User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ultraexactzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This archive includes edits to User talk:Ultraexactzz from July and August 2008.

Request

Could you answer to [1]? I'm trying to take a survey among admins, and you're the 3rd I chose. Then we'll talk about how I'm being harassed and nobody does nothing about it.Xasha (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So you basically say "yes". Or am I misinterpeting your answer?Xasha (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now to the second problem: If I'd lobby formally and informally for someone's block, I'd move his resolved case in a position reserved to unresolved cases on a reporting page, let's call it AN, and continue to press for the prolongation of a resolution, I'd call him names, I'd spread accuses against him knowing he can't defend himself due to technical reasons, and I'd create a page in his userspace against his will, would that be considered harassment?Xasha (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to message me when you think a certain user's continued personal attacks and bad faith accusations have continued "beyond that point". Xasha (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the time to remove all of the {{WPF}} from those pages. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center

Thanks for initiating the discussion and the rollback. I'd left a message on the user's talk page, and reverted a few of his edits, but that wasn't a very effective approach overall. TJRC (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfa for me

Hi. I don't think I'll be applying for Rfa anytime soon, due to the fact that I have 500+ edits to my userspace. I would like to collect at least 10,000 edits before I apply. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I doubt I will pass, an Rfa for me would be okay. In late August, I should think, I'll go up for it. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomad Willy

Please restore this page to a subpage of my user page so that I may work on it, verifying notability. THanks,Katishelton (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanx!

		The Original Barnstar
		For performing administrative duties quickly and neatly. Thanx! DRosenbach ^(Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to talk page

Hello. You recently deleted Paul M. Warner--would you please move the article to my talk page so I may work on it--it is a crucial article in relation to a current FLC. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. I was bold and re-wrote and re-created the article Paul M. Warner. Feel free to make any further changes you may feel are necessary. Thanks again! --Eustress (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abdus Ibrahim

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdus Ibrahim . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 208.54.95.14 (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oink (water buffalo)

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your deletion of this article as a G3 speedy. G3 is for articles that are vandalism, not articles that are being vandalized. This article was the later, and thus should not have been subject to G3 speedy deletion. It was at AFD, and I was still deciding myself whether to !vote Delete or Keep, as I can see reasons for both approaches. But deleting an article that is being vandalized as if the article itself was vandalism is an IMHO very bad precedent. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it should be deleted. I won't say why again, it's getting tiring. As for telling me off for blanking the page, have you read the guidelines? "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." ?????? muppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re: User:Joe1p1p unblock request

Hello, I've left a response at User talk:Jayron32#User:Joe1p1p. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place. I have also posted my comments at the RFCU sub-page. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FOSI page by Pastadog42

I have started working on the page for the Family Online Safety Institute on my user page as you instructed. It is defintiely still under construction, but I was just wondering if you had a minute and could check it out and provide any feedback while I am working. I have been trying to cite externally as well as include all links to current Wikipedia articles - as well as keeping it neutral (attempting to at least). Thanks for all the help. Pastadog42 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Chunned

As a not-particularly-regular follower of Special:NewPages, I am curious about your deletion of Chunned under WP:CSD#G1. The article was not patent nonsense by any interpretation of G1, although it was clearly probably something someone made up one day and completely unverifiable on the net. Is the label of patent nonsense frequently used as a substitute for articles without a snowball's chance of surviving? If the CSD criteria aren't adequate for all speedy deletion criteria, maybe they should be extended... BigBlueFish (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the article wasn't quite nonsense in the gibberish sense, but I couldn't get any real meaning out of it, which brought it under Part two of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which reads: "2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." It did read very much like nonsense in that light, which is why I deleted it - and, I have to admit, the idea of emotionally abusing infants and children nudged it a little toward a G10 attack page, as well, which didn't help. Seeing as there was a PROD on the article, I don't have an objection to restoring the article and letting it proceed through the PROD process, if you like. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense... what I didn't consider is that for whatever claim of coherent meaning in the article there was, for it to make proper sense it would have to be completely rewritten. Keep up the good work! BigBlueFish (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

I see your point. I was a bit trigger happy. Thanks for correcting that one. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft article

Thank you for your assistance with The Addams Family (pinball) Rewrite1. I apologize if I didn't follow procedures correctly. I wasn't actually sure what they were and was going on memory from another one I had once seen. Cheers! Fractalchez (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been selected...

for "admin mentoring" with Pedro! He will be willing to nominate as well when the time comes. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Preview

Sometimes I wish my "show preview" button was twice the size of my "save page" button.Rob Banzai (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FOSI

Thanks for the help. I am continuing to expand the page as I can, I have completed summaries of recent events, but still have more to do. In general, should I put something on the page about FOSI's mission (which would be paraphrased from its website) or anything like that? Also, just curious if you think I should continue to expand and add more where the page is now, or if it should be moved over as a real page for the public and then expanded more? Pastadog42 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and part two

As the creator of the articles Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and Supermarine Spitfire variants part two, I requested a speedy deletion for both of these articles as a non-controversial move, CSD G6.

