[Welcome notice]

Thanks! Mr. IP (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Mr. IP! I noticed you just joined a few days ago, so welcome welcome!

About Wikipedia:Alphabet soup, I am sorry that it is out of date. You can help fix that by adding things as you find them. If you think that it merits inclusion on the list, go ahead and add it. If you have any questions about the list, just ask on its talk page.

Have a nice day! - LA @ 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only to let you know, little catches like this are seen and appreciated. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopped by to leave you a note. That is, I fully agree with the general message (as of this edit) contained in your user page. While I am a dedicated vandal fighter, and I do see loads of IP vandals in my sessions, I also see just as many constructive edits from IPs too. I would like to think that most experienced vandal fighters would agree with me (and you) that IP editors and their edits should not be subject to prejudice simply because they are not registered users. All edits should be examined on their own merits and not dismissed because of who made them. Cheers! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay I recently wrote on the issue might be of interest to you, Mr. IP. Skomorokh 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to offer my support. Regardless of how many IPs are known for vandalism, we musn't be prejudice against the entire group for the actions of a misguided few, looking for a laugh (in most cases). I have seen countless examples throughout Wiki where IPs have contributed invaluably to a various array of subjects. Being involved in discussions of my own as an IP, I know what it feels like to be ridiculed just for not being registered. I offer all my support in your fight to change the attitudes of the arrogant multitude. A Prodigy^Talk 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand you have strong feelings on the matter, but I'm not very happy with the way you're using RfA candidates as a captive audience for questions on their view of IP editing. Those questions are pretty political and don't in my opinion add much to the process. Concerns have been raised that candidates are being overwhelmed with questions that aren't very helpful to others making up their minds as to whether they are competent to hold the post. RfA shouldn't be a political or popularity contest, just a way of finding out if people can be trusted to do the job - please rethink your approach to participating in RfAs. WjBscribe 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I have responded on WjB's talk page.] Mr. IP (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel- I'm explaining that RfA isn't the place to find out admins' views on IP editing. Try raising the question at a central location, like the Village Pump or approach administrators' on their talkpages when they aren't going through what many find a very stressful process. I'm not happy with RfA being an opportunity for those with an agenda (regardless of whether it is positive or negative) to push it. As to the general question issue, the views of the majority are pretty clear and the record low numbers of people willing to go through the process has prompted me to take action. Please find another forum to ask your questions. WjBscribe 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have talkpages and email addresses, you are free to ask them whatever questions you like. They are free not to answer - they are after all volunteers and may be busy. But please don't usurp the RfA process because you're unhappy with other channels available to you. WjBscribe 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that "less editors are willing to edit the encyclopedia in general" isn't born out by statistics - both the number of users and edits continues to rise (though there has been a decline in the rate of increase). As to your plans for future questioning, I ask you (as I ask all potential questioners) to consider whether it is related to the candidate's competence perform the tasks required of administrators. If it is not, it may be removed. WjBscribe 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Thank you for your nice note. No, no one else has discussed Adminship with me. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've come at just the right time. MOS and related guidance pages have evolved steadily aware from mandating this misconceived system to advising caution in using it (that's code for "don't use it"). It remains a heavily imbued convention, though, and it will take quite a while to change the culture. Just in the past few days, a script has been written and is under trial that removes date autoformatting from an article. It needs to be applied with care, since removing the auto exposes the inconsistencies in raw formatting that all of our non-logged-in readers have been seeing for years: WPians seem to react badly to seeing these and to blame the removalist.

If you're so inclined, you're welcome to use the script, but at this stage it must be done sensitively or there'll be a backlash from people who either don't understand the issue or are psychologically against any form of change. Even some folk who don't care whether auto is used or not are nervous about automatic changes of anything.

Let me know if you're interested. See here, and you may wish to chime in at MOSNUM here, where a number of people are arguing for the status quo; it's a matter of reassuring them that the sky won't fall in, and that people will be responsible in their pursuit of the goalofchanging the culture. We need all the support we can get.

Relevant guidelines are here:

• MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting, whether they’re autoformatted or not)
• MOSLINK
• CONTEXT

Tony (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blows the back off of my eyebals everytime I see it. Is there any chance of you toning it down a little bit? Although I have a signature now that's Bauhaus-ian in the extreme, I used to do lots of "pimp my sig" for people, so ask if you're interested. Here's a quick knock-off option:

• Current:  Mr. IP, Defender of Open Editing  05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible: Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's roughly 200 characters down to under 100, doesn't scream "look at me!" quite so much, and it's possible see the link to your talk without mousing over.
brenneman 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here... Blessed by the pot-stirrers, though they often get whacked with the spoon.

I sometimes walk into an internet cafe and edit happily while IP'd. It's equal parts amusing and dismaying to be blocked for "trolling" when asking politely about an admin's actions. (Having the block reviewed and having {{unblock declined|Obvious trolling}} appear in under a minute lacks the humour componant, I must admit.)

