Thanks for letting me know (and doing the same for so many other DRV's). Is it expected for me to comment on it or is it ok to just let it flow it's natural course? (amazingly enough this is my first DRV), because I'm supposed to be on a process wikibreak, and DRV is about as deep process as I can think of... Petros471 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, was going to mention this edit made me smile :) Petros471 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of assumed you needed to make that correction ;) Ok, yes it is good to be told it is happening (especially with the pages being transcluded on DRV now there's no way it would have shown up on my watchlist, and I don't make a habit of regularly visiting DRV), but I'm not massively bothered if it gets a re-list, and I think my reasons for deleting are fairly obvious (if anyone asks, it's basically what you said). Cheers, Petros471 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some research (including a checkuser & tracert) before you accuse me of socking up. User:The Iron Bryant is an obvious attempt to frame me as a vandal, as has been done many times by the "DickWitham" troll. The IP address in User talk:66.196.41.211 resolves to an IP block in Vancouver, British Columbia. The last time I checked, I'm at least several hundred miles away from that location. - Chadbryant 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts" makes no sense when I can check the edit history for the RSPW article and take note of the accounts being used to vandalize it. I can also view your contrib history and see the comments you have left on talk pages. Regardless, I really wish you would research this subject, as many other admins have caught on over the past year-plus as to the tricks that the "DickWitham" troll (currently known as Dooby Scoo) has employed to harass me and others. - Chadbryant 07:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your steady hand, helpful kindness, and sound judgment in every area of the project, I award you this Tireless Contributor's Barnstar! Xoloz 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out why the text= & pg= are needed in afd2, since it seems simple enough to get pg automatically & get text from a numbered arg. I see you had posted some discussion on it, but it's been removed, or moved somewhere I can't find it.

Thanks Sanbeg 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on that. I was also playing with the afd2, and put a modified version at User:Sanbeg/Afd2. On mine, calling {{subst:User:Sanbeg/Afd2|reason}} is equivalent to {{subst:Afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|text=reason}}-~~~~.

Like yours, I also use an or to support the old calling convention, so it leaves the same remnants of partial substitution. I wasn't sure if that's a problem in afd2. So if it can't be merged, I'm tempted to just call that from my user space, or rename it to template space to make the call simpler.

Of course, I could simplify the template to remove that, then just use the normal one if I need to delete a subpage.

I wasn't sure if I should discuss it on the template, though, if had already been discussed.

Thanks -Sanbeg 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience with multiple nominations, so I hadn't thought of that. I'd think if there's a simperl way that works 90% of the time, then it's worth having, although that seems to rule out merging mine with the normal one. I guess I'll just use it myself for awhile, and so how it goes.

thanks for the feedback -Sanbeg 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as [[User::Abcdefghijklm]]. _{This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page} . Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect my talk page? . Thanks TruthCrusader 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TruthCrusader 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok I understand! By the way, I do NOT have any agenda for rspw and I dont like being accused as such (not by you I mean). Oh and on a different note, can you look at the entry for Boa vs Python and give me some advice on the layout and content? Thanks! TruthCrusader 21:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a problem with the article. The afd you closed isnt observed. There is a nasty revert war going on the article. --Cat out 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you tell me how my AfD closure isn't obesrved? It looks like an edit war going on, but my closure was "No consensus", which means the article should be kept for now. From what I see, it still is. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate. The result of the afd was not a "merge". Currently article is been reverted into a #redirect and hence beeing effectivly blanked/deleted.

Furthermore in my view Kurdistan Workers Party as is already exeeds 32kb limit by far hence there is no room for a merger.

--Cat out 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an AfD point of view, that's fine. Not only is "no consensus" a weak result (meaning that the article can be quickly re-AfDed if necessary), but ultimately, an AfD really only has two real results: Delete and Don't delete: Delete includes BJAODN and Transwiki; Don't delete includes Keep, No consensus, Merge, Redirect, and almost any result that preserves the article history in a form that non-admins can view. In other words, whether the article is kept, merged, or redirected is decided through normal editorial actions and does not require admin actions or AfD. Normal editorial actions would be through the talk page and other forms of consensus. Whatever is happening in the article, I'm afraid it's outside my jurisdiction or enforcement as an admin who closed the original AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Thanks anyways. --Cat out 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the tag on User:166.102.89.46 which said, "This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Dick Witham, who has been blocked indefinitely." I presumed that this meant Dick Witham has been blocked indefinitely (which he has), not the IP. Is this just bad grammar then?! Tyrenius 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It caught me out to begin with. A clearer message would be good. Tyrenius 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it removes any ambiguity. Tyrenius 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heeheehee,

It's actually a little embarassing that it took almost a year to get my first barnstar, but I take it as consistent with my role as proudly self-proclaimed Wiki-gnome. Anyway, by the time I got my first one, I really didn't feel like displaying it would be appropriate: one Barn-star per year, ya know? :) So, I just archive the few I've gotten along with regular mail. Wiki-gnomes are supposed to value giving more than receiving, I guess; awards belong to the true superstar wiki-users, like you! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(blush) I am a man (see my userpage), but I am a man who blushes! ;) Thank you! I'm just avoiding my "real life" job, so I guess that's incentive enough to keep plugging away. Wiki-love, Xoloz 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there...

