Dear Colonel Warden, I notice that you have participated in this discussion. Anyway, please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just as much right to edit the encyclopedia as an unregistered user as you do as a registered one. It is my choice. Contributions from IPs should be given equal weight to those from usernames. Please try and be more understading and/or civil - and try and avoid making borderline personl attacks. Thanks. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, anonymous IPs are not able to make AFD proposals and their comments are usually discounted there. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award User:Colonel Warden for providing humor on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun fu while adding refs at the article at the same time. Lenticel (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I awaited to see if the Afd was kept before giving this award. I think I forgot it for some time. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to try to be conservative here for now. As long as he doesn't actually disrupt us making forward progress I don't think action is necessary. We'll see how long that lasts. Nandesuka (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your reasoned defense of my contributions regarding the history of communism and genocide. When trying to bring this subject up, as you can see, everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at the contributors. I'm grateful to have at least one unbiased person defending the article. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the main page for Communism to include a direct link to the disputed article. Now watch what happens. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this AfD discussion, you have repeatedly alluded to various problems you have with the vector (spatial) article. I was wondering if you would mind posting some suggestions on the talk page of the article in question? I'm currently planning a major revision (or, at least, to finish the revision I started about a year ago). I would very much like to take your advice into consideration. Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to post such a thoughtful and detailed response at Talk:Vector (spatial). I will definitely use your suggestions. Regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Criticism is easier than creation so you now have the hard job. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but redirecting without first getting consensus isn't the right thing to do. The words have clearly different meanings and usages. Far better to suggest a Merge using the {{mergeto}} tag and letting editors have a say, rather than imposing your view. Please join the discussion I started at Talk:Dude and let a discussion play out. Hopefully consensus will emerge. Thanks, Gwernol 11:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Already found that, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message to User:NeilN, I don't think a consensus has developed about Dude. I don't agree with your change to a disambiguation page and apparently NeilN doesn't either. I said I wouldn't revert your change because I don't want to edit war over this, but please don't take that to mean I agree with you. Until we see more editors comment I don't think you can claim there is consensus for anything, including my objections. Gwernol —Preceding comment was added at 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_causes_collapse

And their unfortunate attempt to delete it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to give me a couple minutes before issuing an ultimatum, eh? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Better to discuss before reverting, which avoids this problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better to establish consensus first before redirecting an established article which avoids the whole problem. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your opposition to Masem's Notability (Fiction) guideline--the result of not having one in place will be chaos, leading to further extensive deletions--those who do not like fiction articles are ready. We will never agree completely with him on wording or some details, but we shouldn't hold it up for that--its a major improvement. The application of it on a tentative basis at various afds has always been in a constructive fashion. Feel free to use email if you prefer. DGG (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you wanted to move the article to Hacker ( Free and Open Source Software) and not Hacker (Free and Open Source Software)? --rtc (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. I'm sticking with it for now as there's no way to undo this, so far as I know. We can move on to a refined version of the title but should avoid creating multiple redirects. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated most of the obvious links now. Feel free to move to a further revision if the extra space bothers you. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Colonel Warden. I noticed vector (physical) has been deleted. Given your strong arguments made during the debate, I don't understand its subsequent deletion. I've posted a comment to this effect on Keeper76's page [1] . Might you have any idea whether its deletion is actually in alignment or not with wikipolicy criteria used in evaulating a debate? Perhaps Keeper76 didn't understand parts of the argument. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]