This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anetode. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rowdy Rams. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nightstanger (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Just wanted to let you know I'm challenging for the page. I really want this page to stay because this organization deserves it
Rowdy rams continued
I'd also like for one big thing to be taken into consideration with the article. Rowdy Rams are frequently mentioned on ESPN. ESPN broadcasts sports events around the globe which means everything they say is of high importance. That being said Rowdy Rams would not be mentioned on a channel broadcasting sports around the world if they were considered not important
Renaming my Account overlooked?
Hello,
I have had a Request for my username to be changed since May 24th. I have not heard back from any administrators as of yet, and I was hoping to get the name changed soon.
slingshotecity -> sling21012 is what i would like to do.
Thanks for a speed response.
sorry just picked a few admins that were active to ask about this*
The Rowdy rams are very well known. ESPN mentions us on TV and in articles alot. We been around since around 2002 and we're considered the reason that VCUs basketball team does so well at home. I have more info to add to the article as far background information that I needed to recieve from other leaders however the article was deleted before I could. If the Cameron Crazies have a page than the Rowdy Rams should too. Cameron Crazies are known for being tough at Duke and Rowdy Rams are known for that at VCU. Duke is considered toughest in the ACC conference due to Cameron Crazies and VCU is considered toughest in CAA due to Rowdy Rams
You deleted an image on the UArctic article
Yesterday/today you deleted an image from the article "University of the Arctic." I had written that I have permission from the owners to use this image on Wikipedia. Why did you delete it? The right authorities within the organization (UArctic) have given me the explicit permission to publish these images here, so I do not see why you felt like you could delete it. I am awaiting your quick reply to this question.
--Misha bb (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted Rowdy Rams and my pics
The article was about the student organization Rowdy Rams at Virginia Commonweath University. My article was owned by me and organization and the info provided was from the creators and I owned the rights to that articles. I also has sources and references to my article. My pictures were personal pictures that I myself own from our organization as stated. My article was deleted without any warning. I would like to add my article is quite similar in form to Cameron Crazies of Duke, however my article focuses on VCU. Once again as I stated my article was information from our organization as well as the pictures. I would like to add that my photos marked unencyclopedic were actually examples of of what the Rowdy Rams do such as the trademark paint
Aset Ka content deletion
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:DarkMark.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:AsetianBible.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
(Deletion log); 00:37 . . Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Aset Ka" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD. using TW)
Good evening, I am contacting you in the hopes to solve this situation. This article and images, uploaded by the user Hellensmith37, are not a copy of the old material that was deleted a year ago. The article was actually removed before due to an act of vandalism and not supporting with references by the original writer. But the new writer has made a quite better work, even including references to international published material, with real and active ISBN numbers, that can substantiate the whole article, who now complies to the Wikipedia rules. Please double check the old article and compare it to the new one and you will see how it cannot be claim to be a copy of previously deleted material. Also the 2 images were deleted, one of them a book cover, and both well uploaded under the guidelines and with the correct information on copyright and fair use. Both images were before never present on Wikipedia, and again substantiated as being a copy of previously deleted material. I have talked with other admins that agreed this is the case of a misunderstanding, due to the article being previously deleted because of lack of real confirmable sources, which is not the case this time, and asked me to talk directly with you so you can undo the 3 deletions.
As much as we might disagree with the contents, we can nevertheless deny its verifiability through published works. And in this case, there are several ones mentioned, even an international publication, that is readily available on Amazon and countless bookstores around the globe.
I am sorry for all the trouble and I appreciate some help on this case to bring the article and images back in place. Thanks a lot for your time. -Gustavus
Hello again.
I fully understand your view, although I highly disagree with it.
Although we may disagree with the contents of the book and any claims behind it, the Wikipedia article nevertheless does not endorse any of those claims, but merely presents them as a reference. As for the publication of the book, not only isn't that recent, since it has nearly one year as of publication date, as it isn't as obscure as it may seem. The Aset Ka is not validated within the book, the Aset Ka needs no validation as an order and as a publisher. The Aset Ka is an official publisher from Portugal, registered in APEL, the Portuguese government institution that grants the publisher title and ISBN agency. Actually, the Aset Ka even has their own ISBN prefix and ISBN gamma intervals, officially assigned and only possible to be used by them. I have called APEL myself and validated this information, which any of you may do as well.
The article is not original research, but information based on a TV documentary, a published book (that even though we may disagree from its contents, it is still a published source and deserves its credit) and a few workshops and debates on Portuguese universities.
