If you need help with something, feel free to ask. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.

If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:

• If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism.
• If you need a page to be protected from editing, use Requests for page protection.
• If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
• If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards.
• If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Archives

Apr-–July 08 Aug–Dec 08 Jan–Apr 09 May–Aug 09 Sep–Dec 09 Jan–Feb 10

Hey, I gather you might have some insight to offer at User talk:Arab Cowboy (specifically the sections "Email" and "Some Sane Admin, Please Unblock"). AC is asking for your input specifically, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself: I had replied at Arab Cowboy's talk page on February 28. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now talked with the arb drafter of the Asmahan arbitration case. He has told me that I am allowed to ask a neutral person to take a look at points I have posted at the talkpage. I am planning on asking either Nableezy again, or some other person. I am giving you this information in advance so that no future misunderstanding will happen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the heads up. For your own benefit, you may wish a neutral party who is completed removed from any of the previous discussions -- a longstanding editor from the Actor Bio Project or General Biography Project might be a good choice. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long should a page completely devoid of information be allowed to exist? An hour? A day? A month? Kinda negates the purpose of {{db-a3}}. Perhaps you could move it to a user subpage instead. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally wait for more than a day to see if information is forthcoming. Especially in the case of a benign topic such as this. It doesn't actually necessitate speedy deletion. PRODding it would be more apropos. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CactusWriter could you please elaberate why you deleted the hagoole page in new (lame) user terms. In my opinion it was far from advertising as I was describing what hagoole search is, does and how it differentiates.

The hagoole tool is a NOTABLE and unique new engine as it deals with issues affecting people in the current financial crisis attempting to take on monopolistic competition where they differentiate on everything other than price. This is an important topic of interest to many around the world part of a new trend as the consumer is increasingly empowered in a highly competitive global competition. Was it too long? Would you be kind enough to help locate an example of what would be acceptable? I would very much appreciate your time and any input that your experience would suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 2:12, 5 March 2010

The article was deleted for being promotional and for failing to provide significant reason for the subject to be notable. For you to establish the notability of Hagoole, you must provide substantial discussion about from independent reliable sources. In other words, the article lacks references. You may wish to try using the Wikipedia:Article wizard -- it will lead you through the process of creating a relevant article. If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding I will try again later by using the wizard as per your suggestion.

If I have a second attempt at this it will not be considered as spam as I don't want to waste other peoples time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, I can also move the article from deletion to the Wikipedia article incubator where you can work on the article with input from other editors. Let me know if that is something in which you would be interested.

YES please help me with this by moving the article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 5 March 2010

Done. The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Hagoole. By the way, I see that your username is the same as the article. This creates a minor problem. First, I would suggest that change your username since our Username policy prohibits usernames which promote a product or company. If you are closely connected with the organization, you should also read conflict-of-interest guidelines so that you can avoid the problems inherent with that. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I am slowly getting up to speed with some technical rules that wikipedia has. CactusWriter I appreciate your input despite the fact that I got deleted :( Hopefully the incubator on its own will help solve any conflict of interest through other users who believe in what I am attempting to do by contributing to the wikipedia page entry. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoole (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 March 2010

Hi, thanks for your earlier amendments to the images I uploaded. Helped me understand Wikipedia much better. I uploaded this image thumb, which I was given a couple of months ago by a follower of Shahi, so I have the original copy of the photo. I've uploaded it to share it on Shahi's article, but another editor User:Off2riorob, who I'm sure means best for the article, doesn't understand my point. I just need some advise. How should I fix the information regarding the image so that it may be used in the article and may stay up? I wasn't sure of the rights to place on the image. So I put up 'Public Domain', whatever your thoughts upon the matter, please let me know. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nasiryounus. I appreciate your effort to comply with WP copyright procedures. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials -- especially section 3 on "donating your photographs". The best place to upload photographs which you own is at Wikipedia commons. If there are any questions regarding permission to use the photo there, this can be resolved by contacting Commons:OTRS by e-mail and granting permission. (There is an example form letter on the OTRS page which can be sent). The basic procedure is:

For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at WP:CONSENT:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org;

