued the final warning about the Tron edit (seeing as how he'd had a previous block) before I noticed his edit to Iridescent's talk page. I felt it would be bad form to issue a warning and then immediately block, even though the warning was for an earlier edit. But he looked like he needed blocking, so thanks for taking care of that. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not create it. So please delete it. User talk:99.141.45.172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.45.172 ( talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check "tomingal like peptide" . It is vandalism.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.27.213 ( talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

omg my message on the cheese thing was so totally contructive im really sad u took it off so im going to put another one up thanks bye =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.193.94 ( talk) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand if wikipedia wants to keep the history, they can. But i dont want a user talk profile. I never created one, someone did when on my network. I have asked for the profile to be deleted, not the history behind the IP address. So please delete my profile User talk:99.141.45.172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.45.172 ( talk) 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you deal with this, I have to go off line and Charmed36 has asked for my assistance in a war. Appreciated. — Realist ² 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for taking care, it was protected by Journalist in the end. Look's like I wouldn't have been able to deal with it without admin buttons anyways lol. Cheers. — Realist ² 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Charmed36 reverted my sourced edit from Doll Domination repeatedly. Therefore I reverted User:Charmed36's edit. I didn't mean to engaged in an edit war Goliza ( talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Quick question: is there a way of requesting that an AfD be closed early? This AfD nomination does not provide an adequate reason for the deletion requested, and the editor making the request is either misrepresenting the facts or is confused. This looks like a clear case of a snowball situation. Either the nomination was made in bad faith, or the editor is misguided, but the AfD will fail. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Hmmm... perhaps best to let it run its course. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite _{The'FortyFive'} 04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Charmed36 reverted my edit again. He deleted my sourced entry. Goliza ( talk) 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the recent edits at Mysidacea on my watchlist. I'm not sure why you reverted all the anon's edits ( Special:Contributions/59.167.198.129)? The site ( http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton) appears to be a useful reference, run by the University of Tasmania (?).

User:Kasmeister (a newish-account) has reverted your reversions (presumably/possibly that is the anon). I think that was probably the correct action (unless I'm missing something, which is likely!), and left him a note saying so and a welcome template.

I'm assuming the only thing the anon had done "wrong" was to add a couple dozen external links? Afaik, there's nothing wrong with new-users adding useful reference-links (we try to encourage prose/data instead, but...).

Apologies if I'm mistaken about anything here. Thanks for taking a look. :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

— ^ossmann talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey J.delanoy! I want just want to thank you for the revert on my talkpage. :D — ^ossmann talk 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

what was unhelpful about my edits to Ham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 ( talk) 00:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to talk with you about some of your edits, but maybe not on in such a public forum. Perhaps you could email me at johnminardmail.com. Or, if you really want we can discuss it on your user page. Thanks, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.119.84 ( talk) 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...Mail.com? Did you mean gmail.com? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly J., No, it's actually mail.com, but I have the same name at gmail.com too. Perhaps we should delete this after we've connected via email. ..or whatever. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeBeOne ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, letter sent to your gmail account. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here goes your second from me. You and La Pianista are getting all the vandalism!!! :). Anyway, thanks for the reverts on my page, too. Spencer T♦ C 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's well deserved. Btw, I don't think I ever said congrats for becoming an admin. Congrats! Spencer ^{T♦ C} 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question that I posted on WP:BN. Now that the issue is resolved, may I please remove the thread completely? Thanks. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: your reversion of my edits David Karnes' spouse is not Liz Karnes anymore. He remarried in June of this year. That was my edits - changing his spouse and stating he got remarried.

