Hi Canadian Caesar, I was wondering why you deleted the article pertaining to the Donald Byrd album Free Form? Thanks, Cheekyal.

I changed some of your copyedits back on the Cannibal Holocaust page, and I'd like your review again. Normally I'd wait for you to respond on the featured article page, but time is becoming more of an essense. Helltopay27 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on my RFA. It passed successfully with just under WP:100 supports and 1 oppose. I look forward to serving the community as an admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two days ago you blocked Top Gun (talk · contribs) indefinitely and 87.116.171.227 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Block_evasion.2C_continuing_copyvio). 87.116.171.227’s block has expired recently. However, the new contributions look as bad the old ones, e. g. [1] from [2]. If you look at Special:Contributions/87.116.171.227, you will find that Top Gun has been using that IP for a while now (and is the only user there). I think this justifies a longer block. I’m not sure yet how the affected articles should be handled, but additional copyvios won’t make that any easier. —xyzzy_n 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the gallery. Congratulations for winning it, BTW ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I worked my tail off all year for it. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting User:Hotdog111, he's been at his tricks for a while now. I need help with one of them though, he moved Nikki Webster to Bec Hewit, and then edited the Nikki Webster page so that it couldn't be moved back. Could you please delete the current Nikki Webster so that can be fixed? Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Splitting the Sky is not a copyright infringement. I wrote the wiki article *and* the cited web page on which it is based. Please restore the article. Thank you. User_talk:Alexbatko Mon Feb 26 17:18:09 PST 2007

Thanks for deleting the reference tag. I spent hours today on the ref table, but wasn't sure if there were enough to delete the tag. Thought it best to let someone else not involved in the process do it. Jeffpw 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons episode Homer's Enemy is now a GAC, but I am worried because I think the production section ended up being more of an analysis. Any thoughts you could provide on the article would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode Cape Feare is currently an FAC, but I think the article could still use some work as some of the language is a little... I'm not sure of the word, but "stiff" comes to mind. There are a lot of uses of the word "the" for example. I've performed about a dozen once-overs on the article, but some outside opinions would be greatly appreciated, so it would be great if you could take a look at the article. -- Scorpion 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CanadianCaesar, is User:Freddy Krueger's userpage supposed to have those messages? Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

• Okay, thanks. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Hello CanadianCaesar, it is user:Glfventure. You sent me a message saying I copyed from another web page, and I think that is why my article was deleted. This is not true! I created the text of Andres Lopez in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, (Andrés López), I also translated to english and I created his biography on his web page www.andreslopez.com with different text. Andrés López is a famous Stand- Up Comedian in Colombia in Latinamerica, he released a DVD with Universal Music and we are including on his biography the references with information available in english. I will appreciate if you can help me to improve this biography. Thank you for your help

I have a question, how are images from Wikimedia Commons put up here, without them being uploaded? Like with Image:Mussolini1.gif. Because I noticed at the top of the file page, the main link to the file page, is a redlink, and there is no history. Also, there is no area that shows who uploaded it. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Spaceturtles.JPEG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Deltabeignet 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD on this article was only closed yesterday.... -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was renamed so there was no way for me to know... In any case a non-consensus can be challenged at any point. -- Cat ^chi? 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way to know? Whyyyyyyyyyy don't people look at article histories before AfDing? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I see something I feel is a "mistake" I act on it. On the same basis, I am more than willing to challenge any past consensus to correct what I feel is a "mistake". That's just how I am. -- Cat ^chi? 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of events is becoming inconsistent. Either you didn't know or didn't agree with the result. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reason for this weird attitude of yours. Care to elaborate? -- Cat ^chi? 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has re-appeared - and has now been deleted about 8 times! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt admin action in blocking this account, and for your amusing edit summary on blocking! The additions have all been reverted by various editors. Bencherlite 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Actually, after I blocked him I thought it over and considered extending the block to indefinite due to the death threat. But then I checked the other guy Kemor's contributions and found him to be quite provocative. Since Kemor's not being blocked for the moment, I decided to leave Payne's blocked for just a week. Anyway your extension is perfectly justified. Regards, Húsönd 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel they are useful to have, I'm fine to revert my changes. My feeling was that most had been dead for almost a year and where not soon to be filled in so seemed to just clutter up the list. But all the same, I don't feel strongly about it. --PullUpYourSocks 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in cleaned up the article -- removing nonsense posted by students and fixing external links -- which I hope makes up for my deletion of the article. :) —тяеɢощетн (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For laughing in the face of crisis, and by so doing removing the same, I, Sam Blacketer award you this barnstar. Sam Blacketer 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CC. Any change you can look on the last referencing concern on this review (ref 4)? Cheers, Marskell 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the case very briefly today. It looks like a big one. I'm a busy at the moment so I may not have much time to do it justice, but we'll see. -PullUpYourSocks 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article and it is more helpful than before. I certainly see the difference now between ZeD and American variety shows like Saturday Night Live, though the two appear to be somewhat similar. Aside from the few redundancies, the article really looks like its coming along. Dmoon1 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason why I picked "Significance" was that it was a recommended heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes, but I don't have any strong feelings for it. Anyway, thanks for your help with Cape Feare. --Maitch 09:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am not extremely appreciative, can you explain to me your reasoning for full protection of the article? I am guessing that its due to consideration for GA status. Arcayne 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reopen the debate about whether that article should be deleted. Several people want it deleted and their points were very valid Gottoupload 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Gottoupload 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speedy kept Black people, citing WP:SNOW. I object strongly.