(2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

I know that this can be a bit of a hassle -- and can seem like a time and effort -- but copyright issues must be taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further problems. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help and will definitely look into it. Thanks ever so much x --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tu te crois malin de supprimer ça? Abdekarim Izaiaoui (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...et toi aussi. Happy trails. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 02:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In return. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page is no longer necessary. Deleted and moved Georgia Gould (cyclist). — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see and I apologize. So once you place that AfD tag on the article, there's no turning back.  ;-) Thanks for letting me know. —Mike Allen 01:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly. I wouldn't say there's "no turning back". Speedy keeps and speedy deletes -- or withdrawals before any other delete votes -- can be closed quickly. Otherwise, allowing the discussion to continue won't ever hurt the article. So no problem. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll see what others have to say about it. It may be determined to be kept, instead of incubated. —Mike Allen 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the editor changed it after I moved the article, how was it a test page? CTJF83 chat 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a new user creates an article that will not qualify for inclusion as submitted -- rather than delete it as A1, A3, A7 or another of the "more bitey" CSD criteria -- we can sometimes assume good faith and delete as a G2 test page that simply failed. It's a judgment call -- made in favor of the creator. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it looked to me as a stub, how as I've seen on AfDs, schools usually pass the WP:GNG. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me finish rewriting the copyvio article I'm working on and I'll then take another look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually no inherent notability criteria for secondary or primary schools. But the creation of these articles usually depends only on simple reliable independent sourcing. In the case of Brillion, I went ahead and created a page on the school based on a reference in Technology Teacher magazine. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks, and thanks for clearing up what I thought. CTJF83 chat 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mottram

I hereby affirm that I, David Mottram am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the webpage that my Wikipedia article details (http://www.mottram.com/index.html).

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

David Mottram - copyright-holder, director, owner of mottram.com 3/24/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmottram (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidmottram. There are a number of issues here:

• The procedure for allowing use of the copyrighted text on your website is outlined atWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The information you have written above should be e-mailed directly to the WP:OTRS office from an address associated with your website to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable. Alternatively, you can place a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright notice directly onto the website pages.
• I note that, even if the copyright release is granted, the information as written at that webpage will not be permitted in Wikipedia. The language will be considered Advertising and does not qualify as an independent reliable source. Information about you will need to come from independent reliable sources. For example, newspapers, magazines, professional journals, etc. Those kinds of references will also be necessary for the article to pass notability guidelines.
• And lastly, we strongly discourage individuals from writing articles about themselves because it difficult to maintain a WP:neutral point of view and can be considered self-promotion. Please read the policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you wish to proceed, you might try using the Wikipedia:Article wizard which will direct you to the appropriate policies as you write an article. Please let me know if you have further questions. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Good to see you at CP! Just to let you know, in case you didn't see it, I'm working on this one in temp space. I'm not done, but you're welcome to move it into article space. I'm distracted by some copyright issues in a cluster of Indian articles, brought to my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since it's in user article space, I'm guessing you did see. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I was just removing the "inuse" tag when your message appeared. I replaced it. The article is moved -- so have at it at your leisure. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, good thing I spoke then. It ends a bit abruptly. :D My main reason was to try to save you from writing a stub yourself, since I've been working on it. I hadn't intended to bog down on that article today, but I didn't really understand the conflict well enough to produce a stub. While learning about it, I figured I might as well write about it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the temp you had started was plenty good enough. More than I would have written. I was happy to see it so I could move it and be on my merry way. Definitely a lot of background to read through -- kind of fascinating stuff that can keep us flipping from book to book, and then the next thing you know, the sun is down and people are hungry for dinner. Good luck with it. Have fun. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently speedy deleted Joe Arpaio controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while leaving no notice on my talk page, even though I was the page creator. I was wondering if you would please move the contents to a user page of mine; namely User:Outback the koala/Joe Arpaio controversy. From there I will work on it, expand the content, and reference/source the content until it is ready to be reintroduced. It's good content that we could really use. If not, please contact me on my talk page. Thank You, Outback the Koala (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Outback the Koala. I did not tag the Joe Arpaio controversy page for speedy deletion, but the editor who did should have notified you and I am sorry that they failed to do so. The page was tagged as a WP:G10 (attack page) -- which I declined to delete as such. I did delete the page per WP:A10 criteria (A recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). As you are aware, the page duplicated all the text of the Joe Arpaio article with only a few minor additions. I will restore the article temporarily to your userspace as Outback the koala/Joe Arpaio controversy so that you can work to create a case for a unique article. However, I see that there is currently discussion on the Arpaio talk page about this content and a page should not be created which might appear to be an attempt to circumvent any consensus there. Please note that content forking which creates a POV fork is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies -- especially in regard to biographies of living people. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I am aware and understand. For your knowledge, I am not circumnavigating anything on the related talk. Although, I do believe a good amount of this content is unrelated or distantly related to the blp subject. Therefore I will likely change the name so that it will not be focused on this one individual, but on the dept. in question as a whole. Please feel free to contact me with any other concerns. Outback the Koala (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a better plan -- although a proper article on the department will need to include an entire factual history as a base, with both positives and criticism. Good luck with it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do what I can, but I won't make any promises. It's definitely a very contested topic... Outback the koala (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete image Spectronic_ts2200_phone.jpg? As I said in the image comment I am the author of this image. It is correct that the image is also in use on the Spectronic website, which might be confusing. However, it is still my image and I have the rights to it (which is an agreement between me and spectronic). I choose to make the image, in this specific resolution, avaliable under the creative commons licence (which was also said in the image comment) and I would prefer not to have it deleted. Could you please restore it. Regards, Cmas one (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cmas one. I am sure you can understand that because editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, we cannot simply accept any editor's statement that they own and release the copyright to images or text which appear elsewhere on the internet. This protects the authorship of other websites. However, we do have specific procedures for donating your copyrighted materials. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, specifically the section on Granting us permission to copy material already online. The easiest method would be to add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright release to the bottom of pages on the Spectronic website. Otherwise the procedure is as follows:

