User talk:Woohookitty/Archive8

Thank you for helping me understand the rules better...

Woohookitty, Being new to this, everything was pretty confusing, so I thank your help editting the article to fit Wikipedia's model. And I read the link you left for me and understand things better. Thank, you! Woof! Jesse Lane

NPA? Wha?

Would you take a quick look at this section and see if I've committed a personal attack against James Randi, or if I'm just describing what his detractors say versus what his supporters say (the latter was my intention - to fully describe my belief that his "paranormal challenge million dollar prize" is just a marketing gimmick. I'll retract it immediately if you think it best. Thanks much! Here's the diff: [1] Dreadlocke ☥ 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are quick!! Do you think I ought to retract it anyway? I don't want to leave something evil out there...even if it's just my honest opinion... ;) Dreadlocke ☥ 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Woohoo! I've reworded it, but if it's still attacked, then I'll retract it - it's not that important. I really appreciate the quick appraisal - you are the best! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pimlico State High School

Thanks for your assistance on vandalism of that article, it's completely out of hand, and needs admin attention. Matt J ^User|Talk 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete an article I just wrote which legitimate reasons?

Dear Sir,

You recently deleted my whole "James Moser" page on simply the grounds of so-called "vanity" and it seems nothing more or at least nothing more you cared to list.

Soon after your deleting I saw your "Woohookitty" link and clicked on that to see who you are and I saw you were an "administrator" in "Beaver Dam, Wisconsin." Now I'm asking myself truly out of wonderment rather than 'spiteful rudeness' "Why does anyone need to know you’re from Beaver Dam, you've won web awards, etc.?"

My page was meant to serve as a personal example and not "a waste of space", but if it is deemed so, so be it. However it seems to me, a person who works with researching students daily, as you may or may not do, that George Washington's or George Harrison's pages are of undateable "use" but how is yours?

If, you would be so kind as to truly and respectfully let me in on your "administrative" moves or specifically the reasons be hind them I would greatly appreciate it.

James Moser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrAndyWho (talk • contribs) 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Undeleted an userfied, hope you don't mind Woohookitty :) Viridae^Talk 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for your quick reply. In honestly I understand most of your reasoning and actions however your sarcastic message of "Nice try..." and so forth aren't very professional for an award winning adm. I personally think.

Also given my explanation and the fairly just manner I set up my "article page" I thought it would meet at least some of Wikipedia's article criteria especailly considering the countless almost useless too brief, miseditied, and vugarly vandalised pages I often come across.

I hope you understand my point of view given the "free" unrefereed nature Wikipedia is and will always be given its being a free online and editable "encyclopedia."

Well it seems if, you were being nice I'm sorry, but it certainly did not come across that way to me and I would say most people who would have read your replies of "yeah nice try" etc. I guess I just figured sarcasm is your tool of tools and for that again one might question ones professionalism.

At any rate looking over that I thank you, but not really, for moving my information. I may be off in my Wikipedia constitutional knowledge but I don’t think it’s in your power as a regular fellow or administrate to create or edit other people’s user pages without their permission or even request. Anyway I’m am sorry to have troubled you or given you something to slow down your vandalism cleaning. Please truly stay on that as I like you I’m certain much of it abounds and thus gives Wikipedia a bad and even banned named in the Libraries and Labs at Hollins, Roanoke, Virginia, Radford, and a number of schools I’ve studied and worked at.

Non-deleted template

Hey, it seems you closed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4#Template:Copyrighted Flickr Photo as a delete, but somehow forgot to really delete the template! --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to G-unit

You reverted it right?Two revs make a diaster... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.7.24.251 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Brock Lesnar

User:Badassguy and User:Thomas86 edits look familiar.. and im not the only one to notice . Infact, the said user has been suggesting i make the edits for him via email insisting that he has changed!!?? -- Paulley

Thanks!

For your reversion of vandalism to my user page. It's much appreciated! Ale_Jrb^talk 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

About your closing comments to Template:Mortal Kombat characters

I noticed that in your closing closing comments to the TfD for Template:Mortal Kombat characters, you claimed that it had been deleted before, and thus "a reposting of deleted content", as a justification for deleting it. However, this is not correct, and your statement would certainly be quite misleading to anyone who hasn't actually followed the history of this template (I also felt it somewhat insulting that you would insinuate that I and many other editors would knowingly attempt to save something that had already been legitimately deleted before). If you check the old TfD, you'll see that the original template was removed because its function had been merged into Template:Mortal Kombat series, not for any of the reasons brought up in the TfD that you closed. However, due to the goading of User:A Man In Black, that other particular template was cut down. Hence, Template:Mortal Kombat characters was recreated since its function was no longer being taken by another template. The issue brought up at the old TfD was no longer valid. You may also notice that this is the same A Man In Black who created this recent TfD. Anyway, I just wanted to make clear that the template Template:Mortal Kombat characters was recreated for a perfectly justified reason: the content had been split up again. The reason brought up at the old TfD, which you cited as a reason to delete this new template, does not (Or did not, as the case would now be) apply to this new template. Therefore, it probably shouldn't have been a deciding factor when you closed the TfD. MarphyBlack 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Potaaatos and his edit warring at the Battle of Stalingrad article

Someone called "Pataatos" is edit warring at the Battle of Stalingrad article. He keeps saying that I haven't given any sources and that I violate Wikipedia rules. Quite the opposite, I'd say that he is the only doing so in this case. He ignores my pleas to discuss the matter at discussion page where I have made several posts about what I added to the article, but it's no good. On top of all, his behaviour is strangely similiar to "certain persom" who had some issues with me. "rv, obvious violation of wikipedia rules such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VER by a user who has gotten blocked 50 times". I take this as an insult. He seems to imply that I am a vandal. By the way, I have not been blocked "50 times". I dearly hope that you or some other moderator would check this. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply, but the real issue was the edit war going on at the page. I mean, he refuses to take me seriously, and says that the information I posted at the discussion page is nothing but my "poersonal point of view". I wish that you or some other moderator could help me solve this problem. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to add that Potaatos is acting very much like Deng now. Read his latest post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Stalingrad#Slovakians_and_.22Axis_troops_who_chose_not_to_surrender.22