Going though my list of article watches, I noticed that you closed an AfD as delete (as was concensus) back on July 13th, but it does not appear you actually deleted the page itself, Uwharria. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your efforts. Wjhonson 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should all sit down and drink and eat and what not. I propose a meetup at Future Bakery, on the corner of Brunswick and Bloor, on Wed. August 16, 2006 @ 7pm. Lets discuss it. joshbuddy, talk 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card!

Dear Deathphoenix, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Phoenix, this is the perfect opportunity to finally speak to one another after reading your words for months and months. I am sure that we'll be able to talk often, and trust me, it'd be my pleasure. Both your contributions and, most important your warm way to deal with others made me notice you long, long ago; and being supported by a person I look up to, like you, meant the world to me. I sincerely hope this is but the beginning of a friendship, and such thought fills me with joy :)
I hope your son gets well soon, and I promise I'll say a prayer for his health tonight. Keep us updated, take good care and hurry back! With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

Any way to protect this article from new or unregistered users? It seems to have become a target for the "DickWitham" troll and one other user who has stated (on the article talk page) his refusal to register an account to avoid blocks. - Chadbryant 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt attention. The anon user appears to be attacking World Wide Fund for Nature to insert the same erroneous information. - Chadbryant 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.215.152.197 08:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)The information is correct, and the edits are not "attacks." The above user persists in reverting it, for reasons he will not explain. The above user also misrepresents my stated reasons for not registering a Wikipedia account. In my opinion, the current dispute is proof enough that having one is no guarantee against stubbornness or mischief. In any event, the Wikipedia policy is quite clear that semi-protection should NOT be used "as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others," or "to prohibit anonymous editing in general."[reply]

Allow me to bring this to your attention. I do believe this could be a violation of WP:LEGAL. - Chadbryant 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. That isn't me and you know it. 2. That is outside Wikipedia. 3. My real posting IP is available for anyone to see if they email me..well, except for you of course. TruthCrusader 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad may want to be careful -- the more he goes to google, the more his kookiness and mental illnesses are displayed to the very admins he keeps trying to manipulate and lie to.--ACW Utah 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:24.215.152.197 for violating WP:3RR on World Wide Fund for Nature. - Chadbryant 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.215.152.197 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)The above user is again mistaken. A simple review of the timelog for the above page's edit history will show that I did *NOT* revert the page three times within 24 hours.[reply]

In fact, the very same history shows that Chadbryant himself violated the 3RR rule, between 3:31 and 7:58 on August 10.

He continues to revert factual information. Any advice you can offer him to stop his misrepresentations and unexplained harassment will be appreciated.

I have reported User:Chadbryant for violating WP:3RR on World Wide Fund for Nature.

I find this situation slightly ridiculous, and will appreciate any assistance from you or any administrator in improving his attitude. I have no relation whatsoever to any of the numerous battles, either previous or ongoing, that appear to have involved him on Wikipedia. I fear that the vigilant defenses he employs against past users may have been misapplied to me. It is unfortunate if he has been mistreated by others, but this is no excuse for what I interpret as a curt and unresponsive attitude.

See [1]. - Chadbryant 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Chadbryant. I'm sure most people would never confuse Chadbryant with this "Chad Bryant" from rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Linden Arden 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're unblocked now (at least at the home PC), thanks to you. If I knew how to award you a barnstar, you'd be barnstarred right now. -- MyWikiBiz 21:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Looks like I have to go through this all again as Onefortyone continues to analyze each and every edit I make in an attempt to link me to Wilkes et al. He's posted the very same allegations and . I really don't want to go through this again and again. It's starting to get creepy. Lochdale 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, read User:Sceptre, then read User talk:Nathanrdotcom, starting at the bottom where nathan writes "I remind you that *I* was honest with Snopake". There are bits and pieces elsewhere but the whole story is still pretty much off wiki, probably for good reason. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there really should have been no on-wiki discussion at all, but Moe Ep seems to have decided that defending nathan's privilege to edit was more important that protecting nathan's privacy, at least pending some kind of resolution. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My wrongful block ended and at the bottom of the block it says that it should be removed after the block has ended, however this has not happened. When I tried to take away this block one of the users added it back on. Why? I do not know. While I do not understand why you refused to unblock me in the first place even after I exactly followed the directions of Pathoschild, I ask that you at least remove this mark that has damaged what once was a perfect reputation. I also am now attempting archive me talk page to at least somewhat remove the slanderous comments put on my page, however I have not done this before and I ask that if I do make a mistake doing this, rather than blocking me again please send me a message telling me what I did wrong. God Bless and Aloha.

