User talk:Exploding Boy/Archive 6

Question

Hi Exploding Boy (I'm not sure if I'm commenting in the right place), I'm a bit confused as to why you keep deleting my Richard Herring article. I've been reading the wikipedia guidelines but find them really confusing. Everything I've written is totally true but you've asked not to try recreating it, why is this? I've attempted to put notes on the page but it's still being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leportdamsterdam (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What have my edits disrupted? Be specific as to the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.98.152.20

Thanks

Thanks Exploding Boy for deleting the article I mistakenly previously created. I had no intention of creating such an article, I was just playing around with the infoboxes. Thanks again - Tds247 (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hardy

Hi - I just added the "hangon" explanation on my "talk" page for creating the article - Tom Hardy (designer).

Dezignr (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Tom Hardy retired from managing the IBM Design Program in 1993 and started an independent consulting business as a design strategist. He is a notable figure in the international design community given his corporate leadership and achievements at IBM, plus significant accomplishments as a consultant. The Samsung example cited is most notable since his work helped turn-around their global brand image, which received international media coverage. The sources listed confirm the caliber of his accomplishments.

74.166.46.48 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- Please clarify is by "relevant information" you mean adding more related accomplishments. Thanks.

Dezignr (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I must have made an error in submitting the article format as there are achievements cited in the article on my page plus 14 reference sources listed. Any thoughts on why the content is not visible to you?

Dezignr (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I just went to add all the information and another editor deleted the page while I was doing it. Can you reinstate the page - Tom Hardy (designer) so I can finish? Thanks. Dezignr (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Dezignr (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I screwed up.....it's after 4:00am here and I'm rather fried. All is finished now and I trust it is appropriate. Thanks so much for your help. Good night....or morning... Dezignr (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

What is the point of adding the notability tag to an article about someone who was bishop for 27 years? Punkmorten (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you introduced a spelling error to the article, and the tag was unjustified, I reverted. The article already asserts notability, it says that he was bishop for 27 years. If you disagree, please take it straight to AFD instead of wasting time. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

why you delete spoof metal

fuckin faggit whats rong with you it has enormas significance ur just some tool that noes nothing about music Blamecity (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

dude you fully just deleted without goin thru the speedy deletion process i dont no if u no but you have to file a request to speedy delete that way things that dont need to be deleted wont be by faggits like you02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)02:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Blamecity (talk)

I restored the comments you removed from ANI

Just letting you know, I believe it's usually considered poor form (and perhaps even against policy) to remove other people's comments from any talkpage other than your own, and especially from a community noticeboard. Of course, there are a few exceptions, for BLP concerns and the like, but the comments you removed had none of those "exceptional" qualities. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOTE Exploding Boy (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to cite WP:NOT? Because you just pointed me to our notability policy which has nothing to do with your removal of other people's comments (tangential though they were) from a noticeboard. And you initially cited WP:TALK in your very brief explanation on my talkpage regarding the removal, which also does not support the removal. One way or the other, the comments are restored, should stay that way, and it appears that Damians has retired from the discussion, which should allow it to now stay on track. I agreed with your take on the basic issue, by the way. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Force of habit. No, I meant WP:TALK. The point is, the lengthy chatter about the merits of the article is off-topic on that page, and is distracting from the issue at hand, which is whether or not an admin has misused his tools. Discussion about the article's merits should be taken to the article's talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that must be it. I was a bit confused by the NOTE cite, but I figured it was just an oversight. As for the issue we're discussing, when removing others' comments, it should be a clearly off-topic problem, not just a bit of a tangent, as that was. Perhaps a collapse-box (which I've seen on ANI several times) would have been more in order, and caused a bit fewer ruffled feathers. I note that Damians citing "Wikipedia is not centered" with the diff to your removal was a bit of (apparently unintended) humor. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just easier, after being edit conflict-ed about 4 times, to delete the comments. They were getting to be a mess anyway, with one user inserting remarks in the middle of other posts and so on. Anyway, hopefully the "tangential" discussion is over or at the very least continuing in a more appropriate place. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I didn't notice the insertion of PD's commentary in the middle of your comment until after I restored the comments you removed. And one way or the other, it's nice to make your aquaintance. As I said before, I fully agreed with your take there on the Nandesuka issue. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

BIAN (Banking Industry Architecture Network)

I posted the article hoping someone could fill in more information about this organization. It wasn't an advertisement. Antoinebugleboy (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've really only done a few minor spelling edits and such on Wikipedia. I think BIAN fulfills the notability requirements, as it is an organization of major banking industry professionals. What would you suggest I do to leave it open as a request for others to write about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinebugleboy (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Antoinebugleboy (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Great sporting losses

Could you pls redelete Great sporting losses? I was putting a db tag on it as you deleted it, and I wound up recreating it.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanx.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sherwin M. Shafie again

Hi there, I've nominated Sherwin M. Shafie at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 19. I think you deleted this article? (06:14, 19 August 2008 Exploding Boy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sherwin M. Shafie" ‎ (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)) (this is a very short notice I know ;-) Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Here you're getting off the track: a search on ORI's site shows they know about self-plagiarism, strongly disapprove, but prefer categorizing it under miscellaneous misconduct. That probably reflects the fact that the term is relatively recent Tedickey (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Norse colonization of the Americas

I think you made a good decision in protecting the page in response to the post at AN/I. Locking a page to force discussion can produce good results. The dispute at that page is connected to a user conduct RfC located here. - DigitalC (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect? I think the page can be unprotected now, for some days at least. The belligerent has been blocked for a week, and the rest of us can discuss. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

I posted in thread (which is common practice) to respond to your post about the "issue". I did not post right at the bottom because I did not intend to respond to Adoniscik's last comment which I agreed with.

