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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Hi, you marked the article on CAADRIA, I have made the changes that seemed to be required. Please have a look and let me know (on the article's talk page) if I should do more rewrites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.168.231 ( talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have made many more changes after reading through the Wikipedia best practices. Could you check if the article still reads like an advertisement?

Many thanks for the assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.225.31 ( talk) 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What would RPP do without you? Yer a machine! :-) Tan | 39 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be easier to ask here. Would you protect my userpage and user talk page fully indef, since I don't want my message messed up. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you protected Eric Robert Rudolph because of the dispute. However i think the offending comments should be removed in accordance with WP:BLP policy 'without waiting for discussion as the policy says. --neon white talk 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is about the fact that the sources do not cite what is claimed without heavy synthesis. The sources only cite that he has possible links with the extremist group Christian Identity, a group not considered to be a terrorist group. To take this pretty speculative links to Christian fundamentalism and to claim that it is evidence of a religious motivation is synthesis, this is the why it is contented by several editors and contentios info needs to be removed from bios in line with policy. It also fails WP:NPOV as this view is being given prominence in the lead. We cannot represent a theory as if it were fact especially not on a bio page. --neon white talk 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

These are "the wrong version" type complaints. BLP does not apply here, as the edits in question are neither unsourced nor poorly sourced: they are well-supported by mainstream, verifiable sources. Please revert back to the version of the page that was protected. If you would kindly look at the talk page for this article, you'll see that there are a number of other editors that support this position. By making this edit, you have allowed an editor to circumvent the dispute resolution process in order to impose his own views. Groupthink ( talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least post a message to my talk page explaining why you feel that out of all of the other potentially controversial material that was left intact, you felt that that one particular part of the lede had to be removed due to BLP concerns? Heck, why not blank the whole article over BLP concerns? Groupthink ( talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PeterSymonds! I would ask you, to look at the Srebrenica massacre article. User Jonathanmills ( talk · contribs) using also other IPs 83.244.153.172 ( talk · contribs) 83.244.153.207 ( talk · contribs) insults the community Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#my_stance and keep putting POV tag though there is no reason for that at all according to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page. When you protected the page, he immidiately singed in as Jonathanmills and reverted it back. 85.158.34.74 ( talk) 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate,

I'm sure you probably don't have the highest opinion of me right now due to my unexcusable losing of my temper. However, if you read through my long history of edits on controversial topics, I think you'll find there was only *one* other brief occasion when I was anything other than unfailingly polite, even with those who were not.

But at the moment we have editors clearly trying to goad me into a rule-violation -- but what about them, putting in a statement which I have clearly explained, twice, on the discussion board why it is false (or not verified enough to be in there?)

They're not even discussing it, rather just re-inserting the statement.

If you're going to ban me or suspend me, go ahead, but can I please ask that you might look at the entire situation? Not in order to save my skin, I don't really care, but for the sake of Wikipedia accuracy.

Regards Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your reply.

Yeah, dispute resolution sounds like it would be the way to go. I'll look into it when I have the time (and inclination!)

Regards Jonathanmills ( talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I saw that you put protection on the Jack Graham page for a content dispute. Is that the proper procedure? Romans9:11 and I were trying to get discussion on the disputed material. Should I just ask a sysop to protect a page every time someone puts something on it I don't like? Or should we seek discussion, ask for opinions, and go through the arbitration process if necessary? Floridapeaches ( talk) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

o.k., but (rightly) you've left the disputed material off the page - there's not too much of an incentive for the editors trying to remove the material to discuss it on the page. If they won't discuss the material can we assume a concensus has taken place and ask a sysop to add the material back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridapeaches ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record we have discussed this issue over and over again with multiple editors but the consensus being made is just not what some users like to hear. Thanks for blocking this page Peter and unfortunately I do not think 3 days if enough but we shall see. Johnb316 ( talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you would undelete the above to a subpage of my user space, please. I have been helping the original creator with the article and they are looking for references to support notability. Thanks.  –  ukexpat ( talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (reposted - forgot to sign last time)

Thanks for restoring, much appreciated. –  ukexpat ( talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, PeterSymonds, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H0n0r/Gracedraft

I've started on an article for Grace Marufu here and was wondering at what point I could ask you to move it over? Perhaps it should go to Grace Marufu Mugabe so that her married name is included. Let me know what you think - I'm aware that it needs more work, but everything surrounding her is so controversial that it's taking time to find sources that aren't purely opinion. H0n0r ( talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I also ran into the redirect for Grace Marufu, and just linked up her name from the Robert Mugabe article, so that may need doing too? Otherwise, I'm peachy. Thanks for your help. H0n0r ( talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is embarrassing, but I just found Xoloz's original AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grace_Marufu) for the last incarnation of this page. Are we still OK? Thanks for all of your help. H0n0r ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter

Sorry for disturbing you with this email but I am surprised as to why the "Keltica" page was deleted. The page had 3 accurate references to other pages in Wikipedia which were relevant. Those 3 wikipedia pages had references & links to the Keltica page so that the article was not an orphan. Keltica is relevant to those 3 articles because :

1) Keltica is signed to Matchbox Records label and a link to the band profile page on the band website was provided.

2) Barry Lamb has worked extensively with Keltica, for example they are on his Dynamite Vision label. The Keltica band was mentioned on his Wikipedia page. A link was provided on the Keltica Wiki page to the Keltica band profile on the Dynamite vision website.

3) In the corporate section of the "Harp" page it lists types of groups that have used the Harp symbol for their own purposes. Keltica adapted the harp symbol into a futuristic logo dubbed the Electra Harp which they used. This was reported in the media as the Guinness company were actually interested in the logo. A link to the story on the Irish World Newspaper website was also added.

The Keltica page only mentioned the above relevant facts. It stuck to the guidelines of Wikipedia in that it do not mention facts that it could not substantiate within Wikipedia. The Keltica band is relevant & significant for anyone wanting to know :

          1) the bands that Barry Lamb has worked with.
          2) The bands that are on the Matchbox record label
          3) Bands or corporates that use the Irish harp as their own logo. 

Please let me know if there is anything else specific you wanted added to the Keltica page

Yours sincerely

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatchboxA&R ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you commented at a previous FA review of the Michael Jackson article. Currently the article is at peer review and I will be renominating the article for FA at some point soon. I would really love to know what your opinion is of the articles quality now, either at the PR, the article talk page or even my talk page. The current PR hasn't drawn much attention so I'm in real need of feedback. I hope you can contribute an opinion to this article. Thank you, regards. — Realist² ( Who's Bad?) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for stepping in on the Rudolph article. I believe the article currently violates WP:BLP, as it refers to Rudolph as a "Christian terrorist," which he himself rejects, and which virtually no reliable sources use (just click the refs next to it -- they don't call him that). It's a subject we can discuss, of course, but I'm concerned about having a BLP vio locked into an article. Thanks again. IronDuke 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. IronDuke 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How, precisely, does the article violate WP:BLP? Rudolph has described himself as a "Roman Catholic warrior." He has been closely associated with an umbrella organization that has promoted and committed acts of violence. As another editor has pointed out, calling Rudolph a Christian Terrorist is obvious. WP:BLP is supposed to preclude unsourced or poorly sourced material, not material like this supported by cites from CNN, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor among many others. I find it highly disingenuous that two editors would misuse BLP policy to pull an end-around The Wrong Version, and I'm alarmed that you gave their spurious complaints credence. Groupthink ( talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess any two editors working in cahoots with each other have the power to arbitrarily remove any material they want from any article by crying " WP:BLP!" Good to know that BLP paranoia is a magic bullet that can shoot down verifiable and neutral sourcing. Clearly I've been going about this all wrong: Instead of trying to edit in the spirit of WP's core principles, I should just support all of my edits with bogus BLP claims. Groupthink ( talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that's bogus here is the original research being continually reinserted in violation of both policy and logic. Does the phrase "Roman Catholic warrior" mean precisely "Christian terrorist?" No, it does not. It doesn't even imprecisely mean it.

@ Peter -- is there a reason the protection lapsed? IronDuke 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I just found out that you deleted energy and power solutions content. Please advise me what we can do that it does not get deleted. Thanks, Andrea Westrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreawestrich ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the issue was that led to the changes to Template:Hangon, but could we get the light purple background back? I didn't see anything on the talk page about anybody wanting the color changed. Thanks. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you online? If so, could you join #wikipedia-en-accounts? Thanks, RyRy ( talk) 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradiso project (2nd nomination)

When you close a debate, don't forget to subst {{ afdbottom}} at the end bottom of the page. You inadvertently broke almost the entire AFD log for June 3.

Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter: I see from the log that you deleted my page (T.J. Parsell) on Wiki. I am the author of Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man's Prison. Can you please re-instate this page? Thank you. tjparsell@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjparsell ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant vandalism! [1] ;P Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I know how to use it know. I've created one account if you look at my user creation log. It's actually pretty easy. By the way, you know I have rollback again right? Just making sure since you offered it to me before. :) RyRy ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that a temporary semi-prot will do? Every time it gets semi protected, we just get a metric buttload of IP vandalism on that page the instant it's unprotected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. One article that has become a chronic target for IP vandals is Angelina Jolie. I and other editors have repeatedly semi-protected the page and whenever protection has been lifted, the vandalism has started (often dangerous WP:BLP-violating material, too). I currently have placed semi-protection with an indefinite expiry on it, but I'd like to see if a permanent ban on unregistered edits to this article can be made-- i.e. no one can remove the protection without going through a process. Do you happen to know if such an avenue exists, or is it just a case of renewing the protection if someone takes it off? So far, fortunately, the article receives relatively few registered user vandalism edits, so Full protection isn't warranted. What are your thoughts? 23skidoo ( talk) 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically shouldn't someone who wants to unprotect it first seek approval from the protecting admin? – xenocidic ( talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection. Either way, the only way an article can be semi-protected and never reversed is: if the action was an office action; or if it was the result of direct intervention from the arbitration committee. Such restrictions are extremely rare, and looking at the history, there is no need for such a restriction. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Technically you would think that the protecting admin should be consulted but that hasn't always been the case with this article. And on a few occasions protection was put on, but only temporarily. I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens. I've stated on the article's talk page that the protection should be permanently applied, so hopefully that will be enough for someone to seek consensus if and when they feel it should be removed. I'm all for the "everyone can edit" idea, but in some cases WP:BLP has to win out over the convenience of anonymous, unregistered editors and I've seen some pretty nasty things added. To the credit of the editors involved with this article, rarely have any of these vandalism edits survived more than a few minutes. 23skidoo ( talk) 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you also semi-protected the talk page. I thought talk pages were supposed to be left open to allow IPs to make requests for edits and the like? Or did you spot a bunch of vandalism I missed? 23skidoo ( talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems we semi-protected at exactly the same minute, mine coming a second or two after you with the effect that I unwittingly overwrote your 2-day with an extension to semi for 5 days. Sorry. -- Alexf ⁴² 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the username policy section on disruptive usernames, "Such disruptive usernames may contain harassment or personal attacks, or be easily identifiable as a previously banned user or vandal." As "911yknelb" is is clearly identifiable as a vandal (and the only other likely explanation is that the user is impersonating the vandal) I suggest that the policy, if it is still in use, is applicable to this username. -- Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all this is my company. What is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntersj78 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He deleted mine as well. How do we report him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjparsell ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. A full explanation is available here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for un-speedying it. Nice to meet an admin who's not a blood-crazed deletionist 8-) Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I notice you've protected this indefblocked user's talk page, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus for this measure at the ANI discussion here. I should emphasise that she is blocked, not banned, as a couple of admins did express a willingness to unblock if circumstances warranted (myself included, despite being the one who indefblocked her in the first place). I would be really grateful if you could reconsider whether page protection is necessary, given that she's only used the unblock request once, and hasn't been abusive so much as snarky and indirect, which while not ideal is, I think, forgiveable in the circumstances. Regards, EyeSerene ^talk 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but for what it's worth, she apparently believes she's been blocked mainly for violating 3RR, hence her comment. What she was trying to say, in her usual roundabout way, was 'make 4 reverts and get blocked' (hence her spelling 'forth' as 'fourth'). Unfortunately her apparent inability to communicate without ambiguity has done her in yet again. I'll not pretend that there wasn't some intentional wordplay there, which she also seems to like doing, but to take it as a death threat is, I think, to grossly over-react. It's worth noting that the comment on the above-linked ANI thread was that this interpretation is a single editor's misreading, not a general opinion. I'm very uneasy about preventing her from communicating on her talk page, as it seems to me to be turning an indefblock into a permanent ban, which was not the consensus reached. However, I have no intention of altering things against another admin's wishes, so if I can't persuade you I'll just leave her a note. All the best, EyeSerene ^talk 12:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should have checked her talk page status :P Thank you anyway, it's much appreciated ;) EyeSerene ^talk 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that the Global Charity Project Article is not notable, I request that you kindly provide me with a copy of the article. The organization should be garnering significant press attention soon and I should be able to cite that shortly. While I disagree in principle that people should be deprived of info about the organization until the mainstream media has already written about it, I will respect your decisions and wait. Tooler002 ( talk) 14:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. In the article Henri de Massue, 1st Earl of Galway I notice that the title of Earl is used instead of Marquis. I thought the higher title is preferred in wiki? Also in the article he is referred to as Galway and not Henri or not even the "Earl of Galway" but just Galway as if that is his name. Just curious and hope you have time to look at it. Daytrivia ( talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello;

It is not a problem of editing war, but the question of respecting of international law regulations towards territorial changes in past. ( see page of discussion ). As a matter of fact - temporarily possesing of enemy territory has no effect in transferring souverignity towards this territory - according to international law regulations I've reffered in discussion cited above.

I hope you don't take my behaviour as act of vandalism :)

Best regards: Andros64 ( talk) 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning the system and would appreciate some leniency while learning to cite references in the article. I created this article in an attempt to learn the Wikipedia code, culture, and formats. I chose this subject because I have personal knowledge about the subject and thought it would be a good place to start. My article on Strange Occurrence does not qualify for deletion as a non-notable group. That article contained a detail about their placement on Radio & Records Chart and was about to be updated to include national tours, CD releases, record label information, and major festival performances. I don't quite understand why it was marked and subsequently deleted. This band is cited in other Wikipedia articles, has legitimate press ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2002/anotherdaytostartagain.html), charted at number 6 on Radio & Records internationally published chart, they appeared live as guest hosts on the internationally broadcast INSP network, appeared live in performance on the TBN network, had two singles in rotation on syndicated radio programs across the world, had videos distributed and aired on international television networks. I feel they qualify as encyclopedic. What do you think? Superhero77 ( talk) 03:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, since it would have likely been the end result anyhow and it is a good use of WP:IAR, but per WP:HOAX, potential hoaxes are usually not speedy deletion candidates. Cheers, CP 23:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence day!!!!!
RyRy ( talk) 04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 04:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! You blocked that IP, which vandalized my page among a host of others. Looking through its edits, it seems to have posted some phone number all of over. I have no idea if that is someone's actual number of what, but I wonder in such instances if those edits should be oversighted? --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Symonds,

I would ask you to review the actions of the administrator on the page that has now been blocked as listed below. They are in fact blocking all changes to content. In fact, the changes that they have been blocking were reasonably well written and supported by historical references in deference to those which currently appear in that article which are mostly supported by weasel words as position.

This editor’s actions are not an approach that results in furthering knowledge, but rather, the sort of tack that keeps information in the dark.

In fact, according to the Wikipedia policy for administrators, the actions of this editor are a violation of the policies of Wikipedia. They are using their position to block ALL edits to the content even when those edits are supported by referenced fact. Wikipedia policy clearly states that locking a page to prevent edits of legitimate content is not acceptable. They will not allow ANY changes or modifications. In light of this, it would probably be prudent to remove the administrator for abuse of position.

I would appreciate if you would look into this situation.

Thank you.

[edit] Ark of the Covenant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) temporary semi-protection , Editor logging in under different IP addresses adding OR.Doug Weller (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is removing large amounts of text heavily backed by sources, calling them unreferenced and doing so repeatedly, not considered disruptive enough? So if I wanted to remove every criticism section I didn't like on Wikipedia, I could get away with it? Please consider protecting the article or blocking the user because his behavior is nothing short than disruptive POV-pushing and I have wasted enough time dealing with him. GreenEcho ( talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with your conduct as an administrator. You recently blocked me from editing for 12 hours, citing the three-revert rule. I feel that the block was improper, as outlined in my unblock request.

1. At no time did I make more than three reverts to any article within 24 hours.
2. I have not persistently been making three reverts per day in any attempt to game the system. I made three reverts total to two articles.
3. I have never been blocked before.
4. I made five serious attempts to get the other editor involved in dispute resolution:
   • I posted comments to both article talk pages asking the editor to join in the discussion and explain their edits, here and here.
   • I put messages in two of my revisions asking the editor to take the issue on the talk page so that we could discuss it, to be sure that they saw it.
   • I sent the editor a two warnings that their edits might be considered a violation of WP:NPOV, here and here, and a third direct message requesting that they join in the discussions, here.
5. I explicitly requested that both pages be protected, as suggested under 3RR, while being sure not to violate the policy of 3RR itself. This resulted in neither page being protected, and myself being blocked. The other editor continued to revert the page after it failed to be protected.
6. One of the edits in questioned involved extreme claims made against a living person, Walid Jumblatt, which means that they were afforded special protections under WP:BLP. I do believe that WP:BLP takes precedence over WP:3RR. To quote Jimmy Wales:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales

My dissatisfaction with your conduct as an administrator is because I feel you failed to "exercise good judgment, give explanations, and be communicative as necessary," three three key elements of Administrator conduct.

