Hi Selket, I created an article on JustDial which is India's largest local search company and a pioneer in Phone/SMS based local business search market (even before Google et al.) I believe this company is important to have a page on Wikipedia.

I have also cited relevant references in my article hence it is not an advertisement in any way. I request you to undelete the article.

Hey Selket, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I noticed you're one of the only active contributors at WikiProject Neuroscience/Contributors, and I'd love it if you could comment at the review of concussion. There have been several comments on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot talk 10:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket, while reading up on spam I saw your post as follows: "www.emedicine.com seems to be popping up everywhere. The unobtrusive ads are not bad in and of themselves, but it fails WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 in most articles it is linked from." I am not necessarily either for or against links to this site yet, as I have seen them, and I may have linked to a page on it after seeing others, maybe even administrators, do so, but I have just started to study the situation more deeply since seeing your thoughtful post. Can you explain any more about the situation for this website? And is there an alternative medical site that is better accepted? Sounds like you are a long-timer user and guru here. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know if the two bridges of the northern bay were excluded purposely... The Caruinez bridge and the Benicia-Martinez bridge... Cheers --Ikyork (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In UTC, it was yesterday. We just happened to have been promoted on the same day; I was not expecting to field two RFA's at once! I hope that you'll come back and help sometime soon. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back. bibliomaniac15 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo—"oringinal" instead of "original." Postdlf (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing it now, thanks. --Selket ^Talk 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Typo'd version now deleted. Postdlf (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese). Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get keep out of 7 delete suggestions (not votes) and 5 keeps, one of which was the subject and another was a sock of the subject? Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 6 and 6 if we discount the possible sockpuppet, 7-6 if we don't. I think the reluctance of other admins to close it speaks to the closeness of the discussion, which should default to keep. Perhaps "no consensus: default to keep" would have been better, but the end effect would have been the same. But don't forget that it is not just the numbers on each side that matter, it's their arguments based on policy. Many !voters of "delete" suggested that the article could be recreated better. If so, then it can just be made better and there is no reason to get rid of the history. --Selket ^Talk 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Thanks for your clarification. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User talk:77.42.190.228, since you accepted to unblock on User talk:ForVandalism. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Selket ^Talk 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Selket, First let me thank you for a fair and impartial decision in regard to the Mark Hanau bio. I fully agree with you that EVERYONE should leave the article alone until tempers have cooled down.

Sadly, the two parties involved in the vendetta don't seem to be in agreement.

Today they edited the article cutting it to pieces. The ALRA section was completely removed . I provided four references for ALRA. The school prospectus ( an independent published source). A Kent library archive. All the issues of Stage and Television Today from that period and the Companies House documents of incorporation. If the prospectus is not an independent source then it must indicate Mark Hanau had total control over its content. A position of absolute power in ALRA. Either way it proves beyond any doubt that Mark Hanau was Chairman of ALRA.

I have put VANDALISM tags on these two indoviduals talk pages.

Must I spend the rest of my life fighting the vendetta attacks of these people? When will it ever stop? Can you do anything, before I go insane? Aimulti (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refered this to AN/I. Please direct any other issues there. --Selket ^Talk 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Aimulti (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[moved to user page]

Thank you very much. I'm glad someone's watching. --Selket ^Talk 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Parent5446 ^{(t e l)} 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid response to my notes. Should I remove the warning that I placed on User talk:142.27.176.215, since the block and the warning are for essentially the same behavior? Bwrs (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete it at this point, but it's up to you. --Selket ^Talk 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to avoid giving the incorrect impression that he did it again after i warned him, when in fact he didn't. That's all. Bwrs (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been restored, good catch- will put back on New Pelion Hut as bot removed it... SkierRMH (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested deletion as it was a typo I had created, after "St" there is a space and a hyphen. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fixed now. --Selket ^Talk 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD ended in a merge, the article should have been converted to a redirect to Sign-off rather than being deleted. I have restored Indian Lord's Prayer and changed it to a redirect. Hope this helps. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was going to recreate it as a redirect but I must have forgotten. Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 04:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt advertising... its just a page on an online management game. which part of it was offensive? other online sports managment games have very similar pages. ill remove anything u found to be advertising.

Sully89 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have redone, and removed any possible correlation to advertising. No benefits of membership have been mentioned, or prices. Please message me before deleting article completly if it still doesnt comply, or at least outline which sections are offensive...