Hi. I'm not sure who is whom (Potaatos dropped me a note today; I've never heard of any of the participants nor have I edited the article before). I, however, am rather confused as to why you said that he "keeps citing policy and not always correctly" — Kurt Leyman was the one who failed to add a source to the article which backs up the contested (& historically, not insignificant) claim. What is going on here? El_C 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now he reverted me twice, so make that 6 reverts. He still refuses to add a citation to the article. El_C 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrator in an act of vandalism

What do you do when you catch an administrator in an act of vandalism? Apparently, Stemonitis was unhappy with some edits of a page on the Gran Sasso by MGerety. His response was to delete the page MGerety had written on Castel del Monte(Abruzzo). He made the mistake of beginning this attack in his own name: "# (cur) (last) 15:58, 5 February 2007 169.157.227.126 (Talk) (→History)

1. (cur) (last) 10:35, 5 February 2007 Stemonitis (Talk | contribs) (formatting; remove photo credits)",

the next attacks that deleted the detailed entries just have an IP address but follow Stemontis's deletion by mere minutes.

--User:SilviaManno 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You recommended posting this on the administrators' note board. I don't want to tick this guy off. The paper trail is there for anyone who wishes to see. That's as far as I wish to take it. SM

an odd favor

Would you please consider a semi-protect on User talk:Thebainer? There haven't been any new users commenting there except sock IPs, and bainer can unprotect it when he wakes up, but I'm sick of having to watch my back for false accusations there. — coelacan talk — 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. I'm sure it'll be User talk:Jimbo Wales now, that is the other major target for this one. Of course that page already has a million eyes on it so I don't bother. Thanks again. =) — coelacan talk — 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IP socks

I noticed you've tagged an ip address as a sockpuppet. Would you mind if I changed it to indicate the IP address was used by that user, since no one truly owns an IP address? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I created a new {{IPsock}} template you could use for tagging IP address since someone else could log on from the IP after the block expires. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Car

I had a 1993 Buick Century BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking before reverting changes to Men in Black (disambiguation)

I actually moved the list of fictional characters out of the disambig page - because it's not really disambig (since it's not navigation). See discussion at Talk:The Man in Black. I'll move it back if you agree. Megapixie 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool - I'll pull out the list of characters - but the rest of the merge is fine. Thanks. Megapixie 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not really vandalism"

You rejected a vandalism report using this as a summary. How is continually inserting aggravating nonsense into an article not vandalism? The anon has been warned several times this month. Chris Cunningham 11:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, inserting Mein Kampf as a see also link is POV-pushing? [2] Ho hum. Chris Cunningham 11:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Portugal. The Man Article Revert

Why are you reverting it to what is essentially a review? This is Wikipedia, not Pitchfork Media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.132.45 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Legit COI or PA?

Does this "alert" [3] come close to a personal attack per WP:COI How to handle COI, and NPA's "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It just doesn't seem like a proper statement or warning about someone else's views. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

False accusation

I'm being falsely accused of violating 3RR, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Dreadlocke_reported_by_User:Milo_H_Minderbinder_.28Result:.29, can you help? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Custard pie

Welshypm keeps adding more pictures to this page. Most of the pictures don't have the appropriate copyright info and s/he keeps increasing the size of one from 200px to 800 px. I reverted the changes, but I don't want to get in the middle of a revert war. S/he just reverts them back, refused to discuss on their talk page or the article talk page, and isn't using edit summaries. Does this count as vandalism? I know you're probably not online right now, but I wanted to get a second opinion from an experienced user and I know you already had a look at the article last night. janejellyroll 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

66.177.173.119

Hello. You blocked 66.177.173.119 for 24 hours for blanking his/her user talk page. As much as I believe that warnings should be kept for at least a little while, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings says that there was no consensus from the community to enforce "no removing warnings". The last real vandalism was almost two days ago, so the IP can't be blocked for recent vandalism. I have to ask you to unblock the IP until it vandalizes again, or at least unprotect the talk page so the IP user can request an unblock him/herself. Thank you. WODUP 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

American Idol-related AfD

I noticed you are a regular contributor to American Idol (season 6), so I think you may be interested in the AfD of List of American Idol contestants. And I apologize for bringing this to your attention rather late in the AfD debate; I would have told you earlier, but because I was so busy this week, I was unable to attend to it. Tinlinkin 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking

Thank you for blocking User:VitoGoldoni 7. I appreciate your quick response. @kshay 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil?

I know you're busy, I've really appreciated your help on so many occasions. Would you mind checking this (rather long...sorry) situation out? If it's a problem, I can take it to ANI, just let me know. And it may be that I'm just being over-sensitive, so tell me that too...

Here's the issue: I think User:Wikidudeman needs to be informed by an admin that his comments are uncivil – some of them possibly even bordering on personal attacks. I've tried to explain, to no avail.

He disparaged my opinions by labeling my talk page comments as “trifling”,[4] then he followed up with a continuous stream of uncivil taunts about my “being afraid”, constantly challenging me to a debate on an external forum, taunting me instead of properly discussing our dispute on Wikipedia, claiming that the external forum was “easier to navigate” than Wikpedia.

(Some of the following diffs are dups - two infractions each...)

