Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for helping us out. I really appreciate it! About the potential copyrighted information. You may want to try to talk to Simply CM about it. I don't know who that user is beyond his/her handle. This individual may be associated with the college that used to bear Charlotte's name. (I did try to contact the college to ask them if I could use a picture on their website for the article). SimplyCM did a lot of revisions and expanded my initial ground work.

I appreciate the level of work that has been put into this article, but I am not convinced it's ready for the "prime time" as a featured article. It still needs a major copy edit. Instead of whining and complaining and sitting back and waiting for others, I pitched in and tackled part of it (the "history" section). However, it's a big chore and still needs more time. In doing my copy-edit, I came to see that the "history" section needs more than a copy-edit (as do a couple other sections). Earlier, I nominated the article for one of the collaboration projects, which this article could benefit from prior to being posted as a feature article. I don't think I outright oppose it being a feature article, but I am also not ready to endorse it as such. Fluit 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this again carefully. I am clearly referring to me not whining and complaining and stepping up to the plate instead, which I did. It's easy to sit back and point out what's wrong, it's harder to do something about it, but I chose the latter. I also freely admitted the work wasn't done, it just needs more time. Fluit 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, don't sweat it over the not-swearing thing. I'll accept the exhaustion. I've learned that it's a bad idea to do much more than sleep or watch TV in the wee hours of the nite. Fluit 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Caught your minor edit on the CCRF. You went above and beyond the call of duty - I certainly respect the gesture. You're a good man, Charlie Brown. Fluit 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I hope soon. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for peer review. Ardenn 07:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think we should merge that Bourassa speech into the main Meech article? It looks as though most of the info in the Bourassa speech article is doubled from the Meech one.Habsfan|t 15:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd probably be the best course...I'll add one now...Habsfan|t 05:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CanadianCaesar/fourth, for the warm welcome and all the good information on my talk page. --Mazzard 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your signature here. Should that be Eh tu Brute? or Et tu Bruteh? DJ Clayworth 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this amusing. Or something. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, exactly 14 years to the day! I must say, coverage of the Charter is looking better all the time. I'm especially hopeful given the growing number of new contributors popping up here and there. When considering how much things have changed since April of last year I look forward to seeing where we are next April 17th. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 19:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please don't delete the new Motionless page. Of course I am the only one to have edited it... it was created half an hour ago. Furthermore, as I am not a member of the band I can't exactly see how this qualifies 'band vanity'. The article is honest and point of view neutral; any parts you feel are not feel free to delete. I simply seek to inform the wikipedia community, and the music scene at large about an rising band with a growing following in the United States, Netherlands and, yes, Canada (one of the members attends a Canadian University). It is certainly making ripples in the post-rock community, and the value of having an article devoted to it lies therein. You wouldn't delete an article on the Velvet Underground or Beatles, so please respect this band's right to identification as well as my right to post a perfectly good article. -Regniweol

It's going to need a bit more content and an explanation of why the band is important before it gets an article, typically. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting up a biography about a band, I'm not asking anyone to join a mailergroup or listen to our music. I don't understand why putting up a respectable biography of a band is considered vanity. Please let me know what I am doing wrong, thanks.

I was unaware of the vandalism rules. Although seemingly obsurd, I'm not one to break rules and I am sorry for wasting your precious time. Wikipedia is a very valuable source.

You look like someone I was probably friends or soul mates with in a previous life, so I'm going to be straight with you. From here on in, you're fighting a robot. --65.145.31.234 00:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the above. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CanadianCaesar I am sorry if i keep annoying by moving one of my favorite pages. But this article is not a hoax if you think i am not telling the truth just go to google.com and type in spider pit sequence. If their is anything i can do for you just contact me at JJthecool9. P.S i am not 9 years old i am 13 i just picked this password becasue this was my first password i used when i was little. And please do not delete this article.