Thank you for all of your help. User: MMX continues to berate and be completely disrespectful towards me. I asked that he at the very least please stop communicating and watching every move I make to the point that it can be considered "stalking." He responds by calling what I had done vandalism despite any proof on my talk page. I do not need people thinking that I vandalize these pages and that is why I felt that I had no choice but to archive my talk page. When I responded and asked him to stop with the name calling and slanderous comments, he responded with vulgarity. Don't you agree that at some point he should be reprimanded? I mean, enough is enough. If you view his talk page you will see what I mean. Thank you for your time. --Jud383729

You might also find my contributions and Jud383729's contributions useful when considering the berating and completely disrespectful comments that I made on my own talk page. --MMX 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not trying to edit an article with this user; I started watching their contributions because they added nonsense to a number of articles in my watchlist. I will continue to watch this user's contributions for bad faith edits and trolling. --MMX 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can mean redirect, but do we want to set precedent that when an article results in keep, it can be redirected instead? Redirect is not what everyone asked for. Five people asked for it to be kept, and two people asked for it to be deleted. Clearly, they wanted it to stay. What AMIB is doing is completely uncivil and has nothing to do with the quality of the article, but his vindictive crusade against articles that are, in his opinion, fan cruft. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But with this recent redirect, there were two people opposing the redirect, not counting me or Mark. He had no right to turn the article into a redirect, it's more or less saying that he's a more important Wikipedian than anyone who disagrees with him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the block on IP User:220.245.178.141. Is there a reason to have an infinite block on an IP that could change, rather than have a finite block that expires in 1 year, or perhaps even 3? —Centrx→talk • 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you reduced the block conditions; I'm just trying to convince you, if you are not already convinced, that an indefinite IP block doesn't make sense. Perhaps it doesn't matter anyway, because it will be cleared from some list of indefinitely blocked IPs 5 years from now. But the point is that it is likely that the IP is not indefinitely going to belong to that school, or even if it were, that the school would indefinitely be a source of vandalism above and beyond other schools. So, an IP block any longer than 3 years, unless maybe if it were the IP of a prison or mental institution, doesn't make sense. In this particular case, that IP has numerous helpful contributions, and the IP is still blocked longer than the time since any vandalism started; it is still, after all, blocked for a whole school year. —Centrx→talk • 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to go to the discussion about the Islamic Wikiproject Award? This has been a proposal that has lingered for donkey's yonks. I think the image is acceptable as a WP:PUA, but don't think the image is in line with most of the images at Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards. The design is not well supported, and right before I was going to archive the debate for lack of support, someone else moved it to the Wikiproject awards page.

The current discussion is going on here: Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Another_image. Your input is appreciated. --evrik 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment?

• Islamic Wikiproject Award Archive
• Renewed call for a Braintrust

--evrik 15:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that you had lost yours. Hope you like this one as a substitute? Cheers -- Samir धर्म 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking our IP Address! Even if you said on the talk page that it was not as quick as you liked, it was much more quicker than the response of some Antispam/Antiproxy databases.

So I want to thank you very much,

194.154.211.73 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a Sven Clement IT - Etude Arendt & Medernach)[reply]

Do not create drafts in the main namespace per Wikipedia:Subpage. — Dunc|☺ 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a week-long block on because it seemed that he was continuing his past disruptive behaviour, which prior blocks for 24 and 48 hours had done nothing to stem. True, his edits to Shit were not blatent vandalism, but along with the way out of line edit summaries, they were disruptive, and I don't seem to be the only one who thought so, as they were reverted three times (see the page history). If you think that he won't continue, I'm glad to assume good faith if you want to unblock, but I was trying to make it clear that such behaviour wasn't acceptable. -- Natalya 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the block by a couple days, and I left a note on his userpage about how his behavior is not okay. Thanks for bringing this up, I appreciate it. -- Natalya 15:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey death phoenix. I was only kidding about JK Rowling revealing that RAB is Rab Douglas. He's a soccer player by the way. But you're wrong about her not revealing plot details - she's all but said that it's Regulus Black in interviews.

See User talk:Chadbryant/Linden Arden - the "Chud Manzier" sock fits the profile of Linden Arden and his other confirmed/suspected socks. - Chadbryant 23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snottygobble wont be back until the weekend, make a decision on the best available information and then just inform the parties involved. Gnangarra 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Users talk page and noticing that Jazzper has previously been baned under different names for repeat vandalism and indicates that he will continue vandalising articles. I doubt that there would be sufficient reason to unblock. Gnangarra 06:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin so I dont enough about the process, just letting you know SG isnt available for a couple of more days. Sorry I shouldnt have added my thoughts as it based only on Jazzper talk page commments. Gnangarra 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Islamikaze. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.. If you don't remember this article it's because it's from May of this year –– Lid^(Talk) 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are watching the IP: 216.9.250.6 and whoever's connected to the IP, just decided on 14:04, 13 September 2006 to write this on Hugh Jackman's Trivia section: "==Death==

- Hugh Jackman was found dead in a Beverly Hills hotel room on September 13 2006. There weren't any more details. Truly an Australian icon."