You moved [1] my comment [2] to a position as though it were in response to a newer post of your own [3] and then responded to my post with pointed repetition as though I hadn't read what you'd posted (which of course I hadn't since I'm not psychic). I see that as deceptive and rather incivil. -- SiobhanHansa 19:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Threaded conversations are typical on Wikipedia talk pages. Indenting is normally used to make it clear which message is responding to which. Since conversations here are not simply between two people a non-threaded process - while simpler - does not actually reflect the conversation that is happening. I'm sorry if you find it difficult to follow. A quick post asking for clarification should sort that out for you and is far more preferable to incorrectly refactoring other people's comments.

I'm not sure how you expected me to react to you slipping my comment in between two of your own - both made after mine and giving the impression I was deliberately ignoring posts I could not at the time have read. That seems incivil and deceptive to me - if you think it's fine we will have to agree to disagree. -- SiobhanHansa 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You moved my comment into a position that falsely made it look like I was deliberately ignoring a) your assertion that the links were fine and b) your request to keep the conversation on ANI. You compounded that by posting a response to my message that reiterated those points.

This is something you haven't even acknowledged as a mistake - let alone apologized for. And you posted to my talk page with an explanation for your action which is simply not true. If none of this is because you have difficulty with common Wikipedia practice then it's even more troubling. -- SiobhanHansa 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me...

...thank User:Black Kite. I'm just reporting. HalfShadow 21:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for Exploding Boy about contacting Japanese side of Wikipedia.

Sorry EB, but again, I don't see how to contact you through your talk page.

I need to know how to appeal for arbitration regarding the Japanese side of the Arudou Debito Wikipedia entry. It's gone much too far than even the English side ever did. I'm ready to add a similar neutrality tag there too.

We also have a developing situation where certain online users are even harassing the people who are sponsoring the talks I'm giving in San Francisco with phone calls and emails. They are not identifying themselves, and are behaving beyond trolls, more like stalkers.

Can you offer any assistance? Thanks. debito@debito.org. Arudou Debito in San Francisco. (Feel free to erase this message after you receive it.)Arudoudebito (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mystical Seven (Wesleyan)

Hi there. Just a friendly note--I've been following the debate about Mystical Seven (Wesleyan). If Thaïs Alexandrina continues to revert your edits, I've got the page on my watchlist and will undo them too their edits and remove the note--just in case you're nearing WP:3RR territory. justinfr (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied [4]. justinfr (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

RichardCheese2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

Please see the above page. Sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report. User:Ausonia is doing just that. Please help if you can. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry about it. It is being taken care of. Keep up the good work with monitering sock puppetry, though. ~ Troy (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I was quite desperate, and so I contacted a lot of trusted users/those who specialize with checkusers. Oh, and Retardate was blocked a while ago (I listed him just for the sake of listing all of the user accounts involved). Happy editing, ~ Troy (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heroin Withdrawl

Thanx for the tips. I realise the article is poor at the moment. we have a collaborative team working on it, this is just the first draft.. probably should have kept it on the talk page..<sigh> still learning. Anyway, i take your point about wiki not being a how to, i was actually wondering that.. so thanx, i'll re-jig the article asap..

Infernal.magnet (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LesleyAnnWarren

I usually tag the oldest account as the sockpuppeteer. In this case, it appears to be LesleyAnnWarren, not Thaïs Alexandrina. If Thaïs Alexandrina had made a few hundred contributions more than all other socks, then I would have tagged this account as a sockpuppeteer. However, this doesn't appear to be the case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tonerprice1

Just an FYI... you accidently overwrote my comments, so I combined yours with mine so we both can be heard. Also, I added subst at the beginning of your warning on a talk page ((subst:uw-advert)). Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted our page

hi, i was attempting to add a new page about photographer carolyn masone and her company, essence of italy. the page was deleted within seconds of being published in what seemed like not enough time to even read it. please let me know if we were in violation of any wiki rules or why the page was deleted. i read the A7 rule and i do not see how it applies. carolyn masone is a renowned photographer whose works appear in galleries and homes worldwide. she is actively publishing photographs, travel writings and podcasts about italy on the web and at itunes as well as selling her photography at exhibitions and benefits on a regular basis. how is this subject less important or significant than any other artist published on wiki? the page included many referenced pages to show authenticity. i am entirely new to this process and if there is a way to keep this page or revise it to meet appropriate guidelines, i would appreciate any help you can offer. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help

hi and thanks for your reply. i'm new at this so it's no surprise i need to do some more work on the page before i submit it again. i appreciate your guidance and i hope my next uploaded page works. thanks again! (i don't know how to put a signature on this yet, but it's xanderson.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not Sure why you Deleted my page?

I am not Trying to Advertise this company in anyway but it IS a website and it would be pointless to write about the company and not even include the URL? Is there anyway I can go about Creating this Page without getting banned for " Blatant Advertisement" ? If you read the Page it talks about how the business came to be and how it is currently doing along with other useful and notable information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LorinComputers (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I read the Terms of the COI and believe it still meets the requirements, but you are correct when you assumed that I had something to do with the company. I figured that if the owner of the company writes about it then it would be a better source than someone on the outside of the business; which could possibly lead to false information. I will do as you instructed and request the article. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by LorinComputers (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Hi! Glad that I could help you. But I feel terrible and embarrassed that my English brain doesn't work well today. (Only today?) When you need Japanese help, don't hesitate to ask me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it,

FYI. Keeper ǀ 76 19:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo?

Did you mean to say "...I have no particular objection" here? -kotra (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Prostitution_of_males#Propose_move_to_Male_prostitution

Hi could you do a favor and make clear with "Support", "Oppose" or something else on this proposal so we might gauge consensus more readily? Banjeboi 22:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Effect

Dear Administrator,

Due to the failure of my two recent attempts to add the "Sarah Palin Effect" to wikipedia, nevertheless the valid references of various experts, I was wondering on which grounds a valuable member of the wikipedia community, You, based allegations such as "Vandalism" and "Patently false"?