When I politely asked him not to call my edits trifling, [5] he aggressively responded with his disagreement, and said he does not agree that his posts are uncivil, then throws it back in my face with his “challenges”, by not only accusing me of “being afraid”, but also taunting me with multiple accusations about “being afraid” [6], [7], [8], and repeating his “challenge” over and over again, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14],

I did remove the word I found offensive per WP:CIV#Removing_uncivil_comments, but he unapologetically put it back and proceeded to attack me further.

He finally stated that if I “can’t take the heat, then I should get out of the kitchen,” a comment that I believe shows that he is aware of his incivility, even while he denies it, followed by another uncivil remark that I’m “wasting space” on his talk page. [15]

Instead of discussing the dispute on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, he insists we take the discussion to an external forum, then taunts me over and over by calling me “afraid” when I refuse the “invitation”. It’s a terrible way to have a discussion with another editor, very uncomfortable dealing with this editor.

It seems I’m not the only one who’s had trouble with him: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

A friendly note from an admin might be helpful to his Wikipedia communications strategy. Or perhaps I’m the one that needs clarification…! Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, Woohoo! As always, I appreciate your insightful comments and helpful advice! I did indeed stopped engaging with him, even though he kept posting rather aggressively on my talk page about mediation that he is not even a part of and is getting the historical facts wrong on. I'm not responding to him because I think he is abusive and unapologetic. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that because I found it offensive, I replaced the word (trifling) with the much milder "edits" per WP:CIV#Removing uncivil comments. I see that it merely served to anger wikidudeman who simply put the word back and used the incident to further attack me - so it wasn't the best choice for actually getting the word removed. The word is still there, and it seems there is nothing I can do about it. I guess it just stands as a symbol of his incivility and unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. Thanks again for your help! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sometimes, some people just can't be helped and probably should be avoided."

Unfortunately, he is editing a lot of the same articles that I love to edit, so avoidance may be very difficult. I may be calling upon you again soon... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another strange attack by him: [22]. I think he's either implying that Belbo and I are socks, or lovers...not sure which. He seems to be persistent in his desire to attack me, or at least to continue making comments about the contributor instead of the content. This should really be nipped in the bud. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He can't have "proof" because it's not true. Besides, Belbo and I are on opposite sides of the dispute. He's basing it on my message to a mediator that I've returned (basically from a three-day weekend) and that Belbo came back from a month-long holiday. If he looked at our contribs (which he's done before), it shows that I was posting well before Belbo "returned" ...Heck, I don't know Belbo and I don't even like Belbo... So, does all that constitute "proof" or "attack" ? I'm sure it's just an attack. Can he be warned? Or should we await more egregious attacks? Dreadlocke ☥ 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess this would constitute the entirety his "proof, which is no proof at all, IMHO: [23], [24] Dreadlocke ☥ 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my interruption, I have been reading about accusations of incivility on the part of User:Wikidudeman toward Dreadlocke. I am hoping you are planning on responding to the questions User:Wikidudeman asked in his reply to your post on his talk page here . In my opinion he raises some valid points and am interested to see your thoughts on them. Thanks for your time, Anynobody 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't even know that Wikidudeman had responded to me on his talk page. My apologies. Thanks for the heads up. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I understand how it can happen. Thanks for the prompt reply. Anynobody 10:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadia Kittel at Berliner FC Dynamo

I need some help in dealing with a problematic user Nadia Kittel who keeps making poor edits to this page and is ignoring all requests to improve her work, while respecting the contributions of others. You had previously banned her for similar conduct, not just limited to this one article, but of a broader nature. I'm getting tired of the reverts back and forth and having to fix clear errors and keep the article from being turned into some sort weirdly formatted fan page. Some similar things are happening in other areas to a lesser degree.

My concerns have been outlined to her in the comments attached to my edits and my remarks on her user talk page. Other users have asked for her co-operation (to little avail) in relation to others of her edits/practises. Part of the irony/irritation in this for me is the claim on her user page that she is part of the anti-vandalism unit. Sheesh. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Wiggy! 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Death and State Funeral of Ronald Reagan

Ok- I'm sorry if I went a little overboard. There are a lot of photos of Ronald Reagan's funeral, and, even though there are a lot on the page, I think it helps the article. People can now see what happened during Ronald Reagan's funeral, and not just read about it. I think all my pictures helped. Happyme22 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ok- thanks for that. i'll stop. Happyme22 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war

A potential edit war seems to be brewing over article tags of all things [25]. An editor added them in good faith, and is trying to discuss the points on the talk page Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#New_introduction, other editors are simply removing the tags because they disagree. Any help or advice would be appreciated! Dreadlocke ☥ 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, hey, I may have actually gotten it under control! I'll keep ya posted... Dreadlocke ☥ 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was actually a dispute between several other editors, I wasn't involved. But I stepped in and acted as a sort of mediator and calmed it down and sorted it out. I kept my cool and helped others to so as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

tourism

The wikipedia rules state that article sections must contain a source from a neutral view, not from a personal point of view or just because someone is from nicaragua they are just going to lie on the article to make their country sound good. I think that is very unprofessional and as an administrator i would assume you know that and the rules were are the articles to back up the nicaragua tourism section? i didnt see one single paper and remeber it can not be from a site that promotes tourism in that country once again neutral point of view! so like a good wiki administrator you should take that part off until there are some articles to back it upHoland

and you "lanicoya" dont know the wikipedia rules are you here to help or to act like a 10 year old Holand

As an "Administrator"

as an administrator i would think that you would check the articles and view the sources the Nicaragua Tourism section does not have any sources the website provided has nothing to do with tourism at all, i didnt read anything about tourism and all the personal opinions written on there havent been taken off like they should be until there is a source that is from a neutral point of view. Im well aware that i am the one requesting the change but all the volunteers here obviously dont even understand the wiki rules "source must come from a neutral point of view, articles must contain sources" there is no tourism discussion on here wich means it was just placed there with no sources no nothing. I plan to make a tourism section for honduras,costa rica (wich by the way is the central american paradise) and guatemala as well and maybe improve the el salvador one but i will follow the rules like i expect rules to be followed for the nicaragua one. Im a new user and i have read all the rules, "lanicoya" needs to read them againHoland