Dear CanadianCaeser, I have recently been blocked by you because I apparently vandalized pages and was warned. I have not recently vandalized or been warned. Please revert my block. Thank You. FireSpike 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page i created was not intended to be vandalous, it was an attempt to demonstrate that some information on wikipedia is not intirely accurate because anyone can edit it to a friend who relies very heavily on this site as a source of information. even to the point that if there is reliable evidence against wikipedia, he will argue all day and all night. regardless, i am sorry for vandalising, i don't know if you saw that i had removed the profanity after i saw it had been marked, but i did(or at least i think i did, i'm still getting the hang of wikipedia) linked2zelda

I've had another look at the history section, as you'll have no doubt noticed. What is it that you're asking for, exactly? I think the only problem with the language is that it sometimes feels like you can see the joins where different people have been at it - there's just the odd lingering patch where the flow is interrupted. I guess this problem is largely unavoidable given the way our articles are written, but I'm not sure if my edits are entirely helpful here. I'd love to see it featured, anyway. This FAC just drags on, no? Flowerparty☀ 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I think it looks pretty good now. And it's certainly not worth getting stressed over this when there's good essay-stress to be had! By the way have you ever come across this tool? - throws out some frightening statistics. Flowerparty☀ 08:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me kneo. He's an odd case; some of his edits are sensible and useful, but he doesn't seem able to resist being silly as well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i had no idea it was fair use and wasn't using it to make a statement or anything, nor was i angry, and your removal has really helped the encyclopedia.

keep up the good work!

... aa:talk 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm just the messenger; User:Raul654 is the one who makes the call. Having looked at the FAC discussion while I was going through and tagging the failed articles, I'd agree that asking him to clarify his thoughts on this one is within reason. Cheers! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and take it out of context as much as you want. :) But, I only vaguely remember saying that...could you link me please? :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know you accidentally blocked yourself? I unblocked you because I believe you clicked the wrong link.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant to block myself, for incivility in a dispute with User:Fluit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the gentlemen page? Why do you keep removing it?JMW-89

So you found him, eh? But where is CanadianBrutus? :-) NoSeptember ^talk 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wish I'd chosen Roman Trudeau. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly I would like to say that I have reduced the block to 10 days. As far as I can see this guy is just trolling, his first act upon his return was to create an article that he must have known would be deleted, and then engaged in blatant personal attacks on anybody who raised this with him and also engaged in other disruption. However, it seems that some people have been trying to rehabilitate him, and I don't want to undo their work with too long a block. He was blocked for a week last time, so a block that is just slightly longer should send the right message.

As for the talk page, my suggestion would be that it is protected for the length of the block. He only used it to launch more personal attacks, and he is familiar with the email system (having used it to send me a follow up personal attack) so he will be able to contact others if he wants to raise any issues. What do you think of that as an approach? Cheers TigerShark 12:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was worthwhile and great work on your part. Many featured nominations are like this so don't worry. Glad it made it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to prevent someone from editing is cheating. I don't know why you're picking a fight with me --FeedThePigeons.

I have a couple of thoughts but nothing concrete to suggest just yet. However, my availability for the summer is up in the air for now. I'm taking off at the end of next week for a summer job and I'm not certain if I'll have internet access readily available. I'll get back to you in a week's time or so and I should know more by then. --PullUpYourSocks 19:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Many thanks for your vote of confidence, which means all the more coming from a respected adminstrator. I continue to believe that Wikipedia is best served by my being an "adminstrative lackey" - a nice fellow who does housecleaning tasks without AdminPower. In part, I do this to serve as a counter-example for folks who might consider adminship a "merit-badge" or something; but mostly, I doubt I'd have the time to do the job well. I don't commit to jobs unless I can provide utmost effort. Besides, I am well-known at RfA as a stickler "conservative" (or, "stick-in-the-mud" if you prefer): to seek my own adminship at this time would compromise the integrity of my high standards: I must be even harder on myself than I am on others, so I cannot seek adminship until I am convinced of my readiness.