So, here's to Mr IP and his under-rated brothers *raises glass* long may they stick it up us all.

brenneman 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your messing with my essay was very good. Thank you very much! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've mis-cited admin policy in your opening statement. Getting the mop isn't supposed to be a big deal for you. It most certainly is a big deal for the community, granting you the tools. Then again, I could be wrong. I'm not too sure about this, as i'm new to participating in RfA's, but decided to be bold. Thanks for your time, MattWT (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are wrong, at least historically: "no big deal" refers to the entire enterprise. It should only become any significant measure of deal for the community when the admin starts fucking up on a regular basis, at which point logically the admin should simply give it up, since it was no big deal in the first place. Obviously it hasn't worked out like that. 86.44.31.35 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think the political parties policy could work given a) the need for one! :), and b) the amount of discussion already had to tidy up some of the issues. I know that in the UK Registration is very easy, so registration does not necessarily mean notability, but in other countries I understand registration is a bit trickier - maybe this clause could be tidied up to make it clear that in other nations have different standards? Thanks for your support! doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. IP, I just wanted to clarify a few things. I do agree with the opposers from your RfA stating that perhaps making it so clear that the RfA was an experiment was probably a bad idea. Wikipedians tend to take ourselves and the project more seriously than we should; thus the notion that we were some kind of test probably didn't ring well with many. As I said there, and as you mentioned, it's tough to judge your suitability without being able to see your contributions. While it's understandable that you don't want to disclose your IPs that you've used, please see from our perspective that it's extremely hard to review your history and temperament. What it comes down to you, what I really wanted to explain, is that you're not necessarily unsuited for being an admin, but it's hard to give trust when there is no accountability. Happy editing. GlassCobra 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Don't worry - I'm not offended that people wouldn't take the claims of a 500-edit user with a mysterious past at face value - especially after the Archtransit disaster. That makes plenty of sense. When I say that I feel I may be unsuited to the process of admin confirmation, and possibly adminship in general, it's more of a separate personal reflection. I think I may be best helping out in other ways. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in the future... defending open editing is an admirable goal. The "experiment" worked, despite the failure of the RfA. Adminship is a big deal after all... Oh well. As the Rolling Stones once said, "You can't always get what you want, but...you always get what you need." Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wether or not it was your intention your RFA gave me and many others a few good laughs at the innocence of the idea. I think your biggest flaw was announcing that it was an experiment, as that is WP:POINT in action. If your interested in Mediation, Im no pro but ill gladly show / help you. All the best   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I might get knocked for POINTing, but I weighed it in the balance and decided I was okay to go ahead...an apparent error, to say the least :D At any rate, I'm very interested in Med work, and will definitely be asking around at some point. Thank you, Prom. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that your keen on mediation, its is by far one of the harder jobs on wikipedia, more so than doing any of the tasks admins do. You would Idealy need a good tolerance level, as a lot of the mediation work is content disputes, that revolves around otherwise mundane and primative things that only matter to the article enthusiest ;-)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the more boring something seems at first, the more pleasing it is to wade into the nitty-gritty. Perhaps I was born to mediate, haha Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I am eager to see your Hemingway articles (I am sure Papa would be proud!). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My little project will be starting up in userspace soon, and I would like to add for reference that any and all are welcome to jump in. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest "dropping" adminship. I would instead keep on editing positively and re-consider sometime in the future. Sorry about your RFA. Malinaccier (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I do think I'll be best able to serve the community in another capacity, even down the road, but I do appreciate the idea that I'm not in some way "ruled out". Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're very welcome for my support and comments at your RfA. I'm pleased to see that the experience hasn't driven you away: I know how stressful RfAs can be, even if they're going well! Even though you have no plans to run again, I hope you may reconsider that at a later date. I look forward to seeing future work from you. Best wishes. Acalamari 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this, too. I'll be a Wikipedian forever, that I know. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'd like to wish you the best of luck for the future, in whatever way you choose to contribute to Wikipedia. I feel that challenging the status quo is the only way to move the project forward and that we could do with more editors willing to stick their neck out in the name of progress - RfA is far from the only problem area these days. Unfortunately, given the circumstances, I could not support your RfA as it stood, but I very much look forward to working with you in the future. Best wishes. Rje (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To be honest, I doubt that will be the last time I'm accused of POINT violation. I never mean to do it - and I would never touch mainspace with it - but a lot of the time I've just gotta stick my neck out, and I end up putting it out a bit far. I have a long neck. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, it's really nice to see that you've personally responded to everyone - that's the kind of thank-spam that really moves things forward. Honestly, I wouldn't say you should give up on adminship at all. Nearly all the opposes were based on your (unintentionally) pointy RfA experiment and/or your lack of visible experience you could point at. Neither of those things reflect badly on you personally, and if you feel in six months or so that you could use admin tools then I'd encourage you to go for it again, because everything I've seen suggests you'd be great at it - you just need to provide some more editing experience so people can be more sure of that. Good luck with your Wikipedia-ing anyway whatever you choose to do, I'm glad this RfA did provide you with useful feedback even if it did go rather badly! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I figured that since this was my first/last RfA, I'd go deluxe on the thankspam! It's not impossible that I'd go back into RfA someday — just that, knowing me, I'd probably make a hash of it again, somehow. All the same, it was quite an interesting experience. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I entirely see what you mean. I'm just saying that in the indeterminate future, you may find that you've amassed, in the course of your normal Wikipedia editing, a far more impressive set of contributions that you can wave around - and if at that point you decide you can handle another RfA, don't count out the possibility. Cheers ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be true, and I'm not one to strictly rule anything out. Appreciate the encouragement! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm disappointed that the majority of opposes where citing your experimental self-nom as the reason for their opposition, and didn't use diffs and other examples to back up any contentions on how you would actually misuse the tools (which is the purpose of the RfA: Would this editor misuse the tools?) This is Leonard^Bloom on a public computer. L^BPub (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the note. I completely agree with most of the comments above. I look forward to voting for you again in another RFA. Cheers --Patrick (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I went through your recent article-work, and saw nothing wrong with your contributions. I was wondering, would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make it easier to revert vandalism when you come across it? Acalamari 16:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would appreciate that very much, actually. Countervandalism is one area where I've never worked, but I've been thinking lately about giving it a whirl, so this could be especially useful. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Just remember to use it on vandalism only, and not to use it to revert good-faith edits or to revert war with other users: misuse can lead to its removal. For additional information, and also practice, Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback is an incredibly useful page. Good luck. Acalamari 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on rollback. Welcome to the club! :)Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, Acalamari and Erik. I'll read the NAS/R page through before I use the tool. Thankfully, I never revert anything except for blatant vandalism — I'm a hardcore talkspace consensus type — so that first part won't be a problem. Much appreciated. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, you'll do just fine with rollback. :) You're welcome for it. Happy editing. Acalamari 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve to the article as much as I can. BeŻet (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — it could never go anywhere without a Polish speaker. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. IP. Thank you for your kind note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, and thanks for not taking my oppose personally. From all appearances you're a good editor, and you certainly bring some much-appreciated levity to the project. I might even come round to supporting your for adminship one day, though I'm obviously a ways from there now. All the best, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fellas. Always glad to be a Wikipedian. My opposition to the BLP status quo is pretty hardcore, but my real commitment is to consensus, even when it doesn't go my way. Which is...a lot. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! At the very least, your RfA certainly got people thinking. I highly admire your approach to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CL. I was hoping it would do that, or something like it. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"mon semblable,—mon frere"? Except you seem to be a lot nicer than I. 86.44.31.35 (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never hurts to have allies! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds very interesting. How does one join? --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By asking. You're in :D We're ruling on C68-FM-SV soon, too. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I look forward to it. Let me know when it gets underway! --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP, you're a genius. I was thinking exaactly what you were. Can I join? Keep me informed when the case gets underway. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. There's three of us now. Getting up there! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up too. Here is article from the New York Review of Books that seems to agree with your user page statement. [[1]] Calamitybrook (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. IP. You can count me in with your shadow ArbCom, or not, if you feel you have enough people already. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Shadow Arbcom coming along? I haven't heard much of it adopting that case. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When NY Brad came back, I figured I'd let it play out a bit and see if there were any solid improvements, and I'm still kinda playing it by ear, though. I think I might like to take on the proposed Giano case, though! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Artw's talk page you ask, "How can I help you save all those articles which got the summary-deletion ("redirect") treatment without consensus?". It is good of you to offer to help. I suggest that you add these articles to your watch list and make a pass through them looking for discussions regarding mergers and deletions in which you can express your opinion. Since the matter may get heated and technical, please keep your temper and ask for advice as needed. Improvement of the articles is the best way of buttressing them against deletion or other hostile edits. Please see my work on The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode) for ideas on how such improvements might be made. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Collectonian has reverted all my restorations of these articles despite not having consensus support. Please note the WP:3RR rule which constrains our actions in such cases. Your assistance in demonstrating consensus support for our position would be most welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you mentioned being willing to tackle the episode summaries, I was wondering if you might start with Imprint (Masters of Horror episode), the episode for which notability is most strongly established by its being unaired, and basically the only censored episode in a series that was supposed to be "carte blanche" for the filmmakers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. I'll give it a run through in a half hour or so; tell me what you think. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes I've gradually found a way to systematically get Spanish content onto English wikipedia and trust me in many places it is a gold mine in terms of content. I'd be very interested in building a complete missing english-spanish article list by topic or category kind of like the missing encyclopedia articles topic does and working more formall and with a project to get them onto here. What I do is look through english categories e.g Category:Spanish politicians and compare it to the spanish wikipedia category. We havd 200 articles the other day and spanish wikipedia 1100 +!! What I have done is created Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain/Missing politicians and will gradually work at getting them all into english. But I work in many areas, and particualrly I am trying to develop Central and Latin America on here particularly countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. For sintance look at category Nicaraguan painters and compare to spanish wikipedia and root out the missing ones. Right now though it seems I'm trying to do it single handedly. I would greatly appreciate your help with expanding the sub stubs Category:Costa Rican politicians which I stubbed the other day but haven't been translated yet. Most of them are small-medium sized articles which take 5-10 minutes to write max, but make ane xtreme difference to the content of english wikipedia. Could you help out? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I really need right now is somebody to help quickly translate these:

• Pedro Álvarez de Toledo y Colonna
• Eloísa Álvarez
• Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León
• Óscar Alzaga
• Andrés Amado Reygondaud
• Ángeles Amador
• Pascual Amat
• Mario Amilivia
• Emilio Amuedo
• Ana Rosa Migoya de Diego
• Iñaki Anasagasti
• Rafael Andrade Navarrete
• Josep Andreu Domingo
• Etelvina Andreu
• Antonio Carpio Quintero
• Antonio Flores de Lemus
• Antonio Landeta y Álvarez-Valdés
• Graciano Antuña
• Jesús Aparicio-Bernal
• Francisco Aparicio y Ruiz
• Antonio Aparisi Guijarro
• Carlos Aragonés
• Elviro Aranda Álvarez
• Conde de Aranda
• Luis Araquistáin
• Eugenio Arbones
• José María de Areilza
• Javier Arenas
• Manuel Argüelles Argüelles
• Miguel Arias Cañete
• Gabriel Arias-Salgado
• Francisco Arias Solís
• Diego Arias de Miranda
• Rafael Arias-Salgado
• Juan Armada y Losada

Note that I am not a fluent speaker either although I have a fairly good understanding of it. I use babel fish translation and write them up proof reading the original text and any incorrectly translated phrases or words and correcting grammar to get the final result. This saves me having to type out the entirety of the text. I just started Metro de Málaga which has a fairly big article on spanish wikipedia. I agree that the WP:Translation foucses too much on the 40kb size articles not the smaller-medium sized articles which should be seen as very important. I;d love to see a greater team built by language. But the more you browse the other wikipedias the more you realise that the goods are there in many places but have not yet been put into english. If the world was universally english, this wikipedia would have probably wexceed 5 million articles by now and be on the way to 10 million. What I've always wanted is some sort of technology where when an article is created on one wikipedia it can be instantly converted onto other wikipedias. I;ve sene this done small scale with some Tongan articles I added from Tongan wikipedia, I;m sure a more effficient translation scheme could be set up which is vitally impportant ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I have increasingly got into the habit of it and it also does a lot to improve your existing spanish skills. The more you do the quicker you seem able to translate! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of content mising that is so valubale. We have practically nothing in comparsion to what could exist on central american/caribbean history. We have thousands of articles on anglo-centric battles involving europe but Wars between Dominican Republic and Haiti? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ][reply]

Thank you for your comments, and I will mention M'ba's rise to power in Aubame's article! Aubame is part of a series of articles User:Nishkid64 wrote on Gabon which also includes Leon M'ba (at peer review) and the 1964 Gabon coup d'etat (at FAC, please comment). I also plan to work on Omar Bongo sometime in the future. You know, Gabon is one of the most poorly covered country in Africa, which, along with Asia, are the worst covered continents on Wikipedia. Besides LM, 1964GCDE, and JHA only one article on Gabon is at B class status and that was written by Blofeld! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I removed those areas because they were unsourced info. Until I came along, the only real substancial additions o the content of JHA was in 2005! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading there right now. Also to the article, to get a look. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have replied to all of them. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, nice. I switched to a straight support. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind this post taking up space here. Just delete the quote if you like. I recently posted a question on NRO notice board and you responded, saying

It seems to me that something along these lines should be included in the article, and that the sources largely back it up. However, there may be a bit of a problem with conflation of general GI symptoms and diarrhea specifically, especially in the MS&SE ref. In order to allay the concerns of the other editor and improve the article, there will also need to be some information (just a statement, probably) contextualizing the prevalence of diarrhea caused by strenuous activity relative to the prevalence of diarrhea caused by pathogens. If we can improve it along these lines, I'll be happy to help argue for its inclusion in the article.

My larger problem is, that I think the article is based on an overblown view of the subject, even though it's got a couple of sources to back up its fundamental viewpoint. Thing is, I've got like five good sources directly on the "overblown" side (not the ones below) but they get shunted into "controversy" section, with the implication that they are fringe theories, or simply deleted because they aren't "peer reviewed" or the source doesn't cite a source..or etc.. things like that....It's not that I'm against telling people to treat suspect water, but I think the preponderance of research (apart from mere "expert opinion" ) suggests that the concern is highly over-stated, and to simply say that that would be unacceptable.