1. You chose to block an editor with 4,000+ edits [2] in two and a half years, over one with less than 40 edits [3] in a week. My edits include just under 1,900 edits to various talk pages, which I believe shows more than a willingness to discuss topics when resolving disputes. I've been involved in several dispute resolutions in very controversial articles (such as Hezbollah and 2006 Lebanon War), where I feel I've distinguished myself with my openness to discussion, and willingness to keep an open mind and meet others halfway. The other editors contributions list shows that most of their edits were made to WP:AIV or user talk pages, accusing users of vandalism (seemingly labeling anything they disagree with vandalism), or postings to the Administrators' noticeboard, and other disruptive behavior. Furthermore, the claims being added to articles verged on extreme, and lacked proper citations. I believe this shows a lack of good judgment on your part, and a failure to have done any research before acting.
2. You failed to cite which article I had violated 3RR on, and failed to provide any warning before blocking me. As someone who had not violated 3RR, and who has never been blocked before, I think that a warning was warranted at the very least. I believe that this shows a lack of giving good explanations on your part.
3. After being blocked, I filed an {{unblock}} objection within 30 minutes. Despite continuing to actively edit during this time period, you made no attempt to explain why you felt the block was warranted, or acknowledge my objection to it during the 12 hour block itself. I believe that this shows a lack of good communication on your part.

← George ^{[ talk} 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Choosing not to communicate is certainly your prerogative. I'm unsure why one should choose to avoid being communicative, as I find that to generally be nonconstructive and counter productive, but again, it's your prerogative.
• Three of the reverts involved claims made against living persons, which, again, based on what I know, takes priority over almost any other policies. Specifically the unsourced statement: " Walid Jumblatt... and Nabih Berri [were] involved in the widespread corruption that plagued Lebanon during the Syrian occupation" involves two people that are living.
• WP:EW explicitly states: "Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is considered a breach of Wikiquette and may cause a user to be blocked from editing." I do not believe I was edit warring, as I was making every attempt to engage the other editor in discussion. I listed two warnings and five explicit attempts by myself to open dialog with the other editor, all of which were ignored. I requested protection for the two pages, without any particular preference for which version got protected, as a means to attempt to spark dialog, and prevent either of us from violating WP:3RR. Was requesting full protection the correct course? Apparently not, but I believe you failed to assume good faith in my actions.

I'm not looking for an apology, or any sort of action against the other editor, whom I wouldn't have wanted to be blocked either. I've worked with quite a few administrators here, and the one things that they've all had in common is that they've been very thorough and conscientious in their actions, especially with regards to banning or blocking users. I fear that your actions may hint at a lack of these traits when waving around the sword of administrative power, and all I would request is that you consider issuing warnings and doing your due diligence before firing. To quote Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." ← George ^{[ talk} 11:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Saw you just did the update - wondered if you wanted a hand with the credits? I've got some time to kill but I'm a bit tired to be let loose on actual article-writing! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. I got the easy half of the job, of course, but glad to be of help! Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm glad it was found interesting. Aridd ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no dispute over your addition of a disputed tag but it looks as though ALL of point 6 is disputed, which is clearly not the case. Would you consider indenting or otherwise block-offsetting the new text (starting with "In general") so that the scope of the dispute is clearly limited. Thanks! -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Gmaxwell ( talk) 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello PeterSymonds. :) I've been watching WP:RfR for about 2 weeks now (I don't know why, I just like reviewing requests :P), and I was wondering if there was anyway I could "clerk" at RfR. Every time I see a request, I always do this little process when I check a request, I decide in my mind weather the user should be approved, and I wait for an admin to come do. It's getting tiring since I can't actually comment on requests. Can I ? If not, is there some type of "clerking" I could do? I would love to help at RfR. Thanks, RyRy ( talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to leave suitable requests blank anyway. Will do Peter. Thanks for the extra advice. Best, RyRy ( talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind substing {{ longcomment}} into the Masculinism redirect? 'Twould be appreciated. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 09:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re : Ken Kennedy

How is Ken Kennedys Website Unreliable??? He is the one who told me to create the website, it has been around since 2006

Alot of your information has come from my website. Including Recaps, Wedding Information, Photos, Information about his movie & His Blog that he writes for the website, Would u like me to link you to the pages?

Please Reconsider.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezza2007 ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee‎, I see no request for a reprotect from that user - can you explain a) the grounds for the reprotect and b) how this was asked for and listed here on wikipedia? -- Allemandtando ( talk) 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If the edit war is over, the page must be unprotected. Bstone does not have control over the page, much less the ability to have it fully protected without justification at his behest. What is the justification for the protection? seresin ( ¡? ) 10:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why indefinite? It's getting pretty clear that this should be tagged {{ rejected}}. -- Avi ( talk) 10:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely means without a limit, not necessarily forever. And I would be stupid to place something like a "forever" protection on it. However the disputes need to be resolved; the proposal is not currently concluded, and therefore the {{ rejected}} was misplaced. This began the edit war again, for a very similar reason (although opposite) to that it was protected in the first place. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What more discussion do you want? It's pretty clear from the talk page of the proposal and the section at the Village Pump that this has minimal support and has been rejected. seresin ( ¡? ) 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Unprotected. I have unprotected the page per overwhelming consensus that it should be reverted. I can not, however, comment on the proposal's potential failure, because I am not involved. I apologise for any confusion caused; I know the letters IRC send chills through people's spines, including mine at times, but I consider it dangerous when secret discussions go on which are designed to deceive the Wikipedia community. This was not the case. I consider Bstone's request to be the same as if he had posted it on my talk page. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. -- Avi ( talk) 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Peter. You deleted my article about Julie-Jane Myers.(A7) I wrote that article because now she is popular and some people really want t know something about her! At the same time it's very difficult to find really established information about J-J - many web-sites post unchecked facts. As for me, I'm working as moderator for german web-site of Julie-Jane, she is now dating Timo Sonnenschein - popular german singer, that's why she is very popular here at the moment. So, please, could you reestablish the article - it will help many people to understand that Julie is not a Paris Hilton friend and ex-drug taker. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeTruly112 ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are admins are allowed to use rollback like I did then?-- Otterathome ( talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're always first on the scene when an article needs protection. Keep up the great work! Gary King ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that edit war that's going on that you're dealing with, it should be taken to a noticeboard as the talk page doesn't seem like it will be helpful. Gary King ( talk) 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for letting me know that Dair Mar Elia (Saint Elijah's Monastery) made the DYK list. I wanted to ask if there a list somewhere of the number of DYKs generated by editors -- I recall seeing it once, but cannot currently locate it.

I just counted and I have 28 DYKs to date (I only began involvement in the process in May), and I thought I might qualify for inclusion on that list. Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! How very nice! Be well. :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As you noted, the content is indeed disputed -- however, the last editor to make the change User:Nandesuka has not even commented in the long Talk discussion, and there is majority opposition to this change. I ask you to please read the discussion, see the clear lack of consensus and the lack of discussion on the part of the editors pushing this change, and revert the new edit to the consensus version. To my understanding it is improper to lock an article into the new version that lacks consensus when the editwarriors pushing for the change aren't even discussing in Talk. Please explain this action and your reasoning to arrive at the decision to lock the article into the non-consensus state despite the refusal of those advocating the change to discuss the edit in Talk. Thank you. Blackworm ( talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smack (library). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davewild ( talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Symonds,

Would it be possible to unlock the Liaison Psychiatry page please

Yours sincerely

Justinmarley ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Justin Marley

And I will ask that the protection be extended as Justinmarley has made it clear he has no intention of acknowledging anything wrong with his edits and will just begin redoing them when the protection is lifted (see his talk page and his multitude of posts at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests). I'd also ask that the protection remain until the sockpuppet case against him has been resolved. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my query “need to contact an administrator” on the help desk. I am not familiar with how Wikipedia works and was having difficulty finding someone to discuss a problem with.