What is wrong with that -- making the article factually correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.171.243 ( talk) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

you marked an edit as vandelism for saks fifth avenue... not so... are you looking to increase your edits or what?

there is a lot say about this company and many current and former execs are joining to write a book and document the smaller details in this history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion Consulting ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I contacted you recently about my edits, and I've been using Twinkle, right well, I might add :) I think Huggle would suit me fine, so do you think I'm ready for the Rollback tool? If not, I'll plug away and keep on fighting vandals (and writing articles). Thanks broseph. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 15:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I opposed for virtually identical reasons as Everyme (and long before you posted your reply, so it's not that you didn't see it). If you're going to jump on him, jump on me too. You might not agree with us, but I can – and will – defend every line of my oppose if you insist, which is not a boilerplate drive-by posting but a lengthy oppose based on Ed's answers to the questions, userpage, and recent history; I havent gone into detail as it's unfair on the candidate to turn an RFA into a de facto RFC unless he asks for it. I might have put it more politely than Everyme, but (as far as I can tell) we're saying virtually the same thing. (At the time of writing, we are two among 26 opposes, so we're hardly voices in the wilderness – and neither of us were in the first couple of opposes, so it's not a pile-on following us). –  iride scent 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Iri, I haven't read your oppose yet as I write this. Mainly, just from reading your comment above, I'm sure you have more substantive "oppose" reasons than "don't like the sig/don't like the lolcat". And regardless, even if it is your rationale, I have no beef with you; we're fellow TPSers over at the late lamented AN:K, after all! I haven't even decided yet whether to support or oppose the user; I don't know him well enough and haven't done the research yet.

But to JDelanoy: Thank you. That really, really needed to be said. I've been less and less comfortable with the tone of RfA lately; it's one of the main reasons I haven't looked for a nominator myself (because god alone forbid that someone should self-nom--talk about the kiss of death!) I believe RfA needs an overhaul, sooner than later, because there's far too much "eeeewwww--I can't support somebody with an ORANGE sig, because I went to UMich and ORANGE is an Illini color..." type of bullwaste. Shortly I think I will begin to avoid RfA entirely, even as a lurker, because just reading some of this stuff makes me sad. Gladys J Cortez 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(to Iridescent) I did read your oppose. The reason I did not jump on you was because your comments were very different than Everyme's. Your oppose included EotW's signature as one point among several more serious reasons. Because of this, I did not challenge your oppose. Everyme, on the other hand, originally opposed based on literally nothing. When he was challenged, he clarified his oppose. It was only when he was questioned on this attempt that Everyme came up with even one-half of (what is in my opinion, a) legitimate oppose rationale, and that was a "per XXXXX". I don't think I need to tell you what I think of the other half of Everyme's third attempt.

Basically, I do not understand the concept of opposing someone only because of their signature. (if their signature is not obscene or something). Everyme's tone and diction, especially that comment about the lolcat, were totally uncalled for. RfA is bad enough without people actively trying to turn it into the Wikispeak definition. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy, you just raised my respect of you A LOT. Someone really needed to say that sometime. While I agree that I have fucked up several times and opposed, including ID's, were extremely valid, Everyme's (and Badger Drink's) were completely uncalled for. Of course, if I were to say that at the RFA, people would accuse me of being a member of the civilty squad. It's already bad enough that people oppose on the grounds of I point out one fucked up process at my userpage. RFA sucks. the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is best to make comments you don't want others to see off-wiki. J.delanoy's response was completely needed, however, you as the candidate doing the same thing does not look good. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