I've been keeping away from the article for a week. It's the domain currently of a single editor who seems to simply know what's best. Any way here is re-write of the bit, along with some proposed context. IT tries to address your suggestions. Does it work?

The most common causes of wilderness diarrhea are Giardia and Cryptosporidium ^[1], although several other organisms may play a larger role than generally believed [[2]] . Other infectious agents include Campylobacter, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, enterotoxogenic E. coli, e. coli 0157:H7, Shigella, and various enteric viruses. More rarely, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Cyanobacterium may also cause disease.

The vectors for infectious diarrhea, both within and outside wilderness, are limited to contaminated food, water, and hand-to-mouth transmission. It may be difficult to accurately associate a particular case with a recent wilderness visit, because incubation can vary widely, up to several weeks or more, while infection outside the wilderness is common. Giardia alone may infect up to 10% of Americans at any one time[3], although most carriers are asymptomatic.

Within any given four-week period, as many as 7.2% of Americans may experience some form of diarrhea. [[4]]. The most common causes are viruses, followed by bacteria and parasites including Giardia[[5]]. Other important causes of diarrhea in the U.S. are non-infectious, and include medications, stress, or a change in eating or exercise patterns. [[6]]

Non-infectious gastrointestinal distress, including diarrhea, is common as a result of strenuous excercise [[7]]. A study of 155 men and women who walked an average of 26 miles a day for four days, found 24% of the subjects experienced gastrointestinal symptoms. No relationship was established between symptoms and age, gender, previous training, or walking speed. [[8]]

Factors in diarrhea related to exercise may include dehydration, the diversion of blood from the bowel to the working muscles (gut ischemia), certain foods and fluids, the use of tobacco and alcohol, or medications, heat strain and heat exhaustion. [[9]][[10]]

(replied at User talk:Calamitybrook)

I'm dumping my stuff here again. And must again apologize. I tried to address your comments. It's getting better. Maybe too long. What do you think??

---

Causes The most common causes of wilderness diarrhea are Giardia and Cryptosporidium ^[2], although several other organisms may play a larger role than generally believed [[11]] . Other infectious agents include Campylobacter, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus, enterotoxogenic E. coli, e. coli 0157:H7, Shigella, and various enteric viruses. More rarely, Yersinia enterocolitica, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Cyanobacterium may also cause disease.

The vectors for infectious diarrhea, both within and outside wilderness, are limited to contaminated food, water, and hand-to-mouth transmission. It may be difficult to accurately associate a particular case with a recent wilderness visit, because incubation can vary widely, up to several weeks or more, while infection outside the wilderness is common.

In assessing a suspected case of wilderness diarrhea, it is important to place the disease within the larger context of intestinal complaints. Within any given four-week period, as many as 7.2% of Americans may experience some form of diarrhea according to a survey of more than 14,000 people in the U.S. [[12]]. The most common causes are viruses, followed by bacteria and parasites including Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Giardia alone may infect up to 10% of Americans at any one time[13], although most carriers are asymptomatic. [[14]]. There are an estimated 99 million cases of intestinal infectious disease annually in the United States [[15]] from a wide variety of pathogens.

Other important causes of diarrhea in the U.S. are non-infectious, and include medications, stress, or a change in eating or exercise patterns. [[16]]. Non-infectious gastrointestinal distress, including diarrhea, is common as a result of strenuous excercise [[17]]. A study of 155 men and women who walked an average of 26 miles a day for four days, found 24% of the subjects experienced gastrointestinal symptoms. No relationship was established between symptoms and age, gender, previous training, or walking speed. [[18]] So-called athelete's diarrhea, experienced in or outside of the wilderness, may be confused with infectious diarrhea, and pathogens must be carefully excluded by testing before a complete diagnosis is made [[19]].

---

[replied at User talk:Calamitybrook] Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr IP:

My edits are getting trashed because of OP problem with a revert. If you'd like to comment please see Wilderness Diarrhea Calamitybrook (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a full set of templates for each of the African economies at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Economy templates. Basically I see them as a good instrastructure to develop each of the economies on wikipedia. It gives us the chance to link case studies on many of the main exports/industries in the country was is very important as a vast proportion of the population is often involved in such industries. See for example Pineapple production in Côte d'Ivoire and how the template is used. Any help you can give on building up the templates with potential articles related to the economy, distributing the templates in the articles linked or filling in the red links for be much appreciated! For instance Template:Economy of Angola has some notable content already but potentially these templates can be crammed full with articles related to the economy by African country. Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help and will add that to my to-do list. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever really contributes to the economy. Remember they are new so they will need filling out and shuffling around. Template:Economy of Ghana is along the lines of what I was thnking of The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, so more inclusive rather than less. I'll look at a few more of these soon. I'm still a bit confused by the "Communications" table field. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for answering my question on the original research noticeboard. I'm off to make the edit in question now. :-) --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