I recognize that, at some point in the far future, it will become almost absurd that I am not an admin. I may seek adminship after two years/10,000 edits... maybe 15,000 edits. :) Thanks so much for thinking of me, but I must decline for now. In gratitude, Xoloz 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the Gremlins article are being used to depict the movie and its marketing. That is a fair use in and of itself. Always go back to the rule - what must you have for fair use? Use must be for educational, scientific, or critical discussion (all of Wikipedia is educational); use must not diminish the commercial value of the source (will fewer people rent or buy Gremlins because these images are here?); portion of the original used to make the point must be insubstantial in proportion to the whole (I would characterize these small images as minimal use compared to the 90 minute motion picture from which they are derived). BD2412 T 22:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you re-ban 65.166.138.178? They keep adding POV and vandalism to the Tampa Catholic High School page. Thanks.... /blahedo (t) 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a little uneasy about it, his last warning was in April; he seems to have vandalized the article once since April, so it could be a different guy, editing from the same high school, perhaps. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not the same person, they're at least reverting to the previous (bad) edits from that IP. And accusing me of vandalism for removing it. /blahedo (t) 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Your article (yes, your article) has been undeleted. SushiGeek 12:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! That was greatly appreciated. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the Halloween II (film) article and the barnstar! Dmoon1 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Canadian:

I notice that you removed the PROD tag from the article. I put it there because there was little of value in the article and I suspect it of being original research. In fact, in all my years of studying Luther, I've never heard of the concepts in it. Another editor created a On the Bondage of the Will page, which is itself still a stub. Would you be willing to put it back? If not, I think I will pursue a normal delete proposal.

--CTSWyneken 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem...I missed a step.--MONGO 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this user vandalized the Smallpox article today. I noted on his/her talk page that you had warned him/her in March about a potential block for vandalism. I will not post a warning there, but leave any action to you. Best wishes. WBardwin 00:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin,

While I of course respect the process that decided to delete the article Robland, I find it very disturbing that you take it for granted that all keep votes came from sockpuppets of mine. I guess that the fact that you see this as a fact, without the tiniest shred of evidence, only confirms the statement that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I no longer wish to be part of this. Goodbye, and thanks in the name of humanity for losing a contributor to this project, which could have been so wonderful.

Robiaan 12:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. I moved the tag to the talk page. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like Squidward. Can you find out if it's an open proxy? Robert 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither *blush*, but I'll see if I can find out from someone. Robert 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you just give a 1 week block to an AOL user?--64.12.116.203 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it here, but now that I look here, I think it's an AOL user. Sorry, I'm not very good with these things. Robert 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to reconsider. Top rewrite! Tonywalton  | Talk 19:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hunn as no consensus, but there were 2 delete and 2 merge votes, no keeps. So I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do the merge, since I think that more accurately reflects the AFD consensus than just leaving it. (It's not much of a merge, most of the info is already in Burping.) If you think I'm completely wrong, and should be strung up by various appendages, please say. AnonEMouse 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is no consensus. A merge is a type of keep. Nothing wrong with what you did though. I would have preferred a merge. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please check [1] who recently registered nick very similar to mine (I think he used different fonts). Could you please block this user? Thanks. SrbIzLike 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually dont worry about it. I'm not 100% sure about it. Cvene64 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i read briefly in one of your articles that you know of my band, The Monosyllabics. How did you find out about us? Im so happy to hear that we have fans out there somewhere. Please comment me back, we need support.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're talking about. What article? Unfortunately, however, after seeing the band's article it's not quite right for Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first account here. Ardenn 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is suspected that User:Ardenn might be a sock puppet or impersonator of User:Spinboy.

User:Ardenn Evidence

User:Spinboy Evidence

130.113.111.210

Please view the deletion log for Laura Chapman, the fictional character from The Day After Tomorrow, who was similarly deemed non-notable and thus speedily deleted. Jonathan F 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel it was improper? Jonathan F 04:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that's my bad...I thought that the rest of the word wasn't highlighted, but after reviewing it I see that it is. So, disregard all that before....but redirects still aren't annoying because you don't do anything. They are only annoying if you have to create them, not if you are clicking them, because the server takes care of it all by itself and you never notice a difference. Bignole 05:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that the GNAA is a trolling organizzation and NOT a racist one. The black kid in the picture is beautiful, has a beautiful smile and the picture in itself is sweet. That's why I uploaded it. It is true that the vast majority of the GNAA members are "light skinned" from various countries, but we have few black members aswell and to my knowledge they didn't find that picture so offensive or didn't even think that it "heavily implies a racist slur against the black kid in the picture" to say it in you own words. -- Femmina 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - User:Doktorbuk here on 195.93.21.8. Have spent the day updating some UK constituency pages, as I am sure you can see on my contributions list. Your AutoBlock has been bothering me for a few days (if not a week at least!) now... Is there any chance it can be lifted, as the sporadic blocking of my editing is, as I am sure you understand, beginning to get less of a minor problem and more of a major issue.

