User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Musical Interval mnemonics

Hi Proto, I notice that you deleted Musical Interval mnemonics and I have read your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Interval mnemonics. I'm surprised by the outcome given the plurality of voices that requested a keep. I think the article was quite poorly written, badly organized and incomplete, but still I don't see why the general content should be considered unworthy. If you really are planning to transwiki the content, I might suggest that it go somewhere around here, if not, then I'd like some explanation as to why you are ignoring the majority opinion in the debate. Thanks, -MrFizyx 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't know it would become its own wikibook. Thanks. How about the red link to the article from Interval (music) can we hard link that to the the wikibook or should I move that down to an external link? I don't know the custom for linking across wikis. -MrFizyx 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of LIP6

Under speedy deletion criterion A8, Wikipedia's written policy states: "Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notified — if not, the admin should do so." It seems that no good faith effort was made to work with the page's creator in order to address the copyvio concern. An e-mail would have been appropriate. But even if we consider that flagging the page for deletion constitutes "notice", some reasonable amount of time must be allowed for response. The deletion was made less than two and a half hours after the page was flagged!

In fact, the page creator is the copyright holder. This could easily have been inferred from looking at the page. The copyvio issue could have been dealt with in an instant. There are other issues that were raised, though these were not the basis for deletion, and they could also have been dealt with through dialogue. At the very least, the images should be restored, so that the page creator can tag them with the appropriate copyright information, and they can be included in a rewritten article. MyPOV 8:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I was referring to the original article, and not my subsequent article following your deletion. CSD A8 states that notification should take place "Before deleting any page". You closed the discussion on deletion at 12:41, ChantalPerrichon was notified at 13:00, after you'd deleted the article and all associated images. Furthermore, to meet CSD A8, the article must be "unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider". A university research lab is not unquestionably a commercial content provider, it is more likely a nonprofit organization. To meet CSD A8, it must be the case that "no assertion of permission or fair use... seems likely". Again, not the case: The page clearly came from LIP6, and, if there were any doubts, a Google on "Chantal Perrichon" would reveal that she is the director of communications for LIP6. The remark regarding the failure to follow written procedure still stands. As does the comment regarding the lack of a good faith effort to work with a new user. Any concern about copyvio could have been dealt with in a minute by communicating properly with the uploader. The subsequent actions of RasputinAXP do nothing to dispel the impression that there might well be a culture of trigger-happy administrators who are prepared to delete first, and respect their own written guidelines only if someone calls them on it. MyPOV 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Thank you for your follow-up comment. I understand what you are saying: that there was a copyvio, and that Wikipedia needs to be especially careful in such situations. I also understand you to be saying that you take a different view on the question of whether any assertion of fair use might have seemed likely. Even if we concede both points, it is still clear that an administrator (yourself) has acted here in violation of Wikipedia's written policies, which are meant to deal with precisely such a situation. CSD A8 can only be applied if the article was "unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider". And application of CSD A8 requires that the administrator notify the author before deletion, not after. Policy is also clear about what needs to be done if a speedy deletion was incorrectly carried out, and I am sure you will do the right thing. MyPOV 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Thank you again for your reply. All I'm asking is that you, as an administrator, apply policy, and not substitute your personal opinion (all apparent copyvio has to be dealt with immediately) for the written guidelines (under CSD A8, certain things can be dealt with immediately, but if its not unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider then it must go the slower route, which, incidentally, gives time for the uploader to respond to the issues). Your integrity as an administrator is engaged here. If you disagree with Wikipedia's stance on what gets deleted right away, and what goes through a longer process that allows for modifications and corrections, you can work, as a person of responsibility in the Wikipedia community, to get those terms changed. (You can also work to get the notification timing requirement changed, as you clearly believe that it shouldn't be binding.) Regarding what to do now, I think the standard procedure is pretty clear: If the speedy deletion was in error, the administrator responsible reverses the error by restoring the page. Please feel free to overwrite the small article I put in place in the meantime. MyPOV 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Hello again. Based on your most recent reply, it seems we would need to take this to mediation. None of your responses have addressed the fact that CSD A8 applies only for commercial content, which this is not. The Wikipedia policies clearly involve a balancing of priorities. They recognize that copyvio is a problem, but that the degree of the problem must be balanced against the problem that is caused when a new user invests considerable time and effort, and then finds their work deleted with nary a chance to respond. An administrator has a responsibility to not only be zealous about copyvio, but also to welcome new users into the community, and to help them to do the correct thing. I will research the best way to proceed for mediation. In the meantime, if you wish to restore the images, you can get them off the French version of this same page. It would be wonderful if you could work with ChantalPerrichon, on a restored page, to shepherd her in learning the ways of Wikipedia. MyPOV 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Hello. I'm happy to agree to your request, and hold off until June 5th before going to mediation. I'm not sure that I agree with your contention that a person who masters MediaWiki markup is necessarily an old hand at Wikipedia. MediaWiki is popular software for building all sorts of collaborative websites. Be that as it may, your contention is that there was copyvio. Then, by all means, as a responsible administrator, apply Wikipedia's procedures for dealing with copyvio. Please note, however, that for non-commercial copyvio, these procedures take days, not hours, and they allow other alternatives to deletion, such as working with the uploader to correct the situation. Despite my raising the question four times over the course of our dialogue in the past few days, I'm still very much at a loss, in reading your answers, to understand what your position is regarding the part of CSD A8 that states that an article must be "unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider" in order to be eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. MyPOV 00:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Hello. Given that you agree that CSD A8 does not apply in this case, I am at a loss to understand why you invoked it when deleting the page. It is important for an administrator to be clear and accountable in their actions. You could simply have said from the beginning that no speedy deletion criterion applied, but that, in your own personal judgment, speedy deletion was nontheless merited. Furthermore, CSD A8 says the following: If the deleting administrator is notified of an error, and finds the claim of error plausible, he should restore the content immediately. It appears now that you agree that there was an error (the content was not commercial) and that there was an error in how you carried out the actions (you deleted before rather than after providing notice), yet again you substitute your own judgment for the considered policy of Wikipedia. These positions strike me as quite worrisome for Wikipedia, which accords adminship in order to support its policies. I am wondering if the appropriate next step is something other than mediation, which would only affect the outcome for this page. I'm still reading up on this, but it seems it might be better to proceed to a request for comments on whether your actions are consistent with the responsibility granted to administrators. I see from your first request for adminship that this is not the first time that these sorts of concerns have been raised with regards to your actions. MyPOV 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark

Hi,

Just so you know, I have closed the very confusing DRV on this article. In my judgment, the deletion, undeletion, reopening, reclosing, renaming and redeletion of this article that occurred during the DRV marred any attempt at a definite consensus. Based on the comments rendered after this sequence of events occurred, I have found a consensus to restore the article and begin debate afresh. I advise you of this because you had deleted the article previously. Please allow this debate to run the full five days, so that this matter might be settled well and completely. Thanks, Xoloz 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call, it would appear

[1]

Guettarda 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some jackass...

...just deleted the Skeletor pic off my user page. I mean, seriously. Marskell 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of every NHL player

You just redeleted the NHL players A through G after it was agreed to bring them back out of deletion. What are your reasons? There are some pretty useless lists here on wikipedia. but this is not one of them. The vast majority of lists on wikipedia are not complete. These ones are over 99% complete and actually serve a purpose. Masterhatch 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review#National Hockey League player lists. They were restored for a reason. BoojiBoy 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Critical Mass rides

Proto, why did you delete the List of Critical Mass rides?! (See deletion log)

It was really useful and was unbiased! Is there any way to get a copy of the original wikitext, which could be put on a Wikia project page?

--Nsayers 18:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Proto: thanks for sending me the original wikitext for this article, but the question remains: why did you delete it in the first place? --Nsayers 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

Sorry, just came across this, and I must say, I have instant respect for anyone who uses the phrase 'gentle caress with a fish'. :) --InShaneee 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing images

I was working on prototype chinese strucutre page merge when all of the image links suddenly went red. What happened? TomStar81 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you deleted them. Is there any way that they can be brought back? TomStar81 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think all take you up on that, but could you place them here instead? That would make reorganizeing them that much easier. TomStar81 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Condescension

Piss off. And next time, perhaps learn the rollback policy before dishing out rude and condescending lectures about it.

For the record, there is absolutely nothing in policy preventing rollback from being used where the reverts are for completely obvious reasons and there is no need for an edit summary. In this case, the user is trying to prolong a sustained edit war by spreading it to the article on a Wikipedian's unrelated project, and in the case of such an act, it's pretty damned obvious why he's being reverted not only by myself, but an number of other editors. I thus use rollback, as it is a complete waste of time to go through the extra few page loads just to have a personalised edit summary of "rv" instead of the automated rollback one. Time that could actually be spent editing the encyclopedia. Rebecca 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in this, Proto. I see Rebecca adds gross incivility to the repertoire of her unacceptable behaviour. Not that her comment is really worth replying to, but, as my edit history shows, I had never edited any of the articles involved in the "sustained edit war" I was supposedly trying to prolong, which I wasn't even aware of! Margana 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies for you for being the subject of profanity. Andjam 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Platypus

Platypus is a name and for that reason has a capital. See WP:TOL. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Platypus falls under the WP:TOL subproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_Monotremes_and_Marsupials, which for common names points to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles which state: The common name of a species is always capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms. Hope this clarifies. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes a lot of sense, and it is for birds for example quite normal to do so in the scientific literature although I am pretty sure you can find exceptions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"You would capitalise "Common Starling", but you would not capitalise "starling". Surely that makes sense?"
That does make sense, and that is what happens. Starlings are from the family Sturnidae, and as the term is so broad, there is nothing that needs capitalisation. However, if someone is to say common starling, one is not to know whether it is the actual Common Starling or whether it is a starling which is common wherever the person lives. It just decreases ambiguity. As for Cane Toad and Platypus, they are a specific species. You don't capitalise toad as it is a broad term, but you capitalise Cane Toad. Yes, there is no chance of ambiguity with Platypus, but that was just the choice of the editors of the article to use capitalisation. --liquidGhoul 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why Platypus should not be capitalised. It is a specific name, there is only one Platypus. --liquidGhoul 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad

Hi Proto, could you take a look at this AfD which is about to expire? I feel that you may wish to relist it as the article clearly merits deletion and I believe that it would be so if it recieved more discussion. Anyway, please do look at it. Thanks --Strothra 13:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As requested on your talk page, replying here: I know I'm one of the more deletionist admins that close AFDs, and am prone to applying common sense occasionally (gasp), but from what I can see, there's a reasonable argument for keeping the article with respect to notability, the info is verifiable, and you seem to be the only contributor who has argued for deletion. If you don't like the verdict of the closing admin (which probably won't be me), there's always deletion review. Sorry dude. Proto||type 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why I was asking for a relist and not a closure as I realized you were a more deletionist admin from the last AfD you closed. I was expecting, and would have sort of liked to have seen, a relisting of that one too but I'm not complaining. Anyway, I'd rather stay away from the whole bureaucracy of deletion review and simply post a new afd on the article in a few months if it still doesn't comply to verify, cite, and notability standards. One who argued that he "didn't care" is the person who the article is about and another was someone who has clear interests in keeping the article up because he's associated with him. I do, however, understand why you would want to stay back. Thanks anyway, --Strothra 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Relists only tend to be done if there is clearly a lack of consensus, or if nobody has contributed to the discussion. The arguments are a bit crappy, but the whol thing seems to be rather flimsy (the article, the discussion, everything). If you really do think there is a lack of notability / citation / verification, why not try and provide these yourself? If you have no luck doing so, then use that in your case for deletion when you take it to AFD again in a few months. Positive evidential proof is always the best thing to have. If you are able to find those things, though, then please add them to the article, and keep up the good work on rooting out the garbage that floats around the 'pedia. Proto||type 14:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll definately keep that in mind. I think that'll also help prevent attacks of calling my AfD a bad faith nom. And by the way, your userpage is quite funny - good job. --Strothra 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Styletexpro

You left a template saying you blocked them, but you didnt actually block them?[2] Kotepho 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

22nd century and beyond

Hey Proto, thanks for helping out with that monster AfD that resulted in merge/redirect to 22nd century. Just wondering, are you doing a blanket redirect on all these years, or are you merging anything useful with the centures? I'd just like to know, because I'm going to look for anything useful to merge. I noticed you did 2123 already, and are moving foward. To prevent overlapping, I'll work from the end back. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm finding a few minor things to merge, but I got no problems just doing a blanket redirect. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Doh, never mind, it was a lot faster for you to redirect the lot than it was for me to sift through the articles looking for whether the content was already in the merge target or not. Thanks. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's okay, I'll do it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr mormon

Hi. I notice you blocked this vandal back in April. Please look at his recent edits and consider blocking him again. -- Slowmover 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked. I don't think he will be missed - thanks for bringing it to my attention. I live twenty minutes drive from The Wirral, by the way ... weird. Proto///type 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Slowmover 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review

Who is "Lars" ?? Given that, I'm wondering how closely you read all the previous comments before commenting, as I pretty clearly laid out my reasons in more detail. You can fault me for thinking the mediation was important, and you can fault me for not doing a good enough job of explaining the close if you like though. As for a relist, that's my thinking on where it's going to go, and this time I'm not going to be the closer so I can comment "delete", which I also think you missed... but the second AfD was in fact speedy closed because it is out of process and inconsistent to have both a DRV(which can overturn outcomes) and an AfD (which can determine outcomes) running at the same time. Hope that helps, I felt it better to comment here than there. You can reply here, I watch. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lar, Lars, I was only one letter off :) My mistake, sorry about that one. Everything else, fine, sounds good. My issue was solely that it should have been closed as a delete, in my opinion. Doesn't necessarily mean my opinion is right... I just think it is :) Proto///type 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
no prob... thanks for the feedback. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Australian articles for deletion

Sorry, I must have missed that. I shouldn't have been deleting articles that late -- my judgment is bound to be skewed. Thanks for the tip! Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Fish and karate/Archive 8, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podagogy

Hi Proto. Just to let you know that I re-listed this, as it wasn't clear that all of the comments on the original AfD were meant for both articles. As the articles were very similar I doubt that the outcome will be different, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. Cheers TigerShark 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bushell

What is this? You close an AFD -- voted overwhelmingly to delete -- then simply remove the AfD tag without a word of comment. What are you up to? --Calton | Talk 09:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Proto. If you don't mind, I've responded on my talk page. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise I'd also have to let you know. Since that's not what I asked for or complained about, I can't see what the slightest relevance this bit of pouting has to what I actually wrote. And I just checked the deletion log, and it says temp restore to userfy. So that's three different things you've claimed to have done. Have you settled on just one yet?
Your latest claim is some e-mail the guy sent you was sufficient to override consensus? Is this "proof" somewhere, or is WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verify also some things you feel you can unilaterally override? Does WP:DRV at least sound familiar to you? --Calton | Talk 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As the deletion itself was in process, it isn't a DRV case - DRV is for process review, not content. Ah, wikilawyering, always a welcome response. Should I count this as the fourth rationale for whatever it is you're doing? They're really hard to keep track of, since you seem to have trouble settling on just one. And the whole WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verify thing -- which makes no difference to me, unless those undisclosed sources say that this guy won a Pulitizer Prize or something, since the claimed achievements are nothing but a bog-standard working journalist's resume. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Half the reason the article was deleted was a lack of refs for various claims. I was sent the refs following deletion. Have you added these references to the article? The current revision does not cite any references that establish his notability; they only establish where Bushell has worked. As such, the article is still nothing more than a resume. Also, I understand why you are not sharing with us the verbatim content of Bushell's private e-mail to you. However, an explanation of your motivation to unilaterally go against process is in order. --David Iberri (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It was in the context of the re-AfD that you asked for more time. I'm just asking you to explain your motivation for undeleting the page when the restored version (IMHO, clearly) didn't stack up against the original AfD complaints. Now that I know you'll need more time for that too, I'd be happy to wait -- no rush. In the meantime, would you answer my question about whether the references you added to the article were indeed the ones Bushell sent to you?
Also, yes, it's true that I know him, as I mentioned in the AfD. Therein I also clearly stated my motivation for nominating the AfD. It had nothing to do with personal vendetta, as I have none against Bushell. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort and explanation. Much appreciated. I'm happy this is done with. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Feeling frustrated?