76.4.128.40 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC) See user:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lankiveil#Fight_club_.28the_movie.29[reply]

Heading over to take a look. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Those two words you used were very kind indeed! If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know you'll do a great job! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you said you have used a lot of accounts previously. Do you mind at all giving me the list? Andy Bjornovich (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had some sort of list, I'd be happy to cough it up for you. The reality, though, is that I've often tended to use accounts on a transient basis, with only a few sticking for over 1,000 edits or so. Sometimes I'll even come across an old edit by one of my accounts and not initially realize it belongs to me! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you join? I think it is a good idea, but I don't think there is any way we can replace the actual ArbCom in any situation. Cheers, --Meldshal42? 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to join is joining :D I'll add you to the list. I'm not trying to replace ArbCom — just give them a bit of a push! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean for this to be in a different section?  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Don't know how that happened. Thanks, Frank. Just moved it to the right section. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that not all IPs are evil! Keep it up. ~ Troy (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Troy. I do believe that most anonymous editors are in it for the good of the enyclopedia, and the rest are pretty harmless! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[20]? Has the user himself released that info, on Wikipedia, at his own will? Otherwise, private information of other users must never be posted on Wikipedia. user:Everyme 14:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you suspected in your edit summary, it was a joke. I thought the reason for opposing was silly enough that I made a silly statement of my own ; ) Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Thank you also for the humour! :) Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem. Congratulations on passing, and I'm sure things will work out well for you as a 'min. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Smashville. Hope things go well as an admin! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

Just a quick note if I may, you claim that the Shadow ArbCom will take over if the actual Committee refuses to act. Thats a nice idea, but regardless of any desicion the Shadow committee makes, do you honestly think it will be recognised by the rest of the Wiki community? All your time spent voting and discussing will be for nothing if the rest of the community just takes your establishment as a joke. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

I left that message on the Shadow ArbCom discussion page, but it seems you did not see it. So I thought I'd post it here instead so we could end this disucssion and tie up a few loose ends. Regards, A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it will be taken as a joke, but I think it will generally make its points without disrupting the encyclopedia and eventually gain some informal respect. That's what I'd hope, anyway. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you accept the difficulties faced by the SAC in it's early days, but I hope as much as you do that it will eventually come to be respected. Good luck in your risky endevour. Regards, A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional question, you say that the Shadow Committee will be meeting to discuss a case (the name slips my mind), but seeing the Shadow's discussion page, there is no evidence of activity. Exactly what is going on? Have you and the other members not been able to have time to start formal proceedings, or is there another reason? Regards, A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the C68-FM-SV case, I eased up a bit when Brad came back and the case went out of limbo — I still have that one on watch. I'm currently hovering over the possibility of taking up a case on Giano's sanctions. I've definitely got to start updating the page more, though. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see how the SAC operates. I mean, I'm not terribly busy on Wikipedia. If I like what I see, might think of joining myself ^_^. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may also break in on the recent BLP-wheel-war case, so you may get a chance to see soon! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, as you may know, I withdrew my RfA earlier this week. I am sorry if I disappointed you, as you stated your support for my endeavours. However, I could not tolerate the stress brought by the personal attacks and hostility that were being aimed my way. I am on Wikibreak now (just checking the site to make sure no one goofed up my pages) and I am not certain when or if I will resume full editing. But I wanted to say Hello and share my appreciation for your friendship. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see the RfA go down, Eco, and I hope it doesn't deter you from continuing to help the project. The whole affair became bizarre pretty quickly. I'll be there to support at your next one, no doubt about it. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting on my RFA, although it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback; I appreciate your kind words. I’m interested in the mandatory edit summary tool that you mentioned - would you mind giving me a link to it? At first I thought you mean the checkbox in “my preferences” - but I realized that I’ve had that checked. Anyways, thanks again for your support and I hope to see you around the wiki!--danielfolsom 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant the Preferences checkbox - didn't realize you had it on! Unfortunate that the RfA went down, but I'll be there to support you next time, too. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at WP:NORN - I see your point and I've made a set of changes based on it. What do you think of "Application of four colour theorem to countries" or similar as an article name? Pfainuk talk 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the changes and they're all solid — nice work. As for the article name, I think we should keep it in "list" form and probably avoid the word "application" — which, with its implication of an active process, is somewhat likely to draw future original research complaints — but I do think that "four colour theorem" should be in there. It's hard to think of a way to do that, though, isn't it? Perhaps we might go for a simpler, more indisputable title...but then, hmm. Maybe your title is best. It's not an easy article to title! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FindArticles logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at your comment on Australian Republicanism. It says that you will help out further on the talk page. How much space should be set aside to G2bambino's views on succession law updates, given that you've said it is validly sourced? Should I be quoting legislation too? --Dlatimer (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Replied on Dlatimer's talk] Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with incorrectly paraphrasing legislative preambles without a secondary source to refute Brennans opinion. I understood we couldn't pull together our own arguments in wikipedia. So now anything goes.