I have deleted what appears to be vandalism on an article on propranolol (re use in epilepsy). At least I hope it is vandalism and not some nutcase “doing their own unofficial research”. I wonder if it is possible to a)Find out the identity of the original contributors of this section. The research was attributed to an Alexander Massey. I can find no trace of this individual in the biomedical literature. b)Prevent any un-deletion of this material without some form of editorial review. c)Alert any administrators who do have specialist medical knowledge to keep an eye on this page. Information published by Wikipedia very quickly ends up on other sites as well including those that seek to sell drugs to the public. You ought to consider having a professional police these pages. -- 163.1.251.74 ( talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand you removed some personal information about me from a talk page. Thank you! Can you please email me what information was posted? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you watch the editprotected page, but you might not watch it regularly. I want to perform an upgrade of the {{ physics}} similar to the one I've done for the {{ WPAstronomy}}. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add DYK entries that are essentially Wikipedia-referential. It looks bad. DS ( talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I was actually the person that removed the WR entry originally on DYK. I did it because I believe it glamourised a site that has outed out editors in the past - a bit of a smack in the face to our hard working contributors if you ask me. I was wrong to do it without discussing it with you so apologies for not coming here or an appropriate noticeboard first. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

		The DYK Medal
		Is awarded to PeterSymonds for his help at Template:Did you know/Next update by locally uploading and protecting the next Image before it goes live and by resetting the template and handing out the credits :). Thanks for all the help! All the Best, Mifter ( talk) 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this, User:BorgQueen asked me to help out with DYK while she's on Wikibreak but not being an admin I can't do everything and need help with all the admin stuff e.g. Uploading over a Commons Image (Only admins have that ability) protecting the Images, actually updating the DYK, etc. Anyways Thanks a lot for all of the help :). All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No Problem :), I would do it myself but as I said above I'm not an admin (Although I am still in the process of looking for an admin coach :) ) although I hope to be an admin in a few months (Hopefully if I can find an admin coach soon I might be able to run RfA within a few months :) ) I still need admin help with every template update but anyways thanks again for all of your help :). Thanks and All the Best, -- Mifter ( talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HI Peter, My name is Amitabh Ramani and i am the Marketing Manager for Harbinger Group. Please could you unblock / undelete my Harbinger Group Page, also what needs to get done to get it listed and back on Wikipedia.

I also mention that all the information that we posted on the site belongs to us and is copyright information of Harbinger Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harbinger Group ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, just a couple of minor issues I'd like to bring to your attention concerning the posting of the new update.

First, don't forget to either delete the previous image (if it was c-uploaded) or unprotect and remove the tag (if m-protected).

Secondly, you are not supposed to archive the new update when you post it. You are supposed to archive the previous set of hooks. This is because hooks often get revised after posting to the front page, so we like to archive the final revision rather than the original one. Don't worry about doing the last one though, I've done it already. Just something to remember next time :) Gatoclass ( talk) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

it says at T:DYK/N that you should copy the hooks into the template and DYKA at the same time

Oh, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't notice that! I've corrected that now. And thankyou for helping out BTW, me and Borgqueen have done most of the work on DYK for the last seven months but I am just plain burned out right now and don't know when I will want to start contributing again, and I think BQ is having a wikibreak, so it's good to see someone else step up to the plate :) Gatoclass ( talk) 11:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good morning! I've a question regarding your declining of a speedy on this article on the grounds "notability established." Did you mean that you had actually established notability, or that the article asserted notability? If the former, I've filed an AfD on the grounds that it's a hoax article and that this "actor" doesn't actually exist, and I'd be interested in what evidence you might have turned up to the contrary.  RGTraynor  14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Following your blocking of him for the 3RR violation, Discourser insists that the precedent historical location of the Auschwitz camp should not be how sources refers to it as ("German-occupied Poland"), but his synthesis. This is in complete disregard to not just myself and the supporting sources I have put forward, but two other editors who do not accept his reasoning, which is predominantly supported by nothing other his own evaluation and a wholly insubstantial citation (since the Nazis also wrote that their gas chambers in this camp were just harmless morgues, it is beyond unacceptable to cite them as a reliable source in this article). Your response is welcomed. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you delete the page again? An editor re-created it again incorrectly after you previously deleted it. Thanks! -- Winger84 ( talk) 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with {{ rnd}}. JIMp  _{talk· cont} 08:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The block wasn't for the three edits to articles -- it was for repeatedly posting the nn bio Kenneth lapieer after multiple warnings. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, he/she/it just added that huge chunk to another IP's talk page. I reverted, but if you could please keep an eye on him/her/it... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Donna Summer article I think it might need to be semi protected due to fan wipe out of sections they don't like and will not discuss on talk page. I reverted edits to gay rumor remark in article. JGG59 ( talk) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I noticed from the page log that you placed an edit protection against Caillou due to expire on 19th July 2008. I need to let you know that someone has edited that page after you placed the block. I am not sure what type of edit protection you placed (semi or full), but could you please just check it to confirm that the edit protection is in place and working. Thanks, and regards - Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. This article has just recently come off protection, and an IP address has started edit-warring with the layout of the page. The IP in question, 124.13.126.195 has also made several personal attacks towards Asendoh. I think a protection of two months is warranted. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

The article on Najib Tun Razak which you have just protected due to a edit war cites an unreliable source and is libelous in nature. The first paragraph regarding the Kampung Baru incident cite Jebatmustdie and Lim Kit Siang blogs as sources. Both of this cannot be used as sources because they are personal blogs. Using personal blogs as sources is against wikipedia policy on the biography for living people. There is sufficient discussion on this matter on the bottom of the talkpage, and I hope this paragraph would be removed as soon as possible. I have contacted the Deputy Prime Minister's office a few days ago regarding this matter, and his personal aide has informed me that they will look into the matter as soon as possible.

I hope this paragraph is removed as soon as possible to avoid wikipedia from any legal complications. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.116.149 ( talk) 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but my DYK was for List of Seattle Mariners managers, not Lou Piniella.-- LAA Fan 21:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. In my browser the DYK hooks, which you just updated, are appearing below the picture instead of wrapping around it, leaving a big gap on the left. Are you seeing the same problem? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'edit-warring', pray tell, is going on at 2008 and when were you going to inform anyone about this terrible battle? -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you honor me with a DYK notice on my talk page too! :-) I created the Adbot article and got some editing help from brewcrewer. Let me know - Gych ( talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Gych ( talk) 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my earlier request to protect Circumcision (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The (slow) editwarring over the word "surgical" in the first sentence is continuing after the protection expired, ( 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC); – 02:34, 11 July 2008; – 11:29, 12 July 2008) and I would appreciate it if you would consider protecting the page again. Discussion of the dispute is also still continuing on the talk page. Coppertwig ( talk) 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my request at this time, because there is other editing unrelated to the edit war, and no reverting in over 24 hours. I'm sorry to have taken up your time. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. One of your actions is mentioned at Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Vandalism not properly reverted. I'm not sure how aware you are of how to spot that sort of vandalism, so I've left this note to everyone who failed to spot it. Would you be able to comment over there if you have time? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi peter, that IP address is going crazy over the genres again over at loose (album), you seem protected it last time and they only returned, is it worth going for semi protection again? Clearly this IP is going to carry on until I just give up. He's like a robot, it's amazing. — Realist² ( Speak) 14:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter would you be able to offer any suggestions for the recent tag Marguerite, Duchess of Orléans? Daytrivia ( talk) 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I would like to get a copy of a deleted article: List of Delta Encoding Software. I am not going to repost this article. I really need it's contents which does not exist any where else on the Internet. Thank you. jftuga —Preceding comment was added at 13:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me back. Wow... SUL, Huggle, problems with Huggle, and Rollback... I've been gone for a while! :/ Cassie Puma 19:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate. Seems like you're active at the moment so I thought I'd try and hurry this through by posting to you directly. Would you mind reviewing my request? Cheers, Mattie ^TK 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks mate, you're obviously very dedicated ;) Mattie ^TK 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I received a request to change my username Dr.SCUMM because embedded in the name where the letters SCUM. SCUMM stands for Script Creation Utility For Maniac Mansion in homage to an old computer game. I believe this is far dorkier than what was interpreted. If this is still a problem I will change my username, though it will be hard since it has been this for quite a few years. Thanks Dr.SCUMM ( talk) 23:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 8#Template:Dominionism this close? The template meets a speedy deletion criteria, and none of the keep opinions addressed that issue with even one word. The strength of arguments was clearly in favor of deletion. GRBerry 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GRBerry 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Just drawing your attention to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dominionism. There are 14 transclusions that are currently redlinks. I might get to this tonight if you aren't able to. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also now dangling is Template talk:Dominionism/Archive 1. This was a much-discussed template, with some of the principles being editors of wide repute. There might be some worth in undeleting Template talk:Dominionism and keeping it as part of WP history, or you might want to delete the archive for consistency. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a quick reply to a close comment: I agree the IP of a normal user is personal information. I just meant that the IP revealed by this template is the IP of a third party, not the normal user, so the privacy invasion is not so much for the user, but for the web host. Violating the privacy of the third party is not nice either, of course. Connecting a user, a web host, and future users of an IP together is also likely create confusion in the future when the IPs change.