These two articles are now under the titles of Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) after reaching an agreement that such a move would be appropriate. The discussion leading to the move is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft section 19 Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and part two.

Sorry about all this; the G3 "vandalism" I cannot understand - that one was completely unintentional; I hope that this will clear the matter up. Thanks for your help. Minorhistorian (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah!, now I can sit back and relax a little, have a cup of tea methinks; thanks again; regards,Minorhistorian (talk)

Completely spurious notices

Just looking at my watchlist, I see that a notice has appeared on the User talk:Sam jervis page under "Speedy deletion of Supermarine Spitfire variants part two" I didn't write or send any such notice. A similar notice has appeared under User talk:213.152.33.154

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the notice I copied from that page is completely different here. Is there a bug in the bots?.Minorhistorian (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Usercreate#Unblock

I don't know about you, but I didn't get an edit conflict...strange! _GB^T/C 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh...well, I've rolled back my edit. Good thing we didn't disagree with each other, though...that would have been embarassing! _GB^T/C 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...

The Colts truly suck. :D Beam 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied to this obvious falsehood on the user's talk page. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barbara Bauer

Hello, I'm contacting you in regards to the permasalt on Barbara Bauer article. Should we unprotect this and turn this into a redirect to Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, perhaps switch them around? Or should we go for the whole DRV/AFD round? I'm certainly not interpreting MGodwin's comment on AN/I as any sort of a requirement to keep the article permanently deleted, and the case has now been thrown away - and I'm also certainly interpreting the comment as "the community should do the right thing". Permasalt based on a dismissed lawsuit is hardly the right thing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Mike has commented on the death of the lawsuit, but its dismissal has already been reported widely in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects anyway (Wikinews, Signpost). If there's a need for comment on Mike specifically, perhaps we could ask. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.F.O.S.B.‎

The checkuser for P.F.O.S.B.‎ (talk · contribs) is confirmed, so I think the indefinite block is appropriate. Thanks for checking. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MGodwin#Barbara Bauer

Hey, just wanted to let you know you will probably get a quicker response if you email mike instead, his email is (Redacted'd) (please remove the link once you read it for spam reasons). Prodego ^talk 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity

The FA-Team has finally taken up a proposal to help Scattered disc reach FA status. Your name was given as someone interested in that, so I've added it to the mission page (linked above). There is a second goal to bring the very loosely related article on Solar energy to FA status too, and encourage cross over between the editors involved in the two articles. Your help would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I would like to inform you about a controversy I am having about some articles and I would like to ask your opinion on the matter if you have some free time.

As I stated on spesific article discussion pages...

I would like to express my dissapointment concerning the system on which the english wikipedia's function seems to be based on. Countless political points with no or irrelevant references are kept, as well as articles that based on the conventionts the wikipedia community has made itself should not exist.

And in order to prove my point,

1) As clearly stated at MOSMAC "In articles dealing with the predominant ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia Use "Macedonians" (only if the meaning is unquestionably clear) or "ethnic Macedonians", " In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" The latter has been frequently been violated at articles or section concerning these "Macedonian Slavs", a term which is insistently avoided and replaced with "Macedonian" contrary to the convention made. 2) At the same page, the wikipedia community made another convention stating:

"Deprecated names (province) The following name is deprecated:

The name Aegean Macedonia should be avoided for general use, except in articles describing the irredentist concept. Note that Aegean Macedonia can be considered offensive for some Greeks, but the Greek government has not raised issue." Nevertheless, an article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Macedonians Aegean Macedonians", not to mention the propagandistic statements with no references, saying horrible things about the greek nation's behaviour towards these group of people. And although the page had been nominated for deletion, it still exists. And on top of that, I am informed I donnot have the right to re-nominate this monstrosity so soon for debate.

3) I also disagree with the concept of some conventions themselves, such as the right for this nation to use the term Macedonians to identify themselves, but for the greek people to try to avoid the use of plain Macedonians to identify themselves, but need to add Greek next to Macedonia. Talking about neutrality..

