User talk:MrDarcy/Archive2

Help?

Sorry, I did not see the warning and had no idea why this page kept coming up with out the information I had so recently entered. I have edited the information to what I believe fits the guidelines. How is it that other magazine sites can post their cover and this one keeps being removed? I understand that it was too much of a list so I have removed that but any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Username

Hello! I just saw your name on a post in the Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge and thought I'd drop you a line... did you choose Mr. Darcy because of the books or the movie or something else? I very nearly chose a name from P&P myself! — Editor at Large^(speak) 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a little ackwardness given your name, but... Miss Elizabeth Bennett, sir. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

I don't just like her because she's the main character, but because her personality and mind are so much like mine. Her life, even! It is amazing how many similarities there are between us. What about between you and Mr. Darcy in the book? — Editor at Large^(speak) 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started Emma when I was 12 (but never finished it) and I read Sense & Sensibility. I am looking forward to reading more. My younger years were filled with Dickens and Shakespeare and Tolkien, but Austen was not featured on my (over-stuffed) bookshelves -- I hope to change that as soon as I get free reading time!

Hmm... proud, observant, ascerbic wit, but not brooding. I am afraid that the attraction is lacking somewhat when there is no brooding involved; and you're not tall. That does it. I am afraid, Mr. Darcy, that there is no chance of anything more than a distant friendship when you prove to be so lacking in so many respects! My regards with the rest of your life.

;-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC) -------------- P.S. What's your favourite Austen novel?[reply]

I've got a request out at the library for Persuasion (novel), and I'll follow it up with Jane Eyre; another novel I began when I was younger but never finished. Thanks for recommending them! — Editor at Large^(speak) 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorize User Name

How do you colorize your username when you sign your name? Bearly541 04:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot! Bearly541 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Whoops! Sorry for a)removing the tag and b)removing your message. Not an excuse but, while not a new user, I am new to the more technical side of Wikipedia. GiantSnowman

World Series

I disagree with your recent reversion of my edit to the World Series article. Finding the list of teams that have never appeared in the WS requires reading the fourth graf, finding the list of eight franchises that have yet to win the WS, then subtracting the three teams identified as having appeared in the series but not won it (Of those eight teams, only three have appeared in the Series: Milwaukee, San Diego, and Houston.) Someone with the question "What teams have never appeared in a World Series?" has to do a little work to find the answer. Putting the list below the table makes it quick and easy, and provides a measure of completeness to that section by listing all 30 teams somewhere. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that makes sense - but you should remove it from the 4th paragraph then. To me it's silly to have the info in two places but I don't particularly care which place you choose to have them. I agree with your reasoning of having all 30 teams shown in one area - but maybe you want to also have the missing ones in tabular format? (I'm a table geek - I originally changed the list of World Series from a big ugly summary format and excessive-detail-target into the cleaner, leaner table.) I'd be all for that. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (and nice work on that table). Have a look at what I did and let me know what you think. I took out the 4th graf, moved the never-made-it teams into that table as the last five rows with a comment on their best playoff finish, and moved the drought info and the line on the Yanks to the top of the trivia section. If you have thoughts, maybe you could put them on the article's talk page so that others can comment too. Thanks! | Mr. Darcy talk 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit (read my edit summary for an explanation - mentioning the Yankees at the top is only natural as much as I hate it!). Otherwise, I like it!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and decist

Someone who reports you isn't automatically a sockpuppet. Sb213 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chambre syndicale de la couture parisienne

Hi fellow new page patroller, Just so you are aware, there is a new Criteria for Speedy Deletion for spam/advertisements. I've replaced your prod on the article with a speedy delete notice. Leuko 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Bonds&diff=80144305&oldid=80138536 The clean up you did basically took away from Barry Bond's and his unique nature in terms of statistics that he shared with his father. The article as it currently written focuses more on controversy than about him. With Willie May's, although it is his god father, they have no relation by blood. Thus I kept it at a seperate point in the article. Care to clarify your rationale behind the clean up? GrandWizard 03:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fine with the move. didn't see the point in the deletion. GrandWizard 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to bulk it up wont' be of any major effect since users can simply delete in the name of clean up. I will bring up another point that hasn't been mentioned. GrandWizard 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion for untagged images

Hello there. I notice that you have added I4 speedy deletion notices to some images that have been untagged for more than seven days. Note that this is not necessary as images which are marked as untagged for more than seven days are automatically eligible for speedy deletion via CSD I4. For example, all the items in Category:Images with no copyright tag as of 1 October 2006 (which includes some of the items you tagged) are eligible and will be deleted any time now. Hope this helps. --TheParanoidOne 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Confluence

Mr. Darcy, Thank you for cleaning up the article and providing the links. It seems that you have made it more of an article than an elegy, which I appreciate. As far as a citation for the Times Beach issue having a national distribution, I'm not sure that there is documentation, but I'm here with Mark Berry right now and he says that he printed 5000 copies and sent out about 500 to groups working on dioxin issues in the U.S. As for the POV, I think that you improved that, but I'm not sure what more to add to make it agreeable. I know that the current mayor and police department in St. Louis would probably have dissenting opinions if they were solicited for information. Thanks again, Dan

conflict of interest

I appreciate the feedback. I've been a wikipedia fan for a long time, but I haven't done much editing or writing on it. I don't think that I have a conflict of interest other than that I am friends with the editor of the publication and I thought it would be nice if it could be on wikipedia since I've noticed entries on other similar publications.