I'm looking forward to your reply,

Thejuicer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejuicer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tree Cannon

Hi! Did you see his reply? I hope my explanation of the difference between US and Japanese copyright law is right. I'm not the specialist. I think everything will be alright. Sorry that I didn't translate my post this time. It's too tough for me and I know you can read it. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I correct your Ja? Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then correct mine on here. PLEASE. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Can you do the formatting for me on the citation I added to the Pubic Wars article. I don't think I did it right yet again. What am I still doing wrong? Caden S (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Remove the POV template from E. O. Caden S (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry EB but Moni beat me to removing the template for you. I was going to do that as you had requested but I was unfortunately too late. Caden S (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Still at it

Thanks for the heads up. I've been following and was thinking about what kind of response to compose. I sometimes wonder whether he really doesn't get it, or whether he's messing with all of us. I'm beginning to think this might fall in to WP:COMPETENCE territory soon, if it hasn't already. And what's with this edit? justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From Hersfold

Sorry, I'm not seeing why. Have I been involved with either of these editors before, or are you just looking for some help sorting things out? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just went through the history and thought you'd commented on the situation previously. Perhaps I got my wires crossed. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - after checking further, I do remember seeing the original discussion on the signature, but I didn't comment or anything. Looks like you're handing it quite well, so I'll not comment to avoid edit conflicting anyone. Do let me know if you need a hand, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Thanks for informing me about your AN post that's the subject of this thread. Unfortunately, I can deal with only one episode of wikidrama a day (and frankly, I'd rather deal with none). In any event, it looks as though you've said all that needs to be said. Deor (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

plz close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millionaire Cupid thx!--mboverload@ 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note, in regard to this edit to the Millionaire Cupid AFD, closed AFDs are not supposed to be placed in a collapsible box. I have since fixed it. Thanks for your attention to this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.75.107.249

You blocked him for just 15 minutes? Looks to me like everything done in this IP is vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not all, just most of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your protection of his talk page also was for only 15 minutes. Hence both are now expired, but I don't see any new activity yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Yajikita.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Yajikita.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Yajikita.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Yajikita.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising

Could you please follow up on the talk thread if your concerns have been addressed re: citations or if something else would help? -- Banjeboi 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your help

As someone who seems to possess a good troll radar, I'd like to ask for your help in this situation. Am I being trolled or is this just a tendentious editor? Thanks. Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Littlesisters.jpg

Image:Littlesisters.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Little Sister s Book and Art Emporium.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Little Sister s Book and Art Emporium.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou

Hi, Exploding Boy! Have you seen Talk:Debito Arudou yet? There's a dispute about the usage of Japanreview.net as a source (Arudou, who is participating in the talk page, says it should not be used, while many other Wikipedia editors say it should) - Please read the discussion and then comment. I would appreciate your input. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Help.

A user by the name of Mr T(Based) is attempting to start an edit war with me. He has also needlessly accused my good faith edits of being vandalism. He also is undoing edits on my own user page. He obviously is not an admin and has no such authority. Please talk to this rapscallion and get him off my back! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.133.47 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with jerk.

ANOTHER non-admin has threatened to ban me and has called my definition of a reliable source questionable. He is apparrently trying to defend the other miscreant. Please assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.133.47 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toonen v. Australia

Hello! Your submission of Toonen v. Australia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated LGBT people in prison, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT people in prison

Super interesting article. I learned a lot. Thanks! Scarykitty (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kimono de Ginza

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kimono de Ginza, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable group. No sources, nor any suggestion other than vague weasel-wording that anyone's heard of the group outside of its membership.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for LGBT people in prison

On January 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LGBT people in prison, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

(manually credited after the new bot freaked out) --Dravecky (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Bruce1ee^talk 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hey. I noticed your earlier merger proposal Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_11#Proposed_merge. Theres a new one here Talk:Homosexuality#Merger_proposal, with strong support, but we need help with making the article more concise. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joe Average

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joe Average, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

4 years and no independent sourcing or attestation of notability?

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPN about Carrie Prejean

You have been mentioned on BLPN Carrie Prejean. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

long paragraphs

I'll see what I can do - I just love writing long paragraphs when they capture a single stream of thought. Mish (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Re your suggestion, I think it's a good one. It looks like we're not there yet, but I was going to suggest working on a draft in a sandbox somewhere where it won't be picked apart immediately. I'd be happy to help. Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of addition to Carrie Prejean article

You removed the information I posted about Carrie Prejean being a co-host for the morning news at KUSI-TV in San Diego because of the following reasons:

(rmv non-notable event with nonexistent non-reliable blog source) (undo)

I have no problem with the entry being removed because it might be "non-notable."

However, I am extremely reliable. I called it a "blog" for lack of a better term & to match Wikipedia formats. The blog does exist & presently has almost 200 photos of Prejean co-hosting at KUSI-TV in San Diego. I have worked at KUSI for the last 4 years. I am an on-the-air reporter. While at KUSI, I have added over 200 photos to Wikipedia of people who have visited KUSI.

You can verify my employment at KUSI by visiting their website.