Can't there be something done about the continuing vandalism from this IP log? I just wanted let you know that they're still making vandalism on pages and that was a recent one.

Vera26 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Vera26 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a collateral damage autoblock on my account (which I'm thankful for), but I wanted to know if I can remove the unblock request/notification of unblock messages from my talk page. Thanks! Shadow1 17:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, fancy HTML breaks the templates when one is not using the named parameters. For example, this is a casual sig:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deathphoenix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reason

Decline reason:

Misza13 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And one with my real sig inserted:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deathphoenix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reason

Decline reason:

Misza13 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Same thing, using decline=

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deathphoenix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reason

Decline reason:

Misza13 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Or did you have something else in mind? Misza13 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My name's Ryan Sheperd,

Previously my article was deleted and no explanation was given. The article contained no nonsense nor vanity watsoever as it was not based on either my friends, someone i know, or myself - it was written about Jonathan Nguyen (australian celebrity). The article is called "Jonathan Nguyen"...could u please reply to me as soon as possible.

thanks

regards

ryan

I noticed that you replied to User:WarpstarRider's unblock request. WR and another user were engaged in a long revert war over at the Jessica Lee Rose page, breaking what I guess to be a 10RR rule. I reported it on WP:RFPP and at WP:AN/3RR. My guess is that he noticed that the page was locked down, went to RFPP, saw my comment on "filing 3RR reports against both parties," and is trying to avoid getting the 24h block. Just my guess, though. Hbdragon88 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [2]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [3] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Technical Communicators—I'm curious what your vocation is and/or how you would define "technical communicator." I would love to have a full-time job editing sites like Wikipedia; do you know of any avenues that would make this a possibility for me? I'm watching this page, so you can reply here or e-mail me. --J. J. 00:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

In good faith and a respect for the facts, I have attempted to publish a new encyclopedia article several times. However, the same administrator, Adam Bishop deleted it several times and now the name of that article is blocked up and I can't attempt to repost. I politely tried contacting the man several times for discussion and to explain why I believe he misinterpreted my article while casting his judgements, but he ignored by attempts to talk. Then I placed a complaint for the mediation cabal, which has gone unreviewed. Would you be willing to contact me and help me out with this? If so, I would be happy to provide more information about the attempted new article and reasons why I beleive it was improperly deleted. Please contact me back at my talk page I guess Thanks ! -User: GamingScholar

Hi Deathphoenix. Once again the Elvis Presley article has been heavily modified. I wanted to make you aware of this and ask that, if you have a moment, you contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Lochdale 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through WP:AFD/Old, and noticed that you seem to have made a typo in your closing here - I think the first 'delete' should be 'keep'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To be more accurate, the second 'delete', or the first after the bolding.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why no consensus? The result is a keep. There are 4 nominations for delete vs the 8 nomination for keep (excluding all sock puppets). Valoem ^talk 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe this is a keep, in fact if we base it on arguments the validity of the arguments a Keep is much stronger than delete. Ill show you:

Delete/Merge I suggest trimming and merging any relevant info on this article to the Rutgers University page (in particular,the Student Life section). The article was deleted on March 4, 2006 in the following afd:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks

But was recreated 4 days later on March 8, 2006. The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines which states that a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources. whilst there only seems to exist one real source of nobility for this article (that being the sandwich award from Maxim magazine in 2004 for the Fat Darrel sandwich along with coverage of that award). Jersey Devil 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter-argument:

Strong Keep I am a Rutgers student as well as an experienced Wikipedia editor, people have traveled across the state and from other states to eat here. It is as notable as Chicken and Rice and has been cited in numerous magazines. Its notability equals that of Rutger's NonProductive. How is winning Maxim magazine sandwich of the year not notable? Also the former nomination was hardly an acceptable nomination. The nominator didn't leave a comment nor signature. On top of that there were only 4 responses. Sources for notability: [1], [2], [3], [4].(proved "a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources.") Valoem talk 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

result: keep

Second argument:

Speedy delete and salt the earth as recreation of deleted material --Aaron 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter argument:

As a free encyclopedia that require a community to expand, democratic methods can be taken even if an article has been deleted (which I did not know since I created this article from a redirect, an improper one might I add, since Food trucks are not called Grease trucks. The name is unique to these Rutgers trucks). I question the fairness of the previous delete because so few responses were taken. The failure to pass may have been due to poor quality, which I believe I avoided in this article, as well as a lack of research in notability (possibly because of lack of citations). This rewritten version comes complete with citations. A simple search of Grease trucks in Google brings copious amounts of results (notable results might I add). Valoem talk 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

and

Comment The material may have been deleted for bad reasons. The deletion itself is being called into question here, so I find this argument invalid. MJKazin 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

result: Keep

third argument:

Comment yes, I am from Jersey and am currently a Rutgers University student. I don't understand why 1-3 paragraphs in the "Student life" section of the Rutgers University article isn't a reasonable solution to this. Anyway, I just wanted to find a reasonable consensus on this.--Jersey Devil 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

counter argument:

STRONG KEEP. Merging with Rutgers University is not a solution since it isn't solely a matter of "student life"...it's grown beyond its connection with Rutgers (as per Valoem). Though a reference on the Rutgers page is warranted, it's already there in the template and I think under the section titled "points of interest" (if not, i'll correct that). Deletion is not the solution, since this is notable and its notability is cited. This subject is just as notable as the Harvard Fuck Truck...actually moreso. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

result: Keep

The argument clearly shows a Keep. Also this article is not kept since No consensus (which makes little sense to me) was an admin's conclusion. This means anyone can re-nominate it (which Jersey Devil will). Please point out where delete had a more valid arguments. It isnt about the fact that this article is kept, but what the right consensus was. I do not want this article renominated which is the main reason I am asking for consensus keep also because it was nominated under the conditions of "lack of notability" which was clearly disproven given the citations and counter arguments. Cheers Valoem ^talk 01:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • All I was trying to do was convince otherwise of you opinion in a friendly debate, if you read what I wrote it was a professional reply to your reply on my page. Isn't this what Wikipedia is about? Then you proceded to leave a very unfriendly comment on my page as if you were annoyed or discontent with my recent contributions. I have only spoken to you twice both times in friendly manner. Valoem ^talk 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • It's ok , i think the reason is because people don't want the article renominated :) Valoem ^talk 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for deletion. --Coroebus 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is removing legitimate warnings from his talk page and stating they are vandalism. [4] TruthCrusader 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! evrik suggested I contact you since you're associated with WikiProject Awards. After some discussion about changing the name of the "Working Man's Barnstar" to something gender inclusive, we realized that there is not much distinction between "Working Man's Barnstar" and the "Barnstar of Diligence". In order to avoid an overly-PC rename of "Working Man's", and given that there's not much difference between the two anyway, I thought it'd be best to conflate the two awards and have only "The Barnstar of Diligence." Your opinion on the matter would be much appreciated! The discussion can be found here. Cheers! -- Merope ^Talk 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you previously marked this to be deleted. Do you know if it ever was? or was recreated? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .

A sincere apology to you for not checking page history first to see who was actually doing the editing. I have had an especially emotionally stressful day from all quarters, and I jumped to an unwarranted assumption. I was not going to revert a third time as I know that takes you into the realm of an edit war. Actually, my habit, when I find vandalism, I is to post my objections on the talk page, then wait a day or so before I revert. And sometimes I don't even revert when it is a repeated vandalism from a stubborn soul.

Actually, I have seen scores of red links on Wiki pages and even seen them uncorrected for months, so I had no reason to think that my additions of just a few hours before already targeted for deletion. Actually, I had created the topic pages earlier today, but something happened and all were deleted, though Lucky was able to retrieve two of them, but only one of them would have been a great loss to me.

You have taught me a good lesson today, and you can believe that I will think twice before opening my mouth again. I just need to get my surgery behind me and I will lose a lot of this tenseness. I have been trying to escape the worry by focusing on work here, but the anxiety has been leaking through this week. My apolgies again for yelling. I was not directed at you, but I shouldn't have been so rude to anyone under any circumstances. Mea culpa. -I am Kiwi 05:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged John_Pelan as a speedy delete. However, the person who created the article is most likely Chad, who just got booted indefinitely. In the edit summary, from IP 207.200.116.7, he uses what Chad always claims is my real name. 1. please delete the entry for John_Pelan (read it and you will see why) 2. Remove from the edit summary the name that Chad/his sockpuppet refers to me as. TruthCrusader 08:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted the Earthsim article, on the [page] you wrote "The result was Delete, after disregarding arguments from new and non-established Wikipedians."

Well, I have to say, that really makes new and "non-established" Wikipedians feel welcome. Apparently you like to decide based on the opinion of "established" Wikipedians, regardless of whether rational arguments were made by "non-established" Wikipedia users.

Personally I could care less whether Wikipedia has one more or one less meaningless article among millions of meaningless ones. However, your displayed disregard for valid arguments on the pure basis of that those arguments were made by users who are new to Wikipedia undermines what WP is really all about. But hey, if you like to run an old boys club, go for it, I won't stand in your way. 64North 05:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathphoenix, I see that you are involved with the "WikiProject Harry Potter". I am trying to delete the Weasley - Potters section from the a Black family tree because I believe that it is breaking Wikipedia:No original research policy, it looks out of place, and is unneeded because of the Relatives of Harry Potter page. The whole section is based on the theory that the male Potter on the tree is James. First time the section was deleted on 29 September 2006, it was reverted by User:Michaelsanders. So we discussed through the talk pages. (see User talk:Michaelsanders and User talk:Duane543 both under the title Black Family Tree). When Michaelsanders did not respond to my last message, I waited couple days and the tried to delete the section again on 6 October 2006. Again it was reverted by Michaelsanders. So I want your opinion if you think this section belongs. Thanks for your time (Duane543 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for effort, I seen what you tried to do. Unfortunately after you deleted the Weasley - Potters section User:Michaelsanders just reverted it. It seems that User:Michaelsanders can’t comprehend or chooses to ignore the fact that the male Potter has to be first proven to be James so this section is not breaking the No original research policy. What do you think should be done next? By looking at his talk page (see User talk:Michaelsanders) the user has a repeated history of breaking the WP:NOR policy and has been warned about the WP:CIV by (Muahaha).(Duane543 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