Milwaukee PC

Doing my usual random article clicking I bumped into this article. I noticed you have added som categories in the past. My first reaction to the article was nominating it for CSD:A7 it being (in my view) a unremarkable company. What is your view on this, If you don't mind me asking? Should I just be bold and tag it, taking it to the talk page or just let it be? Intinn^Talk! 10:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your *fast* reply! Intinn^Talk! 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a thank you note for doing the drudge work at 3rr. Kyaa the Catlord 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Eton College

Following up on you comment which I appreciate, what about Yangsta's RV of me, his statement is plainly POV and I am just making it neutral. Furhter, there is no consensus in talk except Yangsta's concensus. A little fairness and mediation is needed here I feel. Thanks Beak99 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Sports Figures in the 2000s

Hey. You recently deleted Template:Sports Figures in the 2000s at Tfd. I made it clear at the Tfd that the content was in another article (and had been merged into that article), so the history really must be maintained due to GFDL requirements. Would you mind undeleting and following the approach I laid out in the Tfd discussion? (move to List of sports figures in the 2000s, and then redirect that to 2000s in sports and throw a {{R from merge}} tag on it) --- RockMFR 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. You can delete Template:Sports Figures in the 2000s now. --- RockMFR 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast

Hello. You recently deleted Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast (the Tfd discussion is here). Would you mind userfying the template to User:Dojarca before deleting it? The user or another editor may wish to expand the redirect pages in question into actual articles, at which time the template would again be useful. Thank you, Black Falcon 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Continual stubbornness

User:Bacanaleranica has repeatedly been adding a large controversial section that has been reverted by many users including myself. A disscusion was started of his/her behalf over the matter but use continues to re-add the topic on the main article. See here [26]. What should be done about this?
* LaNicoya 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• And from the looks of it, she/he is creating numerous accounts in order to make their point 'heard'. I guess only time will tell what happens.
  * LaNicoya 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

speak for yourself just because you are known for making various accounts and insulting and harrasing people it doesnt mean everybody has the time to be doing all of that i actually have a life obviously you dont i didnt want to get this rude with you but you should never talk about things and people you know nothing about speak for yourself Bacanaleranica 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Goedgevonden incident

You have reverted my REDIRECT of the Goedgevonden incident article. Was it, because I wasn't signed in at the time (accidentally)? --Deon Steyn 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out ;-) --Deon Steyn 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the great advice. I took a break and have come back a bit refreshed, if not disappointed by the results of the 3RR violation. I just can't see how my first edit removing the NPOV tag per a formal mediation decision can be considered a revert. But apparently, the 3RR rule is far more flexible in its application than I (and others) think. So now what can I about the warning on my talk page? Can I archive it? Do I leave it there for all eternity? Can I ever become an Admin with that on my record? <sigh>. Glad to know editors like you, Woohoo - I apprecaite your solid advice and help. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I'm always saying thank you to you! Great idea with the Werdnabot (is that a Wizardry reference?) It's interesting, but from out of the whole Edward/3RR fiasco, I was awarded a barnstar. Made me feel a lot better about the whole thing... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how old I am, I remember waiting for that game to come out so I could play it on my Apple IIE. It all started in 1981 with Proving grounds of the mad overlord! The best for it's time! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your comment here. Sorry if I came across as someone looking for a "champion". I'll leave ya alone and try to be less...uh, whatever it is that seemed to upset everyone so much.... Dreadlocke ☥ 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks!

it looks like not even your volunteers follow their own advice they say dont insult people and "lanicoya" just because she doesnt like the fact that she wants the nicaragua article to be what in her opinion nicaragua is and what she wishes it was, there is no need to say that just because i have one person that agrees with me now i have multiple accounts how professional is she good job on letting her join a girl left a comment about her on the help desk that got deleted while i was reading it but it said she is known for making various accounts on sites like this one and yahoo answers were she insults people from el salvador and costa rica and i will say just because she does those kinds of things it doesnt mean every body else does i have my account this one and is the only one i need to get my point across so as a person that has volunteered on this site longer than her be kind enough to tell her to read the rules again as a volunteer she is in no position to be calling out people and im so amazed on how i have had my account on here longer than her and she is attacking me as they say people that are used to cheating in life and lying and making millions of accounts think its something that everybody does well "lanicoya" just cus you do it it doesnt mean the rest of the world does it i have a life other than sitting on the internet all day making up people i want to be in websites but obviously you have the time to do that so speak for yourself Bacanaleranica 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

