User talk:Xavexgoem/archive4

ADHD article

I'd like to help you mediate the ADHD article. Although I'm not exactly uninvolved, I am knowledgable, and pretty good at coming up with compromises. So, if you don't have any objections, I'd like to help. --*Kat* (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to what you said on medcab page

ABF indeed! I'm thinking that nothing short of Arbitration is going to settle this mess. :-X :-( --*Kat* (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further talk is looking useless

Hi Xav, Further talk in the med cab is looking to be a total dead end. To me it's all about making a group commitment to following wiki etiquette. If it were that simple, it would have been done by now. Believe me, the offer has been made several times. Any ideas? What happens now? Without any commitment to following wiki protocol, the next logical step would be going up the ladder. I was thinking an WP:RFC would be the approach to go and I have been collecting diffs for such an application. Any advice? Thanks,--scuro (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more feedback

Xav, to save copying over and over, etc, if you will glance at the item close to or at the end of my talk page, you will see my reply to Scuro. Perhaps said differently, I feel that we are seeing such an issue of lack of WP manners and spirit that my hopes of resolution through compromise and give and take are very dim. I am glad to stand clear, and ideally, find that fear to be groundless. Meanwhile, I am working on dozens of articles where all are in good faith, and we are getting the work of building Wikipedia TOGETHER done. Thanks for your patience and efforts. Mark, Vaoverland (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems dealing with another editor...

Hello,

I believe you offered to help with dispute resolutions and such, so... Well, if you don't mind. ^^;

I've been running into another user named Collectonian several times recently, and... things haven't gone so well. We apparently share an interest for manga and Japanese animation and she's quite active, so I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself sooner rather than later.

The first argument started on October 6, when I edited this article, and this discussion erupted on my talk page. Now, I realize I sound really annoyed (I certainly was), and I should work on that. But I believe my arguments were sound, and Collectonian's replies were quite vague, sometimes even dismissive. The fact she kept assuming the worst (I "assumed" the article was wrong, I removed sources "simply because I thought they sucked") even after I provided my own sources wasn't pleasant either.

Another argument started more recently over several articles. Here's what it looked like before Collectonian decided to remove my "annoying ass quote" (thus making my comments pretty much impossible to understand). And then some more, and some more... and Collectonian then decided to remove my comments from her talk page altogether. Pretty much the same kind of behavior (on both parts...).

And now, she appears to be reverting my edits just for the sake of reverting them (note the remark in the edit summary... it wasn't the first time I edited that article: I'm simply familiar with that particular TV series, having worked on its French translation a few years back). A bit trigger-happy, maybe? I tried to discuss the issue with her one more time, to no avail (I don't even know what "insult" she's referring to, there).

Again, I realize my annoyed sarcasm is partly to blame for all this, but at least I was providing actual arguments, I was trying to discuss the matter at hand. It doesn't look like the other party is interested in doing that, as I was just getting dismissive "that's not how we ("the senior editors", I guess?) do things around here" without any rationale or helpful links, and condescending remarks ("newer editors *shrug*", "such silliness", "similar BS", etc). And now, she's simply not replying anymore.

Anyway, I'm not sure what to do, here... Any insight? Erigu (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Assistance

Hi Xav. May I request your assistance to create a redirect ? BCTIA to redirect to British Columbia Technology Industry Association. Everyone refers to the organization as the BCTIA. I've never defined a redirect, the redirect article was not much help.. Thanks in advance. - DustyRain (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab invitation

I am stepping down as a MedCab coordinator. I would like to invite you to become a MedCab coordinator. Are you willing to take the position? Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete request

See User_talk:Euqueria, User_talk:Rocco15FN, User_talk:Cfrisemo, User_talk:Saloob. See contributions for spamming articles related to Spreed - I added a speedy delete tag. - Also no 3rd party references, bragging, unreferenced facts, a reference they provided does not even mention them, also delete as per WP:V and WP:N. Single focus contribs by all sockpuppets. I'm hoping an admin will assist with speedy before more of the same occurs, unsure who to notify, maybe you can do something. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I'm concerned about an article and how it links as separate articles. See Zoho_Office_Suite - lots of external links, they make edits that disguise themselves as having separate articles (they link to their headings as separate products using # heading tag rather than link directly to their article). It's kinda misleading. Also, their article is a weak for referneces (most links are to their own site or blogs). If such practices are acceptable no reply is necessary. Otherwise, please comment. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hi there, I'm the mediator for the Big Ben Mediation Cabal case. It seems that one of the parties involved is not responding to prompts, so how long should I wait before closing the case? Thanks. Mononomic (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon. Need mediator--Bukubku (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James's RFC

I'm not exactly sure what role you would play in his RFC but I thought I should at least inform you of the RFC. Your input during this process would be appreciated. You can also certify the RFC on the link provided below. It would be greatly appreciated if you could go over the application and point out an possible errors that need correcting, or things that need to be done.