Re: Barnstar

While I appreceiate the recognition, as I wrote to Aecis, Thanks for the honor, but you may want to wait until I actually get them all uploaded -- there are over 500 of them, & I've only added just over 100 140 of them. ;-) I don't like it when I embarass myself with unfinished projects. -- llywrch 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Game Records

An article you prodded last week is now listed at AfD. The article's creator removed the prod tags (I had placed a prod2 right under your prod tag.) Just letting you know. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! —Mets501 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I've actually been on for six days. User Michaelas10 wrote on my Wiki talk page that showed 5 new links for newcomers. I went to the five pillars. I read in that area. I also looked at various links including neutral point of view, undue weight, and reliable sources [1]. I thank Michaelas10 for the helping me. GreatChimp 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning a statistic and point of view pushing are 2 totally different things. IF a fraternity website states that 75% of black lawyers are members of Alpha Phi Alpha (which brings into question reliability [2] and the American Bar Association states that 55% of black lawyers are male and 45% are female. How do you account for the 20% of black lawyers who aren't male? This in light of the fact that Alpha Phi Alpha is exclusively male. I've also been a member for 6 days not 4. 23:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied on his page and think that the article should stand as is (without his changes). Cbrown1023 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias

Hey Darcy, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what particular articles do you remember me from? :-) —Khoikhoi 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember the whole controversy back in December. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrandWizard

Netsnipe, you posted this on GrandWizard's talk page: Tell us what account name you want to change to and we'll forward the request to Wikipedia:Changing usernames and once that's taken care of, you'll be unblocked. GrandWizard was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Mykungfu [3], not because of his username. Why would he qualify for an unblock? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well pschemp was willing to AGF on whether he was a sock or not at User_talk:Pschemp#User_talk:GrandWizard, and I still haven't seen the telltale Mykungfu-sign of editing Alpha Phi Alpha yet. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my talk page

Ok, i've removed that statement. Where I live that's not usually considered offensive, but I realize it could be offensive to some people and it wasn't meant to be, so I've removed it. --Robert 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the information I changed was wrong I only corrected it. Don't spit out your dummy because you got it wrong. Charles Manson is 5'7" not 5'2" as is often wrongly stated I can email you a copy of his expired driving license if you want proof and also various other evidence

Mr. Darcy

Call me silly for asking this, but how are you and Elizabeth getting along? Did her sister Catherine ever get married? Regards, Durova^Charge! 06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Edmonds

I read your comments on my talk page and on the Edmonds article. I updated the page with a cite to the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch article about Jimmy Baseball. I asked people to dicuss the issue on the discussion page before changing it again, the previous user had changed it a number of times already without discussing. I appreciate your insight, you have a great deal of experience with wikipedia. However, I still believe the nickname is more appropriate as Jimmy Baseball due to the local broadcasters, journalists and fans using it. Seak17 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Levert

It's not a stub anymore. It's "been rated as Start-Class." according to Talk:Gerald Levert. Don^MEGĂ|60645 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MrDarcy! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CopyBot

Regarding your rv of my edit -- your advice on my talk page about avoiding appearance of conflict-of-interest is well-taken, and I'll sit this one out. As it stands, the article misquotes the source it cites:

(cited source -- http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/11/14/use-of-copybot-and-similar-tools-a-tos-violation/)

Until they are, the use of CopyBot or any other external application to make unauthorized duplicates within 
Second Life will be treated as a violation of Section 4.2 of the Second Life Terms of Service and may result 
in your account(s) being banned from Second Life.

(Wikipedia article)

Linden Labs' position is currently that use of CopyBot will be treated as a violation of their Terms of Service. 

I made three changes to this sentence:

1. It's "Linden Lab's", not "Linden Labs' " -- Linden Lab is always written in the singular -- this is minor
2. The blog post itself attempts to broaden the issue beyond CopyBot -- you reverted the edit due to this issue, which I understand
3. The blog post does not say "Use of [...] is a violation of the ToS" -- it says "Use of [...] to make unauthorized duplicates is a violation of the ToS" -- I feel this is an important distinction, because it requires intent. If you agree, would you mind making these two changes to the article?

Thanks! Bushing 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of Oceania

Hi Fitzwilliam,

(slight formatting change to condense box's displayed height; header needs some attention)

Unfortunately this leaves code on view when displayed here (PC, WinXP, Firefox) so I've reverted your edit, at least for the time being; hope you understand. Here's your version in case you wish to experiment further (I've disabled the links to categories and other languages and the bold italic note):

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd - it displayed fine in Firefox after my edits, whereas before, the right-hand column (listing the countries/territories in each subsection) was displaying as an extremely narrow column...

Thanks for your message; strange things do seem to happen, especially between broswers!  Regards, David (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD warning template

The template I just used is nn-warn. Many of the CSD templates (such as db-a7 or db-g1) have very small text at the bottom which gives an appropriate template to place on the author's talkpage. Cheers, shotwell 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

Pardon? I removed spam links from a page that is regularly hit by spam, and often semi-protected because of it. Check the page history. 71.233.79.167 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Darcy - who are you???