User:Michaelsanders reverted the deletion Weasley - Potters section for the fourth time (Duane543 22:04, 16 October 2006(UTC))

User:Michaelsanders achieved a hat-trick for reverting your deletions. Just thought you would like to know. (Duane543 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks again. Sorry that I got you got caught up in that. I would have liked to handle it myself, but as you already know Michaelsanders is unrelenting and I needed an administrator’s help.(Duane543 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Just letting you know that I'm disappointed on your deletion judgement. I wish you admins were a bit fairer on these deletion votes - there appears to be systemic bias against having church articles on WP and I have never seen an admin stick on the side of non-deletion when addressing a church deletion when the votes are disputed. I agree that not all churches are notable, but big ones like this certainly should be - because if they aren't then no churches are notable, which is not in the spirit of WP. I'm really disappointed in your judgement, but I'm asking that you please userfy the article to me and I'll have a go at rewriting it. I've done a newspaper article search through uni and have quite a few articles in the major Melbourne newspapers establishing it as a "leading church" in Melbourne, so hopefully they will be enough. (JROBBO 04:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry for blaming you about the bias. I was annoyed about the decision - I don't mean in any way to link you to bias. I was just surprised that it still got deleted given that most votes to delete were before the references were produced. Please accept my apologies. (JROBBO 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there!

I found you on the list of admins who will provide copies of deleted articles. The one I'm interested in is post-black metal. I remember I started a discussion with the guy who proposed it for deletion, but due to my very irregular checking in on WP, the article (and the talk page in which I started the discussion) were gone the next time I checked. So I'm interested both in the article and the talk page, if you can do that?

I reviewed the original deletion discussion, btw, and I strongly disagree with it. If I can dig up some references to confirm that this is more than a random made-up term, what would be the proper next step for me to get the article resurrected?

Thanks in advance!

--Bringa 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! How long is too long to have the article sitting around in my userspace? I'd like to take some time to dig up a few references to the term being used in publication and I don't know how long I'll need for that. --Bringa 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Truely bizzare and ironic. You claim it is hyperbole. Before I revert it. Why? How can you assert that? -- meatclerk 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In review of your comments, I propose the following

• In place of the previous Truely bizzare and ironic, the name is
• proposed is Incongruously, the name is

The link in the proposed would remain. Your thoughts. --meatclerk 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing on WP:NPOV, the topic came to being after making corrections to Scott Peterson. I am a local historian and was checking on the so-called tide issue regarding the placement of the two bodies. Putting that aside, when an annoymous person place the entry about Scott Peterson's name in the movie I was intrigued. The entry was deleted by another editor, then I recovered it. Not before checking my VHS collection. Circa 1998, in my possession is a copy of Demolition Man. I found the aforementioned item and made as detailed an entry as I could, so as to remove doubt.

Should Peterson ever be found innocent (unlikely at this time), some future historian may want to point to some corrupt conspiracy theory. Putting even that aside, the nature of this entry is bizzare. I can find no other word. Coincidence, may be found on one or two issues, perhaps the same spelling and another. But the fiction (device) character is also:

• on parole, possibly for murder - as the other person on the screen seem to be
• listed next to a confirmed (theatrical) murder
• ten years prior to the murder the movie was released
• the cryoprisoner are amoung the worst, re-enforced by the calling for prisoner "Gillmore"
• Peterson's ID as 4-NKT (four n knight, or 'for not', or 'for knock')