My central point is, even though we may disagree with such claims from the order such as age, it is still an esoteric and spiritual tradition, substantiated by a book with a full thesis of the mystical system and tenets, throughfully described. And the Wikipedia article does not, again, endorse their claims, but merely presents the tradition as a reference, that independently of being something that we agree or do not agree upon, is at best a New Age tradition and philosophical system in the occult, that deserves its respect and acceptance as such.
With this in mind I ask for you to reconsider your view of it, that although understandable, is biased by an old highly incomplete and mistaken article. I thank you again for your time and thought –Gustavus
Sarcasm Pt II
Obviously you didn't read the article very well, as evidenced by your comment "There are competing claims[1]" on the nomination page. The article didn't assert that it was the first gay bar in the world, in Europe, in the British Isles or in Ireland. It is notable as the first gay bar in Northern Ireland. That's hardly "none asserting notability", as you had put it. Had you actually read the article properly, I'm sure you might have noticed that. --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, can I please apologise profusely for undeleting that page. I was assuming good faith (something I do religiously, which can get in the way of common sense at time). I'm glad you spotted this, as the DELREV is going very SPA, if you know what I mean. Apologies. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please reverse that block, there have been other agreements made. your block just set back the progress. βcommand18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Careful Anetode, you do want to fail to comply with his demands and be taken to arbcom as I'm about to be dragged there for the same thing. MBisanztalk20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the head ups. I find the possibility of being subject to arbitration for failure to comply with such demands to be kind of absurd. If it comes to that, I guess I'll try my best to offer a frank explanation of the events that transpired. Most arbcom cases I've looked at tend to get kind of convoluted and political, so if it comes to that I suspect my involvement will be minimal. ˉˉanetode╦╩09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And this takes the cake, showing that a block was totally uncalled for:
"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs." - User:Betacommand, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, 14:58, 16 May 2008 [3]
For such a long time editor and admin, honestly, I should not have to tell you that blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, you don't. I'm aware that blocking is a last resort, a drastic measure that must have a clearly defined reason. I don't recall ever having blocked an establised editor for anything more than a 3RR violation and I have never blocked Betacommand's primary account. I have blocked BetacommandBot once when it was malfunctioning, and he was very quick in spotting the error and stopping the bot, so I unblocked the account after some nine minutes. This is a completely different situation. If you disregard, as I did, the initial reactionary blocks of all his accounts and accusations of sockpuppeteering, there was a substantial discussion about Betacommand's apparent incompetence in effectively implementing new ideas for bot tasks. The most recent example of which is the defaultsort faux pas, but since monitoring the account and the relevenat AN and AN/I threads, I've noticed that there is a substantial history of similar mistakes. Quite a few members of the community, including admins and bot operators, expressed a lack of faith in his ability to responsibly run automated tasks and be held accountable for them. John Nagle and Durova suggested a set of sanctions in an attempt to rectify the problem without going to the extremes of banning all future bot runs or enforcing a punitive block on the main account. These sanctions, by the time I instituted the block on Beta's Bot account, had accumulated a twelve to one support - a consensus if I ever saw one. I decided, in light of this consensus and taking into account the ineffectiveness of many prior measures, including tedious Arbcom discussions, to proceed in enacting one of the least controversial conditions of the sanctions, one that would prevent Betacommand from running tasks under his bot account for a period of time sufficient to satisfy concerns about lack of forethought and responsibility. The decision to block came after some thought and consideration of the opinions of a dozen knowledgable users. A last resort would be a block of Betacommand's primary account, or a more severe restriction on the accounts he has access to. Right now, both the Betacommand and Betacommand2 accounts are unblocked, only his bot is affected, as a preventative measure in light of a prolonged discussion at AN and the removal of the bot flag. Of course the bot flag and BAG membership are matters to be decided by members of BAG, but right now there appears to be a consensus to enforce a break on any automated activities until such time as a fair review of Betacommand's willingness to obide by common sense restrictions may take place. ˉˉanetode╦╩09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I don't completely agree that the block is justifiable, I can still respect the logic you used. -- Ned Scott06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk page protection
Hi, you protected my talk page a while back because of some abuse/vandalism I was getting from a dynamic IP. Any chance at looking at this again as the same user (I presume) has returned to make similar edits both to my talk page and talk archives. Thanks SeveroTC22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Per this e-mail text left on my talk page, it's pretty clear that the permission e-mail re-affirmed the noncommercial license on the photo. I'm thinking it should be deleted pending a better release. I'm not getting the hostility of the uploader, but whatever. Kellyhi!22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that message did little to alleviate any concerns over using that image. I've deleted it pending verification of the photographer's consent to release it under a free license. ˉˉanetode╦╩22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm done. I worked my ass off to make this article good, and that includes working with the photographer to get this image. I'm so over WP's process wonkery that favors deletion per bureaucratic nonsense over actually building a useful, helpful encyclopedia. Have fun deleting stuff. Good bye. BellwetherBC22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
?!