You should send an email, ideally using the language from the template at WP:CONSENT:

(1) From an address associated with the original publication (Spectronic website) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org;

(2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page.

Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.

Until the Wikipedia OTRS office receives official permission, I cannot restore a copyrighted image. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is now taken care of, the guys from Spectronic should have sent an email by now. However, since I clearly stated in the previous image comment that I was the author of the image, I can not see any good reason for why you should bypass the good manners of having a delete discussion, by marking the image for speedy deletion. Obviously the issue could have been solved by having a very simple discussion, without the image being removed. Regards, Cmas one (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not the editor who marked the image for speedy deletion, I'm sorry that we didn't discuss the proper procedure for uploading Spectronic's photos. And I'm glad to hear that Spectronic will be granting permission for the use. By the way, as you found from the procedure above, the forum for uploading donated images is Wikimedia Commons. (Which is a separate website from Wikipedia). So this applies for your upload of the File:Spectronic NMT phone.jpg photo as well -- which should also be moved there and tagged {{OTRS pending}} while awaiting approval -- as you did with the File:Spectronic ts2200 248x290.jpg photo. Please let me know if you need further help with that. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:CactusWriter has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as CactusWriter's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear CactusWriter! Peace, Rlevse 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My day? Cool! And I didn't even notice it on the kitchen calendar. Thanks, Rlevse. I appreciate it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback via your edits to my postings and I am comparing them and learning from them. I am trying to start out slowly, and you are one of the first who has edited my contributions and not just deleted them as part of mass edits. If you see me getting out of line with POV or bias, reach out to me and I will try to expand out my topics and not have a singular focus.Overdriver (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Overdriver. You're welcome! And I'm glad I could help. My initial edit was to eliminate the copyright infringement problem -- sources can be paraphrased, but not copied directly. (The essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some tips.) While I was doing that, I also removed some unneeded POV phrasing -- the guideline at WP:PEACOCK discusses this. (I debated even removing the Pulitzer Prize mention, because that might lend bias outside of the subject. I left it in, but if someone wanted to remove it, I would have no objection.) I'm sorry that you've found it a bit rough starting out on Wikipedia -- but jumping straight into a volatile article is definitely trial by fire. There is a big learning curve to Wikipedia, so it can be a good idea to start with non-controversial subjects while you learn your way around. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was a cult-leader who founded Holy City, California, and was an unsuccessful candidate for Governor of California"

"Riker grew up working as a palm reader and mind reader, but faced trouble for bigamy. Riker fled to Canada and soon founded his religious sect "The Perfect Christian Divine Way" which emphasized White Supremacy, Racial segregation, separation of people by gender, and abstinence from alcohol."