Thanks,--scuro (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of that RfC and the history behind it, I'd appreciate an analysis by you, Xavexgoem, if you have time, of what happened with the relevant mediation cabal case and where it went astray. I have my preliminary impressions, but I'd rather have your perspective. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your help

I am very encouraged by recent remarks that Jhm649 has made. "I am agreeing to act more civil and follow wiki rules". For the first time I actually believe this thing could be settled to everyone's satisfaction. I have some questions about future steps that could be taken. I am not sure what is in the best interest of ALL of the contributors of the med cab and how to best move forward. There are new contributors on the med cab offering plenty of advice and making declarations. I'd appreciate it if you would offer me advice. I trust you.--scuro (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay how about current steps?--scuro (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am warming up to Jhm649. A weight has been lifted. He took a step. How's that for a series of metaphors? I can see now that process could become very important as we converge in our viewpoints. I have no experience with sort of wiki process and I become wary when everyone starts offering me advice on what's best for me! ;D Can I simply ignore the new entities and seek common ground with Jhm649?--scuro (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are moving along better then I could have ever imagined in such a short time frame. We are all being accommodating and civil, if not downright pleasant to each other.
At this point it would be good to bring up those issues of the past and make sure we are all on the same page with regards to established wiki protocols, and work arounds. Everyone is fine with that. What would be the best way to go from here? Should we stick with the rfc format, can we "scale back" and do the med cab? Would you be willing to mediate again? Should we go some other route? Una suggested starting a new process of "mediation" with an "umpire" instead of an administrator. I'd just like to choose the best route/ process for our situation. Your advice would be appreciated, all of us have never done this before.--scuro (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for agreeing to help in this matter. --Doc James (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close Cabal

I guess you can close this cabal. BCG was banned. However I am still seeking advice for the pages in question. The guy working that case (Mike92591) has been away. Although a peer review I requested has been somewhat helpful. Libro0 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it!

I like it! - Thanks for the laugh! Grutness...wha? 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to acknowledge what you are talking about. system error. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Is on my talk page. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

Let me outta there :-) What is en-ace? (If you are hanging out on IRC, that would explain the problem.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is it IRC? That would explain why you got into hot water. Relying on IRC is no better than relying on the telephone game. If you had queried somewhere on Wiki, you might have gotten better info and avoided the whole thing. Stay thee away from IRC !!  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed: I was just surprised to see you removing votes, and then surprised to see an undiscussed block (and as you probably know, I have little use for people throwing rules about re blocking policy, and more respect for common sense deescalation :-)) By the way, didn't I teach you to keep conversations together by responding on the same page where the conversation was raised :-) Which reminds me :-) Time to get away from some of those mediation types and write an article. When am I going to see you at GAN or FAC, huh? You'll pick up bad habits in those places you're frequenting :-) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo Jang-choon

Could you look at the recent change by Bukubku, especially blanking citations and adding contents regarding his father to the intro?[1] I'm not sure what even Russianism politics means. Mediation would be strongly required....sigh.--Caspian blue 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

medcab

Mark 1: Have problem; have mediator find problem
Mark 2: Teach new people to mediate (result: community; more participants)
Mark 3: Medcab under Xavexgoem

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
 for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

Plan 1: Recruit members: Village pump, wikipedia-en, build a community

----

Check out 3O; check active contributors; see who's good.

block evasions?

sounds nefarious! - I'm not sure what you're referring to, and obviously it's no biggie in context, but thought I'd swing by here and wonder out loud what you meant :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)I may now hold my upcoming election defeat against you of course, planning, as I was, a huge fightback starting tonight! curses! ;-)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hey, Xavexgoem/archive4. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- Hi878 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the end of an rfc