4) The concept of the conventions indicates that for internal reasons, each side may use the terms it recognizes, as well the internationally accepted terms used when refferring to the UN and the organizations, in respect to their onomatology. And although at FYROM related articles, the internally accepted terms are used freely, the Greece related topics are invaded with propagandistic maps of uncertain quality, using terms as Aegean Macedonians, Rep. of Macedonia, as well as balling up Arvanites and their language with the Albanian immigrants. All these points confuse the reader, who cannot distinguish what macedonia really means. It's like a ball of confusion. Not to mention the maps indicating pieces of modern greece as slavomacedonian terriroties. And if someone dares to express his/her troubling about the, as stated by the wikipedia itself, offensive terms "Aegean" or whatever they may come up with, the response is of Points of Discussion such unutterable level: "This is the section where major points of the Article should be discussed. Please put your objections here so that they can be adressed.P m kocovski (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)-Point 1- Article name Aegean Macedonians or Ethnic Macedonians in Greece. I believe some users have expressed concern that Aegean Macedonians may be ambiguous. That is a legitimate point and should be discussed. NB: crap about being offended or about irredentism is not worth taking note of. BalkanFever 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" - "Please watch your language. Are you not civilized?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" - "Your comments- Please note that comments like this are not tolerated. If you do it again, you may very well be blocked. BalkanFever 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

I hope the wikipedia community can give some conviencing response to my worries and prove me wrong.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. In Expectance of your response.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

regarding this, please note that both authors request deletion. See the talkpage of that article for evidence.

Thanks!

Λua∫Wise ^(Operibus anteire) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate! And wow, very fast reply! =)

Cheers mate!

Λua∫Wise ^(Operibus anteire) 14:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Helpful

I would like to thank you for your guidelines regarding the Murging/Deleting of the article Aegean Macedonians. You have been really helpful and it is appreciated. With best regards. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?

Do you really think I should run? If I run now, I won't be able to for at least six months. Right now, I think you and possibly Pedro would be the only ones to nominate me, unless Hmwith does too. Hmm, just reply at my talk. Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me)

Well, I meant that if I ran and failed, I would have to wait at least six months. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just scared at the thought of running right now. I'll wait til Pedro replies, I'll ask him if he's ready yet. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tangobot parsing RfBs?

You added a signature for that reason, but I wasn't aware that Tangobot does RfBs at all. I'm pretty sure it only does RfAs. Cheers, Enigma ^message 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. Enigma ^message 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aviousours76

Hi. You commented on my user page at User:Aviousours76. I know that I am not supposed to post whilst banned, but I have been left with no other choice as I have also been banned from editing my talk page for no reason (I was accued by User:Chaser of abusing a block template when I haven't as the edit history shows, the admin that set the block wasn't given the oppurtunity to look at the case again) I have no intention of editing any articles using the temporary account.

User:Malljaja (the user who reported me for 3RR using a one sided arguement - prior to the block I have received no warnings nor had my edits been described as disruptive) has opened a sockpuppet case here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Aviousours76). I am unable to repond to the accusations - is this allowed? The sockpuppet guide states that I should be able to respond. This has been instigated by the user in question reading my talk page, where I expressed wishes to do a checkuser on the numerous single purpose account that have been reverted by numerous editors several times on the John Lydon, Morrissey and Noel Gallagher, Dusty Springfield articles. This is clearly an attempt to try and get me banned before I am given the oppurtunity to file the checkuser. User Malljaja is the only established editor to support the edits of the vandal and I have come across evidence that suggests User:Keynote1 may be a sockpuppet of Malljaja.

Could you please help.

Edit - Also, I would like to point out that my edits are in no way vandalism. I accept that I broke the 3RR rule - I did not do this intentionally though. I wasn't trying to change the articles (I was trying to help protect them against a POV pusher who at first kept inserting "of Irish descent" into the lead, removing the existing description, then changing the description from English to British). The way the case for blocking was given was that it was myself who was changing the articles and POV pushing. My edit on the Morrissey article comes with a reference and was going to add atleast 2 reference to backup my edit on the John Lydon article. I was also discussing the issue on the JL talk page - my last comment was ignored and Malljaja and the other editor continued to revert to their preference.