You can see all of the photos I have taken of our guests at my main KUSI guest page at: http://americanindian.net/kusi.html

You can see the 200 photos of her co-hosting that I have posted, so far, at: http://americanindian.net/kusi/prejean/index.html

Phil Konstantin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

re Hi

The username, combined with the contributions, led to conclusion of vandal-only account. Blocked as such. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to inquire further with the user that initially made the report. [5]. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mark Bulger

The userpage left it highly ambiguous, in my opinion, as to whether this was the player Bulger or not; I felt it better to err on the side of caution due to BLP concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC for corporate usernames

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass transition

There seems to be some kind of massive edit war going on at Glass transition that's been taking place for a few days now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs)

Further more. I have no idea how the heck I forgot to sign . . . I do it automatically. -WarthogDemon 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure I remembered who left me the message. I'm taking a look at the relevant pages now. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely regret to say that if you choose to allow the current "slash and burn" editor to massacre everything that was originally in the article - simply because she does not understand it -- then you clearly have the perogative to do so. Since you will not allow me to edit the article, I am powerless to do anything else. It is sad to see my hard work get wasted by an overaggressive and obsessive opponent and critic. But if she has convinced you that her merger of articles merits complete and total destruction of my original article, then you have authority to waste my work in an instant -- which is exactly what has happened by protecting her current version.

Some build (as I have tried to do).

Others destroy.

-- logger9 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Two editors reverted the editor who was banned for edit warring. You locked it on her version, not theirs. Please check the history, and lock it on the other version. Or, since she is banned for a few days, it might not be necessary. Someone who has a history of making contributions to an article, and trying to work with it, and has studied and taught the subject, should be able to revert mass deletions that delete 75% of the article, without a legitimate reason. Dream Focus 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cazzzzzzzaman

Hi! I left you a question here regarding your blocking of the alternate accounts. Jafeluv (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it and I've already replied there. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Underground (stories)

I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process and found some concerns, which you may see at Talk:Underground (stories)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass transition

Thanks for feedback on that - the more the better. I've just slept over this and was going to suggest the following: you can't hard block a page forever. My plan was to ask the editors to agree to "submit" the page for a WP review. This could be WP peer review or "informal" review upon agreement. General WP rules (anyone allowed to review except for editors). The editors will agree to work by review comments only. (You can invent punitive actions; my suggestion was to block reverting editors rather than the article - in general, I don't see the articles "belonging" to anyone, and if find blunders, politely rip them off myself :). I have read the article and it is poor, both by scientific and WP standards, but the editors might be professionals and might bring it to GA level. Whatever the route, if we reach that state, WP will gain. Same could be done for other related articles. I am fine to review, but I by no means pretend to be a problem solver here - I have my dozens daily WP tasks. I am asking your opinion first. If you agree (with whatever alteration), someone can put it for the public, and you may wish to unblock the page when everyone is ready. If this sounds naive, please say so without reservations. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. My point is that (i) I don't want to waste anyone's time (including mine) and need all parties to agree on certain terms (ii) I am happy to provide a long list of things to work on, but the editors should have a will and ability to improve the article, not as they see it, by as WP standards "see it". I don't find much science in that talk page. In their fight, the editors miss obvious things which will be noticed not even by a scientist, but a usual WP reviewer. Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That (my comments without any conflict resolution part) will be much easier for me, as I don't have to be polite, and will contribute to editing those articles myself. Still, I won't do much before unblocking. Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone Baby Gone

Aside from the introduction, you have removed the entire article on Plastic deformation in solids. What exactly are you planning on doing with it ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Autofellatio

why not include more pictures? and how is "unnecessary." a good reason to revert me? well are the pictures in the articles under the Template:Sex and Template:Sexpositions restricted to one example?--Otterathome (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and by the looks of things many users have learnt to live with WP:NOTCENSORED. You don't seem to have any legitimate reason to have reverted me. If you do have a good reason, say why on the talk page. Otherwise I'm going to add the pictures back.--Otterathome (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling you are reverting me for the sake of reverting. Reverting is not a race.--Otterathome (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CabarrusNowMagazine

This user requested unblock to change their username to something that is still promotional (CabarrusNowMagazine -> cnm) but instead just went ahead and made a new account, and spammed again with the new account. I think this should be left blocked as well as the sockpuppet they made. Triplestop x3 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The old account had been reported on the username for admin attention board, but had already been blocked and then unblocked to allow for a username change, which I didn't realize when I blocked it, and that's why I unblocked it. Meanwhile, the new account has been blocked and marked as a sockpuppet. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I never impersonated you.

Why would I want to do that? Also, by posting on my talk page, doesn't that mean you are actually impersonating ME? I know you may have been offended by my "lol homos" comment, and I apologize if I have unintentionally disrespected your choice of lifestyle, but these kinds of personal attacks will not solve anything. Don't the Teachings of Wikipedia say to always keep a cool head, and assume good faith, and all that good stuff? You do want to be a good Wikipedian, don't you? I know I do. 71.198.56.105 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, even if you disagree with me, calling my edits "nonsense" is a bit harsh. MAYBE I happened to overlook a small bit of policy, it's natural, I AM new here. That's still no reason to say such things, though. It should be fairly obvious to everyone that I'm just trying to help here, and it was an innocent mistake. 71.198.56.105 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do I have to sign up? It seems to me I can get by just fine with an IP, and if IP-identified users were not intended to edit, I'm sure that Wikipedia would have disabled this long ago. I see no reason a person who considers themself to be a pillar of the Wikipedia community needs to practice shameless discrimination like this. Do you despise new users that much, that you can't wrap your head around the thought of one actually doing something constructive? It seems like so much of the community has been operating under the baseless assumption that a user without an account is nothing more than a vandal, or a troll. This kind of behavior disgusts me, and thus I see no reason to feed into it, by identifying myself with an account. Maybe when the community grows up a little, I'll do so. 71.198.56.105 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when you grow up and stop posting stuff like "lol homos", then we'll be willing to work with you. Thank you, MuZemike 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking a user whose username/userspace is under discussion