my compliments

may i compliment you on what a great job you do on getting the worst most rudest volunteers that instead of helping they just spend there time insulting people they dont even know!, the person that created this site might consider being more hands on because if i were that person i would be ashamed on what a reck this is turning out to be. You might want to consider volunteer clean up because this site needs people that dont involve their personal life and personal problems such as racism and gossip with professional business i am well aware nobody gets paid to do this job but like they say if your going to do something do it right or dont do it at allBacanaleranica 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For giving me the benefit of a fair hearing in my recent 3rr case[27]. I was very concerned that because my accuser was an admin, no consideration would be given to my words (hey, it's happened to people before). I didn't want to keep adding to that (painfully) long list of evidence, but in my own defense, there are a number of fellow editors who appreciate my contributions to that article[28][29]. I don't want to make this a smear against Jossi (whose input is usually good), but some editors feel he leverages his position a bit too much, giving the impression of a bully. I will admit that I felt a bit intimidated seeing my name on the noticeboard. Even so, I was very fortunate to have a discerning person taking a look at my case. Kudos, and please, keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more admins who show sound and careful judgement. Mael-Num 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not your "accusser". Any editor, can post a notice on WP:3RR when confronted with a user that it his/her view is disrupting the editing process. I did not do that as an "admin", but as an editor of Wikipedia. I agree wholeheartedly with Woohookitty: Admins are not anything special when they are editing articles, we have the same privileges as a user that just made one edit in WP, if at all, we should uphold the standards. Having said that, note that I do not appreciate being called a "bully". You need to keep your judgments of others and what you think are the judgments of others, to yourself. That is what is called being civil, and remember that everything you say in Wikipedia is recorded forever. Want your edits to be accepted in good faith? Very simple then: no personal attacks, engage others with civility and respect, and do not editwar. Woohookitty gave you a tip: don't revert more than twice and then resolve your dispute in talk without reverting again. Do that and we will have no problems. . Now, I need to catch a plane. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I could have given diffs to show that this opinion of you is not unique, and as you can see from my own words, I value your input as a contributor. However, your defensiveness and vague intimations (am I to never be considered acting in good faith, then?) illustrate the situation far more clearly than I could; all in response to a brief "thank you" that wasn't addressed to you. Take your own advice, Jossi, and remember that shameful displays such as this are recorded "forever". Mael-Num 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shameful display? Cool off, Mael. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow...you just don't get it, do you? Take it elsewhere, Jossi. I apologize, for both of us, Kitty. Mael-Num 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jessejj89

In regards to the user page that you just reverted back this person has only logged on once and created a user page mocking mine and even using a barnstar that was given to me by someone else. Nhl4hamilton 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a fan :D Nhl4hamilton 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Prod-nn}}

Hi Woohookitty, I've created a {{Prod-nn}} template, which could be of interest... Addhoc 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on AI

It's really a credit to wikipedia that the Antonella Barba situation is being covered responsiblely. I can't imagine what an undertaking that must be. 24.60.193.223 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{{tfd}} on templates at List of adjectival forms of place names

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28. You closed the TfD with the result of no consensus, but the templates themselves still have the {{tfd}} tag on them. If I am not mistaken they should be removed. –Pomte 05:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on TfD?

Would you like some help on old TfDs? The guidelines at WP:DPR specify non-admins shouldn't close when the result is delete, but TfD has the "holding area" the other XfD's don't, so that rule may not make as much sense in this case. —dgies^t_c 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia & Toomuchtrivia templates

Since I see you deal with templates for deletion, I was wondering if you could deal with a move. Per discussion at Template_talk:Toomuchtrivia#Renaming, there is consensus to swap Template:Trivia (currently a redirect) and Template:Toomuchtrivia to more accurately reflect the current guidelines and match the wording of the template itself. I would have taken it to Page Moves but that seems to be exclusively for articles. Thanks! CovenantD 08:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically just move the template at Toomuchtrivia to Trivia, and make Toomuchtrivia a redirect to Trivia. (Even reading that is confusing. I hope you got it.) CovenantD 08:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! CovenantD 08:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black / 3rr

You wrote "31h" on the latest report; but there is no block. Is this a mistake? William M. Connolley 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I wanted to apologize for improperly formatting (no diff times) my 3RR report, and for my lack of clarity regarding the "previous version". Reporting users is not something I've done much, so I made a few errors of inexperience. In the future, I will try to avoid such errors, though I would rather not need to report users for bad behaviour. Vassyana 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page, it is appreciated. Vassyana 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you blocked him, I thought you should be aware of a few things with Getaway. He accused you of a bad faith block User_talk:Getaway#You_have_been_blocked_for_48_hours and complained he did not violate 3RR but did not request an unblock. I responded civilly with the revert diffs, asked him to assume good faith on your part and added some comments, including an invitation to join the discussion after his block expiration. An anonymous user indicated he may be using a sockpuppet to evade the ban here. I requested a checkuser here. Just a heads up. Let me know if you have any questions for me, or concerns about my postings. Vassyana 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a request, if you could provide any advice about my question for the checkuser/admin I posed on the checkuser request, it would be appreciated. As I mentioned, reporting and requesting checks on users is still pretty new to me. I'd like to do things the right way and you seem to have a good admin head on your shoulders, so any advice you'd offer would be greatly appreciated. Vassyana 03:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you for your assistance and prompt attention to this. It is most sincerely appreciated. I don't mean to cause trouble, but this was obviously of concern. Again, thank you. Vassyana 09:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

American Idol Semi-finalist Redirects

Actually, the way it's set up now works, because there are no links to the redirect names, and the redirects guide people to the correct page (American Idol season 6). So, it probably makes sense to leave things as they are. - Im.a.lumberjack 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Schmetterling and Carla Martin

Thank you for the help with the 3RR situation. FYI I have requested a checkuser for evasion of your block, because an IP account recently made an identical revert to the ones Schmetterling was making. PubliusFL 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

DivegirlUSA

I was working on an article and it completely disappeared, would you be able to help me find it into Wikipedia so I can save the work I did online, as I didn't save it before its deletion? It was under Karina Leal "DivegirlUSA". Divegirlusa 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Thanks for the belated vote of confidence. – Chacor 14:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance?