There is no need to argue whether this is true or not, because its all constitutional convention and these are subject to change depending on the circumstances. Preambles are not legally effective. It's not that it cannot be done, it's that there is no point to it under forseeable circumstances.

But you play to G2bambino tune - taking the sentence out of its context with different phrasing and then asking "is it true?" This is why we have experts to answer these matters. The context is crucial. Why make out that it's the law? Why make out that it's relevant in the republican debate? Few Australians have ever given a thought about the succession law, yet alone changing it.

G2bambino will have no trouble breaking the article with arcane material now. The article on Australian republicanism rewritten by a Canadian monarchist. --Dlatimer (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. IP. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were discussing Oswald/JFK, not Sirhan/RFK, weren't we? My apologies, it wasn't meant as a brusque rude edit to blank my talk page, I just try to keep it empty when possible -- should have responded on talk page but didn't feel like getting dragged into a protracted war. I reverted once, if you'd pushed back, I would've just walked away from it as "not worth my time" to pursue - since it isn't a "pet" article or anything. But the LHO article doesn't say he was the assassin, it very carefully chooses its words after its own protracted wars, saying "He was, according to X, the assassin". I'm not finicky over "presumed assassin", "alleged assassin", "reported assassin", but I don't like the blank-card "assassin" very much in this context. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. IP for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words - by all means, please go ahead and do as much work as you want on them. I just wanted to create a jumping-off point. I've been using the MLS archive at mlsnet.com as my source of information, which lists any player who has played at least 1 minute in an MLS game since the league began. Players who are on rosters but never actually got on the field are not listed; neither are players who featured in USOC games but not league games, because I don't have a way of getting stats for them. Eventually, I would like to see all the pages looking like the one on Toronto FC's page, but my only concern is that they are updated - I don't have the time to continually make the stats correct for every team, so hopefully someone will take up the mantle once I (and you) make the initial first steps. Cheers! --JonBroxton (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: the template box. Isn't it frustrating? I have no idea what the problem is. I have checked, and re-checked the coding against other similar template boxes (as I'm sure you have too) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why it's not showing up properly on the bottom of the roster pages. I think I'll raise it on the talk page of WP:FOOTY and see if anyone can help... --JonBroxton (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Looks perfect now. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Randolph was released in 2009, so even if he didn't play for them this year, I think his LA carrer would still be considered 2006-2009. – Michael (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the nice comment about the infobox migration project. Hard work, but rewarding! As for your two questions:

• Yes, the consensus was that PDL career stats should go in the senior career area. Although the PDL is strictly an amateur league, the college players who make up the majority of the rosters do regularly play alongside pros (like Eric Wynalda at Bakersfield Brigade last season), and the league does form a part of the formal USA/Canada pyramid, so in many ways it has a similar status to non-league leagues in England. So - college teams in the youth section, PDL teams in the senior section.
• About dates of years - I don't really have any strong feelings either way, so I'll go with whatever you decide.
• About player positions - I've been trying to standardize the links to the existing position articles, but I dont have any problem with the piping being more specific. So, for example, it would be perfectly acceptable for a player's article to redirect to Central Midfielder, or Left Back, if they are commonly associated with that position. So long as the actual link points to an existing page, the piping can say anything.

PS I started making all-time roster articles for USL1 teams, in case you want to get involved in that too - I just finished Charleston Battery. We're making some good progress! --JonBroxton (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Football (soccer) barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for your excellent efforts working on US soccer pages. Keep up the good work! --JonBroxton (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jon! Putting it up on my page right now. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned your name here, so I thought I should drop you a note letting you know. –xeno (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The busy work you're doing tonight on the stats and proper link piping is a real drag, but very important for the integrity and accuracy of the MLS team and player pages on Wikipedia. Good job, buddy. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and many thanks for taking the trouble to answer in such informative detail a question posed on someone else's talk page :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack is unacceptable; I have removed it. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Happy‑melon 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support, and to you, Mr. IP, for mentioning it way back when. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really suggest you either strike your comment or else prepare to upload certified records. Humor is one thing, but for sure if you can't back this up, you are likely to be nailed for violation of WP policies. Take a few deep breaths.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've opened an AN/I thread about what I mentioned just above, you can find it here. Please strongly consider what I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've also posted an entry at WP:WQA, to cover the bases. Calling someone a criminal is, at face value, a vicious personal attack. You had best explain that comment if you intent to continue editing at wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is well beyond what we consider to be an egregious personal attack. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please know that such abusive commentary is not allowed on Wikipedia and will result in further blocks if repeated. Chillum 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Personal attacks removed. Chillum 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "<comment removed, Mr IP has read it>" has indeed convinced me that a short block is not enough to prevent disruption from you. I am increasing its duration due to your repeat of egregious personal attacks.