Sometimes the web host owner is not aware people are using him as a proxy, and so this template strikes me as posting the names of fraud victims in the newspaper. It isn't an invasion of the forger's privacy to mention who he stole from, but it definitely isn't nice to the person he stole form to advertise their name alongside his. JackSchmidt ( talk) 20:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, seems to be resolved though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just closed this note and saw this exchange above. What's it mean to orphan something? Did it occur to anybody that the template is a way to avoid strings of multiple names in historic titles of which any in historiography have been used? The failure of this society to require a tfd notification to an editor makes this a hostile environment. Not requiring a minimum vote count ranks right behind that in idiocy. Why do I bother donating time? // Fra nkB 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you were not notified. However, it was at the TfD backlog (and it's been there for eleven days). Consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. It should be the nominator's responsibility to notify the creator -- well, that's how I do it -- but I view the closure as legitimate. By the way, the thread on IronGargoyle's talk page was because of his orphan bot, which removes all instances of a certain template. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw this when you posted it, but was soooo disgusted, took the night off. This community needs to enforce getting input from originators. This was discussed on the village pump when Conrad Dunkerson and I developed it! I'll have to go the appeals process I guess... was a great tool for disambigulation of multiple historical names and uncluttering the lead sentences in historic articles in particular... pick any other article that has multiple naming variations so many redirects as well. Ditto tagging section titles things redirected into, though now {{ anchor}}/s eliminates 'that particular' need, but was good for warning a reader he that he was indeed meant to land in the middle of said tagged page... Sigh. As if avoiding self-references is a superior guideline to policy: WP:IAR! At least this did the job.

Can you capture your contribs "list of out edits pages" and park the cut N paste from your contribs here. Links unnecessary... just want to be able to find pages during the appeal. Thanks // Fra nkB 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help. I forgot how to import the image from my documents to Wikipedia.Thanks. Notindustry ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey can you help me. I am an editor at a Martial Art Magazine and I have been trying to create an article for the underground fighter Anawatazi.

The first article I didn't cite enough references. This time I did. I personally have seen this guy fight. My world revolves around fighting. I fly all over the world and watch and report on fighters. This is a real psuedonym for a Black List fighter. Now this is the second article that I have created that got deleted. How can somebody delete a person they don't even know about?

Have you ever met Anawatazi? I have. I think it is really disrespectful to arguably the greatest fighter to ever live. He has beaten ANDERSON SILVA. Do you know who that is? Right now they say Anderson is the best pound for pound fighter in the world. Anawatazi beat him twice. Paraguay 2002 and Brazil 2003.

How is it that you guys can delete a factual article. There was no opinion what so ever in the article that I wrote. Please look at the links and put the article back up please. You might not know anything about fighting but I sure do. I have been reporting and writing about fighting since 1983.

Try looking here;

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=214456.msg2987385#msg2987385 http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=173116.msg2430685#msg2430685

Thank you and sorry if I offend. I am trying to keep a cool head about this. This last deletion really upset me. I go to every UFC, WEC, K-1 fight and many other organizations looking to write about up and coming fighters. Some fighters who have only 1 or 2 fights have wiki pages yet the greatest fighter of all time gets deleted. Go figure.

Please put my article back up. Research my magazine Black Belt for articles others including myself have done on him. Watch the last UFC. He was sitting right next to the president Dana White!!

Thanks again and sorry if I sound like a jerk. It just pisses me off. Anawatazi won the Kyiendashoto tournament. Do you have any idea what that is? Watch the movie Bloodsport. That tournament is the tournament he won 3 times.

Thanks again.

Damushy1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Damushy1 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's so great, how come there are absolutely no mention of him anywhere (well, anywhere that's not a forum it seems) on the web except in the article you created? I hope you can see how it's hard to believe he is anything but a hoax when he supposedly have done such amazing feats, but there are no mentions of him to be found. If you are an editor with a MMA-magazine you should try getting something about him published, preferably on web for all to see. That would give you a verifiable source for your claims. (Sorry for intruding on you talk page Peter, hope you don't mind.) -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs, Aktsu. Danushy1, I understand your frustrations, and I will try and help as much as possible. I deleted the article because there was no assertion of notability per WP:BIO. I will assume that this is a genuine person, but notability must be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. It must meet the requirements for biographies, contain original research or points of view. Reliable sources come from documents like newspapers, reputable websites, etc. Let me know if you can provide these. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. I appreciate the response and will scroll back in the archives and look for articles about Anawatazi. I provided multiple sources though including the Nevada State Athletic Commissions hall of record stats. They are public record. Anybody can walk right in and see his name right on the registry. I included a link to their site as well as the World Muay Thai Council. The World Muay Thai Council is the governing body of Muay Thai Kickboxing all over the world. His name is in their public archives. I provided nothing but his stats according to these organizations.

Oh and Aktsu since you already hijacked.....

The Black List held 3 tournaments in Norway and Anawatazi competed in one of those. Buskerud, Oslo and Troms all hosted fights. I know. I was there. Cool towns. Maybe you should have done more research before you marked for deletion. I know I wasn't finished. I was in the process though. I take it you don't watch the UFC. If you did you would have noticed Anawatazi sitting right next to Dana White (the president of the UFC) at the last event and when the camera panned on them Joe Rogan said that was Anawatazi and he was without a doubt the most brutul BJJ fighter ever.

I might need to do some more research as far as verifiable links go but you have no idea at all about the subject of MMA and fighters. The Black List was a chinese mafia owned syndicate. Not alot of info is out there if you know what I mean. I know this organization because I was involved with it. I was a columist that wrote about the tournaments and used to fly all over to record the events.

Anyways do what you guys want. It is a shame that some of the content on Wikipedia gets thru but not others. I know you guys are doing your jobs but do you honestly think I would take the time to come here and write about BS? I signed up here to put the info out there based on fact. Alot of the information isn't there. That's why I am here. To educate not on opinion but based on fact. I am asking you let me write these articles based on fact.

Anawatazi, The Black List, The El Diablo Tournament and the Kyiendashoto are the only articles I was going to present. Other than that I won't be writing any others. Those are the only 4 that need to be told.

BTW Frank Dux never fought in the Kumite (Kyiendashoto. He was a spectator that watched and told a story of him fighting in this tournament. I have the names of the 11 winners from this illegal tournament and he never competed in it.

Damushy1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damushy1 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do watch the UFC - and I did watch UFC 86, but I can't say saw him - nor heard him mentioned by Rogan. Anyway, if he really was there, sitting beside Dana, you shouldn't have any problem finding mentions of him somewhere. Oh, and MMA-competition is banned in Norway, but I guess underground organizations don't have to deal with such technicalities ;). Anyway good luck with finding source, I'll be happy to help you with the article if you give me something to work from. -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 01:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a article on the female metal singer Jane Evil. I have found other articles on Wikipedia on other bands and/or musicians.

 I was messaged and told that a article on Jane Evil was deleted. What guidelines did I not follow and how may I be able to add a article on a musician?

Thank You...

janeevil ( talk) 09:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Jane Evil

References:

Black Belt Magazine; March 1995, April 1996, December 2000 Inside Kung Fu Magazine; May 1996, June 1999 Nevada State Athletic Commission Hall of records; http://boxing.nv.gov/ World Muay Thai Council; www.wmcmuaythai.org/ International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation; http://www.ibjjf.org/ Getbig.com Licensed MMA Forums Sherdog.com Licensed MMA Forums Zuffa LLC; http://www.ufc.com/ Dream Stage Entertainment International Fighting Association; http://www.ifapro.com/ Fighters Only Magazine; January 2006 http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/home/ Fight Magazine September 2007

I guess these aren't good enough I actually have to scan the one of the articles correct? Can you tell me what you want? Will one article suffice? Which magazine would you prefer? The reason I am asking it seems like this is actually getting to be a PITA. And yes Aktsa The Black List was a multi million dollar industry and they didn't care about Norway laws.

Can you give me the weekend before you delete my article. I'll grab a copy of one of the magazines from the archives and scan it. Fair enough?

Thanks.

Damushy1 ( talk) 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Damushy1 Damushy1 ( talk) 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :).