Why did you find that so quickly - slight loserness obvious from this . . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.60 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 November 2006

Are you from Pride and Prejudice?.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.236.60 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 November 2006

Tracking 128.101.84.16

I will be tracking 128.101.84.16 for the next 24 hours for signs of vandalism. I will keep you updating and if needed, add their IP to the AIV List for a block. Thanks for your help. Andrew4010 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 24 hours, I am now discontinuing the watch on 128.101.84.16. It has appeared that the vandal has left the website. I thank you Mr. Darcy for all of the assistance you have provided. -- Andrew4010 03:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I used to be on here about 2 years ago under a name I don't even remember. I guess I just remember the tools necessary. You can call me a very advanced beginner I guess :) . -- Andrew4010 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested?

Feel free to mosey on down. Yanksox 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Swastika Wiki Page

I made some changes today that rearranged some information on the Swastika web page. I tried to do it very carefully and not remove any content. The changes generated an automatic message. My intent was to group references to controversies about swastika tiles, from North America to the tile section, and to better position the controversy over cast iron lampposts in Glendale California, from Other Uses to North America. I hope that this explains my intent. I have watched the history on this page for some time and will leave final judgment to those who monitor it. This is one of the larger Wiki pages, getting a bit too broad in scope, but I am reluctant to suggest that anyone break it up as it is the only source I am aware of for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.90.52 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2006

Thank you for you consideration and fast action. -response form 71.35.90.52, Nov 30, 2006

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, well done! Yanksox 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Syrthiss 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your successful RfA! Please ask if you need any assistance with the admin tools, I'm still trying to figure out how to use them myself! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! Trust me, I'll be bugging you all with questions. Time to add some things to my watchlist! | Mr. Darcy talk 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, MrDarcy! Have fun with the admin tools, and if you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Do well with the mop. If you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact Nishkid64! Or me too... -- Samir धर्म 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well. - crz crztalk 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfCU block

I noticed your offer at [4]. Discussion appears to have stalled, with 100% agreement for at least a one-week block on the main account. Would you be so kind as to fufill your statement? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^[ T · C ] 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR question

Thanks for looking at the 3RR noticeboard. In regards to 3RR, I was thinking about this statement on 3RR: reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context. The context here I saw as Deathrocker's history of violations, uncivil behaviour, and lack of discussion about the subject on the talk page of the article. He's made no attempt to communicate about his reversions. Can these be considered in this subject? Xndr 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit and talk [5], there was some discussion, but the reverting has now passed to another user. [6] (Deathrocker was blocked for his reverts). He kept shifting his reasons for the edits around, and the latest editor provided limited talk and then continued reverting. I think the bias here is against criticism of the genre, even when the criticism led to the genre's practical name, hair metal (which apparently is contentious for the same reason). They don't want anything in there which doesn't glorify the maligned genre. I just think its imbalanced to edit an article in that fashion.

I'm not asking for anything, just getting back to you on the subject. I do wish this article could attract better critical thinking.

Deathrocker has resumed reverting again.[7] Not sure how to avoid an edit war. Xndr 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlh

Will you please do something about Vlh now? semper fi — Moe 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to deal with this editor :) semper fi — Moe 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piisinfin

Yesterday I could have sworn I saw something about not posting waht looks like a resume on one's user page: User:Piisinfin. Does this look like a resume? Should it be removed and a note placed on the talk page. Does such a tag exist? -WarthogDemon 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_9#Template:Stones Throw Records

Instead of proposing it for deletion, it'd probably be better if you could help out. I've made the majority of those pages on my own, and I don't appreciate people browsing through templates and weeding out ones that aren't complete yet. You should've talked to me first before putting it up for deletion.--Xxplosive 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the template isn't appropriate. It summarizes Stones Throw. It's big, but it's still logically organized. --Xxplosive 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that maybe deleting the instrumental albums from the template would help to clean it up. The Wu-Tang Clan template is similar to this one, and it serves it's purpose, so I don't see how this one wouldn't. It's a good way to browse through Stones Throw chronologically. --Xxplosive 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydjenkins unblocked

FYI: Checkuser cleared him of being a sockpuppet of Femmina (talk • contribs) after he appealed his blocking. I suggest you file a Checkuser for the other accounts you've blocked. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. You don't find the editing patterns to be a bit, um, disturbing? Users who show up out of the blue and become heavy participants in a contentious AfD, showing good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines (like notability), scream "shenanigans" to me, at least. (I'm not disputing the unblock; I'm a new admin and am looking for feedback.) | Mr. Darcy talk 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between single purpose account and sock puppets. You only block the latter if CheckUser proves it or they're being obviously disruptive. Don't forget that friends do ask their friends to help stack votes on Wikipedia, but sometimes those friends editing Wikipedia for the first time stay. If I were you, I wouldn't block any AFD sockpuppets on suspicion alone if they're not vandalising etc. Just use the {{Not a ballot}} and {{spa}} and the closing admin will ignore them. It's just not the risk biting potential newcomers. As for the AFD you're handling, you can blame that on the Gay Nigger Association of America trolls and their war on blogs -- just treat them as white noise. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

You have had me blocked for vandalism.

All I was trying to do was tidy up various articles etc.

I made corrections to spelling, grammar and links etc.

I have not destroyed anything, but I have improved things.

What is your problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.213.80 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

i had to reboot and get a new IP address as I could not edit this page because I was blocked!

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the damage to my user page, and for bumping the "badge of honour" counter! --stephenw32768^<talk> 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops?