I fully support the fight against vandals and the need to block certain addresses, and AOL users are always going to suffer the flack, but I have been trying to add the Election box metadata to Democratic Socialist Alliance for days now and keep getting the Autoblock!

Any help/guidance will be great!

doktorb | words 10:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is very strange. According to this [2] that IP hasn't been blocked since February, and never by me (which makes sense, since I only became an administrator by February). I'd imagine the only reason why you may have been autoblocked is if I blocked a registered vandal using that IP. Did you ever get a username? "The IP has recently been used by...." CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please check [3] who recently registered nick very similar to mine (I think he used different fonts). Could you please block this user? Thanks. SrbIzLike 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of making a farce webpage, but look at your own. you are definitely a hypocrite, and I can't even imagine how you get away with your page.'

If you'd like a page about yourself, all you'd have to do is write it in User:CarltonPrest. Not Carlton Prest. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Psy guy ^Talk 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little upset, because I'm just trying to help knowledge, ya know, bro? -Cruzkilla12

Other "gag names" that are also real names include: Hugh Jass, Mike Rotch, Fuk Yu, and I.P. Freely. If this is still not allowed i wont try to add it again

Meh, it's supposed to, but I stole it to mean speedies. I now tag all of my speedies with it (well, most, as I spell it wrong about half the time). --Rory096 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I truly appreciate your contributions to various law articles and more recently the Gremlins movie article. Thank you! - Tutmosis 02:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mighty Caesar,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. We both know you should have been my nominator, since you asked first, but my obstinacy took quite a bit of effort to wear down, so several people had to try -- secretly, no matter what RfA says, I know I'm probably too dumb for this job! :)

Thought you might be interested in this:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Brian_G._Crawford. -- backburner001 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOOh it was about the categories. I apologize I didn't mean to get upset, I didn't understand. I kept erasing it because I wasn't finished with it. Again I'm sorry-Baconbits5

Thanks for taking that speedy-delete out, Canadian. It's a lost Korean-language film, so naturally there's not much info on it, especially in non-Korean languages... I had to do considerable digging around, translating and searching to find what I was able to put together on these films. But if a film by Korea's first major star/director, and the founder of Korean cinema (Na Woon-gyu) can be speedy-deleted just because there's not much info on it in English... Well, that would be quite a black mark against Wiki, I would think. -- Rizzleboffin 20:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanadianCaesar, thanks for leaving me a message. I very much do think Gremlins has a chance - but, I wouldn't feel good about doing the FAC, as I have not really contributed to it - you should do, as you made the article what it is. But don't worry - it is a quality article, I suspect a few objections will be raised (Halloween 3, Revenge of the Sith, V for Vendetta all got hammered here and there recently at the FAC) - but its all good - ROTS is now an FA. People will most likely raise a few objections, but they can be easily fixed. I honestly think this is a sure FA. What you should is, drop a message at the Horror wikiproject, let them know your putting it on FAC, and it will be sweet.

There are a few minor things that you could change. One thing that (I think) people will object to, is the toy image. I'm not sure that is properly tagged, and could become a target for criticism at the FAC. Also, be sure to write a fair-use rationale for the DVD cover. But yes, take it to the FAC, the article can only get stronger from it! Cvene64 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You change my revisions and I'll change it right back. Who are you to call the shots? Oh yeah. I forgot. You're the one who started the site. I stand corrected.

Stop crying foul. You are the man who said, "Just to let you know, I am going to be changing the revisions that you have." Again, I justify everything that I have said, including (yes) removing Canadian from your name "CanadianCaesar" as you clearly patronize anti-Canadianism. How does that make you remotely Canadian?? Tortured logic indeed!!!