TheSuave ( talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided some diffs on the AN thread. COuld you please take a look and tell me what you think? pschemp | talk 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Luca D.M., the creator of the article and of OpenGEU too. The article: [4] had previously been created by an enthusiast user, so it was not neutral, I had to rewrite it and expand it, now it should absolutely be neutral. Even though, probably because a distro is not an important matter, the neutrality badge has not been removed yet. Could you review the article, remove it or suggest me how should I modify it? (It really looks neutral now...).
Also, lately it has been marked for general notability guidelines and this is just crazy. There are thousands of articles about Linux distributions in the wikipedia, why should this one not be notable compared to the rest? Plus it is the third more important Ubuntu derivate in the world for softwarepedia... and it is one of the strongest in distrowatch, it is notable :)
Please, if you can help me, read the discussion board too. Thank you very much :)
comment added by TheDarkMaster ( talk • contribs) TheDarkMaster ( talk) 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I've goofed that way before, not looking at the notice at the top. Tony (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter—I went there via a friend's contribution list; second time it's happened. I wonder whether a larger font-size would do the trick at the top. Tony (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as you're an admin I was hoping you could help me with something: on Top Gear challenges an anon (same user with dynamic IP it seems) keeps adding back fancruft/unnecessary detail to the page. The consensus is (well, seems to be as multiple established editors is reverting) that what he keeps adding is way too detailed and excessive for a description of one small part of a single episode. Anyway, what would be the right course of action to deal with something like this? Just wait it out? I'm guessing the page won't be protected as it's not really vandalism, and since the IP changes he won't break 3RR. What do you think? Thanks! -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the user doesn't seem respond to messages left by User:Mattbuck on the IP's talk page - although he/she just added a simple "!?" to "Top Gear challenges" talk page, so we'll see what happends.. -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added the needed notes, now the article includes citations and is notable, please remove the warnings.
TheDarkMaster ( talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment, which you posted on another user's talk page, is a little confused - they did not claim their edit was "per consensus". Until you can make an accurate comment, please stop. Thanks -- Nickhh ( talk) 22:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i don't have an account here, but i just wanted to report an iffy looking page. If you check out the Rabindranath Tagore page you might notice a little note left behind by someone who claims to be the "zodiac". Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.119.136 ( talk) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that this article was tagged for speedy and quickly turned into a redlink. Did you check "what links here" for the number of articles linking to Kana Hanazawa, the Italian, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese versions of the article, or was there some kind of landmark decision made regarding the notability of stub Japanese voice actor articles in general that I was not aware of? — Tokek ( talk) 13:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#A7; there was no assertion of notability for this person. I did check the links, but neither they, nor foreign Language articles, are grounds for notability. If you can provide reliable sources, please feel free to rewrite, or request the deleted text from me if you wish to continue it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since only about one or so edit was made, and it does not stand out particularly from other articles of the same category, I request that the article be restored so that the stub can be worked upon further, for example to address any problem areas such as an expanded statement on the person's notability, although the article did already state that she played leading roles in several nationally aired television shows (the ones linked in the "what links here"). — Tokek ( talk) 14:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter,as discussed, the mentoring page is now up at User: Gazimoff/Mentoring. Feel free to stick your oar in with comments. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 08:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the Gwangju matter. I'm trying as hard as possible to keep a cool head, but as someone who lived in Kwangju at the time, and grew up in Korea, this is a very touchy subject. I understand the reasons for no instituting protection yet, but I appreciate your attention and action on the topic.

Sinfonian94 ( talk) 10:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks once again Peter, especially for restoring the consensus version. I'll post notes on Ragusino's and the IP's talk pages urging them once again to come forward and discuss this. Hopefully we can put this one to bed after a discussion. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Zenanarh ( talk) 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Help Desk, you've made statements similar to this a number of times: "The material you publish on Wikipedia is copyright-free, so can be used/copied/modified without limitation.". This is completely and utterly not true. To be copyright-free, the material would have to be in the public domain and it most certainly is not. Instead, the material published in Wikipedia (that was not already public domain or included as fair use) is absolutely copyrighted by the editors who submitted it and is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. While this license is admittedly very open and few restrictions are placed upon its use, there are limitations and obligations, even for verbatim copies. If the reuser makes a derivative version of Wikipedia content, there are even more limitations and obligations, such as attribution (section 4B), and transparent copies (section 4J). See WP:VERBATIM, WP:MAF and WP:COPYRIGHT#Reusers' rights and obligations. As an administrator, you need to know this backwards and forwards. -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. With all the awesome work you do on Wikipedia, I should have known it was just unfortunate phrasing over actual ignorance. All the subtle nuances of the GFDL is rather daunting, even to the point where Jimbo himself chimed in to correct me on the history requirements of the GFDL (sections 4I and 4J). At any rate, thanks for striking out that section to avoid confusion. It is, and always has been, a pleasure working with you at the Help Desk. -- ShinmaWa^{( talk)} 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick note to say that the main editor ignored your deletion and replaced the above article, including the db-bio, which he hastily deleted. I have since re-instated the db-bio but your decision needs to be enforced. Ian Cairns ( talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Who ignored what? I am the main editor, and I have never ignored anything. The article was never deleted before this and therefore I couldn't have possibly replaced the article. I haven't got a slightest clue about what you are occusing me of here. There is actually no way that I could see my work again once again without bugging all of you and examine what the heck was it that happened. What is this db-bio (for which I cannot find any info on) that seems so desperately important to you?

Look, I did everything that was asked of me to do. Some of it was minimal, but every act towards meeting your demands was a symbol of my good will which you all decided to ignore. The latest demand that was brought before my eyes was the one saying that I should just specify some third-party sources, which I have done previously, so I just pointed it out to your coleague, kindly asking for the warning to be removed.

Now I'll just have to wait for the article to be emailed to me so I can put it back up, and sort things out one by one, with your help. Since you people deleted it in a rush, I could not possibly intervene because I do not live for Wikipedia and spend so much time hanging around as you all seem to.

I hope we'll sort all this out. Waleran ( talk) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From the audit log of the article, here is the request for db-bio (a speedy delete of a non-notable biograpical article) 10:34, 18 July 2008 . . Dengero (Talk | contribs | block) (2,706 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). using TW)

Here is the deletion: 10:39, 18 July 2008 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Hrvoje Banaj" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)

Here is Waleran's re-creation: 10:44, 18 July 2008 . . Waleran (Talk | contribs | block) (2,706 bytes) (←​Created page with '{{ db-bio}} Category:1980 births Category:Croatian opera singers Category:Living people [[Category:Croatian musical thea...')

Waleran clearly knew enough about db-bio to delete it subsequently - so he clearly knew what the text said and how to approach the 'hangon'.

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.

The problem is that there are no supporting references in ENGLISH that support the subject's notability. They are all in Croatian. I suggest that this discussion should go to Waleran's talk page. Ian Cairns ( talk) 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for granting rollback. I endeavor to not disappoint. :) Protonk ( talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I see you removed Muphry's law from the 19th July DYK nominations, but without any comment. Could you explain? Thanks. PamD ( talk) 10:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, that's great! Some of the other edit summaries say things like "rm to next update", or "promoted", so I thought the worst. Also rummaged around and couldn't find "Next update" to check - not sure why, as the link is fairly obvious. Sorry about that, and thanks for selecting it: I came across it randomly while stub-sorting and got intrigued so followed it up and found some sources etc. PamD ( talk) 11:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the current pic is probably better. Thanks! Lampman ( talk) 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider my July 17 hooks to be eligible?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the second July 17th hook without a picture?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 16:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't use this image on the main page as it's a derivative work of copyrighted public art (notice it even has a copyright notice in the corner). Daniel Case ( talk) 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that you failed to give User:Geologik credit for creating Mike Ayers, nor did I get the credit for nominating it.-- Bedford ^Pray 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, neat to see it on the main page. Thanks! Geologik ( talk) 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

do you know why the image i suggested wasn't used? ^MY♥_INchile 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PeterSymonds;
You recently enabled me rollback rights. When i see a good faith but wrong edit, is it possible to revert it using huggle without use rollback rights (as it can't be used in good faith edits)? Caiaffa ( talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is possible through the options in Huggle or through your configuration page. On your configuration page: rollback:false-- Xp54321 ^{( Hello! • Contribs)} 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you let me know when it is safe to orphan the template you commented on in the link above?-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jезка ( talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For some standard responses to requests (those that are less complex) are found at {{ CHU}}. It can save you time, if you want to that is. :) Rud get 12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How should I go about applying for a different one then the one I already submitted? Should I put in a new request or just message you? If it is the ladder, my new choice is mattm789. Callevacamp ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I sent a 2nd request when I realized first was taken. Coppercove ( talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you left requiring my attention? Coppercove ( talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping you can help me. I've just started my account today and was hoping to add my name to some lists on WP. But it just isn't that easy. I don't know how to make words blue, and when I edit, other people's info gets pushed out of place. And when I look at some of the symbols others have used, I can't find them on the edit page (like a little line that goes straight up and down?) thanks, Coppercove ( talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping you can help me. I've just started my account today and was hoping to add my name to some lists on WP. But it just isn't that easy. I don't know how to make words blue, and when I edit, other people's info gets pushed out of place. And when I look at some of the symbols others have used, I can't find them on the edit page (like a little line that goes straight up and down?) thanks, Coppercove ( talk) 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind! This is all helpful...but I'm still coming up in purple instead of blue. And I do have an article on WP...but maybe there's a glitch as I share my name with a baseball player and a porn star! Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppercove ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it!! Thanks for your patience and help. And when I sign on again, will my new user name be up? Coppercove ( talk) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Saw you finishing off the next update - want a hand with the credits again if/when you send it live? Olaf Davis | Talk 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - see my talk. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Leop85 → LepVektor. Just to let you know that there is no longer any need for global accounts to be deleted before users are renamed locally. WJBscribe (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

i write an article about one of our young director Avesta Jowkar because of being the first persian who his movie participate in DigiFest 2008 in Italy ... and you(peterSymonds) deleted because he is not famous ... if people like you didnt let artist like Avesta get famouse how you want to see them be famous ... also you can check his website or google his name and you will see how many links is about him ... so please do not delet the page that you doesnt know about it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzodigi ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear PeterSymonds...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalize process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Following our discussion last night about the Buffy mass moves, I thought I'd bring this topic to your attention. As I predicted, his actions have sparked a dispute :P —— RyanLupin • (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Friend to Friend Masonic Memorial has long been on the list, and the onyl one with issues on ti is someone who's been attacking all my hooks, due to personal issues, for a month. Could you please include it on this update, so its settled? It's on the bottom. Thanks.-- Bedford ^Pray 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I note you moved the article to the next update, in this edit. I don't think that is right, particularly as it represents hasty approval of a brand new hook, and the article does have issues which have been raised civilly enough. Also the new hook was not given a green sign of approval by anyone. In particular, I suspect that the specifically required referencing for DYK, like immediately following the asserted claim, is not met. I raised a concern about the wording of the central claim in the article, at the article's talk page.