Hi, I've been told that you placed the editing block on User:Gavelclub. While I certainly agree that this user is advertising, I feel that the user should not be blocked from editing until a consensus on what to do is reached. Seems about as democratic as the medieval courts to throw a user in the dungeon while their trial takes place, wouldn't you agree? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did block this user, via the usernames for admin attention notice board some time ago. I wasn't aware there was any discussion; where is it happening? (As for your medieval reference... isn't that what we do in modern courts too?) Exploding Boy (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you found it already. (Touché) -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users

Please remember to notify other users if you post about them on WP:ANI - this is a mandatory requirement. Exxolon (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Group accounts

My apologies Exploding Boy for the misunderstanding, I didn't realize creating a username for 4 people would be a violation of policy. Truthfully, the account was only ever used by myself, but we thought longer term it would be better to have others be able to edit with it but now I see that is not possible. I tried very hard to not violate any policies with the survey, I contacted both the Chief Research Officer, and the the Wikipedia Research Network for advice and followed it. This survey is not for the promotion of any organization or product, it is an attempt to help the Wikipedia community, much like the creators of suggestbot or any other technical contribution, but to help the community we need input from the community. Also, personally I would like to get more involved in editing articles, I've been looking through lately on places I can make a contribution, so far issues with Organizational Behavior seem good for me to update. CMUResearcher (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Body Modification

Hi, I started the WikiProject if you are still interested.. Wikipedia:WikiProject Body Modification it would be nice to have some help. :) ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

All right if I can't use the Der Stürmer nick can I use just Stürmer. And can I ask you one more favor can you please help me with the Bosniak article I wrote there an "are you serious?" part so can you remove the Der Stürmer signature and replace it with Stürmer when I make it? And can you tell me who can do an arbitration about the part I wrote because some guy is reverting it but I have better arguments, I hope you'll help.

Where do I do that (change of name)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.135.62 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: AN/I Thread

Thanks for the notice. I'm trying hard to limit my reading of WP:AN & WP:AN/I to once a week. -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I honestly don't care; they can be deleted if it will placate those with the shrillest voices. I was simply trying to preserve content which can make Wikipedia an exhaustive reference for everyone. Too bad some people are too insecure over the fact there will always be articles in Wikipedia which are unsatisfactory, & may never be properly monitored -- & use this as a justification to delete articles. -- llywrch (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Naw, just delete them. If you don't I will; while I have thought up a good argument to keep those stubs, frankly I write better stubs & don't have that much interest in writing about German politicians. Further, while I was very angry earlier (how angry? I found driving for 20-30 minutes in rush hour traffic was less frustrating than that AN/I thread ;-), something needs to be done before Ottava Rima gets her/himself a timeout for beating a dead horse. -- llywrch (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, you missed Werner Pohle. Or did that pass the test for recreation? (If it was an oversight, just delete it & don't bother moving it to my userspace.) -- llywrch (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth (apparently, not very much) I actually added a reference to Werner Pidde before it was deleted. Cardamon (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it.Cardamon (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:QinesisMarketing

I have replied to your thread about this name at WT:U. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin. GreatGatsby (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't follow my edits or comment on them...if you must make sure to understand the history behind them. GreatGatsby (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Christ was waiting for CIV to get quoted. You don't have to be an anal-retentive loser. I know this is your little bastion where you can have power and such, but c'mon, man. Get a life, and stay out of where you aren't needed or welcome. Thanks! GreatGatsby (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just stop. You have a life outside of this wiki, go live it. I really can't understand your type - also stop removing my comments or I'll be forced to return them. GreatGatsby (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My, my...

Haven't we been over this before? I have not edited disruptively. You have. Don't threaten me again, or I will contact your parents and tell them about your behavior. I don't like to do this, but sometimes, when children don't get the message right away, I have no other choice. 71.198.56.105 (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Otterathome (talk · contribs)

I contacted an admin regarding about Otterathome's antics, and I'm trying to get him banned for violating WP:UP. Do you think that he's a hypocrite? Joe9320 of the CUWP | Contact the Council 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses for human semen

I'm actually quite pleased you Nominated that article for Deletion; I was rather hoping someone would. That article, other than its opener (which I reluctantly wrote) was taken from the Semen article. The "alternative uses for Semen" section was comprising about 20 percent of the semen article, which I thought was utterly ridiculous, but they wouldn't let me remove it from the article, and threatened to ban me for edit warring. So I removed that text from the semen article, and created a new article. If that new article is Deleted, it will hopefully provide an excellent rationale for keeping that ridiculous information out of the main semen article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

test

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)

Hiya Exploding Boy, I figured I would ask you this on your talk page rather than the deletion discussion, you listed as examples of poorly cited content

Michael Jackson was listed as the "Biggest Pop Star of the '80s," the "God of Music," and the "God of Pop,"

I haven't seen those listed in the current article, or any of the versions I have looked at between today and 02 August (I spot checked about 10 versions), not even on the version that you nominated for deletion. Was that a while ago, or was it deleted some time between now and then? Am I just missing something? (that happens all the time). Either way you are using an example that does not apply to the current or nominated version of the article.--kelapstick (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those were items that I removed before I realized the problems were too big to be solved by editing alone. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I saw a previous discussion on the talk page after I asked. Thanks for clarifying. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Caden

Caden, whether right or wrong, feels that you are harassing him. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but Caden thinks it is. Try to give him as wide a berth as possible. I'm not saying you should avoid the articles you two have in common, but try to keep all of your comments focused on articles when dealing with him and please stay off of his talk page. If you have any problems with him, let me know, and I'll try to deal with him and any problems that arise. Thanks. AniMate^draw 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidently he does, and it's absolute nonsense of course. Regardless of how he feels, however, I see no reason to coddle him or condone his abusive behaviour. After his most recent tantrum he took 2 months off, but jumped right in with the same problematic editing style when he returned a couple of days ago. This is typical of his personal attacks, and this of his incivility. While I've chosen not to respond to his personal attack on me on his user page (nearly unbelievably ironic given his complaints, a short time after making that post, about supposed personal attacks directed at himself on another user's talk page) because I know he's fairly unstable and prone to going off the deep end, I see no reason to encourage him by condoning that type of behaviour, as you did with your reply to him a few moments ago. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And just let me add this: I have no problems with Caden, and I take offence to your suggestion that I made any personal comments about him, as you did in this edit to his talk page. For the record, since he deleted it, I posted the following to his talk page on August 13:

Please note that per our signature policy, affirmed by a recent RFC, your signature must contain, at minimum, a link to one of the following: your user page, your user talk page, or your user contribs page. The lack of such links is a particular cause for concern given that your current signature doesn't resemble your actual user name. Additionally, I notice that your recent post to the Traditional marriage movement AFD does not include a time stamp. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal or off-topic there, and let it also be said that you agreed with me in your first post to that section, and that Roux has (very mildly) reproached Caden for his behaviour. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with you, but I'm just trying to make things easier around here. AniMate^draw 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, but actually you've just made it worse. I'm afraid that even your most recent post to Caden's talk page doesn't fix the issue, because you are making it appear that Caden is right that I've done something inappropriate or have some pattern of harassing him. Not only that, but you've done nothing to address the issue of his personal attack against me, which remains on his talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My post to Caden is the best I can do. If you have anymore problems with him, please take it to an administrator board. AniMate^draw 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your most recent post, I don't think it really goes far enough; it should be removed per NPA. Additionally, I must repeat that I do not have a problem with Caden. As I made very clear above, I chose to ignore his recent personal attack on me because I'm aware of his history; his post became more problematic in light of your own replies to him in that thread. I do understand that you were well-intentioned, but I'm afraid it backfired. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay EB you've gone too far. Please remove the personal attacks you made against me in the above post. Stating, "because I know he's fairly unstable and prone to going off the deep end.." IS a vicious attack. You should be blocked for that alone. What are you now? The Dr. Phil of Wikipedia? I resent that lie. Look, I'm not here to fight okay. I've already striked the "jerk" and "goof" comments from my talk page. You very well know you've been on my case for over a year now over just about anything. I feel you've been harassing me and I want it to stop. Remember that I'm not the only editor that you've been going on about. You've also been bothering others (Rico & InaMaka). Regardless, I just want you to leave me alone. Nothing more. Can't you please just get off my case? Caden ^cool 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone too far? You accuse me of "stalking," "harassment," "bullying," "attempting to drive other editors off the project," "POV pushing" and "disruption", besides being a "goof" and a "jerk"---and all because I left you a polite and entirely accurate note, one that was to your benefit, incidentally, given that you've been blocked before over your signature---and you think me observing that you're prone to going off the deep end is "going too far" and is a "vicious attack"?? And you have the audacity to demand I remove that comment while all these false accusations and personal attacks still remain on your talk page, along with your related incivil remarks to other editors in the same section? Incredible.

Actually, I think you richly deserve a block for your remarks; it's a sign of my willingness to defuse the situation that I simply ignored your post, although I was well aware of it. It's unfortunate that you yourself were unable to let it end with your tirade, instead turning your anger onto other editors, ones who were also trying to help you, leading AniMate to make a well-meaning attempt to smooth things over that ultimately made me even more upset and strained an otherwise very collegial relationship. To make matters yet worse, you couldn't abide by your own stated desire or AniMate's advice to have nothing to do with me, and came to my talk page to leave a nasty note and to continue both your lies and personal attacks. This is exactly the type of thing I mean by "going off the deep end."

I think you'd be a lot happier here if you just chilled out and disabused yourself of the misapprehension that people are out to get you, but ultimately I don't believe you're suited to Wikipedia: you have demonstrated repeatedly that you just can't function in this environment. Obviously you'll disagree, and will continue to follow the same patterns of behaviour until one day you either can't take it any more and leave voluntarily, or you end up banned. In any case, I have no desire to or intention of engaging with you further, but it appears our interests overlap, and I will continue to edit and participate in discussion on the articles that interest me, even if you happen to work on them too. Just so you know, I have basically no interest in you personally; you'll save yourself a lot of pointless stress if you stop thinking I'm following you around and out to get you. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may... Caden, to say you react poorly to editors who have different opinions than you is an understatement. You needed to stop the drama five minutes ago. I've tried to treat you sympathetically, but there is only so much hand holding that can be done. Nothing written by Exploding Boy comes close to what you wrote on your talk page. You. Must. Chill. Focus on articles and stop focusing on these petty conflicts. Now. AniMate^draw 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Exploding Boy. I thought you might like to know that I have filed a complaint against Caden on the Wikipedia incident noticeboard that is still on going in regards to inappropriate actions by him towards me, which more-or-less is similar to what you're going through with him right now. You are more than welcome to chime in if you want to. Take care. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of it and have no desire to get involved. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

UkFaith

Hell in a Bucket is suggesting that the talk page be protected since he is basicly not getting it, see here. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another GMA Fan sockpuppet

• Here's a possible another User:GMA Fan sockpuppet which is recently made today. --> User:GMA Telebabad.--Witchy2006 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of The Cure

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:The Cure/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your input

Hello. Currently there is a discussion going on over at Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard about the inclusion of an analysis book as a source. As a member of WP:HP I would like for you to add your thoughts to the issue. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese tea ceremony

I am afraid your revert on Japanese tea ceremony[6] seems incorrect. Your edit summary contradict your revert. Please review it again. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that punctuation should go outside the quotation mark if not in a direct quote. The items that WikiHorse changed were not direct quotes, but words in quotation marks. One example is:

The Japanese tea ceremony, also called "the Way of Tea," is ...