Sully89 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just quickly blocked me as not even looking carefully at the case and went off for your other business. I feel very annoyed about your conduct on this because you did not even give a common block sign. That is inappropriate. You also did not care to see the obvious sockpuppeting. I've done almost everything to resolve the case, but am treated by you the same. I don't know you, but you do not give me any credibility as an admin. Good luck for your well-being. --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо большое SelketBot! Это случайная будет продолжаться вечно! Так говорит Modnar Redrosid. Жираф. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ModnarRedrosid (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means. --Selket ^Talk 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, just an FYI re: this comment. Not sure s/he's capable of that. IP is currently blocked for 12 hours from spam on the second account they created when the main one was blocked. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the message to reflect this. --Selket ^Talk 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just going to ask for a semi-protect as well. You read my mind :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.P. --Selket ^Talk 06:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the summary was clear.

one was a dutch page not in english. see general policy on use of english reference. one was immediately above. NONE included the actual quotation in context to prove the point ... which I then added.

actually the one that I added a quote is perfectly suitable to prove the point (being the Judgment International Military Tribunal for the Far East. the purpose is to prove the point after all not.

thank you --60.42.252.205 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed right. Very sorry. --Selket ^Talk 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are acceptable and the anon blanked chunk of properly sourced materials yesterday on Japanese war crimes. Therefore, I gave him warnings. You can't remove it by your own.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket, the reason why I had deleted all information off the page was I wanted to delete it because the album title was not correct (all though they had previously confirmed it). Sorry I am new to Wikipedia. Anyways I would appreciate if possible you can delete the page. Thank you.

Done --Selket ^Talk 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert changes without discussion first, that would be vandalism. As there is an active discussion in the talk section, you might try adding your opinions there before reverting constructive changes. Thanks. In this specific case, an editor added a request for cites in five places in an example list of rules. whomever put the original exmaple list in did not intend to represent them as facts, but as an example that play parties often have rules, and the kinds of things representative. Perhaps it was from a play party that he attended -- who knows. But asking or requiring citations for an example list, especially asking for cites on each and every line item, it not needed. Please feel free to disuss this on the talk page wiht myself and others before jumping to conclusions. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not go around deleting citation templates. The most constructive way to resolve this would be for you to find a source. "Universally recognized" is not a reliable source. --Selket ^Talk 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comments? Did you read the numerous sources I listed. Did you notice that it did not say "universally recognized" anywhere in the article? Did you see my comment where I agreed with another editor that the use of Universal was not appropriate. (which is why it was not in the article?) Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you deleted Divine (rapper) could you please nuke the related articles Divine discography, Ghetto Rhymin' (Divine album), and the images Image:Ghetto Rhymin' Pre-Release Cover2.jpg and Image:DivineAllah.jpg, and the redirect from DIVINE? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Selket ^Talk 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARE YOU BEING RIDICULOUS DID YOU EVEN SEE THE PAGE FOR THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOLS IN WINDSOR IT'S A FIGHT STOP INTERFERING OR U'LL GET HURT

- PROPS TO THE CLUB X0392032, VICIOUS, C0PP3RHEAD, THE GANG U GOT 0WND

User:Katanada popped up on on my watchlist, reverting vandalism on a fairly boring page. I was just bored, so I was looking at his contribs and I noticed you blocked him for personal attacks [1], but I'm not really seeing other than a surge of vandalism fighting, a few templated warnings and welcomes. Yngvarr (c) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorry. I've fixed it now. He jumped into the line of fire (so to speak) when his revert popped up right as I hit the revert and block buttons. Usually Huggle catches that, but it didn't this time. I'm not sure why. Thanks for catching that though. --Selket ^Talk 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah my bad! I'll try to revert a little slower next time :). Katanada (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally deleted the whole section of Chowder (TV Series)'s Episode List! Could you recover it?Papasmurf0810 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. What exactly do you want restored? --Selket ^Talk 02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could I ask you to have a look at your block of this user for 3RR? Given the user's track record (including most of the work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System), and the fact that he reported the IP's edits in good faith, I'm hoping a committment from him to seek outside counsel before reaching 3 reverts in the future would be enough to warrant an unblock? I'm willing to monitor and advise, as needed, if you think that appropriate. I'm absolutely not going to undo your action - it's almost moot anyway, given the time - but wanted to ask the question, as Serendipodous is a pretty good editor. most of the time. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that Serendipodous is a good editor, and I was sincerely frustrated when I looked at the history of Oort cloud and saw that he had reverted the article 11 times in 56 minutes. I really felt I had no choice. This was clearly a content dispute, the fact that most of the Solar System crowd (and me) feel that creationism is nonsense is completely irrelevant. Neutrality is not optional. It is one of the pillars. I do my best to stay neutral in my edits and feel it's more important in admin actions. The fact that Serendipodous was the one to report it is also irrelevant. Imagine if the IP had reported it. Would that mean only Serendipodous should be blocked? I think the answer is no.