Also, I don't think it is right for you to accept Bedford's judgment, if your edit reflects that, that someone has "attacking" all of Bedford's hooks, "due to personal issues". I have not "attacked" his hooks; I have not questioned all of his DYK nominations during the time he asserts I have; I have no personal issues that are relevant, although Bedford has personally attacked and insulted me repeatedly and this is another instance.

So I personally think your entry into this is not helpful and your action is not justified, although I accept that someone uninvolved, when appealed to as Bedford did, might think it would be. doncram ( talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the judgement myself, not with any prompting. Yes, Bedford prompted me to look, but none of the issues concerned me that much. Aside from minor issues (the picture, the ref-style), the article and the hook meet the DYK criteria. This position is explained on the talk page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohai. I haz moa DYK noms. Mike Welch and Hector Mercado. Kthnxbai! -- RyRy ( talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We keep seeming to clash at Requests for Rollback - why isn't the edit conflict occurring on that page? Anyway, sorry! Fritzpoll ( talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The last update is not showing up on the main page. The old one is stil up there. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's there now. My page must not have been refreshing. Sorry. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter my friend, I think it is just a bit early to close this AfD, less than an hour after being filed, and with a serious issue to be considered. While I suspect it will eventually be closed as keep, it would be good to have it open for at least a few hours to see if anyone can develop a delete reason, besides the subject of the article. Would you please consider rescinding your close? Thanks. Risker ( talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I am neutral on the closure (I think it was a good close, although I see Risker's point too), I disagree with the stated reason for closure - WP:SNOW. An oft-miscited guideline, this is for items that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell at the beginning of the AfD, not that consensus is swinging wildly one way or the other. Of course, perhaps you meant that, and I simply disagree with your assessment of this AfD's intention/chances at the start. Tan ǀ 39 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Risker ( talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't going to contest closing it, and don't have much interest one way or the other, but if the subject is only marginally notable and says he or she does not want a WP article, I don't see what the big deal about deletion is. But I'm not going to put a lot of effort into arguing over the point, either. Amerique ^dialectics 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we use Image:Sichelpfeifgans Dendrocygna eytoni 0505264.jpg instead? It's a really gorgeous image. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ask you again, but one of my hooks, the Crawford Gilpin house, is the oldest valid hook left. Since you're getting the next update ready, if you find it usable, then we can get rid of the rest of tht day, and reduce the size of the page considerably. Thanks.-- Bedford ^Pray 13:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem Peter, it's just that my level of commitment to DYK is very tenuous right now for a number of reasons and it doesn't take much to make me lose interest. Sorry if I sounded cranky in my edit summary, to be honest I am a bit cranky at the moment, but it's not because of anything that's happened on Wikipedia :) Gatoclass ( talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to keep working on the update now if you like, I'm not planning to do any more now, maybe I will pop back later to see if I can help out a bit. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My last hook had two qualifying articles, not just one: Grand Lodge of Kentucky was not creditted to me, nor was it mentioned on its talk page. I place the DYK tag on its talk page for you, but I can't exactly credit myself on my talk page for it. (I put this message here in case you didn't check back on my own.) Cheers.-- Bedford ^Pray 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your congratulations for my Merten de Keyser article! GJ1535 ( talk) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've made some changes to the article about White Lodge, adding a new section about the current redevelopment programme being undertaken by the Royal Ballet School. I thought it better for this to go in an article about the building its-self rather than the article about the school. Seeing as you have done most of the maintenance of the White Lodge article, I thought I should let you know so you can tweak it and tidy up what I've done. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. IMO, it should be closed. However, my first close was reverted, so I suppose it would be better for me not to do it again (especially since I have now commented). Mind taking a look? Thanks, Enigma ^message 01:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also this, if you can. Enigma ^message 01:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Second one was closed. this remains open. Enigma ^message 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, the second one was what was agreed upon, not the original title. It was a little misleading, but within the discussion, they reached a different agreement. Cheers. Enigma ^message 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you do this next update? I might be able to move a few. Thanks in advance, RyRy ( talk) 01:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I'm having trouble determining if Westminster Dog Show 2000 was ever a real page. If not, I'll go ahead and move it back to Paloma Valley High School and restore a proper version of it. Best,-- Jh12 ( talk) 12:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes - please don't block me for getting in the way of an admin's work! ;) What can I say - great minds think alike! Olaf Davis | Talk 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template_talk%3AAfrican_American_topics_sidebar&diff=228082836&oldid=228052143

Yes please! Sardanaphalus ( talk) 16:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• ...Thank you. Sardanaphalus ( talk) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good morning Peter, I noticed that you deleted the contribution about RES Software, reason being advertisement. I would like you to reconsider deleting this contribution, as the content is certainly not advertisement. Instead, the contribution provides information about a software company named RES Software. There are many contribution about software companies, including Microsoft, Citrix and Ericom. I followed the contributions of Citrix and Ericom, so I included history of teh company, products, partnerships etc., similar to e.g. Citrix and Ericom. The information in the RES Software contribution is not from RES Software, but taken from a reserach report (as mentioned) by the 451 Group, a well respected analyst group. History, product description etc. are all taken from 451 Group research, not from RES Software marketing. I hope you coudl recondider, or otherwise get back to me on how this contribution is different from e.g. Ericom and/or Citrix? Kind regards, Ron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonGrevink ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your criteria for importance of a person. Being founder of Bulgarian Stock Exchange and being of the helm of the company for last 18 years obviously in not enough to qualify to be in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpapazov ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you took away the text on my talk page that told me I was blocked. Does that mean I'm not blocked? And just so you know, I have no idea why I got blocked in the first place. -Sector311 ( talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks I was wondering what I was getting blocked for. Thanks for hekping me! -Sector311 ( talk) 18:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The report I submitted on Deobandi had an error in it - I did not realise the anon-user in question was using a range. If you check [5], you will see the range 118.103.239.* has been vandalising Deobandi. I was hoping you could help me, as I am not an administrator. How do I mark a range of addys making the same edits? He's clearly vandalising - those edits are pretty hostile. Thanks so much! Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

where can i report the misuse/abuse of rollback by an editor? can i report it to you? or must i file an ANI? thanks. Theserialcomma ( talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. we can talk here if you don't mind. i am concerned that McJeff is misusing Rollback to claim 'vandalism' against users who attempt to re-add a 'controversy' section to the Tucker Max article. the thing is, there was an RfC for the merits of having a controversy section, about whether it was warranted or not, and only one outside editor ended up commenting, but he said that it was warranted. McJeff then proceeded to remove the RfC and removed the controversy section regardless, as if there were no question. then, there was an RfC about whether an anonymous blog was a good source or not, and all the (3 or more) outside editors unanimously agreed that it was a bad source. McJeff removed the RfC without asking anyone (i started the RfC), and he decided to still keep the anonymous blog source, and revert any attempts to remove it. I believe he is displaying ownership issues with the article, which brings me to the rollback misuse. an IP editor keeps trying to add the controversy section back, but McJeff has warned the person for vandalism. i don't believe this is obvious vandalism, maybe just inexperienced editing. i believe mcjeff has displayed that he doesn't want the controversy section, and he is using rollback to call it as vandalism when people try to add it back. it really just isn't clear cut vandalism to add it back. i believe that both the Tucker Max article, and McJeff's editing history (i just looked at it) has a lot of evidence of him using rollback inappropriately. Theserialcomma ( talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

forgive me if i have made some errors here, but i believe that most of these are evidence of the misuse of rollback. [ [6]] here is an example of him using rollback to revert non-vandalism (I was removing an anonymous blog that he vehemently reverted for days, even after the RfC editors said it was not to be included. [ [7]] rollback on non-vandalism again [ [8]

[ [9]] [ [10]] [ [11]] [ [12]] [ [13]] [ [14]] [ [15]] [ [16]] [ [17]] [ [18]] [ [19]] [ [20]] [ [21]] [ [22]] [ [23]] [ [24]] [ [25]] [ [26]] [ [27]] [ [28]] Theserialcomma ( talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The only diff you provided me on my talk page that was even close to being inappropriate was the reversion of Theserialcomma during the content dispute. Two of the reverts were against an account who has been repeatedly both warned and blocked for making without-consensus changes to pages, and the other two were reverting vandalism exactly as the tool is supposed to be used for, unless you can show me a rule that says "Rollback is not to be used on anonymous IP editors who add malicious external links". McJeff ( talk) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll follow your advice, wait a couple weeks, reread the policy a few times and then reapply for the rights. 75.148.25.169 ( talk) 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was me above, forgot to log in. sorry. McJeff ( talk) 13:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've read the rules over again - I was under the mistaken understanding that the removal of Gamecruft was a valid use of the rollback feature, which I see now that it isn't. I also know that using rollback inappropriately during a content dispute was inexcusable, and should I reapply for rollback rights, I'll refrain from using it at all on articles I'm currently involved in a dispute on.