Regarding User:Tghe-retford, looks like you added the sprotected tag but it is not in fact semi-protected. Still being vandalized by the same anon range. Fan-1967 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding block of 89.241.144.42

Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs; many IPs are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are re-assigned or have different users."

The only time an IP address should ever be indefinitely blocked is when it has been authorised by CheckUser or tested to be an open proxy. --  Netsnipe   ►  17:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I've restored the block at one week, leaving account creation open as well. The indef was inadvertent; I thought I had set it to a finite duration but obviously selected the wrong item in the pull-down menu. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you think a shorter block is in order, go ahead. I was just looking for something long enough to discourage the editor in question from continuing his assault on Embraer-related articles. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no point reblocking 89.241.144.42 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) at all. If you hadn't noticed from the edits to your talk page, he/she had already forced an IP change to 89.241.213.80 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). In these situations, semi-protection is much more useful than blocks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer

It was me who edited the Embraer pages and I did not delete any content, I actually added some content and corrected some mistakes as well as doing some general tidying up etc. and some pages and links were moved, but I made some good improvements. If you bothered to look carefully you would have found this out. You have actually left a fair bit of my changes intact, but during your efforts to put things back as they were, you deleted some good changes. You are the vandal. Please read more carefully in future!

I did not delete any content, so please tell me, what content did I delete then? Also, what is wrong with redirects? If you block the entire IP range then you will be affecting at least 65,000 addresses, maybe up to a million as that is the number of customers my ISP has now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.213.80 (talk • contribs) 9 December 2006, 22:58 UTC

Further to my last comment, I have been reading the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and it states 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.' so you need to explain to me in detail what was so wrong with my changes.

Any mess that was there was maybe because I had not finished editing yet or because other people were changing what I had done and were not finished themselves. I doubled checked everything I did by clicking thru the links back and forth and there was no bad linking by the time I had finished and I kept checking the 'what links here tool' to help me. During other people's efforts to revert my changes, you actually deleted some of my new content and if I had known how, I might of considered warning or blocking you etc. Just because you don't like changes people make does not make them vandals and give you the right to warn them. Nobody has told me what content I have deleted, only that I have altered links. It still amazes me how these changes came to your attention so quickly!

Unblock

Thank you for the unblock. I had to change names, and I was being attacked without foundation - some people seem to do that to lay the ground for a complaint. I threatened no one - I pointed out to the user that behaviour like that was breaking the rules. NerriTunn 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czecho

Still around? If you delete Czechoslovakia, I'll put everything back the way it way by reverting everything to the pre-move state. If anybody's unhappy with that, well life's like that. At least it fixes the problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Of course, some people still aren't happy, but there's no pleasing everybody. Thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Box

Don't presume to tell me what to do, when you are not involved --Bshrode 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MinervaSimpson

A little unsure as to what you mean as tangible evidence. Do you mean evidence of notability for articles or via checkuser? (Though User:JzG has just blocked the user as a sockpuppet.) -WarthogDemon 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

objection to your speedy keep

Given that almost all editors weren't in favor of keeping Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jenny Morris (singer) speedy keeping it seems unreasonable. Furthermore, the speedy keep criterion specifically lists a nomination which is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody recommends deleting it anyway" Thus this isn't even speedy keepable from a strict policy interpretation. I suggest you reopen the discussion. JoshuaZ 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Reporting And Lynn

I've put a tag on Lynn Harless. Also, I've just filled out the case here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mr Bullockx. Have I done everything right? I don't see it listed on the main page. -WarthogDemon 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Harless

Hello! You closed the above AfD with speedy keep but it is now a redlink after your deletion of same at 21:40 today. Can you explain the inconsistency and either resurrect the article or change the AfD to speedily deleted, please? (aeropagitica) 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cvil Partnerships

I take your point and will tone it down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted warnings.

1 - I apologise for removing the comment from a Talk page and have aplogised to the author. Even though the content went against the instructions given, I am now aware that they should not have been removed. 2 - I am many things but I am nobody's sock-puppet. I do however know Tom well not least because we are near neighbours and he introduced me to the whole Wikipedia idea As gay men, both of whom are politically active, some, but not all, or four areas of interest overlap. As you have no proof of sock-puppetry (indeed there can be none) I ask you to adhere to WR:AGF and remove your warning.

I will not contribute further to the Civil Partnerships article - it seems to cause ceratin types of people difficulty that he article exists at all, however it is - largely thanks to Tom - a significantly better piece than the one he inherited. Kind regards, Chris 81.159.212.153 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly offensive! I am not a 'meatpuppet' of anyone - if I am, I am only on the same grounds that Dev920 and her chums are: their talk pages show they have been drafting each other in to shore up the others POV. Please address me directly, my name is Chris, and not in the third person. If you cannot, I see no alternative but to complain about the poor quality of your actioning.

In summary: you have made an assumption. You are working on that assumption despite it being untrue and now, when you are less sure of yourself, you try to apply another rule to one user while not doing so to others. 81.159.212.153 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carl Timothy Jones

Hello! Just before your indef block, Carl Timothy Jones contacted me, wondering what was up.

That seems to be fairly atypical behaviour for a troll, perhaps he's actually sincere.

Next to that, indef blocking people like that straight out of the gate probably isn't the best of ideas, I guess. Usually that's only supposed to be done to spambots and such.

Would you please unblock this user and give him a chance to explain his actions?

