Template:Sockpuppeteerproven has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Avi (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have erred in your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). The blankness of the pages is irrelevant to the community consensus to delete them. We occasionally do have consensus to "Keep and blank" but this wasn't one of those times. Gigs (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a bad precedent to let this stand. It's nothing personal, and I think your argument has some basis, but I think it would really make MfD not have much point if blanked pages were kept just because they were blank. Gigs (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason you're troubled by the decision? Just curious. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. And why do I find the idea of an IP address threatening an admin with a block so hilarious? ... oh, right. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come you deleted my user page? Why? If you do that again. You will be blocked from wikipedia. I will ask someone to create my user page again. 12.239.22.131 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Viz. the dynamic IP. I am no longer bothered by this specific case.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't already fix the mapping? -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an WP:RFC/U is called for. We've both tried to resolve the same issue, without success, and it's an ongoing problem (due to his attitude to the policies in the incident, which remains unchanged) so the requirements will be met. Would you draft one? Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug. Please don't take this as citicism - it's not meant that way - but I was just curious why you decided to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mysario Reprise as no concensus, rather than relisting for another week? I could understand it if there had been a lot more !votes, but not with only 4 !votes in total. As I say, it's not a criticism - with those !votes it is the right call - but I have often seen other admins choose to relist the XfD for another week - and if there is no further activity, close it then as no conc. I'll be open here - I have recently started admin coaching, and want to learn as much as possible about how admins work, and I was curious! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I found both arguments to be relatively strong and based in both policy and prior results at mfd. The default is always keep and believe this is particularly so for userpages where biteyness can be a real problem. It is my experience at mfd that if something gets only one or two !votes relisting will normally result in several editors commenting in order to help a consensus develop but that when there are already more than that, relisting is generally not helpful. Additional comments are likely to be the same and wouldn't likely resolve the issue. It's a judgement call though, that could have easily been relisted and might have been justifiable to close one way or the other.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally use {{talkback}} but wanted to keep the comment together and on my page in case others are curious about my rationale for any admin actions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your reply, Doug. I understand what you mean - and think it was a wise decision! Also, I am quite happy to keep responses together (it's what I tend to prefer anyway) - and as you say, it means that it is easier for others to see what you have said! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:75.141.100.115 - as you may have seen, I thought this should be deleted. I understand your uncertaincy about it - there is no definite answer in any of the guidelines, etc. I must the thing that tipped me in favour of deletion was the fact that the IP user wasn't willing to communicate with anyone else on Wikipedia.

However, my question isn't about that! I am aware of the WP:RFC process, but I was wondering if this was applicable in this case (there isn't really a suitable talk page a notice of a RFC can be left at, as the IPs talk page is not likely to be visited by many editors!). Do I just create a subpage to WP:RFC? Do you think this would be something worth discussing? (I don't know how often this problem has arisen before, if ever). Any advice would be welcomed! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you talking about an ordinary RFC regarding the concept of userpages for IPs or are you referring to an RFC/U on the IP user? I think the former deserves some consideration, the latter would be unnecessary for an IP (and more or less moot in this case). I have never created either but, see below, I probably will be creating the latter on a fellow admin sadly.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was actually wondering about the former - I'd assumed that the latter would be inappropriate for an IP user. However, as both the IP users in question have been blocked, the question is indeed moot! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently overhauled WikiProject South Africa with the following:

• Improving collaboration of participants by adding an Open tasks section with specific as well as common tasks
  • Added link to the CatScan tool to find articles needing cleanup, referencing and expanding
  • Added common tasks that should be performed on Portal:South Africa
  • Added information on how to add Geographical coordinates
  • Added articles missing Images
  • Added assessment information
• Improving the layout to make access to information easier
• Added simple "How can I help?" instructions for new project members
• Extended the Resources section to assist participants in finding South Africa related information
• Added bot generated Article alerts
• Added a bot generated Cleanup listing
• Added more information on template usage
• Added a section on language usage
• Improved the categories section with trees for category:South Africa Wikipedia administration and category:South Africa
• Added link to Wikipedia Books
• Marked inactive sections of the project as inactive

Comments, constructive criticism and suggestions for improving it further are welcome --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the RfC talk page, primarily directed at the filing party. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re your comment here, I totally respect your decision not to keep off-wiki notes on your vote but would point out that, using the screen shot method, the "waste of time" amounts to about one second. Seriously. There may be other concerns, of course, especially if using a public terminal or shared computer. Rivertorch (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeirdreAnne. You have new messages at King of Hearts's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.