[3] :-P --GraemeL (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No more than usual! I just like to keep you guys on your toes by using gibberish edit summaries when I edit my own user page :) Proto///type 15:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingston Indians

Hi, I was wondering if you could expand on your rationale regarding your close on the Kingston Indians players. Most of the delete rationales based their opinion on WP:BIO, which allows for people to be kept if they're professional athletes. Any thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the consensus and the quality of the argument was to delete. I do, however, tend to apply common sense and judgement, rather than pernickety policy wonking or one-eyed 'process is king' wikilawyering (not implying that's what you are up to). The fact that these players were at such a low level as to be borderline professional at best, and that the great majority of American editors, who I would be inclined to listen to on baseball (being a clueless Brit), stated delete, I agreed. If, however, you really disagree, deletion review is that way. I won't take offence. Proto///type 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Thanks for the further explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingston Indians on deletion review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Kingston Indians for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. (Just trying to make sure that admins are made aware of DRVs for *fDs that they've closed) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished AfD?

Hey Tigershark, I noticed you deleted "Learncasting" per this AfD, but you didn't close it or delete the other nominated article, "Podagogy". Maybe you were interrupted? Anyways, I closed the AfD and deleted "Podagogy". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I kinda think that's right... the comments in the learncasting afd did state 'delete both' or 'delete per nom'. I'm not sure that it needed extending for podagogy, so it's being deleted is the right thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proto (talk • contribs) .
Hi Guys. Yeah, a bit of a mistake with not closing the Learncasting debate - I definitely started doing it, but must just have previewed it, got distracted and then not saved it. This was probably because I was creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podagogy at the same time, which I did because I wasn't 100% sure that all of the original editors had commented on both articles. That is also why I didn't delete the Podagogy article. I was probably erring too much on the side of caution, and I have no concerns about the fact that it has been deleted. Deathphoenix - As you deleted Podagogy, would you mind if I left the closing of the Podagogy AfD to you (just for consistency)? Cheers TigerShark 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion

I think you made an error when you deleted the Neanderthal theory of autism. The article wasn't recreated, it was a stub, created by somebody unrelated to the original article. I think the article should be undeleted, and if you wish to delete it, start the usual AfD process instead. --Rdos 12:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthal theory of autism on deletion review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Neanderthal theory of autism for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your reasons on how or why you closed or deleted this on this will be greatly appreciated. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:C&C

That makes me feel a little better, but I do wish that we could have just retooled the pages. When designed I had hoped that any objections would be brought to my attention before an afd so that the information on the pages could be subtracted from to fit in here. No one has since offered any support for that. I presume by now that the remaining articles pertaining to Generals have been placed on afd; since I know no one will vote keep I am giving you my expressed written conscent, as the creator of the pages, to speedy delete them. TomStar81 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Granted Image:Cygnus x1.jpg has a NASA photo on it, it is used on a copyrighted work, that being a page from a Rush album. While it is legal to have the image shown, we have the image on a page from a rush album with lyrics and layout which well, is copyrighted. Thanks Dark jedi requiem 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not copyright free. Period. It is from a copyrighted work. The work however used a Nasa image that is not copyrighted. The link that is shown is NOT the image uploaded. The image uploaded is a scan of copyrighted lyrics WITH the free image (which is linked to). Plus we already have the Nasa picture without RUSH lyrics on them at: Image:Cygnus X-1.jpg.
Thanks so much. It was very hard to explain. You and another user misunderstood me (as you might have seen on my talk page), so I'm sure I could have clarified things a bit clearer. Thanks! Dark jedi requiem 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That is true, and I did notice that the user has a shady history as far as image uploads go, I would feel bad for citing it. Dark jedi requiem 16:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: David Devenish