Thank you for your time!

Kim Bruning 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Lodge. Kim Bruning 01:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought at first too. But I happen to know the experience of some other users who were previously anons, a long long time ago. The noms do seem to be somewhat correct, in that the articles in question really *don't* establish notability, and do seem to be a bit propaganda-ish. And actually taking the time to contact me on my talk page is also somewhat un-troll-like. Soooo, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a day or two, if you are too. I may well be proven wrong, but it's worth it to get new good editors, and worst case we can still block him afterwards, eh? Kim Bruning 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- Hoary 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ........ PS I replied to your question on my talk page. -- Hoary 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that the record is slightly odd because I got some my first edits reattributed. I recall having some trouble with one of wikipedias first editcounters (when they were still considered trolls :-P ) at my RFA, due to that.

It must have looked odd when I first switched to using a logged in name, as opposed to an IP (my actual preference!)

Maybe I just assume too much good faith. (is that possible? :) ).

I know... how about we ask this user to name which IP (addresses) they've used previously, if they know? That way it could be somewhat similar to the situation with a declared sock. If they're of good faith, that shouldn't be a problem. If they're not of good faith, well, there you go. Kim Bruning 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm getting no replies on his user talk page, so there you have it. Unless we get a reply there, I'll assume your assessment is correct. Kim Bruning 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: semi-protect on Lloyd Banks

Hello! Please see the comment here (from Can't sleep, clown will eat me) for more detail on the sales figure vandalism. Very odd, indeed. I can't even remember why I started watching the page (probably led there by a vandal's contribs), but the up and down of the sales figures (and so many over such a short period of time, that did not match Soundscan/Billboard numbers) certainly caught my attention. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Judging by what I've seen lately, you're already doing a great job! :) Congratulations, and all the best. riana_dzasta 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, seconded, much as I dislike Jane Austen. ANI suddenly seems much saner as of late. Cheers, Moreschi 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notenglish

Thanks for the update - The article is simple spam, it's a website for classified ads! I have put the correct "speedy" tag on it - with a note that it's not worth translating because of the contents. Muchas gracias!SkierRMH 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiveCamNetwork

I would like to comment on the deletion of LiveCamNetwork, however I don't have the time. It seems to have occurred just as I was adding my hang-on tag which caused some interesting onscreen displays.

And my talk page seems to have been deleted about fifteen seconds after I posted it. Now without the time nor the inclination to repeat my defense of the historical and technological siginificance of 2much.net and its unique video and audio streaming platform, I will just have to ask - why delete the talk page? Have you done any research? Are you so convinced of the non-notable status of this company? I'll be back when I've the time,

thanks for other work you do, however ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorator (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 December 2006

Jude Law

...does now seem to be properly sourced. I'd say that there remains an editorial judgement question about that material, but that is a different issue. Jkelly 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlh

He started up again with his edits with no sourcing. semper fi — Moe 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker and I

Sorry, but he does harbor a resentment towards Encyclopaedia Metallum which voids his suggestion of redirecting Mallcore to that page, which I was merely pointing out. He engaged in an edit war on the Encyclopaedia Metallum page, in which he repeatedly tried to enforce his own edits, which were determined to be degrading to the reputation of site, and on the talk page, he continually insulted the sites' owners as "extreme metal kids" while refusing to accept any opinions or facts that differed from his agenda. I'll try to avoid altercations with him in the future, but if he continues to disrespect Encyclopaedia Metallum, a site I am an active moderator on, I will not just let his slander go unnoticed, or let it be accepted as a rational, fact-based offering. PhantomOTO 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has continued

The editor has continued to rollback the edits. See Michael Young (basketball). A ban would be exceedingly helpful--Thomas.macmillan 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I learned from the discussion on ANI

I realized that it was time to end this discussion at the same time as you did, but I couldn't save my edit where I proposed to go to my talk page. We certainly should try to take such discussions away from ANI. I just brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

As for the emergency button question, I do think it would be very helpful if administrators followed two simple steps upon any well-intended stop request:

1. stop the bot;
2. insert a template on the user talk page (notifying them that it has been stopped, and linking to a page where the user's reasons can be discussed);

Are you aware of a place to discuss this? — Sebastian 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Box -- Mediation

Are you a respondent in the mediation case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-09 Serial Box? Alan.ca 02:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I didn't even realize you had been nominated until I read the Signpost today. It's good to see your name there. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are an Admin now! Enjoy your promotion. You've earned it. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Subcategorization

I understand that policy, but one has to understand the NBA. At least 75% of the NBA is African American and this has been so for years. Therefore, African American Basketball Players and American Basketball Players are nearly synonymous, making it useless for them to be in both categories. Also, consider the category "African American baseball players", which is also a subcat of it's larger American category. Most baseball players of american descent are in the African American category and not the American baseball players category. I still believe that the category sorting I did was correct and I will continue with it, assuming I don't learn anything differently. --Thomas.macmillan 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weldon Irvine

In case you're interested, I've started the expansion of the Weldon Irvine article - thanks for the starter links! T He He 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Problems

This user is apparently back. [[8]] -WarthogDemon 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Forgot to post you the correct link. (I should've made added it to the case on Mr Bullockx. I forgot to and Daniel.Bryant moved it there for me. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mr Bullockx. Sorry about that. ^^; -WarthogDemon 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 64.12.7.141 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyKungFu

The anon editor to Alpha Phi Alpha is non-other than MyKungFu. This is about the 3rd or 4th time he's making the same arguments. He goes away and then comes back to debate the same topic. You're right, the Sigma Pi Phi has no place in this article. He has stated that Sigma Pi Phi has no collegiate chapter, but only wants it included because of his own biases against Alpha Phi Alpha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment using other user's name

That was in fact me posting the comment. I had typed the response before realizing I hadn't signed in and I didn't want sign in and retype the info. I guess I could used copy/paste. Thanks for looking out and trying to protect my good name.--Ccson 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richardmalter puppet question

Hello. No it was not me who did any of that editing. Please see the Omura Arb Evidence page where I give the last edit I made on WP up till about 2 minutes ago. I dont have an explanation about any of what happened. I also did not ask anyone to do anything on my behalf/with me etc. Cheers.Richardmalter 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that there are factors that point to the IP being someone else, but also factors that point toward it being a meatpuppet or (less likely) a sockpuppet via remote access (ssh, etc.). Richardmalter is in Australia, but the IP is in New York and looks to be static from the whois info - we've had problems with the IP before, as you can see in the contributions. On the other hand, the IP and an obvious sockpuppet IP started edit warring in the Yoshiaki Omura article soon after Richardmalter was blocked for 48hrs for repeated 3RR violations, and now there are these edits. The edits made by the IPs tend to be much more contentious and belligerent than Richardmalter's, and don't display even a basic understanding of WP policy, which I know RM has. For example, I expect that RM would know that no one on the talk page would do anything about such a notice besides revert it, and that it should have been posted elsewhere, in a more polite manner. He would also know that such blanking, threats, and violation of policy would make his arbitration case much worse for him. My guess is that the IP is a person related to Omura and Richardmalter who is trying to help RM but doesn't know how to do so properly. I is of note that, if I interpret the article correctly, Omura is based in New York. --Philosophus ^T 12:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! You are an administrator!

Congrats! And, I redirected your user page! The message:

User:Bearly541/christmastemplate

Bearly541 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyrights

Let me get this straight: Since images created by NJ Gov't are copyrighted, then they CANNOT be uploaded to Wikipedia (even with permission from NJ Gov't).. Mlaurenti talk 3:04 December 24 2006

Thank you. Mlaurenti talk 5:08 December 24 2006

Having come hither from the AN/I thread, I think I ought to observe that the proposition that, if an image has a copyright tag on it, it is inappropriate for use in Wikipedia, is emphatically inconsistent with our general image use policy. I've not looked at the images uploaded by Mlaurenti, and so I readily concede that it is possible that no fair use argument or argument as to non-replacability relative to those specific images might reasonably be essayed, but it should in any event be noted that we surely don't proscribe the uploading of copyrighted images, such that the cannot injunction is a bit imprecise and not wholly correct; it would, though, be accurate to say that since images created by the NJ Gov't are (ostensibly) not released into the public domain, they cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia except where they comport generally with our image use policy and specifically with the fair use provisions thereof. Joe 00:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User in question had been tagging said images as "public domain" despite the (c) tags in the lower-left corner, which was clearly bogus. Fair use isn't in play here. Ergo, it wasn't worth clouding the issue by mentioning it (to wit, look at how many words it took for your to go into that). | Mr. Darcy talk 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gathered that you gave a simple explanation in view of the bogus tagging and the plain irrelevancy of fair use. I was a bit troubled, nevertheless, by your if an image has a copyright tag on it, it is inappropriate for use in Wikipedia comment, if only because I feared that such comment might evidence a misunderstanding of our policies as regards the uploading and use of media, which misunderstanding would have been altogether inconsistent with the impression of you that led me to support quite strongly your RfA; I'm quite glad to see that my fear was misplaced. As to the wordiness of my explanation, though, I can't imagine that you should not have wanted to give a similarly prolix explanation; after all, there are several works of your creator that would lead one to wonder whether she ever met a word she didn't feel compelled to use. Thanks, in any event, for your reply, and apologies for having doubted your understanding of policy. Joe 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I am sorry. I was just trying to stop an obsessed vandal. -Dasnedius 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block for User:Zarbon

Hey there, I may be wrong, but looking at the block log for Zarbon, it looks like he was never reblocked after unblocking. Heimstern Läufer 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say that. You beat me man -Dasnedius 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not there in the block log, but when I just tried to re-block him, I got a message that he was already blocked. I presume it's a system glitch. I unblocked and re-blocked him just to be safe. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon

Just letting you know, the RFCU you filed has been completed and acted on. Luna Santin 11:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade's RfA

Thanks for your comments in my recent RfA, which failed. If you have any further advice it would be quite welcome! Seraphimblade 15:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling conventions

Thanks, MrDarcy, I appreciated your compliment and your attention to the matter. ... Kenosis 19:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, listen to me

I need your help. This person: Dasnedius/Myer Link/Wiki-star/Frieza-bomber/General Cui/etc. is the one who created multiple accounts and kept going in as those names to revert the pages. I just didn't know how to stop him. I don't want to create multiple account names because I know it's wrong. I had done this prior and I no longer want to do this. I can start new user pages but I do not want to. I just want a last chance as my original user name. Bare in mind that it would make it easier for you to track my activity instead of me creating new user names as well. All I want is a chance to prove to you that it is that person who is the sockpuppeteer and is creating multiple accounts right now. Please, just help me get rid of the indefinite block. I promise not to break the 3rr rule. I will not create any puppets either. After this, if you find me make a mistake, then I deserve to be indefinitely blocked. But please, I am coming to you with honesty and wholeheartedly, member to member. Please, help unblock me so I may be a part of the community. Please give me one last chance. I couldn't sign in so I had to give this message to you through my ip. - Zarbon