Taking you up on your offer to let you know if I needed some assistance. Feel free to smack me around for harassing you. :-P More seriously, I was wondering if you could look over Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Virgil_Vaduva and give me your thoughts. Thanks! Vassyana 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your assistance. It is most sincerely appreciated. You are always help and kind and I cannot express my thanks enough. Vassyana 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate what I already posted in my usertalk page, I don't know what a meatpuppet is, but Frank is my friend and it is true that he often shares my views and works on similar articles. I did ask for his support here. At the same time, I am not sure why you would find it necessary to block his account. I hope you will reconsider. I am sure you guys have logs and whatnot to figure out who he is. It seems to me that you are basically warning me for bringing the attention of a friend that shares my views to an article edit. Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to bring the attention of a group of editors when I feel an article is threatened with a non-neutral POV by ONE user that came in and blasted away months of hard work and collaboration in one or two days? It seems like your logic would lead to the banishment of the entire Wikipedia community since people seek feedback and help from like-minded people on edits ALL THE TIME.

To add one more comment, it seems like you are letting user Will3935 slip by without even a warning, despite his deliberate ad-hominem attacks, escalation of violence and breaking a 24 hour truce. --Virgil Vaduva 14:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record

You left this comment on my talk page: I just reset the block because of your use of User:BballJones as a sockpuppet. Please just take the 48 hours and do something else. Using socks does not help your cause. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BballJones is not a sock puppet of me. Assume good faith. Take care,--Getaway 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your long comment on my talk page. I see your point, but once again Bball Jones is not a sockpuppet of me. Bball is a friend of mine. Period. Have a good day!--Getaway 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I read your long list of comments on my talk page and I do not agree with them. My friend is not a meatpuppet. Once again, I would ask you to assume good faith. Best of luck,--Getaway 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I read your last comment on my talk page. I read it and I don't agree with it. There is no sockpuppet or meatpuppet or any kind of puppet. Now, on this we disagree. You have expressed your opinion. I have expressed my opinion. Have a good day!--Getaway 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Thanks for the warning. You are quite right. Early in the editing conflict I did try to mix it up with Virgil and that was wrong. Correction accepted. Nevetheless, an examination of the history of the regrettable affair will reveal that I have repeatedly apologized to Virgil and asked his forgiveness for my conduct. I have also maintained a civil tone for quite some time and have done what I can to make friends with Virgil. Virgil seems to still be upset over everything but I believe we can be friends and make things work in order to produce a quality article. Thanks again for your input and help. I needed your correction and input. Please don't hesitate to correct or discipline me in the future if such is warranted. I do want to mend my ways entirely and become a completely benificent Wikipedian. I have learned alot from this editing conflict, so in the long run I believe it will make a better editor out of me. Thanks!Will3935 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as just one example of my reformed ways, see my comments on Virgil's talk page just before your post there. Sorry! I just couldn't resist showing off my repentance!Will3935 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Woohookitty

Who are you? King Lopez 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Sligh

Thanks for moving my vote to the correct page.—Emote _{Talk Page} 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

We (m,eaning the editors working to keep the POV-pushing, etc. out of the article - User:Bignole, User:ThuranX, User:Erikster and myself) have been thinking that creating a temp page for the controversy stuff might allow that discussion to take place for those interested in that, while the main article (Production, Plot,Themes etc.) gets some much needed attention. After its nice and tight, we reintegrate a hopefully more stable controversies section. We were thinking that an admin should sign off on this idea, as the article is highly visible. As well, because of the argumentative edits, we want to make sure that no one feels slighted. In addition to the temp page, and the moving of the controversies section to it, we would make sure that all new contributors knew exactly where to go to if they wanted to address the controversies surrounding the film. To be clear, this suggested move isn't intended to lessen the contributions of those wanting to point out controversies, and/or their effect. This allows those editors in workin that particular section a specific area to hash them all out, while at the same time, those editors interested in putting the rest of the article together can do so without relative distraction. After both are relatively stable, they can then be integrated. Your initial input on how to how to avoid trouble would be really both helpful and appreciated. Your thoughts?Arcayne 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, all of the POV pushers felt we were shoving them into a closet, and screamed bloody murder. So, it's back to business as usual, slogging away at every individual concern as to how the film desecrates Persian culture, and apparenty, Iran is going to declare war on the film and Hollywood.

Putzes. Arcayne 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, give me the links to the articles, and I will lend a hand. Maybe some time away from the pro-Persian nonsense will be good.Arcayne 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it outright vandalism, or PUOV vandalism? I want to know whether to watch out for either 'she's so pretty!' or 'she's a man, baby!' Arcayne 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

stubsensor

Hello Woohookitty,

I just wanted to let you know that stubsensor is back. I also managed to fix that stupid red link problem. :-) Thanks for all your help in the past! Triddle 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Milo H Minderbinder has accused Myriam Tobias of being my sock puppet here. I'm wondering if there is anything else we should be doing about this? Thanks, Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deng yet again?

user:mooocow looks like a possible sockpuppet.DMorpheus 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for categorizing Dakota (cigarette)

I've moved it from being a Philip Morris Brand to a J.R. Reynolds brand, though - I hope that was just a simple typo. (There were some newspaper articles that misidentified it as PM, but the overwhelming evidence in the corporate records of either company points towards it having been a JRR brand.) Jutta 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

JzG has reviewed my block and unblocked me thanks for your support. (Bradleigh 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Thanks2

NP. I laughed out loud at your "woohoo!" talk page link. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Singadick

Singarick 10:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC) It seems that you indefinitely blocked my username singadick.

I have reviewed the blocking policy, and it seems that neither the name, nor anything I have done, is considered blockable.

So I ask: why the block?

Dick Gascoigne in Singapore singadick@gmail.com

Probably 'cause it has "dick" in the name. Admins are overzealous sometimes often. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.55.153 (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

User:evsvit

evsvit 11:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a cultural and educational issue. Traditional man's name receives a slang meaning in time, and for younger generation it's not a name anymore.
P.S. How about the famous story and movie called "Dick Tracy"?

Bottom Three Charts

Oh, ok. I wondered why they kept getting deleted. And yeah, thats a good point. I'll stop adding them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkMc1990 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [30] .

Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi Woohookitty,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Firestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This parent has been redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and set protected. Can it be unproteced now as this has been in place for a long time. I do not believe it should redirect to that page. It should have it's own entries to all Firestone related articles of which Firestone Tire and Rubber Company is but one. The edit war over the articles is over and the Mediation almost confirmed. The originator of this dispute has now left Wikipedia. Mobile 01^Talk 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Please speak to the protecting admin. – Steel 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh!

So sorry about that! I'll help you out... – Riana ^ঋ 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had been awake enough to realise that just deleting the category doesn't automagically remove the articles in it... actually, wait, I wish that's what deleting a category would do :) – Riana ^ঋ 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, that's what we signed up for, boring, repetitive, mindless mopping :) – Riana ^ঋ 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks

saw some diligence on the surf related articles, thanks bru! Noserider 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD/W

I'm not sure what happened here, but this appears to be a mistake? I've undone this edit to get the current list of 'working' cats back, please take a look. >Radiant< 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tfd

Sorry about that. Sometimes it's hard to keep all of the xfd methods straight. John Reaves (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Slawkenbergius' Nose

Thought you might want to see this -- whoever it is, they're apparently still out and about. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

CPR Mannequin: Actar 911

Dear Woohookitty,

You deleted my page about the Actar 911 CPR training mannequin on March 2 at 10:25. The only comments I could find were the shorthand: unencyclopedic and nn. I don't think it met the criteria for speedy deletion, and there was no discussion.

I'm unclear as to what would need to be changed to make this article more encyclopedic. It was all accurate - and the mannequin design did change the way CPR training is done around the world.

Prior to 1990, training was done at a 1 instructor to 2 manikins to 8 students ratio, and since 1994, by which point Actar 911 had taken a 30% share of manikin sales, most training is now done at a 1 instructor to 15 manikins to 15 students ratio, that is, one manikin for every student.

Something about this would seem worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia - please give me some direction as to how to write a more inclusion-worthy article.

Michael Whitehead

hello i removed links that are not related to the teenwag entry, Do not delete, it reads like a proper entry now Webforall 08:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) it is not linkspam it is a list of entries about the artists!

WikiProject Munich Invitation

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliva's eye

Just wanted to say thanks for closing it. --Ng.j 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL on Image:VCRonaldNielStuart.jpg

Hi, Woohookitty. I noticed that you marked Image:VCRonaldNielStuart.jpg as GFDL in this edit. The image is currently used in an article that has been submitted to FAC. The image page does not contain any links to the source, so I cannot verify the copyright status. Did you find the image online when you applied the tag? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could add a link to the image page, or let me know where I can find it. Thanks, Pagrashtak 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion here might be helpful. Pagrashtak 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jordin Sparks image

Sorry, didn't get your message until just now. (With finals and things, haven't been logging on a lot.) Shall do my best to keep that thing off the article (in fact, had to remove it 5 seconds ago. -_-) MissMJ 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

recent activity block

I guess there wasn't much I could do. I did create a bit of a disruption in having a type of revert war. Thanks for looking in to it. --CyclePat 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hello, since you seem to be aware of the issue I have filed an RfC on CyclePat. Please foloow this link if you are willing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyclepat. �on ^{Insanity Now!} 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

List of dog cop episodes was already up for AfD. As such, I took off the prod tag. Just to let you know.

Also.... WOOO WISCONSIN! Whsitchy 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Crumb family CFD

I wonder if you would reconsider this closure. Everyone who !voted keep except one (who voted "per above" and whose "per above" switched sides) noted that they would support the deletion of the category if an article were created in its place. The article Crumb family was created to address their concerns. Otto4711 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Johnbod 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please just delete that list.

Why as an administrator are you allowing lies to be posted on the worldwide adjusted for inflation page?

Anyone can tell that the list is full of nothing but BS so why not just delete the page so it can stop spreading lies and confusing people?

Quick Change

How did those numbers get approved in the first place?

And that source (3) right after gone with the wind's total is not correct.

I clicked on it and it does not back up the inflated worldwide gross for the movie, it just backs up the domestic inflated gross. (once again, very misleading and a lie)

I know Titanic made a lot more than what it says on that list (and that star wars made a lot less) according to the BS way that list justifies it's mathematical formula.

So why can't I just change those 2 movie's grosses and leave the rest alone for now?

why did you delete "big yellow bitch"?

can you please just give me a few reasons?

Update

Upon reading the message left for me regarding strict rules for Idol semi-finalist pages, I'll just wait until AJ Tabaldo gets some more notoriety/record deal or the like + re-post his page then.

L8r.

A Request

Please review the Gary Lavergne article. Someone has been repeatedly posting argumentative material there.

IvanGeoPetrov

Thanks for the response; please let me know if the web-page of the American Vacuum Society is okay now. If it is, I plan to add more facts - for example information on the symposia it organizes. I am relatively new and would appreciate your advice. thanks Ivan

Help

Hi, Woohookitty. I don't know whether you remember me. We were involved in the Gibraltarian case. I'm suffering continious vandalism and abuse in my talk page. As it comes from anonymous guys I don't know whether something can be done. Any help would be appreciated. Best regards --Ecemaml 07:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you anyway. It was Metros, but otherwise, your help would have been the one. See you. --Ecemaml 18:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sports lists

I was hoping you would take part in this, and voice your opinion on this issue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports lists ----Josh 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kara shagger

I cannot understand why you feel that this user name is worth keeping. His first contribution was creating the page Kara Hansen in which he bragged of his sexual exploits with her. His user name reflects this too.

Luna Santin also states that the contributor should just create a new user name.