The vandalism exception is very narrow, as you know. The IP was inserting text that reflected his bias, but that was definitely not vandalism. Some parts were OR, but others were fairly well referenced, including a Letter to Nature. I hope this explains why I did what I did. I think it is extremely important to not show bias or favoritism in blocks, protections, or deletions. This sometimes means we have to block good editors when they make mistakes, even if we prefer their version of the article. --Selket ^Talk 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I greatly appreciate your analysis. I didn't mean to imply in any way that you hadn't considered those factors, or that your block was anything other than proper, nor do I suggest that the edits being reverted were vandalism. Good editors shouldn't get a pass, either; my request was more along the lines of the he's-served-18-hours-and-will-not-repeat-the-error variety, not the he-did-nothing-wrong-unblock-plz-kthx variety. Again, my thanks for the response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie. For the record, I wasn't angry at being blocked. What did cheese me off a bit though was that attempts to be neutral effectively told the creationist that science and creationism are equivalent, when they are not. Creationism is not science because it does not follow science's philosophical rules, and thus does not belong in scientific articles. If we allowed creationism into Oort cloud, we'd have to allow it in evolution, and I doubt the editors there would accept that. There needs to be some set of guidelines establishing that creationism cannot be allowed into these articles. Serendi^podous 07:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when will the protection be lifted from this article? The cast list can now be updated supported by reliable sources. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎, and it was suggested I take it up with you. The discussion on the image has ended, and I don't feel full protection is necessary any more. (Semi-protection might be, as I'm sure there will be a lot of anons wanting to add unsourced speculation in the next week.) U-Mos (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not RS on the cast list it was whether the FU criteria were met on the image that was included. In either case, it has now been unprotected. --Selket ^Talk 06:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I was compiling data on a sock puppet case, I came across a number of edit reversions you made in regard to the Marilyn Monroe article. Because the case presentation contains this in evidence, I thought I would ask if you would have any comments to make in regarding this. The sock puppet case is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd). Your reversions involved two anonymous IPs reverting your reversions three times. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like vandalism, and I reverted it with Huggle. I'm not sure I can be much help to you. --Selket ^Talk 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'm not sure it is really helpful to point rangeblocked people to their block log. Most probably they are not the person that was targeted by that block anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an offical U.S. Army photo. My apologies if that was somehow unclear. What else needs to be specified? —PētersV (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user objects to the block. FYI Howdythere (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User now has asked for a review. Howdythere (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that Category:Radiocontrast agents has not disappeared -- it's just been adopted by two new parent cats. I was working on cleaning up Category:Drugs (where you had lodged it), and decided that it didn't really belong there -- so I've placed it in Category:Radiology and Category:Chemical substances. Cgingold (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your bot was approved, but I wanted to ask you if it will keep the original hyphenated version pages as redirects? I mean, if browsing the "What links here" list the bot won't fix these pages and delete possible redirects. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bots are not allowed to use administrator functions without special approval. Currently SelketBot does not have the admin bit set, so the bot account cannot delete those pages. I have no plans to remove them manually either. The links will be updated to point to the new pages but the auto-created redirects (this happens whenever you do a page move) will remain. I think this is desireable so that non-wikipedia web pages (such as google listings) do not get broken. --Selket ^Talk 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my point was that it would be good if such redirects would be kept ;). Parutakupiu (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket, I noticed that there are a couple errors in the chemical structure depicted in Image:Ascomycin.png and Image:Ascomycin2.png : a missing ethyl group, two hydroxyl groups should be two methyl groups, and some stereochemistry is missing. Can you please fix them? Or if you prefer I can do it fairly quickly, just let me know. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do it! The line drawing should probably be replaced with an svg while you're at it. Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new image, but unfortunately I'm not able to create svg's. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you have just written the following one-line articles on Vivaldi operas: Scanderbeg (Opera), Tieteberga, Il vinto trionfante del vincitore, Arsilda, regina di Ponto, and Nerone fatto Cesare. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you didn't keep these in userspace. Could you possibly let me know - perhaps at the Opera Project - what you intentions are regarding these articles? Thanks and best wishes. --Kleinzach 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. None of these titles are covered in the New Grove. --Kleinzach 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand you question. Why would they ever be in users space? I created the (one line) articles because I believe a stub (while far from desirable) is better than nothing. If someone searched for Tieteberga with no idea what it was, found a stub saying that it was an opera by Vivaldi, that would be infinately more useful than a no result at all. If I'm missing something please let me know, but I believe as of now, that every Vivaldi opera is worthy of an article, eventualy they will be good article, and in the meantime an article that identifies them as such is better than nothing. --Selket ^Talk 07:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have no idea what "new grove" is and if you would be so kind, I would like to be so informed. --Selket ^Talk 07:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at One-line articles on Vivaldi operas. I'll reply to your own message on my talk page. --Kleinzach 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my senior moment regarding "statute of limitations" in the article on her political positions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted Image:FSCATT.JPG because it was available on Commons. Please tell me if the licence was GFDL with or without disclaimers.
Thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of WP:NOTE:Notability- not been mentioned enough in WP:RS to be in an encyclopedia.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sticky Parkin 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this area involved in planning complex movements? I thought its motor functions were only represented by the frontal visual eye field; for this area, as part of the prefrontal cortex, is considered a multimodal association cortex. Isn't planning movements a function of Brodmann area 6 (premotor and supplementary motor cortices)? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.207.63 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selket,