I'm going to answer here because I'm not sure where else to post it where you'll see it. As far as I am concerned, you need to take a few weeks off from Wikipedia before I'll consider unblocking you. You have a long history of policy violations, and yet past blocks have made NO dent in your inappropriate behavior. You violated several of our core policies repeatedly, and what's more troubling is that you seem bent on participating in edit wars with other users. The reverts on Zarbon and Dodoria were completely out of control. If you believe another user is editing from multiple accounts, then there's a procedure for investigating those - one you've used before - but you chose not to use them and instead created a sock of your own. The bottom line here is that you should come back in a few weeks and we can discuss an unblock. (And by the way, if you follow through on this: Bare in mind that it would make it easier for you to track my activity instead of me creating new user names as well you will make the situation much worse for yourself. Using sockpuppets to avoid a block is a surefire way to earn an indefinite block.) | Mr. Darcy talk 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am going to listen to you because you speak the truth. I will do whatever you say as long as you can help somehow reactivate my account in a few weeks. But I promise you, the edit warring, etc. is over. I am a person of my word and I do not lie. The only reason I had done that puppeteering or what not was to stop a real puppeteer from continuing to create more and more incessant reverts. I understand that it was wrong, and I swear to you I won't do it. I will check back here once a week to hear from you. And whenever you feel that I've learned my lesson, please help me out to reactivate my original account. Much thanks. - Zarbon

Fair enough. Let's revisit this in two weeks from the block date, which would be January 7th. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlh CheckUser

You may be interested in the CheckUser I started on User:Vlh started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vlh. Feel free to include anything I missed. semper fi — Moe 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added User:Joepenny to the checkuser request. New account, first actions are today, and amongst the edits are two to User:Vlh's user page, and two wrestling related articles (a wrestling game series and it's creator) for AfD. Take a look please, and see if I'm adding 2 and 2 and getting 7? :D SirFozzie 02:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems much more likely to me that Joepenny is User:JB196. I'm blocking him anyway; he's clearly a sock of someone (new users don't show up and file AfDs), and it doesn't much matter who. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Opera Company

No problem. :) It's probably a good idea for you to close the MfD, as well. Tevildo 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starwars1955

I am happy to lay off this user, provided he makes no more personal attacks and remains civil in his conversation.

With all due respect, I disagree with your judgement with this user. I would also like to ask you to provide examples of my alleged 'crimes':

• "If you continue to go after this user, threatening him on his talk page ..." At which stage did I threaten the user?
• "... Demanding outrageous blocks ..." Provide a policy stating that a block length of one month for making serious personal attacks is outrageous.
• "'... And accusing him of violating policies that don't exist ..." What nonexistent policy did I accuse him of violating?
• "... That's harassment and you may be blocked for it yourself ..." I find it interesting you wouldn't block the user yourself for violating a policy, and you threaten to block me for hardly violating a guideline.

I would like you to answer these questions so others can evaluate my and your behavior. Thank you.

Yuser31415 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Telling the user here that you reported him and "suggested a one-month block" was absolutely a threat, particularly since as a brand-new user, he was unlikely to realize that your suggestion was just that, and not one likely to be acted upon. You accused him of violating a nonexistent policy on AN/I when you said that he can't delete material from his talk page (example: "No, he can't remove legitimate warnings from his talk page without a very good reason." QED, there's no policy on removing stuff from your own talk page). I have already explained why a one-month block would be inappropriate in this instance, as his prior block had been for 72 hours, and since he came off that block, he had done nothing more serious than tell someone to "shut up" or call someone an "idiot." (He subsequently violated WP:3RR, of course, and was blocked.) As I said on King Bee's talk page, I understand that Starwars1955 has been frustrating all of you for the last week or so, but he's a brand-new user whose disruptions have been limited to one page; don't bite the newbies and assume good faith both apply here, on the chance that we can steer him in a more constructive direction.

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He's brand new here, doesn't understand the policies, and he's got three or four other users ganging up on him on his talk page. He was completely in the wrong, but we still need to take more care in how we deal with him. You did the right thing in coming to AN/I, but I felt that your subsequent behavior was too aggressive. I hope that clears things up. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thank you for your calmness. Actually I did not mean your alleged 'threat' as one; I had already written a previous message notifying him of ANI, and was in fact trying to clear you of the blame. I probably should have put italics on the 'I' in the conversation, ie., "I reported you ...". I will learn from the incident and attempt to be more calm with in future, although I did not mean any of my messages to seem aggressive or uncivil.