The point is that that it appears to be intentional, but there is no way it could be. A neutral word is difficult, given the overwhelming nature. I'll keep looking for words. --meatclerk 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look for another word. Till then, the item can stay as is. --meatclerk 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deathphoenix! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the discussion as no consensus, I would say that the comment by Pavel Vozenilek (talk · contribs) should be weighted more that the others, because he seems to have local knowledge about the object. _→AzaToth 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you please restore the page myg0t to my userspace for a bit? I never got to see the article before it was deleted, and I would at least like to know what used to be in the article. Thanks! --LifeEnemy 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaww, phooey! --LifeEnemy 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I contacting you about the deletion of AOHack Programs. I want to know exactly why it was deleted. You said you discouted votes from non-established Wikipedians but in the deletion discussion, the only reason for deletion that was given was that one person couldn't find information through Google. The article itself had several key references and I made a solid effort to remove all the unverified/non-notable information in the article. I don't think it should have been deleted. You had a total of 4 deletion requests which gave no reason for deletion other than "google search". Furthermore, I gave a detailed explanation of why google searching the generic term wouldn't yield good results and why this article is of particular relevance. In my opinion, there was no "consensus to delete" and any counterpoints to prevent deletion that were made were not addressed at all. I don't think the fact that I am non an established Wikipedian should mean my opinion doesn't count. That goes against what Wikipedia is. Coumarin 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. A few questions though. So, the deletion had more to do with the generic term than the actual content itself? Also, as far as AOL4Free is concerned, it was simply one of a thousand programs. The only reason it got publicity from media is because of Nicholas Ryan's conviction. It wasn't any more popular than the other programs. So, I could make a separate article for it given its fame and it could be based off its existing documentation. Would you be opposed to creation of a more careful newly created article that described these programs? Thanks. Coumarin 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, there is a discussion regarding this issue in full swing on the Black Family Tree discussion page. I suggest you read it carefully and make a meaningful contribution. Making pointless insults regarding my maturity is hardly constructive. Nor is whispering behind people's backs. Michaelsanders 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deathphoenix, Not sure if this subject has interest for you -- but you expressed some interest in deletion review -- so here it is... I'm looking to some of the members of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for a review of an article that's having a wild ride into existance. If you can have a look at Web operating system it points to others like WebOS and Internet Operating Systems that some think it should be merged into. Many thanks for your time. - JohnPritchard 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Sharkface217 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you remember him. I bet! This is what I found about him at BoardGameGeek:

My recent experiences in SDG were terrible: I had a weird discussion on the *true* meaning of the word "simultaneous" as if there were just one truth, one *true* definition. This reminded me rather of the world view of religious cults who want to save you and who claim that just they can do it. This was followed in other threads by a deliberate misquotation to make me look ungrateful, and, instead of real arguments, the other side was called "ridiculous", "megalomanic" and "pseudo-intellectual". I got an e-mail that warned me against a "troll" who dominates all the discussions and, I should add, is permitted to insult everybody. I met him soon. There is an atmosphere of fear generated by the owner of the group who supports this kind of behavior and then exclude those from the SDG discussion forum who defend themselves. So, take care of yourself and keep a low profile if you chose to play there. If you want to know more, just write me privately, join the group stacking games at Yahoo! ( http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking_games/ ) or just take a look at the recent discussions in SDG forums to see how this (pseudo-)community ticks; e.g. http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=427 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=429 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=431 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=434 http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=436

Thank you for posting the links to the discussions. I think they will speak for themselves. I remain deeply saddened by the actions I felt I had to take but still feel they were the right thing to do. SDG remains an open, free, and above all safe place to gather and play abstract strategy with others around the world. All are welcome. The above list of relevant discussion threads should also include the following: http://forums.superdupergames.org/viewtopic.php?t=438

Any place in which Mark Steere is allowed to intimidate other users can hardly be called "safe" (especially if he is supported by Aaron Dalton): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Steere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive50#MarkSteere http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_3&diff=62194693&oldid=62193047 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/stacking-games/message/1... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/91... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/86... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/abstractgames/message/85... http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mancalagames/message/130...

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Many images of Canadian public figures are about to be deleted, including ones you have uploaded. Please feel free to participate. - Mcasey666 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathphoenix, I've seen you around for your edits on Harry Potter articles, and I was wondering if you could resolve a small issue on the Luna Lovegood talk page. The details are there: Michaelsanders thinks there should be a section in the article pertaining to a misconception that her earrings are made out of turnips (actually radishes), and the possibility that it may have sprung from the Wikipedia article itself. Thus, this edit. I removed the section on the grounds that it was entirely unencyclopedic, that fan beliefs are irrelevent, and that this is not Wikipedia's purpose. You can read the full discussion here. It would be great to have a third party. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I figured as much. Good to see you're back and we'll cross paths soon again, I'm sure. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we're on this, you may care to join into the discussion at Talk:Lord Voldemort. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues that the WikiProject needs to address.

1. Do we need a coordinator (or more than one) to coordinate our efforts and act as an arbiter? Please place your thoughts here.
2. Could someone work on archiving the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Awards?
3. Do we need to develop better guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject awards?
4. Finally, could you please weigh in on the following discussions so we can move them to conclusion:
   1. LGBT Barnstar
   2. Islamic Award
   3. Working Man’s Barnstar.