Thank you.--Nmate (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Selket ^Talk 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serket ,

I would like to ask you to deliver Nmate this warning message as an uninvolved administrator:

-

- - The user personally attacked me and other users, because our edits in articles about Slovakia and Hungary. His behaviour is uncivil and rude.

Examples:

• [2] - reverted me, because it my edit (NPOV and Yopie)
• [3] - reverted Happenstance, because (your scratch is only worth dealing with shrugging)
• [4] - rv Happenstace with (sad to see that this project is for drawing people like Happenstance)
• [5] - (Yopie is sick)
• [6] - (It looks that Yopie needs to be humiliated by a community ban from editing wikipedia for indefinite time)

However, the process requisites a prior warning by an uninvolved administrator and that is why I need your help. Because you delivered same message to me, I hope that you as neutral administrator will do it for me. Thank you in advance--Yopie (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nmate (talk · contribs) has already been notified. No further warning is necessary. --Selket ^Talk 19:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Yopie (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for helping out, but what I was really looking for was a quick delete of the Gardiner, New York redirect, so the article Gardiner (town), New York could be moved there.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.  Done --Selket ^Talk 23:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at Egyptian Arabic is that Sa'idi Arabic, which is the variety of Arabic spoken in southern and central Egypt, is a socially lower class language. Egyptian Arabic is spoken in northern Egypt, including Cairo, and is the national standard and considered higher class. Egyptians want to include Sa'idi as a subgroup of Egyptian Arabic to beef up their numbers and further depress the social status of Sa'idis. Linguists, however, recognize the equal linguistic status of both varieties of Arabic spoken in Egypt (there are also two other varieties spoken by Bedouin, but the "river folk" ignore them). Meeso is pushing the POV that "Egyptian Arabic" includes both Egyptian and Sa'idi varieties without any references to back him up, and thus wants to put the entire population of Egypt in the speaker number part of the language template (again without references). --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the one against whose position i am reported and here is my position. I discovered an error regarding the number of population speaking the Egyptian Arabic in Egypt, and i posted about it in the talk page. You can easily find that i have been editing this article, and helping to mediate in many disputes about it before. I come from Egypt myself. User:Taivo responded to my post in a way which i found provoking and condescending, threatening me with reliability. When i checked his/her source, i found that it is totally erroneous, and probably un-updated numerical information. He/she claim that around 20 million people in Egypt speak a different language than the rest of the society (= 50 million), and hence, the dispute over the number of speakers. He found a source on the internet that differentiate between the language spoken by the general people, and that spoken by the Si'di people (around 20 million). The difference is true, but it's not that of language, only of dialect. Only the sound of the language is different, but not its morphology and syntax. It is a preposterous claim to say that 20 million people in Egypt speak a different language that the mother tongue which is the Egyptian Arabic. It is he/she who is insisting on information, of which details he/she has absolutely no knowledge, depending solely on a random website on the internet, and suppressing every possibility of a fruitful discussion with his insistence that ONLY reliability matters, and everything else, such as common sense and irrefutable logic, matters. It is his/her source that is unreliable, and i only hope to wait for other editors to come and express their opinions on this very clear matter. This is a not well studied language and subject, and it is natural to find erroneous and conflicting information about it on the internet. Currently i am working to find resources in support of my argument, although it is not easy, because everyone takes what i argue here for granted (i.e. no one even claims that there are two languages in Egypt, one is spoken by 20 MILLION PEOPLE!!!). thank you, Maysara (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meeso, of course, represents the nationalism that I spoke of--trying to subsume the separate Sa'idi variety of Arabic, that linguists regularly identify as separate, under the umbrella of Egyptian Arabic. He has no reliable sources other than his own POV and has complained about one of my sources, but is silent on all the others I have presented. Hopefully, his rant above illustrates the emptiness of his arguments. I like his statement "suppressing every possibility of a fruitful discussion with his insistence that ONLY reliability matters". Hopefully, this illustrates the nationalist issue enough for you, Selket. I won't turn your Talk Page into a debate on Egyptian Arabic versus Sa'idi Arabic and won't post here again even if Meeso does. Feel free to ask me further questions and I'll post privately by email if necessary. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selkat, thanks for implementing 1RR on the WUWT article; it was in desperate need of it.