This user knows Ninjas are better than Pirates. SHURIKEN STRIKE! Ninja away!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
AK-74 deletion?
Why was this image removed? I went to great lengths to get in touch with the company that owns this image and convinced them to release it under an attribution license. Why was it removed? Koalorka (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the hell you deleted my article. I followed the rules. And you know what, i just searched up hottopic, nike, addidas, they all got a wiki. now why the hell did you delete that?? eh? you didnt even give me a reason ,your not doing a very good job as a mod. Now give me a REALY good reason why its deleted. I see someone else posted this befor. why?
Thank you for your advice. Beforehand I had trouble understanding what did and not constitute "free" content as outlined in WP policies. Right now I'm not spending too much time here due to real-life matters, but I'll consider the free content page advice later on. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Critical Times - Fishbone's Hen House Sessions
I couldn't tell that, because you were deleting the speedy tag faster than Twinkle could process it! Since you insist on declining the speedy for this non-notable album, I'm forced to go to AfD (sigh). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hen House Studios has been repeatedly spamming Wikipedia, and I believe this article is included, even though a different editor started it. I don't believe the album itself is notable even though the band is, mainly because it is a compilation of old stuf released by the studio after the band gained fame. But we'll see how the AfD goes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your closure of the AfD for Asset voting
It appears to me that you actually read the arguments and evidence, and I want to congratulate you for that. I'm sure that if the article stays as-is, it will again face AfD, for there were, as I acknowledged from the beginning, problems with the article and its sourcing. I have a book coming on Dodgson's work, and my plan is to ensure that there is, indeed, an article on that work, and then the question of the mention of the modern work, if any, can be resolved as an ordinary editorial question, as there is no doubt about the notability of Dodgson's work on proportional representation. Asset voting would then, probably become, as with many neologisms that would, in fact, result in Wikipedia look-ups, be referred to the relevant section of the Dodgson article. Again, thanks for seeing through the noise to hear this clear signal, keeping the welfare of the project foremost. It does not always come out that way.--Abd (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I really do hope that Dodgson's work receives better coverage on wiki. I was just a fan of his children's literature prior to this AfD. Now Raymond Smullyan's Alice in Puzzle-Land makes a lot more sense :) ˉˉanetode╦╩02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to merge this article. I originally thought the history had been lost, so I restored the history as a redirect. However, I then realised you had actually merged the history in page moves and I had just restored the very old history of an article in the same place that was previously deleted. I was just going to leave it, but I decided to prevent future confusion just to merge the history of the old article into United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest as well so it is nearly all in one place. It is now complete and I have retained the redirect as it could be helpful for navigation. Please let me know if there are any problems. Camaron | Chris(talk)10:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've protected The Twinz since there's been a bizarre edit war brewing for the past couple of weeks. The same might have to be done with Bloods & Crips, until you guys work something out at the talk page. As for the actual dispute, I've no opinion one way or another. ˉˉanetode╦╩00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're going to have to give me something more to go on. That website could certainly be used as a primary source for information about its claims, but propaganda tracts like this one might not pass muster, unless put into context according to WP:UNDUE. Of course this depends on the article in question. HTH ˉˉanetode╦╩
I am not using it as reference. And I was not talking about the article you showed. I will alter the reference for any useful information using mainstream newspaper. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
G'day. I noticed you changed the deletion tag which I placed there earlier today. The image was placed on the South Sydney Rabbitohs article replacing the image of the 2008 Centenary Emblem. This image is seen as vandalism/nonsense/whatever because it gives the South Sydney team a bad name. The wooden spoon is often seen a sign of defeat in Rugby League as it is often given out to the team that comes dead last each year, in this case South Sydney have came last a fair bit since the 90's onwards. - Cheers, VicerUserpage | Talk11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. G1's the proper tag, but it's subjective and I had no idea that this image was some cheesy joke. Sometimes a brief explanatory tag helps, like {{db|reason}}, if there's a chance that the image might be reviewed by a clueless admin from across the pond :) Anyway, it's deleted now. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Although i still think this article needs a lot of work, at least it's good to see you improved the article after not deleting it, so thanks! (if you could de-orphan it as well, you'd make my day ;) ) Shoombooly (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Voila :) Although that's just one unimportant link and I think this'll remain an orphan until someone writes a decent article on the Vietnamese publishing industry or on international partnerships for the translation of children's lit. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You declined my speedy, stating the club is notable. Fine with me, but could you tell me WHY a private group of coin collectors in Missouri is notable? I don't get it. Channel ® 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I note that you speedy-deleted this article a week or so back. You were quite likely justified in doing so, but the speedy deletion process does have a side-effect of removing the evidence. I rather hope that the "patent nonsense" wasn't the then elector/archbishop (Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg) of Cologne converting to Calvinism - because, however preposterous it sounds, that is precisely what he did.