Your Post: Hello. You tagged the above article for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, it does not qualify for speedy deletion, as it asserts a claim to notability, and is not a repost of deleted material. If you believe the article does not belong on Wikipedia, please consider going via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Regards, Proto///type 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • My Response: Actually, according to the deletion log, this article was deleted with the following note: 15:37, 24 June 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "David Devenish" (A7). Therefore, it technically was reposted content, although it had been speedily deleted, which may or may not always count. I appreciate the follow-up! --NMChico24 23:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Fixwiki seems to have a bit of trouble understanding 3RR. I've tried to explain it by quoting the relevant part of the policy. As I admitted I have no understanding of the subject so if you are willing to sort through it I would be more than happy. That said I will block any of the editors of that page who violate the 3RR (or other policies). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Proto - Welcome to the -uh- situation. I think that getting in to the talk pages and the archives will be helpful. However, here is the basic story from my side.
A few months ago, I somehow got pulled onto the speed of gravity page, and that is connected by Tom Van Flandern's work to Le Sage's theory of gravitation (which had a different name back then, BTW). What I found was a page being ruined by a "food fight" between two anonymous editors. One, editting out of a "62.24..." IP domain is now known as "Fixwiki" (whose name I put in quotes to show that he is not going to fix whis wiki). The other anonymous editor is known to be Paul Stowe, a Le Sage gravitation fanatic and theorists who is now editing as User:Le Sagian. At about that time, the page was locked by CambridgeBayWeather pending a resolution of the dispute. So I chose to get involved and act as a moderator. I quickly sorted out that the 63.24... anon was anti-Le Sage, while the other one was pro-Le Sage, and decided that I prefered the 63.24... editor's viewpoint although he editing was a POV as the other anon's. My entreaties to work with him got rebuffed, however, since I am a known "crackpot", and this editor decided that working with me was beneath him for that reason. (I am trying to dent general relativity, as I describe on my home page. However, do note that I have never promoted my ideas in the article space.)
This left me in a bit of an odd place, since I was not about to support the other anon, and in any case was looking for fairness in that article. The situation then got murkier as another anon appeared, and soon took the user-ID MRE. MRE is yet another pro-Le Sage gravitation enthusiast name Matt Edwards, who has editted a book on and supporting Le Sage gravitation. However, as events unfolded, I asked these other editors to propose rewrites of the article, and event started one of my own. "Fixwiki" (still an anon) chose not to do so, but the other editors did. It quickly became obvious that of the three versions I was looking at that MRE's was the most well-written, scolarly, and NPOV of the bunch. So I got Le Sagian behind it and got CambridgeBayWeather to unlock the page. So that version got put up, and got worked with for a while.
Fixwiki continued to apprear and to push for his own POV. Sometimes MRE would go along and leave Le Sagian alone, and other times he and Fixwiki would figure out a compromise. Fixwiki himself started going from user-ID to user-ID. First he was User:ELQ22. Then he was User:SneltCatNoc. Finally he settled on User:FIxwiki and promised to keep that as his ID. (So far has kept that promise, although occasionally the 63.24... anon reappears when he forgets to log on. Note that I have no cause to consider this to be purposeful sock puppetry.)
For a while, this arrangement worked, but eventually Fixwiki and Le Sagian for locked in another edit war, and the page was locked again at Le Sagian's request. It took a couple of weeks, but I worked out an scheme for where to go from there, the deliberations about which Fixwiki abstained from. Then I had CambridgeBayWeather unlock the page, and asked him never again to lock it for Le Sagian. The page then was quickly put into the shape decided on by the consensus, and work proceeded for a while in the absense of Fixwiki. Then Fixwiki reappeared, and reset the page to the form he wanted from the previous edit war. So I reverted it back, and the edit war commenced which ended up with Fixwiki being blocked.
At this time, MRE is acting a the moderating lead on this page, while I have ended up being a policy enforcer mostly against Fixwiki. However, the reason for that is that Le Sagian has chosen to respect my request the he work primaruly through the talk pages, and so his POV edits are not an issue at this time. Also, MRE seems to be doing a fine job in keeping the article NPOV. Let's say that I had hoped that he would prove to be NPOV, but was not sure that he would. That fear is now fading.
As for the case of characters, you should look over Talk:Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Dramatis_personae. That said, here is my take: Le Sagian is the most POV of the bunch, but is now being disciplined in his approach. Then there is Fixwiki. Fixwiki is almost as POV as Le Sagian, being very biased against Le Sage gravitation. He sees his edits as being specifically endorsed by Wikipedia policy. Since he is an expert on the topic (or so he claims and does show signs of being so), it follows in his mind that his edits are automatically NPOV. So he will bring up such things as Newton's implicit disapproval of Fatio's unpublished ideas (which were the start for this theory), which do more to put down the theory than to inform people about it and its history. Finally, there is MRE, who IMO is proving to be a "good guy" even though he is pro-Le Sage.
What I want to do with Fixwiki is get it into his head that the issue with him is his behavior and not the content he is promoting per se. I am sick and tired of his nonsense, and want him to realize that he needs to settle down and be a part of the group whether he likes its membership or not. Had you not gotten involved, I would have started tightening the screws on him as I threatened to do. Instead, I will back off and see what you can do. I am happy to give you a chance to work with Fixwiki. Maybe he will have more respect for someone who is not a known "crackpot", but OTOH FIxwiki did tell CambridgeBayWeather that he was "out to lunch" over the 3RR issue. In any case, good luck.
BTW - I apologize for the length of this response any my having time to proof it only once. --EMS | Talk 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
File:ReichstagClimb.jpg
Ergo!

WHERES MY RADIO!

I have scaled the Reichtag buliding wearing a spiderman outfit. The proof is in the picture!

I LIVE IN YOUR EYES. Cazoo.

Dfrg.msc 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my favourite message ever. Proto///type 08:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember that?:I am dumb, sometimes. Thanks for explaining it to me. I'm convinced a big bunch of my edits have vanished, though. I like the above message. You get all the fun stuff, sexy boy ;) Proto t c 15:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you've got some fun stuff too (but I also got the picture). Cheers. Lectonar 08:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RC patrol

See Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman - I had no idea we had a Reichstag Climbing patrol! You learn something every day... Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape armour

Hi there. You are, of course, welcome to use DRV but I don't believe there was anything procedurally wrong with the decision. I took note of your comments and did read the whole debate (as I always do, of course) and was careful not to base the decision on counting votes, but I believe it was a fair interpretation of the discussion that there was not a consensus to delete. Incidentally, I did think about mentioning here - and as I'm here I will :-) - that repeatedly making the same points to people who disagree with you is probably not the best policy on an AfD. Cheers. —Whouk (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi there: I do not now recall the details of the aricle in question, but I normally only nominate for what seem to be obvious reasons; are you saying that it is Wiki policy always to notify the author? If so, of course I will comply. If it was your article then I apologise for my mistake. But i think that broadly speaking I only nominate articles by non-account-holders.--Anthony.bradbury 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was inexact; i meant to say users without user-pages, not unregistered ones. As i say, I cannot now recall the article; clearly, if you deleted it my tagging it was not actually incorrect. I have in fact tended, where I felt that new authors were really trying, to leave a note on their talk page and flag their article as verify or notability. But I will take your comments on board.--Anthony.bradbury 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim MacNeill