Could you please clarify the policy on reverts for me? Ohiostandard has been chasing me from article to article, accusing me of breaking 3RR based on what I frankly find to be a ludicrous interpretation that any edit whatsoever to an article is a reversion, based on the theory that it reverts the work of some past editor. He's even interpreting the addition of material never before in an article as somehow being "a revert". I have always believed that, unless you're actively backing out changes made recently by another editor, that you're simply performing normal edits.

Ohio further claims that, if you're making a lengthy series of edits to an article, and another editor's change winds up in between two of yours, that you've now made two reverts, even if their edit doesn't conflict in any way with yours. In other words, if you add a line to paragraph one, then add a line to paragraph three a few minutes later, then if an editor changes paragraph two in between your two edits, then you've made two reverts.

I can't believe this is correct, as it would mean most editors violate 3RR any time they make large changes to any article, even if they're not conflicting in any way with another editor. Could you clarify for us please? Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant rule is at WP:3RR. Most importantly:

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word.

However, I would strongly recommend discussing major changes and any planned reverts on the talk page first if the article is under 1RR sanctions. -Selket ^Talk 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR was probably overkill since the article had already been full protected, but c'est la vie. -Atmoz (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was to drop it to semi-protected but I got called away. I'm going to do that soon. -Selket ^Talk 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think a strict reading of the current wording of WP:WW would say that your actions were wheel warring, but I don't think anyone is going to take you to task for it. Cheers. -Atmoz (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file carried the {{KeepLocal}} template. Why did you ignore it and delete anyway? SpinningSpark 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is because I didn't see it. I'm not really sure why you wouldn't want it copied to Commons, but I'm restoring it for now. -Selket ^Talk 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. See here for reasons, KeepLocal does not preclude copying to Commons. SpinningSpark 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no vandalism issue requiring IP editors be kept at bay. A full unlock is requested.99.141.241.60 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selke: 99.141.241.60 touches upon a valid point. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Is it possible to enable IP edits and still keep the 1RR? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request has come from a single purpose account.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone starts out editing their first article. When I first started Wikipedia, one could say that I was an SPA on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[7][8][9][10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

True, but you made edits to 3 pages on your first day [[11]] He has made edits to one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selket, you might like to look at my comments on this IP in the Watts article before you decide. Lots of quacking going on here. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop dissin' the 312. They're just representin'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohiostandard's judgement on socks is just as flawed as his interpretation of reverts. These two IPs may very well be the same person. That doesn't make them socks -- quite the opposite. By definition, an IP editor doesn't have a fixed account. If you look at the edit history for 213, it stopped before 60 make their first edit. Conclusion: Someone has a dynamic IP and it changed. Unless this person is actively trying to represent themselves as two people to build false consensus (which I see no evidence of) there is no sock puppetry here. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the IP for clarrification.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's semi protected to prevent IP socking to circumvent 1RR. I'm not really interested in which IP is whose sock at this point unless there is more suspected abuse going forward. If there is, WP:SPI is the place to take it. -Selket ^Talk 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this unilateral Administrative action on your part is preventative? In case something bad might happen?99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the full protection going in place filing several editors hit the 3RR cap. Then the IP editors showed up. So yes, it's preventing something that had already happened from continuing. If you think semi-protection is the wrong call, then you can request it be unprotected at RFPP. I do think it's strange though that you're complaining to the admin who reduced the protection level. There was no great outcry when it was fully protected. --Selket ^Talk 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blanket protection was applied as a particular group of editors showed up at the same moment and reverts grew rapidly. As tension subsided the restriction was only partially lifted. No evidence exists that IP's were any major part of the problem, nor does any indication exist that IP's are seeking to game the 1RR rule. No basis exists for the continued lock, no IP problem preceded it, none currently exists. As such it's a quite reasonable request to remove the semi in keeping with every single applicable Wikipedia policy regarding your use of the tools. Including the prohibition against crystal ball actions to forestall "future possibilities".99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Selket's point is that your request should more properly be directed to the admin who instituted full protection, or to the RFPP board. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point. My argument came from viewing his action as a modification or replacement of the initial action to reflect the current status.99.141.241.60 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]