You may think it fun to push the limits and include abuse in your very explanation, but if you continue to be abusive I will remove your ability to edit this page. What is more if you make such shocking abuses towards our fellow editors a pattern you will find yourself indefinitely blocked. Chillum 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, go ahead and extend the block; I guess I asked for it. There's no "fun" of "pushing the limits", though - I restated the previous comments because I believe they are true...and would be interested to know why you don't. Since it's clear that these comments will be censored in any form, I have re-posted the inoffensive parts of my previous post below and redacted the "personal attacks" you are objecting to. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints about FT2 might carry more weight (i.e. more than 0) if you were to provide, say, 3 diffs in support of your arguments. Not about [redacted: your supposed allegations] (unless he owns up to such, which I rather doubt), but about [redacted: your other allegations]; as well as some diffs about the claim that he abuses wikipedia in general. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment at the RFA was indeed a joke. I was casually reading RFA, as I sometimes do, and saw an RFA with massive support and absolutely no opposition. The support was running 141 to 0, and it had reached the point where most of the new supports were jokes about the inevitability of the nom, the impossibility of opposing such a good candidate, and so on. As a joke, I registered a lone, and very extreme, oppose...and then went to bed.

• My comments about FT2, on the other hand, were not a joke. The guy has a history of edits [redacted: that I consider to be dubious]. Later, he abused his extensive powers to cover up his past in an attempt to gain even more power. In short, he's [redacted: replace with "a guy whose actions I find questionable"]. What's more, he's a busybody who seemingly spends his hours thinking up new ways to curtail the rights of editors, disenfranchise the Wikipedia public, and make it more difficult to add content to the encyclopedia...and all this in a time when people are finally waking up to the fact that this project is in serious decline. Wikipedia isn't dying: it's being murdered, and it's people like FT2 who are murdering it, what with their insane anti-wiki ideas — like a "draft namespace", a purgatory where work by ordinary editors dwells until it gets lucky enough to be spotted and anointed by the Wikipedia aristocracy, or, worse, the ever-popular "flagged revisions" — and their various Reichstag Fires (BLP! BLP!). My comments on this subject were serious, if perhaps somewhat intemperate.

• As for my rant at the CSD page, I guess I'm just amazed that people who dedicate their Wikipedia existence to making it impossible for others to add content — Wikipedia Cops and Content Removal Specialists who live to tag, live to remove uncited but accurate information without bothering to try sourcing it, live to send whole batches of articles into AfD — are continually driving away good editors and newbies yet face no sanctions for doing so. We block for incivility — fair enough — and for all kinds of other things, but we never block a guy for, say, sending a notable article to AfD without the due diligence to research the subject. We never block a guy for removing accurate-yet-uncited information without doing the due diligence to try sourcing it...because the burden, all the burden, is on the editor who adds information, not the one who removes it...and we wonder why we're starting to lose people, to shrink as a project! Lazy, arrogant AfDs and short-sighted content removal cost us far more editors than incivility, but we do nothing about the problem...except embrace and promote the perpetrators.

• I am not a sock puppeteer. I have used many names in my long time at Wikipedia, and have edited anonymously from countless addresses, but I do not abuse my accounts in any way...nor do I even remember most of them. I stay in the background, and I have never been in an edit war. A checkuser would turn up virtually nothing, for technical reasons.

• I apologize to the subject of the RFA in question. I do not request an unblock and am happy to serve out the remainder of my 24-hour "sentence" plus any additional time that is tacked on for my reiteration [redacted: replace with "of previous personal attacks"]. [redacted]

• From now on, I will find a more productive way to air my grievances at Wikipedia, rather than sniping or ranting in various pages and discussions. I intend to start a Wikipedia "newspaper", a competitor to the Signpost (a/k/a WikiPravda), which will take an oppositional approach to the anti-wiki, anti-anon, anti-information groupthink that dominates the hive mind of the Wikipedia elite. I will be using this competing publication to agitate for open editing, OR reform, BLP repeal, the reconception of adminship, changes to the board, greater transparency, new notability standards, more democracy, penalties for Content Removal Specialists, and other measures, all in an effort to stem the decline of our project. Unlike Wikipedia Review, a well-known rogues' gallery of anti-wiki slimebags, this publication will be pro-wiki, in favor of open editing, and dedicated to the rebirth of Wikipedia. It will also be hosted directly on Wikipedia itself and delivered to readers in a similar manner to the Signpost — and it will, of course, offer news as well as editorials, albeit with something of a tabloid approach. If Wikipedia Review is a critique from the "right", the Wikipedia Tribune will be a critique from the "left". Contributors are welcome.

• Yours in blockedness, Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you were able to get your points across even without being excessively abusive. Chillum 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Spose so. Apologies for any excesses on the first go-'round. Wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it, but I should've figured it would be frowned on. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Charles McKinley.jpg. 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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing word has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BDD (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Missing word, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Missing word and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Missing word during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audax Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Coverage limited to mentions in passing/press releases and like. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]