Cheers! Yuser31415 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so good about the whole thing. Yuser31415 02:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, via sockpuppetry, the user has blanked his page again, removing the block notice established by User:William M. Connolley. I assume this is something that's allowed, correct? –King Bee ^(talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, because it's not clear that it's him, and I can't think of a circumstance where I'd allow any editor (but esp. not an anonymous one) to blank someone else's talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the IPs that edit the pages that Starwars1955 edits and leave similar writing style comments as Starwars1955 start with either 4.245.120 or 4.245.121. I think it's safe to say that they're all the same person. Good explanation though, thank you. –King Bee ^(talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He decided to log in and blank his page this time. Also, he seems really interested in an answer to a question. –King Bee ^(talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I know we're backing off this user for now, but I think he's horribly confused. Someone (besides me, probably) needs to try to help him in a calm and cool manner. He seems excited enough about the Wikipedia project, but he's just not familiar with any of the policies; this is evidenced most notably by his most recent edit to his talk page. While Aviper2k7 did indeed edit Cocoaguy's comment on the page, it was to substitute a template that needs to be substituted (e.g., npa4). If you have any advice, or have any ideas concerning this user, please respond. –King Bee ^(talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The recent unpleasantries

Hey, Mr. Darcy, I thought I'd let you know that after reading your comments, I realized we were indeed going a little too far, and that a one-month ban would have been too extreme. I thought about amending my endorsement at ANI, but by then the discussion had begun to spiral a bit out of control. Anyway, your moderation there was appreciated by me if by no one else. Heimstern Läufer 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Heimstern. Trust me, I've been there, I know what it's like to have another user drive you nuts. Wikipedia brings out the best in most people, but for a very small number, it brings out something else. Look on the bright side: The next time something like this happens, you're more familiar with the policies and norms, and you'll make better recommendations - which means getting better results for everyone. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Sand Game

I just now got around to checking the AfD again and I saw your comment about watching my tone. I've always tried to remain civil in discussions here, but I'm still human and we all have lapses intentionally or not. I'm interested in improving my tone when possible to avoid causing more problems in the future. In re-reading my comments even now, they still seem fairly level-headed and even-toned to me. Of course, you can't always hear your words the way others do, especially in written correspondence. I'd honestly like to know in what ways you think I could have expressed myself without being confrontational. –  Anþony  talk  09:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glam metal

The edit is within community consensus achived on the talkpage by those with knowledge on the genre, it has no relevence to the section it was put and was already addressed earlier in the article. If you block me for going along with community census without breaking my parole on the article then you would be abusing your power and going against policy. - Deathrocker 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, yes there is, try reading the talk page and viewing the discussion of editors there. There is no rightful block that you can put on me which falls within any of Wikipedia's blocking policy. I have studied it carefully and am well within it keeping it in mind when editing. But if you want to threaten me with bully-boy tactics and risk violating the officially stated policies by abusing power (which could end in powers been revoked)... then, I wouldn't advise it. Regards. - Deathrocker 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, read the policy of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (but with "one" inplace of three), that is the offical policy on reverting material and I am not, have not been and will not break it on glam metal. The information isn't relevant to the section and another user experienced in the field has stated the same on the talk page, achiving a 2 to 1 consensus. Whether it is "sourced" doesn't matter if it lacks relevence, (Wikipedia even has policies stating that something has to be notable to be added into an article) I could easily source information that "the members of Poison are white and 3 have blonde hair"... throw it in the article, but it wouldn't improve the value of the article as a whole because it isn't of importance. - Deathrocker 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding New Users

I am the Creator of Daniel Rodriguez Article and I had stopped editing in order to let others continue to edit this article, but I applaud Leah01 on her persistence in following the guidelines despite her not having enough clarification. Helpful suggestion: In the future a friendly approach toward guiding new users is for administrators to better clarify terms, assuming that new editors are not all completely familiar with terms like "resume format", but thanks Mr. Darcy, we realize we're all still learning in the process. JournalSquareNYC 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ID for Daniel Rodriguez Article

No Mr. Darcy, you don't need to accuse me of doubling as Leah01. I have my own ID. Thanks to Leah01 for clarifying who I am. Getting back to productive and positive feedback, I thank Acalamari for exercising wisdom and guidance without ego, or resorting to making accusations. This is the kind of professionalism that Wikipedia needs. My work was done here already.JournalSquareNYC 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In case you were confused about what "Acalamari" is, that's me. Acalamari 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, I will help where I can. I found out about Daniel Rodriguez from the other Users. I tried to fix the article up, but then I asked Mr. ChrisGriswold about the article to see if he could do anything, and he did, which helped both the article and I. I'm glad, however, that we have more than one Administrator (both you, and Mr. ChrisGriswold) working on the article, as well as myself. Acalamari 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Myself" meaning a more knowledgeable User. I am not an Administrator. Acalamari 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in admins' discussions

Okay, I'll take your advice and simply lurk around (unless there's an issue that clearly needs attention, such as a personal attack toward me or a case brought against me). Thanks for your advice! (I'm learning ... I hope ...) Yuser31415 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly take you up on that! Yuser31415 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity sex tape

I disagree with your deletions for several reasons, primarily because it's not appropriate to delete 90% of an article without discussing it on the talk page first, and secondly because most of the sex tapes mentioned are well known to exist, even if there's no reliable print source definitively listing them. (For example, you deleted the reference to "One Night In Paris", of which there is a cover shot on the article's page! I accept that not all of these entries can be conclusively proven, but the best thing to do is to identify which ones CAN be positively cited or are well known to exist, and remove the others- not just wipe all of them and replace them later. This will lead to people coming to the article and saying "How come they don't have the Paris Hilton/Abi Titmuss/Mimi Macpherson tape listed here?" and adding it anyway. Easier to avoid the problems by working on the page gradually, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]