The main reason I ask about this is that I am convinced that there should be an article on the topic - it was an importance incident in the history of the Electorate of Cologne (and what is now the redlink to Cologne War was added to the article by me about three years ago), as it inaugurated a period of over 150 years during which all the electors came from the Bavarian branch of the Wittelsbach family. It is also important as part of the historical background to the Thirty Years War. While I don't have time at the moment to look up the sources necessary for an article on the topic and then write it, I would like to be assured that if and when I do so, the article would not simply be deleted again (at least by you).
Why my "This user cannot stand Barack Obama" userbox was CSDd, but the "This user wants George Bush impeached" userbox is allowed to remain. McJeff (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are the two impeachement userboxes. [4] and [5]. Also, aself-made one on this user's page.
If you believe these userboxes are "divisive and inflammatory" then take it to MdD; do not delete them unilaterally. --Orange Mike | Talk13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this speedy deletion criterion allows me to do just that. I can assure you that these deletions were not carried out because of any political bias. However the election season's upon us, and I'd rather not encounter any userbox that promotes an antagonistic or defamatory approach to declaring one's political beliefs. ˉˉanetode╦╩06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded and added some pictures on this article: Muhammad Ali (actor) - which were have no copyrights problems... you can visit the source. I still dont understand, why those pictures were deleted.
Bugging you about FPC potential of old images
Hola. Since you seem better acquainted with the process of featuring pictures on the basis of your argument for the John F. Kennedy image, and more aware of the artistic and technical standards of images on the basis of you being anyone else than me, I'd like to ask if you think this image has a chance of passing a FPC nomination because something has to be done to get it some proper recognition. Thanks, Kizor00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that Image:Kamikaze zero.jpg is an astonishingly timed and historically significant image well worthy of being a Featured Picture. Unfortunately, the resolution of the current scan falls short of the technical standards required by the WP:FPC process. I've made an e-mail request to the Naval Historical Center for a high-resolution scan of the original photo/negative as suggested by [6]. If everything goes all right, a high-resolution version of this photograph will be available within a few weeks. At that time, I think it would stand a good chance of passing the rigors of FPC. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩02:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I leave you a message planning to suggest an exception to the standards on FPC and try to argue it through, the borders of Our RulesTM being my particular area of interest, and here you go and pull out a chance for a perfect solution. That is the most awesome thing I've seen today, and I've seen Doctor McNinja jump off the moon carrying Dracula.
Incidentally, now that you're solving problems would you happen to know where one would start looking for a reliable source for the fact that skydivers have had sex in freefall? I'm drafting a rewrite for the sex in space article, you see, and that would be a small but intricate tidbit for terrestrial comparisons. There are some very unambiguous photos, but using those as references would be problematic. You are not expected to answer this. --Kizor21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Fidler, Donald (2005-12-31), Sexual Event Classification System (SECS): A Proposed Classification of Human Sexuality(PDF), Association for Academic Psychiatry, p. 24, retrieved 2008-06-30: sexual intercourse during skydiving was categorized as an adult bonding sexual event. Two problems: the report of sexual intercourse while skydiving is anecdotal, though presumably verifiable; and the paper has not been peer reviewed. There's also a significant body of work that discusses the pathology of risky behaviors such as skydiving and risky sexual intercourse, however the two acts are never mentioned as being observed concurrently. I've skydived myself, once, and by my estimation, you would need to be an experienced skydiver and a gymnast to pull of the feat (though I suppose that the adrenaline rush would help you, um, finish the deed in the forty or so seconds of freefall). NASA might also have collected some data on boinking in the space shuttle, yet I somehow doubt they would publish a press release on it. ˉˉanetode╦╩22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
All caps
Thanks for fixing that for me, it was inadvertent and made me look kinda looney. I seem to do it by accident with the laptop. CheersDie4Dixie (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Anetode, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to block this account indef when I noticed you beat me to the punch. Just as a quick heads-up, though, you seem to have left a {{uw-block3}} template but only blocked them for 24 hours, so you might want to stop by and sort that out when you have a chance. Thanks! --jonny-mt04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. A bit too quick on twinkle. On further inspection, {{test5article}} was deleted. So much for slaps on the wrist I guess. ˉˉanetode╦╩06:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Re the glossary of custom car terms: something like this? FYI, the fn are mostly to captions of descriptive pix; some of the mags may be hard to find, tho. I'd also say, with attached sources (I'm working on it...), the glossary'd still be a useful add to the article; it's a little short for the subject, & anybody wanting to know about custom cars has probably heard the terms & wondered about 'em. (I'll bet there's quite a few readers even of the mags on the subject who don't get it all.)