Would you feel the same way if instead he'd selected the user name Kara fucker? This is in effect the name he selected, just using a different word. LittleOldMe 09:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Ok, that explanes it. Thanks! --Lwarf ^Talk! 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Barker

How can you call him "still the host" if he's sitting at home RETIRED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!-- Hornetman16 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot

"This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot" How can I use a bot to save my page like Werdnabot?--Tamás Kádár 08:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JKrantoski

I noticed here that you blocked this user for a week on May 26th for malicious page moves. Well, I noticed today that he made another one almost right after the block expired on June 11th. He moved Michael Depoli again, this time to Antoni Polaski. Luckily, I was able to move it back. I thought I should let you know about this, because I do not think this user has learned from previous blocks, nor will he ever learn, because he has never responded to any user who has tried to communicate with him. Thanks! Bmg916^Speak 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it was a nightmare trying to clean up after him, especially since he never once communicated with any other user, even after being blocked and warned repeatedly. Again, thanks! Bmg916^Speak 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds like a real hassle, those double re-directs must've been fun! If I notice any socks, I'll definitely let you know. Somehow, I've got a feeling he wont make socks, but I guess that remains to be seen. Bmg916^Speak 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mikehall.gif

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jordin Sparks birthplace

I note that you have been stating that you have added Staten Island as her birthplace based on reliable sources. This post from the Staten Island Advance states that Sparks was born in Phoenix based on a statement by her mother. [31]

The article states "On Dec. 22, 1989, Jodi Wiedmann gave birth to a healthy baby girl -- 8 pounds, 8 ounces, if family memory serves. The obstetrician was Dr. Charles Clinch. The location was St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, and, cue the "Idol" theme music -- a star was born.

The 17-year-old Ms. Sparks earned support from Staten Island's "Idol" fans during her rise to the top of the Fox-TV series this season. No doubt, Staten Island would be happy to claim her.

But Ms. Sparks' mother tells the Advance: "I can definitely confirm that Jordin and I were at St. Joe's in Phoenix on the morning of Dec. 22, 1989!"

When the New York Post reported in April that Ms. Sparks was an Island native, they had it wrong, as did subsequent reports in papers from Virginia to Singapore. " Apparently, the New York Post rebuffed a correction from her mother. I have corrected the article and left a note on the talk page. What can you do when the sources get it wrong? Capitalistroadster 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your tireless contributions I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot-Archiving talk pages

How can I make a new Bot which can do the archiving? I have a bot. But that is just a new registered name, you know. So What I have to type/ edit to the bot-page? --Tamás Kádár 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mikehall.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mikehall.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Abuse

Hi, there. I disagree with your assertion that a consensus to delete was reached at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_12#Template:Abuse. Please review the votes:

• strong keep - 4
• keep - 3

• strong delete - 1
• delete - 6
• delete or start over - 1
• weak delete - 3

• neutral - 3

• total keep - 7
• total keep, adjusted - 11

• total delete - 11
• total delete adjusted - 10.5

• total neutral - 4

^1 Keep adjusted for strength of vote: strong = 2; normal = 1)
^2 Delete adjusted for strength of vote: strong = 2; normal = 1; weak = .5; "delete or" = double counted as one vote each in "total delete" and "total neutral")
^3 Three neutral votes, plus "delete or start over" double counted in "total delete" and "total neutral")

Do you believe that this discussion represents a consensus to delete? I don't. Joie de Vivre ^T 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, the deletion discussions are exactly that. Discussions. They are not strictly votes per se. They are discussions leading to consensus. So my decision is based on more than just the number of strong/keep votes, though that's a factor. In this case, we have a very bloated template with next to 0 criteria for inclusion. And honestly, I'd have no objection if someone were to start over with a template that has criteria or some consensus on what should be included. But what I see is a consensus to at least delete the template and start over.

As for the delete/keep votes, strength really isn't an issue. A person saying delete is saying delete whether it's strong or weak. A person saying keep is saying keep whether strong or weak. So generally, I count an opinion as an opinion and not a half. And that's because it's almost impossible to determine degree. Someone saying weak might mean 3/4s of an opinion or 1/4 or 1 1/2 or 1 1/4 or 1 3/4s. That's partially why we don't just use vote counting. And why most admins don't count "weak" opinions as 1/2 or 1/4 or whatever. We just don't know. So we count everything as one. It works the best. And not only that, but giving people more than 1 for their vote isn't fair to others. I mean. Some people literally never use strong or weak. We shouldn't punish them for that. The way you count punishes them. Wikipedia is not a democracy. But on the other hand, everyone has (and should have) an equal say.

Anyway, I see the count as 11-7. And I see many more compelling arguments for deletion than keep, especially since even some who said delete were ok with starting over under some circumstances. It was just a very bad template. And I looked at it myself thinking I could edit it but it's just such a mess. I think deletion is the right call by my own opinion and also from what I see in the discussion.

So I do appreciate your diligence but I think I made the right call and I stand by it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

about Goguryeo-China Wars

there was no complete consensus and there were only 7 votes to 3 votes, which is not enough for any accurate opinions.

We have been continuesly requesting third opinions and other mediation ways (which we have had almost no response to)

There has been general disagreement and there was no good solid reason to move the article.

"Wikipedia is not a demcracy" applies to this. Simply because of the wish of Chinese POV editors who believe Goguryeo is a solely Chinese kingdom, we cannot move the article. There are several editors who have this viewpoint. Also, the attitudes and civility of these editors have been questioned including user:Assault11's Rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11.

I am requesting that you change back to the original title. There has been no full consensus, no compromise, and no good reason for the move. Also, the discussion has suddenly slowed down since a few days ago and I was waiting for users like Hong qi Gong, Nlu, Naus, Komdori, etc for their comments on the dispute. Good friend100 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About the requested move

How will we know who will be the next administrator and what should we do to persuade them? Good friend100 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

poll

Do you think it would be a good idea to open another poll? Good friend100 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)