Since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote there is no need to place the comma outside the closing quotation mark. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the rule that punctuation should go outside the quotation mark if not in a direct quote? Then, since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote, there need to place the comma outside the closing quotation mark? Please see WP:LQ and Quotation_mark#Punctuation. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that any punctuation not originally in a direct quote goes outside the closing quotation mark. It does not apply here, since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote, therefore the punctuation can go inside the quotation mark. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested advice to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#punctuation marks inside the Quotation marks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the logical-quotation rule is independent of whether the quoted words are a direct quote or are a title. After all, a title that is quoted is merely a special case of a direct quote. Since the title does not contain a comma, the logical-quotation rule says that the comma should not be inside quotation marks. Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What Eubulides said. Tony (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this rule, but it's a bad one; there's no logical reason why an article that uses American English spelling shouldn't use American English punctuation too. The deal with commas, periods and quotation marks is that American English says to put them inside and British English says to put them in or out depending on the stop (like Americans do with question marks). Wikipedia's rule is similar to the British one. However, because this article is written in American English, it should use American punctuation to match. In this specific case, Exploding Boy is right: There is next to zero chance of confusion if the comma is placed inside the quote marks.

Of course, you could always go on the talk page and suggest changing the article to British English. It wouldn't be worth getting into a fight over, but it might be worth a try. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...shouldn't we be having this conversation on the article's talk page so that its contributors can weigh in? Let me speak from experience here, if you're considering reverting each other's changes, you could be mistaken for edit warring. Unless this is purely academic, you should probably put this where people can see it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last two comments and point out additionally that people are missing the crucial point: "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote. It's not a quote at all, but simply an instance of a phrase being set of from the surrounding text by being placed in quotation marks. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copyed above discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#punctuation marks inside the Quotation marks in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made there not here.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a quote at all, but simply an instance of a phrase being set of from the surrounding text by being placed in quotation marks."

That's exactly why the commas go outside, according to WP:LQ. The everywhere-except-the-US-humanities practice is to put commas inside the quotes only where they're preserving the sense of a direct quote, not for titles, phrases, etc, that appear in quotes that just happen to be followed by commas. 84.203.43.70 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary use of nose ring

There is a discussion Talk:Nose ring (animals)#Requested move about the primary use of a nose ring. Is it the one for humans or animals. If you would like to express an opinion, feel free to join the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Exploding Boy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Whittier Treat - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Big hair

An article that you have been involved in editing, Big hair, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big hair. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mike Jones (personal trainer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mike Jones (personal trainer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Jones (personal trainer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardrule,

Regarding this, I don't see who you're referring to, given that the suspected sock never added it, and that it's present in all SPI case pages. I'm therefore adding it back in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but he didn't add the one present in the SPI. There is a hardrule at the bottom of all SPI cases. It is to help with navigation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For the future, of course.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Substing templates

I noticed you added a {{usernameblock}} template to somebody's userpage but did not add "subst:" before "usernameblock". It is required in this template so that the username will actually show up. In addition, it prevents your own username from appearing in a white box. mechamind90 01:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I like your idea of restricting anonymous editors to only being able to submit a certain number of edits in a time period (as I would suggest, one every minute or two). I've commented as such on the talk page there, so let's see if anyone else thinks like you and I are here. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I think most people object to any sort of wide-ranging restriction on ip editors, even minor ones... Exploding Boy (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The point here, however, is that anyone making good, legitimate edits will need at least a minute to formulate the edit contents NEway. Spammers can "spamdit" two or more times in a minute, making it extremely difficult for anyone to stop them. CycloneGU (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm already a convert. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

LEAC

Let's be friends. Understand that what set me off was your claim about me that cast me in a negative light. Indeed you later explained you made an error. Specifically I am talking about my history comment about talk on a cat's talk page, and you did not realize it was the cat's talk page and not that particular talk page. I totally understand you made a simple error. I make them all the time too. But that's what set us off. It seems we are on the brink of putting that in the past. So let's be friends. Unfortunately, it appears some IP address has followed your lead. Perhaps you may wish to help shape him into an effective Wiki editor. I have attempted to provide him with some guidance along those lines. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to simply try to keep the discussion to topic without getting personal. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay.

And while I am writing to you, I must say I sympathize with you over the constant stream of people attacking you in the manner they do, such as the one you got just minutes ago. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know, but I'm not an admin. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good times. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Pickton

Please see this edit, deleting a paragraph that you had inserted. —Mathew5000 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More of what you may have expected

See here, after your warning. I had the exact same thought as you when he did it the first three times, but as I'm involved in editing the page I decided taking action myself was unwarranted. Nandesuka (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ejaculation

Good day, Exploding Boy. I have just been reading your comments on my user page with much interest, and it seems that they merit a response. Now first of all, you ask me what possible reason I see for continuing the debate. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand that my answer to that question is irrelevant, as is yours. It is neither your place nor my place to decide that a discussion has come to an end, and in your case especially not when you have taken part in the discussion yourself. Indeed, if you truly thought that the discussion was over, I have to ask why you saw fit to add your own argument before archiving. If the discussion was over, were you not simply wasting your time by doing so? Of course, regardless of the answer to that question, the fact remains that the discussion quite clearly was not over. You were quite right to say that no conscensus had been reached to remove the video, but neither had a conscensus been reached to keep it either.

Now, you accuse me of haste in reverting your archiving. However, those words seem a little rich for someone who was rather hasty himself in adding his own opinion to the discussion, and archiving it immediately afterwards, thus preventing other people from commenting on it. With my reversal, people are free to comment on it if they so wish. And seeing as this is the 'Free Encyclopedia which anyone can edit' then as long as nobody is being abusive to anyone else, I see no problem with this state of affairs.