"Riker was arrested in 1942 for sedition due to his pro-Nazi views[citation needed]. He was freed due to the efforts of attorney Melvin Belli but Riker soon sued Belli for defaming him by referring to him as a "crackpot" during the trial"

How is this not an Attack page, Its only source the Apologetics Index (by no means a Reliable) which made claims like the middle on above? Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Weaponbb7. A page that holds "negative" information about an individual does not qualify for WP:G10 speedy deletion if the person is notable for that information. A quick google revealed that there is plenty of RS sources on Riker, including this list from the San Joaquin Valley Library System. You will notice from the headlines on that list that all the information in that stub appears to be correct. Rather than simply mark article for deletion, it is best to first make a diligent search for references. If no references are found, than deletion may be in order. Otherwise, editing and improving the article is preferred. Regards. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, When a page only hold negative information with no sources for the Negative Information i am inclined to call it a attack page, i see your logic though. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a RSN discussion on it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is two fold, A : Copy right violations of orginal sources thus illiegal to link too B: not a RS to begin with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 April 2010

Please respond on your talk page so the discussion can remain together. Thanks. I've replied there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to let you know that someone's name has been put on East Side Union High School District and I'm trying to permanently remove the history of it, which is why I posted the article for deletion. I have created East Side Union High School District (San Jose, California) to clean up the mess made. I suggest that you delete the orginal article and then rename the new one to East Side Union High School District, because I know the person and I'm trying to protect him. If you have any questions are comments about this, you can post it on my talk-page when you have the time. Thank you! Hotel5550 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, than specific points in the history of the original page can be deleted. Can you please provide a diff where the original problem was created? However, deleting the original and recreating another as your own work is a violation of the copyright of the original creator. I can work with you if provide me with additional information. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!! In that case, I apologize for this whole thing; you may delete the article I created. It all started when the section Controversies/Criticism was written into the article. I would like all of that deleted, if possible. And thank you for your understanding. I'm very greatful. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, reading that section, I do not see anyone specifically named. Am I missing something there? I will say that the entire section does not appear to be referenced which is problematic in itself -- but that is another problem different from the one you are saying. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like that (all history with his name) deleted. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me check through the history. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! My friend will be very happy to hear this! I thank you for your support and regards in this problem. Oh yes, the section can be removed (optional), since it doesn't have references. Hotel5550 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've cleaned out the history and restored the article to the version just prior to the addition of names. The unsourced information could be removed as a violation of WP:BLP policy. Plus you seemed to be the only registered ediotr who had been working on the article. The controversy section is still unreferenced and you should certainly do something to clean that up. Good luck with it. In the future, if you have any further problems, please feel free to ask me -- or another administrator -- for help. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, once again. I am greatful. Yes, I do agree on removing the section, since it has no references. My friend thanks you for helping me fix this situation. Happy editing! Also, the information about the employees, I wanted to keep. I find that information very important. Hotel5550 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that [1] that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [2] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article,

On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before [3]. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary.

NT has now over several pages declared that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC [4] and he says "disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being." "SD has harassed all other opinion to the point where they are no longer contributing. " "SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda" "I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked at the edit by NT and find that there was nothing wrong with the extremely minor correction of "relocated" changed to "stopped in". The change actually better reflects the source which you provided. Seriously, you want to quibble over that? I will place a brief comment on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to take a look at that in the aspect as an editor, but as an admin, your job as an admin, when someone disrupts collaboration at a article on probation, when someone openly says that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC and then carries out edits according to what another banned editor has said, and those other comments above was what I wanted you to take a look at.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]