I do have a question, though - what are the policies on using rollback against editors who repeatedly insert unconstructive edits that they have already been warned against using? The wrestler moveset edits and the List of Characters in Bully edits are both of that type - the editors who were rollbacked were told that those edits weren't acceptable, and they did not attempt to start dialogue, just rewrote the edit.

I'd also like to point out that the user who complained about me has an active thread on AN/I about him. I don't want to get him in trouble because after a determined effort on my part to be both civil and cordial he's begun to respond positively, but I did think that mentioning that AN/I report was worth mentioning. McJeff ( talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

while it's true that mcjeff has filed multiple ANIs on me, his last one was ignored by all admins the first time it was on the ANI page, and so he then decided to move the complaint out of the archives and repost it a second time. the only admin to comment ruled completely against him. also, i believe he is misusing rollback again. plus, he is also engaged in a slow edit war to push a pov in Tucker Max. he insists on placing a gigantic copy and pasted treatise into the first available spot in the RfC discussion, even though the copy and pasted material is available on the same discussion page already. i fear this behavior will dissuade editors from responding to the RfC as it now appears too messy to know where to even begin. rollback misuse (i don't believe he truly understands the policy on how to use rollback): [ [29]] Theserialcomma ( talk) 09:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hessel-(C/K)assel-related suspiciousness

Two users have since weighed in on this mess: UserTodkvi5832 and User:JLIBPB. Both ceased editing on the same day (November 17, 2007) only to return today to weigh in on this proposal by User:Cladeal832. Neither user has had any contributions after agreeing with User:Cladeal832's position. While I'm not prepared to make any statement about any connection with User:Cladeal832, the good money appears to show that UserTodkvi5832 and User:JLIBPB are one and the same. JPG-GR ( talk) 03:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Pry (play) & Nevada Theatre

Thanks, Peter. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I added some diffs to my AIV report against User:Rebafan11, along with [ this]. If you have any other questions, please feel free to message me. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 10:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mysore mallige

Thank for the congratulatory message-- Nvvchar ( talk) 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DELETED PAGE- Endeavor (nonprofit)

The page Endeavor (nonprofit) has been deleted with no warning. It has been up since December 2006, and recently some edits were made to it. After several iterations of editing, the page no longer had editing warnings, and seemed perfectly fine. Now, it appears that there is another non-profit organization in the section, and our page does not exist. Please discuss and/or repost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalendeavor ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thief

You stole my userpage! I am calling the police ;) Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You blocked an article

You blocked this article [30] stating heavy IP-vandalism. Although there was hardly any vandalism at all. In fact, many of the IP contributions were removing vandalism from the article. 220.253.32.214 ( talk) 06:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision not to delete Susan_Bayh

Hi, I am contacting you at your user talk page in an attempt to follow the procedure set out at WP:Deletion_review. I protest the decision to retain the article, Susan_Bayh. Not counting a message by the creator and chief author, the AfD discussion registered three keeps and three eliminates or skepticals (the first eliminate wasn't indented nor given a one word heading). Here are my reasons for wishing the article deleted.

The article is a good example of the misconduct described under WP:COATRACK (note that I have added the Coatrack tag to the article). The article is not content to link to Evan_Bayh's BLP. There are several gratuitous "coatracking" shifts of focus, e.g., the sentence following the report of her marriage to Evan says the marriage occurred a few months before he launched his career as an elected official. The entire section entitled "Controversy" is really about her politician husband and not her, and its thrust is entirely POV, to advocate holding Evan Bayh to be caught in conflicts of interest due to the nature of his wife's career activities. This has nothing to do with documenting news *events*.

According to policies and guidelines, Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor a blog. Specifically, keeping up to the minute on current events is not part of Wikipedia's mission. This is true aside from the fact that keeping up to the minute with current events is an activity that often is compatible with what *are* Wikipedia's missions and an activity that many Wikipedians pursue vigorously. The conclusion I draw is that the notability critierion is not satisfied by a person being either a prospect for vice presidential running mate or the spouse of the person who is the prospect -- especially not spouse. The status of being a prospect for being chosen U.S. vice presidential candidate is labile, ephemeral. Furthermore, the verifiability criterion is usually not satisfied in the case of "VP prospects": usually, real evidence does not surface that a person *is* a VP prospect, only rumors. So, what else makes Senator Evan Bayh's wife, or more, specifically, the record of her income sources, notable? Only that she is an elected official's wife. Going back to the "Controversy" section, note that *she* -- the ostensible article subject -- is not accused of improprieties, *the senator* is. The impropriety he is accused of is being married to a corporate director.

There are many governmental and private entities dedicated to being watchdogs of politicians and attempts to influence them. I suggest it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to mirror the duties or databases of these organizations, e.g., by listing a senator's wife's income from her corporate board memberships and stock transactions.

What editor Eastlaw has produced reeks of snooping and nonnotability. For example, it is written that the Bayhs maintain a residence in Indiana, but reside primarily in the nation's capital, and it is written that the Washington, D.C. house is in her name. The last bit of info is trivia from a person's private life that does not normally belong in WP. The other info is not notable: of course a federal representative of jurisdiction X has to have a residence there, and of course senators and house members whose jurisdictions are far from DC are going to reside primarily in D.C. -- utterly nonnotable.

In summary: being the spouse of an elected official in itself does not pass the Notability threshold; being a wealthy, powerful corporate director does not in itself pass the Notability threshold; all things considered, Susan Bayh the politician's spouse and corporate director is not notable enough; most of the info in the article doesn't even belong in Senator Bayh's article; all the information in the Susan_Bayh article should either be merged with Evan_Bayh or deleted.

In the meantime, I will delete passages from the article which seem especially inappropriate. Thank you for your attention. 146.244.72.204 ( talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your message. However, the article was kept by community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, so closing it as keep was the only thing possible. You are correct that the spouse of an elected official does not automatically qualify as notable, but the arguments there provided evidence that she carried enough notability in her own right to allow an article to exist. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/Sandbox

Did you really mean to switch Template:Citation to using its sandbox copy of core? That effectively undid the page-protection on {{ Citation}} (because {{ Citation/core}} is protected and {{ Citation/core/Sandbox}} is not). RossPatterson ( talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Age

Hey I was just curious but how old are you? -- Xander756 ( talk) 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hi, thank you for your help. The article has been a long-time target for vandalism or falsification on information with bogus sources (sources themselves are from reliable news, but they did not properly convey the content) by 2channel people. See WP:AN#User:Nanshu and 2channel attacks again

The news says that 330,000 would be the estimated number of prostitutes in South Korea, not 800,000. The report is done by not Korean Administration as the vandal allege but by Korean Institute of Criminology, according to the source. The figure, 800,000 is alleged by Feminist associations according to the source. Besides, the vandali's content that 1/ 25 Korean female are prostitute is also false. 1/ 25 of over 20's females are. If I can't read Japanese, I would be fooled by the seemingly properly sourced material. User:Azukimonaka did that a lot. Anyway, thank you for cleaning vandalism. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 21:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Kindly restore Adam Hemmeon, which you deleted as A7 but is asserted to be the mayor of Halifax Nova Scotia, along with a source!!. I know I could just restore it myself, but I thought best to let you know. DGG ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tfd top template

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit to {{ Tfd top}}, and after reading your edit summary, I'm a bit confused. The way I was using the template, it didn't have that effect. I would write:

{{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''. Reason.}}, which (with the autosigning) produces:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was result. Reason. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm guessing from your comment that you would type something like:

{{subst:Tfd top|'''result'''}} Reason., which would produce:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was result. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Reason.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Is that what is going on? Is what I was doing against common practice, and that's why the signature was going in the wrong place? Or am I completely off-base? I would appreciate anything you could tell me to make my understanding clearer. Thanks, -- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I started the discussion at WT:TFD#Autosigning template:Tfd top, if you want to comment.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Real life name exposure

Would it be possible to eliminiate this edit from the history of the article? It includes the real names of several high-profile (in that broadcast area) on-air DJs. To respect their right to privacy, it would seem prudent to remove the edit entirely. -- Winger84 ( talk) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

Thanks, I've been told about that one since. NawlinWiki ( talk) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)