Finally, I note with raised eyebrows your use of the word 'apparently' when you correctly noted that this was my first edit with this IP. I'm not quite sure what you were insinuating, but I have to say that I do not appreciate your tone. I would remind you that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith at all times, unless you have very good reason to suspect otherwise, and I hope that you will bear this in mind should you decide to continue this discussion77.102.254.186 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your more polite response. Now, I will concede that on further investigation I was wrong to claim that you had given your opinion and instantly archived the page. I had naturally assumed that since your comments appeared at the bottom of the page, they were the last to have been made before the archive. On checking the dates however, I see that this assumption was incorrect and I apologise for that. Nevertheless, it still seems to me that much of I said still remains valid.

The claim that a conscensus had been reached either way is patently not true. A brief examination of the discussion reveals that there are 4 editors who want the video removed and 3, yourself included, who don't. So how you can claim that your side has the conscensus when you don't even have the support of 50% of the editors involved is beyond me. Of course, it would be quite wrong to argue that numbers alone determine the strength of an argument - they clearly don't. But when, as in this case, there are roughly equal numbers on both sides bringing strong arguments to the table, it is a clear nonsense for either side to claim that it has achieved a conscensus over the other. And so it is clearly quite wrong for one of them, as you did, to arbitrarily decide that the discussion is not to be allowed to go any further.

Finally, you seem determined to make a big deal of the fact that I failed to fully revert your changes, so let me comment on that briefly. Firstly, when one clicks 'undo' one naturally assumes that one is reversing all that has been done, so as before I do consider it a reasonable mistake to have made. Secondly, lets be honest here - correcting that mistake was hardly strenuous was it! All you had to do was highlight some text and click a button, taking all of three seconds. So don't go on about it as if you were up half the night trying desperately to sort it out! And finally, you wouldn't have had anything to correct in the first place had you not incorrectly attempted to close off legitimate discussion. So forgive me, but I'm afraid I really don't have that much sympathy. 77.102.254.186 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to put the record straight

You wrote, in an unblock request you just declined, I also note from your block log that you've had a different account indefblocked for the same reasons. Actually, the length of the block was 31 hours, long since expired. However, no edits were made under that account since then. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have misread. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk

It's a question asking for references on the reference desk, ie the place where references are provided. It is not inappropriate, read WP:NOTCENSORED 95.78.69.25 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a medical advice question, see User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion 95.78.69.25 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, thanks for your support! Much appreciated. TenofallTrades has now blocked this IP address for 31 hours. Dolphin (t) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Request

I don't get what was wrong with my name changes.

User:FTP1690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangers GSTQ (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Neil Renilson

Hi. I've reverted your PROD of Neil Renilson because he's received significant coverage in at least eight reliable sources and won an award. I can sort of see a delete argument, but I think it needs further discussion. Feel free to try an AfD if you want. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Exploding Boy. You have new messages at Alzarian16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moving this all to one thread, it was getting hard to follow. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikołaj Rudnicki

Man! Wait! I was making this article, don't hurry with removing it! Give me a moment!

Now I told reasons of notability. Is that good now?

OK, I am adding sources.

--ArkadiuszEurope (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikołaj Rudnicki

Dear Exploding boy I think you might wish to withdraw the suggested deletion of Mikołaj Rudnicki. Google books seems to me to have has some refs which indicate clear notability - Portraits of Major Polish Linguists - Mikołaj Rudnicki’s etc And perhaps suggest the need for more refs. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Pressing

Please don't delete my page. I gave reasons in the page you created citing reasons for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not deleting it, but I listed it for deletion so that a many editors can discuss whether or not it should be kept. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

I'm giving it a second go. If I screw up again, just delete it and let me know by leaving me a message. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okidoki. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Username blocks

Hi. :) Just wanted to drop you a reminder that when the username is the only reason for the block, as User talk:EGM Corp., we softblock, disabling the "Block acount creations" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option. That's the only way they can follow your suggestion "to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines" in the template. :) I've adjusted the settings on that one (which I found out about through an e-mail to the unblock mailing list), but figured I should point it out since I see you did the same thing at User talk:Afadsecretariat, though you used the softerblock notice (I adjusted that one, too.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Exploding Boy (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Xiruki tepe

what could be the reason? how can i follow A7? what to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engkingkong (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your vigilence! I was just trying it out really and I appreciate that this is NOT the forum for advertising - I'd just had a good meal there that's all! I won't thank you for your commentary on the name as it holds little merit, but once again, thanks for keeping Wikipedia free of twits like me who try to turn everything into a spruiking session... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hill of Different Beans (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome? :) Exploding Boy (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Gerhard Vogel

The article Paul Gerhard Vogel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for sourcing issues since Jan 2009, this biography of a possibly living person has no references at all within the definition of WP:RS and WP:V.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Exploding Boy. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orgy

Before making such sweeping changes to an article as this, please discuss them on the article talk page and gain a consensus. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of being bold, in the context of bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, now let's go to the talk page and discuss. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Usman Sani

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Usman Sani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.

I realize this article has been on Wikipedia for 5 years, but I don't believe that the subject qualifies as notable for Wikipedia purposes. I did not tag the article for speedy deletion, but I think the editor who did tag it as such was probably correct. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Usman Sani for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Usman Sani, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Sani until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Gerhard Vogel

The article Paul Gerhard Vogel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article appears to be about a non-notable person. The sources provided are unreliable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Gerhard Vogel for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Paul Gerhard Vogel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gerhard Vogel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kudpung (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citations missing

Template:Citations missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RaintheOne ^BAM 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Jackson Walsh. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Jackson Walsh - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RaintheOne ^BAM 18:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Courcelles 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Chano1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chano1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[7][8], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=93859032 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Exploding Boy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Exploding Boy a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ryanskipper.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ryanskipper.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Chasen.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chasen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aaron Webster Housing Cooperative

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aaron Webster Housing Cooperative requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)