Aviousours76temp (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion of unused templates

The templates -RepY1 etc. appeared in the list of unused templates, because they were only called by clicking on their names (in one template only, but that template appears on many pages). By altering that template to the new names, the redirects are no longer needed, and by deleting them they disappear from the list of unused templates. Nicer, isn't it? --LexTH (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so prudent, and for calling the calendar great! --LexTH (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

MY rfa review page

...noticed your moving and unmoving. Just wanted to know if I should be doing something about it. THanks. Prashanthns (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops...the "my" got capitalised by mistake. No intention of pointing out anything! :) Prashanthns (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh....ah...alright. :) Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)

I've been working on the page more, added a 'Programs' section, per your suggestion (based on what it includes, do you think I should call it 'Operations'?). Also working on just adding more and citing things, trying to get it good enough that you think we can move it to make it active. When you have a chance can you take a look at it and let me know what you think and if theres anything else you think i should change or add? Just wanted to say thanks again for all the help. Really appreciate it. Pastadog42 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

your block

Jiuguang Wang has demonstrated that he is an atheist and a Communist and a backstabber. This is a statement of fact.

You can claim such statement of fact is a personal attack and use it as an excuse to block Julie to prevent her from coming to her own defense and warning others about Jiuguang Wang but that only reveals you are likewise conducting a personal attack against her by proxy of administrative privilege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.179 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have reset the block on User:Julie Dancer to indefinite, and have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer. Kevin (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit War User:PhilLiberty

The first actions taken by the editor upon his return from the block that you sustained were:

Further edits at United States Declaration of Independence along the same theme -- attempting to diminish the significance of Lincoln.

An edit at American Revolutionary War that added back material twice reverted -- once by me and once by another editor. The issue involved is one involving the issue of secession which has been discussed at Articles of Confederation where the editor failed to receive consensus (or any support) to add to that article.

An edit at Gettysburg Address, a Featured Article, that continues the anti-Lincoln theme.

An edit at Emancipation Proclamation that continues the anti-Lincoln theme.

An edit at Treaty of Paris (1783) that involves the issues raised at the Articles of Confederation article.

I reverted three of these edits and another editor reverted two of them. Any suggestions or actions in what seems to be devolving further into an “edit war of attrition” would be appreciated. A copy of this message was also sent to User:slakr who implemented the original block. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM:In fact, on the article that generated the block, United States Declaration of Independence, Phil is already up to three reverts. The specific revert involved the information box at the top right of the Article. The existing text was “purpose=Announce and explain separation from Britain”. He has now changed this three times since his block to “purpose=Announce and explain secession from British Empire.

This change was discussed in depth at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence#Is "secede" a dirty word? with four editors opposing and only Phil favoring the description of the American Revolution as a secession. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk)

Thanks for your response. In case you didn't notice, Slakr has already instituted another block (72 hrs). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Within hours of the end of the 72 hr. block Phil made this edit [[2]]

This reverted most of this specific language, “beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act[1], provided a reinterpretation” and changed “provided a reinterpretation” to “popularized a reinterpretation.”

This was reverted by me (along with a few additions) with an explanation on the discussion page. The response was this edit [[3]]. Once again the change from “provided” to “promoted” was made.

At the same time, Phil restored similar (but not identical) language added at this edit [[4]] and reverted at this edit [[5]] by User:Tedickey The language was added back in again at [[6]] and it was reverted by User:JimWae with this edit [[7]].

Despite the fact that five different editors have reverted Phil’s edits for one reason or another, and despite the fact that nobody has concurred with him on the discussion pages, he continues to add material based on the same theme. A copy of this has been provided to User:slakr Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Online Safety Institute

Again, I really appreciate all the help - I never would have gotten this far otherwise. Made another round of changes, including changing the FOSI-ICRA relationship sentence to something that more accurately describes it. Changed the membership list into prose and added the notable speakers for the 2007 conference. Up to date, this is the biggest individual event FOSI has put on, at least until the December 2008 conference. I know C-Span covered it and put a video on their site, but can't find any articles or anything written about it. I am trying to find some coverage - I found this: http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PR&date=20071126&id=7851068 so far, cited it in the first part about the conference - its an article about a FOSI member who spoke at the conference. Anything else I should add? also, general question, is there a way to add a wiki link to a section in an article (like FCC Commissioner - since there isnt a seperate page on that) - I want to do this similar to how I did 501(c)(3) but can't get it to work. Also, does the order look ok for the topics covered? Or do you think anything should be switched around? Thanks for all the help. Pastadog42 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Maarten Fontein

Hah, you created Maarten Fontein. I've had that on my to-do list since forever :) JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 19:05