EOTW, why didn't you tell me what you think on my talk page, or via email? When I first opposed, I thought my reasoning was very clear (not to mention, concise). When you stated your confusion by asking on my talk page " Is it considered wrong to offer to be one's friend?", I was actually at a loss for words (for a very short moment...). Maybe I should have posted an explanatory link to my talk page at my oppose. The reply I gave there is something I deeply believe in, and something that may explain my strong opinion on the issue of the sig: The terms "friend" and "friendship" have no meaning online. None. Whatsoever. And imho everyone who believes that's not true needs to leave the house, at least their computer, and certainly Wikipedia. I defy anyone to prove my logic wrong. Or to ask for a further explanation for anyone who still doesn't get it. Everyme 01:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme: Your comment above is entirely your opinion, not objective fact. I have made many good friends during my time here on Wikipedia. If I ever get the chance to meet them in real life, I have no question that our friendship would only become stronger. Your statement that you "defy anyone to prove [your] logic wrong" is not appropriate. While you are entitled to your opinion, everyone else is also entitled to theirs. If you believe that it is impossible to make true friends online, that is perfectly fine. I have no problem with that. But your combative tone while stating your opinion, and your challenge to other to "prove you wrong" is unnecessary. In addition, saying that "everyone who believes that's not true needs to leave the house, at least their computer, and certainly Wikipedia" is tremendously inappropriate, perhaps even insulting. There are many, many people who have made very close friendships here on Wikipedia. While these are not perfect in the sense that merely typing and reading do not convey the full impact and emotional expression of human speech, I see no reason why text cannot forge as deep a friendship as speech can. Maybe even deeper, since it is very easy to say something mean without thinking about it. Typing something out allows you to actually read (and consequently think about) what you are saying before you say it, so your cyber-friends (if I may call them that) see more of your good tendencies and less of your bad ones. Many times, I have started typing something and then, before saving the page, I went back and toned it down a bit. I wish I could do that in the real world. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a succinct summary of one major difference between us two: I wish we couldn't do it on Wikipedia. Everyme 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't do what? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm. You: " I wish I could do that in the real world." Me: "I wish we couldn't do it on Wikipedia." To which I'd add: precisely because we cannot do it in the real world. Everyme 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[5] I think you may have misunderstood my line of reasoning. Or overlooked it entirely. Or decided not to care for some reason or the other. At any rate, EOTW is absolutely unsuited at this time to become an admin. And I daresay the way he opposed Karanacs' RfA over Karanacs pointing out EOTW's unacceptable self-promotion is far far worse than my uninvolved oppose. Far worse, if you bother to read through it. Everyme 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I implied in my comment on the RfA, various points brought up by other people in the RfA were enough to keep me from supporting. If you had included any of the other points in your oppose, I likely would not have said anything. But you didn't include any other points in your oppose. In my rant, I was not negating the other concerns that were brought up. Based on what I have seen and read, I regret to say that I also do not think that EotW is ready to be an admin now. However, your oppose was based on what is, IMO, a very flimsy rationale, and you tossed in quite a few unnecessary jabs and covert personal attacks. That is why I made the comment, and I fully stand behind everything I said there. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you're wrong. Also, I'm looking forward to my own RfA real soon now, as soon as September is over. Everyme 01:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll explain it to you right now: I am of the deep and honest conviction that people who display overfriendliness online have more or less serious emotional issues, of the kind that certainly makes them unsuitable as admins. That's a conclusion I haven't made lightly nor quickly nor recently. It's not directed at anyone in particular. But everyone who has "your friend" or a smiley in their sig raises my strong suspicion. Therefore, I opposed based on that. To me, it still stands out of the multitude of deal-breakers in that RfA. When EOTW asked me at my talk page "Is it considered wrong to offer to be one's friend?", there was no other possible conclusion than that he didn't understand the difference between the Myspace/Facebook kind of "friendship" and real, actual friendship as I do and the firm, unwavering grasp of which distinction I regard as an enormously important quality, especially in Wikipedians. Everyme 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See my reply in the section above. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, when you made your latest comment at the RfA, did you realise I had struck some parts of my initial comment? Everyme 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just saw a particular bit of editing you did on the LHC article, and it has to be the most hilarious history log I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I had to memorialize it, so I did so here. I'm surprised you didn't (unless I missed it). 24.145.19.247 ( talk) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user 207.181.229.38 did not like my removal of his edit at A Theory of Justice I stated WP:Cite for my removal as his edits seemed VERY biased. Can you check to be sure? I could be wrong... would not be the first time.... -- CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your comment on my talk page, you were correct to remove those edits. Such scathing criticism must be cited very heavily, and since the IP did not cite anything, you were well within policy to remove them. Using a more descriptive edit summary would have been better, but I know how it is when you are really into Huggling, so don't worry about that. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks J. -- CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why you blocked the racism-spewing vandalism-only account Reed210 for only a week. I don't see why that one wasn't indeffed. Can you explain to me your reasoning? Aunt Entropy ( talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think we can use Huggle to block editors at the moment, due to the new "Allow user to edit own talk page" option. Huggle is disabling this option by default, so blocked users are being unable to appeal their blocks. This is also being discussed here. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your silly bot reverted a useful edit regarding a name change of the company. Wikipedia bots should be assassinated! 65.166.89.2 ( talk) 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.