• There was no claim that the article met any of the 4 criteria for speedy keep.

1. Support for the deletion extended beyond the nominator. While Afd is not a vote, we should observe there was actually significant support for deletion.
2. The nomination was neither frivolous nor vandalism.
3. The nominator is not banned.
4. This is not a policy, nor is it a guideline.

• You cited WP:SNOW, but I believe this was an uphill battle, not a place for snowball.

1. Snowball is not policy.
2. This AfD failed the SNOWBALL test: '"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."'
3. A recently closed ArbCom case included the following finding: 'The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.' This finding was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee 10-0.

Per SNOW (which I understand is an application of IAR): 'If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause and the action should, if possible, be undone.'

I believe this applies here, and ask that you reopen the discussion and let it run its course. Jd2718 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. General agreement among experienced users that the nomination and several delete voters were misguided. The longer it stayed open, the nastier and more divisive the debate would have gotten. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that several editors did not have a chance to vote. I also feel very strongly that wikipedia strives for stability and that articles that have required repeated protection (such as black people) are simply too polarizing for the wikipedia process and deletion is a very valid solution. My experience is that controversial topics seldom turn into quality articles because editors work against one another instead of cooperating. I don't think wikipedia needs an article on every subject and POV articles are often worse than no article at all and damage wikipedia's credibility Iseebias 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Black people|deletion review]] of [[:Black people]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jd2718 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've no fundamental problem with your use of WP:SNOW here - it is a good mechanism for curtailing unnecessary debates. But it looks like we are going to have a debate anyway (here and on DRV) and a debate about whether tohave a debate is really a waste of time. Could you consider re-opening the afd for 48 hours or so, just to stop the silliness and clearly demonstrate the consensus to keep. I suspect if you do, we'll get another flurry of 'speedy keep' votes and a closure 24 hours later.--Doc^g 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but personally I prefer the debate at DRV than AfD if there must be one. Any reader who comes across the article and sees the AfD tag will likely go "WTF?" CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins really deserve their own cat for 80's awesomeness in my opinion. But they are definitly something. :DAndrzejbanas 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==what ever.==--Matrix17 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting page move vandalism to my userpage! Page move vandalism' - the thought didn't even occur to me! Natalie 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put Homer's Enemy up for Peer Review, with the goal of getting the article to FA status. Any suggestions you have would be most appreciated. -- Scorpion 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted some of my changes to this article b/c they were "unexplained"...I can justify them all but that would take a long time.

For example it's inaccurate to speak of members of L'Orage as having paid membership fees. Not all members paid the fee. In fact less than half paid. See trial decision at para. 25:

25 Of 345 couples and 135 single people who were members on 1 March 1998, only 146 couples and 50 singles had paid the $200. The evidence is that 229 couples and around 85 singles, already members by that date, had not paid this fee. At the time of the search, more than 800 people thus had access to l’Orage and the third floor.

As well, it's misleading to say that the definition of a common bawdy house is a place where "indecent acts occur or are planned to occur". Subsection 197(1) requires a place be "kept or occupied" or "resorted to by one or more persons" for "the purpose of prostitution" or the "practice of acts of indecency".

I made my changes because I sincerely felt that they made the article clearer and more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honest Broker (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC).</smallHonest Broker 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]