Sincerely, --evrik ^(talk) 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'also' involving speculation? Michaelsanders 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel offended, but it is not because of our old dispute. It is because you do not appear to have given any attention to what my dispute with 5bv65edel was about. To sum up: there was no speculation involved. Instead, I had recently removed a fraudulent reference to Luna Lovegood wearing turnips as earrings, which had been present there for over a year, but not picked up on or removed. This removal was, naturally, unopposed, since I was able to provide proof that in UK editions there is no mention of turnips (and likewise apparently in US editions). I then tried to add a short section to mention the fact that many fans online believe she wears turnip earrings (based on a google search of 'Luna Lovegood turnip'), and that this belief had been accepted as fact in the wikipedia article. And that no explanation for the confusion could be found, other than 'sometimes people mix them up'. I felt that this section was important, partly in the interests of fullness (if a phenomenon has been that prevalent, it deserves and requires attention); and partly because I felt that, were it not added, readers of the page who believed her to wear turnips - especially those who had been led to believe that by the previous iteration of the article - would be left confused by an unclarified change.

It was never, at any point, speculation. Over thorough and obsessive, perhaps. The principle objection of the other editors seems to have been that it was over trivial - not that it was speculative. I do therefore feel offended - but not because of the comment in itself, but because you clearly hadn't read the discussion properly, and consequently didn't even have a proper grasp of the issue when you left the message which effectively said 'well done'. You are entitled to have your own views on the matter, but to label it as speculation when NO-ONE was calling it that is rather insulting. Michaelsanders 17:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your general note, which, in light of your comment regarding speculation, read like 'congratulations fellow'. I'm sure I'm wrong, but then being effectively accused of going against wikipedia policy when in fact my stance had been more of a grey 'how much do we include' area tends to make one ill-disposed towards the accuser. As for the issue itself: well, I would like to see it included, but the issue is too trivial for me to get worked up about it. I would like you to read the various arguments on that talk page properly. And if you agree with it, or see any merit, I would welcome your support/third opinion. But to be frank, the issue is pretty trivial, and not worth arguing over. Michaelsanders 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Your silence would be much appreciated. Michaelsanders 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, is it too much to ask that you actually read a discussion properly and get a clear idea of the reasoning behind an issue BEFORE you wade in and give your opinion? That's twice in less than 24 hours! Michaelsanders 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What was that latest comment in relation to? Maybe take some time to explain comments, in addition to reading them. Michaelsanders 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remarkably petty attitude you are taking. Your opinion is of course valued in Wikipedia. However, it is preferred if the person actually knows what they are talking about. You said so yourself: "I'm not sure why it was changed" - an indisputable statement that you had not read the discussion, since it was clearly stated at the top of the discussion why it had been changed. So yes, your opinions are valued, but if they are not up to speed then they are easy to write off. As for my comments: "Why is there no need to prevent any chance of a spoiler now, Deathphoenix? Are you presuming to judge that readers will know about the Riddle/Voldemort issue from the outset?". Well, I am sorry if you took offence at that. However, I feel that that point is entirely valid. Every experienced editor, yourself included, refuses to accept the presumptions of an editor regarding a general group of people. And yet you suggested that "there's no real need to prevent any chances of a spoiler now." I apologise if I am mistaken, but the only possible way I saw that as being understood was that you were suggesting that a hypothetical 'everyone' knew about the Riddle/Voldemort identification, there was no need to prevent it being spoiled. If there is another reading, then please, enlighten me.

Also, thankyou for yet again making a slur against me, in this case my values. In a most incoherent style. You accuse me of being hypocritical because I do not wish you to say what you think. Which is total nonsense - I suggested no such thing. I merely suggested that you properly research the issue before speaking, since by your own admission you had not. In any case, your anger appears to stem from my adherence to my values - stating what I thought. In which case, it is you who doesn't believe telling people things. I will now tell you: I couldn't care less if someone calls me something that could be applied to me - e.g. conservative (I have a certain resistance to change), obstructive, stubborn, etc. I do care if people tell LIES - i.e. suggest that I am spreading speculation when I am not, or not upholding my values when I am. All your petty rant suggests is that, once again, you did not pay sufficient attention to the text, and thus did not understand what was going on or being said. Again, correct me if I am wrong. And please explain comments better. Michaelsanders 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also. I will honestly say that I do not think much of your editing style, or particularly like you. That is immaterial. You are - generally - an intelligent and diligent editor, and do at least take issues seriously - unlike your supporter on the Lord Voldemort page, Skrooball. All your self-removal from the project would do is lessen you, and leave the floor for people like him. I am sure you have actually now read the Voldemort talk page, and so will understand what the division was about. And thus can come to an INFORMED decision about the issue, and argue from there (if you will remember, the inbreeding disagreement came about because you never bothered to actually explain WHY to be inbred would be OR - i.e. because inbreeding is a genetic condition, rather than the process of marriage between close relatives - which is how it is generally explained colloquially). So stop storming and whining, stop spreading untrue insults, and get on with it. Michaelsanders 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathphoenix, this looks like surefire {{db-spam}} to me but I'd rather not go after it because of possible conflict of interest. Would you mind taking a look: Oxygen XML Editor ? Thanks! Kla'quot 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You know "blatant advertising" is now speedyable, right? Kla'quot 08:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty blatant, but you're in a better position to assess. Thanks again! Kla'quot 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]