Help. Ordinarily I would just flag this article for deletion as a biopgraphy. He has clearly written it himself, but may actually be quite notable, assuming the article is true. Would you care to look and judge?--Anthony.bradbury 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You echo my thoughts, but you're an admin and I'm not.--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

post-object programming non-deletion

I nominated the article Post-object programming for deletion, and the debate resulted in delete. I've seen the article is still alive, as a redirect to Aspect Oriented Programming created by you. I guess the reason for converting it to a redirect, instead of deleting it, was the suggestion of doing it by a member of the debate.

I personally don't support it; I didn't argue against doing it while discussing the deletion because nobody else supported it, either. One of the reasons stated to support the redirect was that the article was actually describing AOP, which was evidently false by simply reading both articles. The other reason was that in some articles posted in the web discussing AOP, it is presented as "a form of Post-object programming". I believe this to be a misconception originated by our POP article, since no reference to POP is done in our AOP article, and a simple google test gives around 1.050.000 hits for "aspect oriented programming", around 1.040.000 hits for "aspect oriented programming" -"post-object programming" and 153 for "aspect oriented programming" "post-object programming".

May I ask you if you have any reason for keeping the article as a redirect to AOP? --euyyn 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not I think the redirect will harm. Indeed I like the idea of nobody atempting to reconstruct the previous version. It's only that it is odd to redirect a term to an article that doesn't mention it (with reason). Encyclopedically, the redirect is arbitrary... It could have pointed to any article. Uhm, now I'm thinking it maybe should better redirect to Object-oriented Programming. What do you think? --euyyn 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

Dear Sir:
This is not meant as a personal attack upon you, but it has come to my attention that you nominated, for deletion, several articles pertaining to the computer game Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. You claimed that, and I quote "This and the following pages comprise a guide on how to play Command and Conquer." You could not be more unjustified in your deletion of these perfectly acceptable, and dare I say superb, articles. There was not a single trace of "strategy guide" in these fine pieces of literature. I have studied these articles profusely, and all I found was information about a game, certainly nothing about playing a game. All I ask is that you reinstate these articles to their previous state and take the unwieldy deletion nominations from the existing articles mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less. Yours Truly, The Viceroy of Big Words, Russian F.

Policy v. Process

You said: "If more admins closed AfD discussions in favor of policy over process, we might actually see all those garbage articles that fail WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:NOR actually be deleted, instead of an endless sucession of staid vote-counting 'no consensus'es."

Heh! Good! If you're around in five days, come close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf breaks in Australia :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Whew..... 149 pieces of crap! :) [4] I feel so bad for the people who worked hard to build this stuff..... Took me an hour to delete! - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The surf article is still waiting, after seven days. Good luck to whoever closes that dog! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Luke Walton (Walmart heir)

Hi I was just curious about your closure of this article's AFD. You claim consensus was to delete but I'm showing 3 delete votes and 2 Keep. That's hardly a consensus to delete. Infact it falls a fair bit short of the deletion threshold. Would you consider replacing this article please. Thanks. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for looking at it anyway. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stravinskiism

Hi there! I see you've A7'd this article. Can I just remind you to close the AfD, as well? Thanks. Tevildo 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman2005 User Page

you removed quite a bit of stuff from my userpage, I would like to point out that two or three times my page has been taken to various adminstrators boards over the content and each time there has been overwhelming consensus that what is on it does not violate any wikipedia policy. If it offends you to read my user page, then please say so and discontinue visiting it, otherwise I would ask that you respectfully go along with the various rulings on it and leave it as is. Please let me know if you have any other issues. Batman2005 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to respectfully tell you how incomprehensible I think it is that you list my user page on the noticeboard without a courtesy mention to me so as to defend myself and my page there. I think its is highly disrespectful and I expect more from a wikipedia administrator.Batman2005 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More AfD candidates

For completeness sake, consider AfD'ing the remaining four articles on the Red Alert 1 line of Template:C&CRA - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Motor Brands

Why did you delete this page? This is not violating wikipedia policy. In fact, you post other t-shirt companies like T-Shirt Hell and Threadless, clothing brands like Ben Sherman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frank-n-stein (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure if this is the best place to reach you... I got your message regarding a non-notable company, however, Motor Brands is a well known brand and many of its products have been worn by celebrities, Juliya Chernetsky aka Mistress Juliya on "Fuse TV," Justin Timberlake on "Saturday Night Live", Brian Van Holt in Warner Brother's "House of Wax" -- hat was also featured in movie poster, AJ McLean from Back Street Boys on "Oprah Winfrey," just to name a few.