That seems reasonable and referenced. As for the discussion in general, I think it's time to bring in a third opinion. You could also try WP:MEDCAB, if Zerocannon is willing to calm down a bit. ˉˉanetode╦╩21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Restored
I think you restored my speedied Talk archives (on Aug 4). If that's the case I'd rather you undid that action, they were deleted for good personal reasons. Thanks. Channel ® 11:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend you, but there is a long-standing consensus against deleting talk pages wholesale. If your page contained personal info or other comments you wish to delete for personal reasons, a better approach would be to ask for oversight. That way you don't have to discuss exactly which portions or why you want the archives deleted on wiki and the revisions will stay permanently hidden from anybody on the project. I trust that whoever handles the oversight request will be discreet and reasonable, it's just that I'd rather leave the decision to re-delete up to someone a little higher up the food chain. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩11:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not offending me, you're causing me problems. The stuff had been deleted by other admins, concensus or not, and your restoration, months after the event, seems rather pointless to me. Anyway, I'll go to oversight. Channel ® 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent comment at AN could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against the Wikimedia Foundation. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. ˉˉanetode╦╩04:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Cute. Point is, you need to refrain from offering legal consultation of any sort on Wikipedia, especially when talking about possible legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation. Please have some consideration for the illiterate contributors to this project, some of them are allowed a handy little "block user" button right next to your username. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩03:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not offer legal consultation in any manner whatever, and I object to your insistence that I did. Nor did I suggest taking legal action against wiki-anything, and I do not understand why you would want to create the impression that I did. This whole topic is something you initiated, and I do not know where you are going with it; please stop. Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"I would happily point out to anyone who needs to know the appropriate way to show in a court of law..." I have nothing against you personally and I hope to put this topic to rest as much as you do. Nevertheless, it is my responsibility to let you know if you stepped out of bounds of Wikipedia policy. You did — please don't do so again. Thank you and happy editing! ˉˉanetode╦╩03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, I did not offer legal consultation in any manner whatever, nor did I suggest taking legal action against wiki-anything. I did not violate any wikipedia policy, and I would hope that anyone who took on themselves the responsibility of enforcing a policy would do so carefully and not leave other user's talk pages filled with unsupportable allegations.Thaïs Alexandrina (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Short version: I'm an idiot. Long version, I clicked on a link to an old revision of the recent changes page, but since it was a black notice that covered parts of the interface, the "old revision #" notice did not show up. Since images were also not showing up for a few minutes (see WP:VP/T#Images aren't showing up, I thought there was really something wrong with the servers. The notice itself was poorly written, so I attempted to copyedit it. A stupid talk page question and a few minutes later, I noticed my mistake and purged the page. Unfortunately, the black developer notice appeared for a few minutes for those who were trying to access the recent changes page. I don't know if the problem lasted for users after that, but anyone who reloads the page shouldn't have a problem. Again, I'm an idiot, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience that might have caused. ˉˉanetode╦╩23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I just wanted an explanation. I guess you got pretty chocked, right? I know I would have been. :)))
the user is just attempting to be disruptive and does not actually care about the article. please re-add the prod and revert he sockpuppet please. βcommand23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. If you had any proof that this was someone's sockpuppet and could identify that someone, I would block the account. Even then, though, I'd challenge the prod on the same grounds. So would any one of the other admins who check the prods prior to deletion (since the inclusion threshold for educational institutions on Wikipedia is rather low and subjective). ˉˉanetode╦╩23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
_deleted_"Image:I-31269.jpg"_(fgsfds){kind=link}