It's a bit complicated - I recommended that MrKIA11 seek the advice or training of an experienced admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11, and used you (as his nom) as an example. Then, I thought it wise to see if you were actually an admin before putting my foot in my mouth, having never worked with you before. I saw the to-do list, and thought it was just a template that pulls articles from the requested articles list (like Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests), recognized the name, and got to work. Didn't mean to hijack your personal to-do list - but, as you can tell, there's still lots to do on the article yet, so it's not like I kept all the fun parts to myself! Glad to be of assistance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, awesome :) I'll definitely be expanding the article soon. It's on my to-do list :) JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 19:32

Indeed it is! Good times, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List10

Can you go back and look at list 10 for your master list please, someone marked it as done before I was done. Kafziel was the one that was missed out. naerii 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Aha, no probs. Thanks. naerii 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Sorry! I think I've caused two edit conflicts with you on unblock requests in the last day or so. My apologies! Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Ultra

I found the RfA Review statistical analysis pages (and pages and pages) for F and later, but I can't find A through E (including the all-important D)...what page are those on? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Climaxed" on WP:ANI

Made me laugh. Thanks! Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I laughed loudly enough that my coworker peered over the cubicle-wall at me; Thanks for leavening the mood at AN/I. This is beautiful. Creamy, too. --SSBohio 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding and testing The O.C. related syntax I request to {{WikiProject Television}}. I tagged some more articles and run WP 1.0 bot and everything worked fine, so thanks very much. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Virtual Knights

An article that you have been involved in editing, Virtual Knights, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Knights. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments/insults on my request to be unblocked

You were one of several admins who reviewed my request to be unblocked after I had been blocked for continuing an edit war through a sock puppet. I was proclaiming my innocence, and requesting the proof that made my guilt "unequivocal" and "beyond doubt," as one admin put it. You denied my request once, stating:

"The checkuser case, noted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu, is linked in the block message above, and clearly indicates sockpuppetry between this account and the indicated IP address. I further advise that responding to the checkuser report with what amounts to "Nuh-uh" is not itself an effective technique for requesting an unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 6 August 2008."

Later, after my talk page was protected from further edits, you made the following insult:

"Concur with Tanthalas on page protection. I also note that it is quite the commute when your work IP is registered in Colorado and your home IP is registered in North Carolina. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)."

I have two things to say to you regarding your contributions to my case:

First, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ufuncecu is not evidence. It is basically a sealed envelope with the word "guilty" written on the outside. The evidence is the contents of the envelope, and that was what I asking for, and that is what none of the admins that reviewed my request seemed to understand. I finally emailed Sam Korn, the admin in charge of the case, presented my argument to him, and he lifted my block early and changed his findings. So, the next time someone is asking you for the evidence, don't just show them the checkuser page. Understand the difference between actual evidence and just another person saying, "yup, he's guilty, trust me."

Second, my work IP, 66.192.81.164, is not in Colorado. It is in Raleigh, NC. Check it again, and please don't insult me further on my talk page. It was bad enough being unjustly blocked without your snide comments.

Ufuncecu (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind response. Thank you, and the best to you as well.Ufuncecu (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please and thank you

I'm sorry for the situation around History of the Jews in Poland but you can check yourselve who is uncooperative there. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistics!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks for your work at Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis and for setting the whole thing up. Gazimoff would be in quite a state without your help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Platte Media

You speedy deleted the article Platte Media under CSD G10: Attack Page, which I feel is not appropriate. According to the Google cached version [8], the criticisms were based on notable reliable sources (so this is not comparable to the example "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). It states "This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", which does not apply here. Wikipedia:Attack page also states "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.", so even if the criticism is considered unsuitable, a stub should be created in its place, since Platte Media is notable (if there's disagreement over it's notability, that should be discussed under an AfD). This is also not a biography, so there are no concerns there either. Mdwh (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Do you have any objections to me creating a stub, with the sourced criticisms and leaving out the POV and unsourced material, in line with "If the subject of the article is notable ... then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place"? Mdwh (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblins (webcomic)

You're absolutely right. Thanks for the heads-up. Robin S (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

JGHowes RfA

I think that the bot was ignoring it because the "----" above the transclusion on WP:RFA was missing - I've replaced them. Cheers, nancy ^talk 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Online Safety Institute

I've finished up most of what I had been working on for the FOSI page and was wondering if you thought the FOSI page was good enough now to move it over to make the page live or if there was anything else you thought I should work on before it is ready? Thanks for all your help. Pastadog42 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Ultraexactzz/Archive 5, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Category based Bot Tagging

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. McPherson p. 126