Batman2005's user page

Mainly because I feel there is still content on the page that violates wikipedia policy. As I stated in one of my replies, I feel the page is needlessly aggressive and uncivil in its tone. Its unnecessary to wikipedia and serves no purpose. I've browsed his talk page and seen several complaints of uncivil behaviour on his part and the content on the user page is only an extension of that. --Crossmr 08:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cams.com

Hi. I think you deleted my article about Cams.com claiming it to be a non-notable club. I mentioned in the article that Alexa ranks it as the 540th most visited website, is that really non-notable? Kernow 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:DixieCan.jpg

Thanks for the speedy. Sometimes an image looks better in image expert than it does on the 'pedia. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you =

Thanks for the guidance. While it is true that there were many anon posters in the debate regarding the 2nd Afd nomination for What Really Happened, many legitimate points were brought up by recognized editors who should not be discounted simply because of anon postings by others. Still, it is very kind of you to indicate the process to follow while disagreeing as to its necessity.Tiamut 11:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8 deletion

Can you explain how Eon8 does not meet WP:WEB, now that it has received both very substantial blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken covering it? AfD is not a vote, but if there is clearly no consensus to delete, I think admins should make more of an effort to document their reasoning when they delete in spite of that. While there was a lot of meat puppetry, you had several experienced users, including admins, arguing for keeping the article.

I don't want to place all the blame on you. In controversial cases like this, having a single admin make the closing decision is problematic. I think we should consider some policy reform in that area, and maybe require a quorum among a group of closing admins if a discussion has reached a certain level of activity.--Eloquence* 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8_(2nd_nomination)

Greetings. I support the decision you made in the Eon8 AFD. I wanted to point out, in case you haven't already noticed it yourself, that the sharpness of your closure (quote, unquote) has unduly increased the controversy surrounding your decision. I find it unfortunate that we can't be offended by the flood of non-contributors voting and folks with silly reasons like "keep since I'm mad it wasn't something more awesome.", but there were some rational keeps buried in there and the comment was unfair to them. In any case, I hope you continue to apply common sense when closing deletions in the future, and that you avoid setting traps for yourself. :) --Gmaxwell 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Looking back over the closure, I could have been both more detailed and careful with explaining my decision. Wading through all the meatpuppetry must have irritated me more than I thought. I'll try and bear your very good advice in mind in future. Thanks! Proto///type 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of valid articles

Please do not speedily delete valid articles. You have done this to three articles so far that contain images and actual content. I have reported this on the Administrators' noticeboard. Also, look at the ongoing debate for deletion of the Fairbank Memorial Park article, found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fairbank_Memorial_Park.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cellpreference (talk • contribs) .

Fairbank Memorial Park is now a valid article. Which reminds me, I need to change my vote on the AFD. The three I deleted were less than stubs. They simply restated the article title. Being placeholders for pretty images is not sufficient to engender them with encyclopedic status. Proto///type 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Reminder for myself - Cellpreference is uploading images claiming to be the creator, that were previously uploaded by blocked user Daloonik. Either Cellpreference is lying about image source data, or he's a sockpuppet created to circumvent a block. Investigate tomorrow. Proto///type 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For form's sake, you should probably have posted CP's block on ANI and let someone else take care of it, since you're currently involved in a dispute with him. Even if you're right and he is a sock, it'd still look better. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Relist

Would appreciate your thoughts on this message.--Eloquence* 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing comment on eon8 afd

I am just writing to warn you that your use of (quote, unquote) "arguments" is against WP:NPA as it insults all those people who gave keep votes. I am one of those who gave a keep vote and found your sarcastic comment insulting. I don't disagree with your decision but I find your behaviour to be ill thought out. -Localzuk (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I have already been asked not to do that again, and I will endeavour to avoid upsetting people through sarcasm in future. However, it was most certainly not a personal attack. A personal attack would have been if I were to described someone as 'stupid', or their vote as 'the vote of an idiot'. Some misplaced sarcasm, which wasn't particularly civil - and for which I am sorry - is not a personal attack. Proto///type 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


List of famous failures in science and engineering

User_talk:Proto Are you deleting this or voting to delete it? This a a tragedy because the goal of Mmx1 is to destroy all of my WP contributions, and he cited my F-111 contribution as a reason to destroy the work of months by dozens of editors because it is like hundred of similar lists that attempt to list "good" or "bad" items. That it is uncited doe not mean that citations cannot be found, and I was in the process of adding citations of people who thought these projects were failures. Does the WP always work this? In order piss off somebody else, all I have to do it is nominate for AFD and the wiki-deleters will do the rest????? What a system.. How can I retrieve for future reference? --matador300 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Deep Space Carrier

In accordance with this, I will merge the article. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 03:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Puzzling one

While patrolling new articles, I came across one from this growing category: [5]

Do you think Wikipedia needs a separate article for each year's playing roster of ANY sporting team, other than (perhaps) international ones?

Can you imagine what would happen if some of the cricket teams that have been around for HUNDREDS of years started doing this!!??! We'd be swamped.

Happy for you to advise. I'm reluctant (too inexperienced) to wade in, especially as someone's doing an awful lot of well-intentioned work. --Dweller 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List of relationships with age disparity on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of relationships with age disparity. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Deathphoenix. I have commented. I am a good boy. Proto///type 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft

I've noticed an interest has been taken in deleting a lot of Warcraft content. While removing "how-to"s is one thing (weapon lists, unit lists, statistics guides), I don't understand how locations, characters, and plot fall under "how to" guides, unsourced or not. The thing is, Warcraft is a well-developed, Tolkien world, supported by a wide variety of games, books, and an announced movie. An encyclopedic description of the mythological history of the world has nothing to do with playing the games - it's more akin to the comic book histories and worlds detailed extensively here on wikipedia. For example, take Dalaran, as it currently stands. From what I see, the second clause of the last sentence should be deleted per the game guide policy. The rest of the article is mythological backdrop, and is not relevant to how to play any game in the WoW series. Obviously, these articles need to be sourced, but honestly, I think the zealousness for removing "gamecruft" is pushing for deletion instead of fair editing. --Josh

  • Hi Josh. In my opinion, plot should stay. Characters should stay. Huge big map articles that say where levels, dungeons, etc etc can be found should not. I go into more details on what I think is and is not gamecruft in User:Proto/gc. Proto///type 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

RE Game Guide issue

Since there are so many of these types of pages, members of wikipedia should request a seperate section for gameguides. Members should request a section similar to this because similar elements such as TV characters and episode guides are in wikipedia. Members will continually create similar pages for people who want in depth info about a particular subject. So these pages will continually re-occur.

Wiki has a section for Dictionary, Quotes, and taxtonomic references. Why not games

People will request these page when wanting more information.

Pagers such as answers.com use similar guide pages for better information.

The simple solution is to request another wiki section for these particular pages to not upset user. So people wont get angry when tese pages get deleted.

Please try to get a wiki section for this subject so pages can be moved.


Cs california 01:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeda Not Game Guide issue

Since you claim Wikipedia is not a game guide I suggest you delete the following pages and sections: Weapons in Call of Duty 2

Why does the commuinty allow these sections to exist? If it is not a game guide and you like deleting lists of game elements you should consider deleting the above mentioned pages. If you do not you are a hipocrate!!!

Similarly you should also delete all TV episode listings since they are related components in a TV series.

Cs california 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above, and disagree with your approach to game article deletion, Proto. I have written about it on my own page, here, if you're interested. Summary: you should be trying to change policy through appropriate channels, not randomly deleting articles. Outriggr 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Gamecruft deletions

  • Hey, Proto, just wanted to say that you've been doing some good work with the cruft patrol. Video game articles always tend to have a lot of cruft, especially if they're run by a WikiProject whose sole goal is to add as much to Wikipedia about their subject as possible. Anyways, while I may not agree with all the pages you have and will list for deletion (I think its moderately acceptable to have an article on a central aspect of a popular game as long as each entry is kept relatively short), I gotta give you some props for putting all this effort into making Wikipedia a more respectable source of information. Cheers and such! Wickethewok 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Temple_of_Nod

This AfD I just created is heavily related to an AfD you recently created that was closed as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry. You should definately weigh in on this AfD, as the article was recently reverted from a redirect to one of the mentioned pages that got deleted to its pre-redirect content. Kevin_b_er 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD for counter-strike maps

Proto, I see that you have opened an AfD on Counter-Strike maps. You should be aware of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_dust which resulted in a strong Keep consensus at the end of May. I had already tried to AfD De chateau separately, not aware of the De_dust precedent and it failed comprehensively: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De chateau. My guess is that the Counter-Strikes maps AfD is likely to go the same way. At the least the De_dust AfD should be listed on your AfD so that editors can see the earlier discussion. I have concluded that there is a strong consensus to keep articles on the official Counter-Strike maps and further AfDs will be pointless. Good luck, Gwernol 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Gamecruft hater

here is some more cruft for you to send to afd Template:RuneScape

good luck

- not logged in user who prefer to remain anonymous 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed to a link (as I don't want my talk page in Category:RuneScape). Proto///type 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
you going to send the lot to afd then? 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I put RuneScape armour onto AFD about ten days ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour. If you hate it that much, do it yourself. Otherwise, wait and I'll get around to it in the next few weeks. I don't want to nominate everything at the same time; I'll lose track. Proto///type 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
you are very destructive, afding fans' articles isn't my area. 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Proto///type 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
your so proud of yourself aren't you? can ips award barnstars by any chance?15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If you like. IPs are special too. Proto///type 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, Proto. I think I'm going to start in on editing the sections you have listed on your gc page fyi. If there's anything in particular you want some assistance on, I'd be glad to help. Wickethewok 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Not a strategy guide

Fair enough, though if the pages are kept encyclopedic, there shouldn't be a problem, right? Kim Bruning 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) I wonder if the reply will contain "Wrong!" ;-)

List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs

Yes, I'd like a copy.. It's pretty referential for being a list, and I've done a few of its programming blocks. Me and Electricbolt plan to improve it sometime soon past the point of being a mere list. DrWho42 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to sound impatient though, but.... You do have this list still, eh? You seem to have certainly mentioned it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. DrWho42 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. User:DoctorWho42/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. Proto///type 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dada-ist Edit Summaries

I dunno. Bored I guess. I'm just taking things either in my head or nearby, so it's still kind of relevant if that's what floats your boat. Wikipedia is much more boring than it used to be. Karmafist p 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what's up with putting back that spam? Karmafist p 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Um. What spam? Proto///type 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature

You warned me about the "signature maniac". What about your signature, huh?? Sean gorter{mind a chat?} e@ CVU(UTC)

No, Sean, all I asked you was to stop using a template as your signature. Proto///type 11:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aristasia on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aristasia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

YOU STUPID FUCK STOP DELETING ARTICLES ABOUT GOOD GAMES...... maybe if i write it in CAPITAL LETTERS you will see it,, stop censoring wikipedia stupid nazi bitch! (comments by somebody else)

I don't know who made the comment above, it wasn't me, just to say I was meaning to inform you about this, I am just getting hang of procedures. PatGallacher 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 recommendation

I've made a recommendation regarding User:Giovanni33; I'd appreciate it if you would comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Giovanni33 again. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to change the rules of RfA

What gave you the impression I was trying to change the rules of RfA? Please respond on my talkpage. --ScienceApologist 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)