Hi Xacegoem..hoping for a little more advice. We were making very good progress through pretty well all of the conduct issues and we started into the content issues, but now it looks like Doc James has lost interest in the whole process. Now as I understand it, an rfc ends when there is inactivity. Is that the best result for this situation and also for DJ? I had never thought we would get this far but after the progress to date I began to have thoughts of withdrawing the rfc if things got resolved. I had suggested using you as an advisor but he never ran with that. What should I do?...just let the thing end?--scuro (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I moved the discussion to ADHD talk page. Scuro hasn't made any comments which I do not have any problems with. A discussion of weather sufficient NPOV has been reached to removed the tags has been started. Doc James (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xavexgoem at the medcab, suggested negotiation or mediation not take place on the article page. It's why I am avoiding both the article and the talk page. It's too easy to fall into old patterns without some sort of agreement nailed down first.
I did offer a good outcome on the RFC. Check it out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/jmh649#good_final_outcome . Lets get this thing done!--scuro (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that we have dealt successfully with many issues, but as we move onto content issues they should be discussed were everyone who is editing the page can take park. This is why the talk page I think is best. Have posted further on some of the controversy issues. We also have a lot more techniques to deal with issues that might arrive and I would like to thank Xavex for putting up with both of use.

Doc James (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh, if we are going to deal with technical issues, removing tags, and interpretation of controversy issues....I think you will want guidance from Xavexgoem. Do you want him involved in the process as an advisor or mediator?--scuro (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'll just watchlist the article. Don't worry about it. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. What does watchlist the article mean...you mean that you will watch list the ADHD article and if things break down, step in? I can see things breaking down very quickly if I were to edit the page to create NPOV. An immediate source of conflict would be the UBC citation which MEDRS declared not good, I'd delete it. Jhm knows the personal who wrote it. Jhm will also remove any inline tags that I put on the page. Are you going to step right in and offer proper guidance...or will will simply fall back into old routines since a number of issues are not resolved?--scuro (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was add a number of other references to the UBC one. I added one of Barkleys books and another review. Scuro has not yet commented on these additions. For clarification I know some of the people who took part in writing the UBC paper. Their is however many contributor and I only know two of them.
We have one big tag at the top of the page. Adding multiple inline tags questioning sources that hold a different POV is the same as using weasel words in my opinion. I have asked that if he disagree with the conclusions of the sources I have found then he should find sources that disagree with them. Let me give an example of this. I was editing the pharyngitis page. It recommended all sorts of alternative treatments. I found an excellent source saying that alternative treatments were not recommended.
If Scuro can find a source, even a primary source, of a RCT beyond two years involving ADHD medication then I would be happy to remove the UBC reference. However what it says is similar to what all the other sources say including the FDA, Barkleys, and another review.
I do not understand what the problem is? Yes it may not be the best source. But what it says is not controversial. Scuro could add that Barkeleys says it is unethical to do trials on kids when the benefit is there. I could follow that with the FDA from 2008 who says trials on kids are needed aswell as the NICE 2008 guild lines that say the same.
Anyway got to go.--Doc James (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line tags

Xavexgoem do you have any thoughts on inline tags? One was added before to the US gov cite from 1999 questioning it reliability. I am therefore concerned they will be used as weasel words to try to decrease the reliability of well sourced statement editors disagree with.Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Inline_tags Doc James (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab changes

Hi Xavexgoem, could you advise when you're going to complete the changes to the MedCab requests system? If it's going to take a lot longer, I would suggest you self-revert and we continue using the existing requests system, until you finalise the new system. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the changes. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD vandalism

The ADHD page has gotten alot of vandalism lately. Wondering if you could page protect and move protect it? Thanks --Doc James (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP block exemption

Hi Xavexgoem. I have removed your IP block exemption flag. All administrators are exempt from IP blocks, so the flag is redundant. Regards, Deskana (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

Hi, I noticed you speedily closed this as a Keep (although not "speedy keep") after just 2 days. While I'm not going to challenge the decision, you didn't mention anything in your closing rationale that would indicate why you closed it 3 days early, and I think it might be helpful if you did so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Aervanath)I admit that I don't know the exact process behind XfD (I know how to keep and delete, yadayada, but apparently the "wait a while" clause never registered; to think I got the bit :-p). At any rate, the discussion was getting circular. If Tony1 wants to keep a process on his userpage then that'll be his problem, which is why I explicitly said that if it moved to project space then the MfD is void. I should probably have added that if the process diverges significantly from his stated goal -- and for the moment I'm assuming good faith, perhaps despite myself (and hopefully not the project) -- then the page ought to be relisted. For the moment, it's too early to tell. If this was a mistake, please trout me and cluebat me and all those good things :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I always thought there was some sort of "speedy keep" criteria, which is why I didn't list it as such ;-)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, I'm not sure it met the speedy criteria either, but I still think it was a good application of IAR: no consensus was going to be reached, it was a circular discussion, there was too much of teh dramaz... probably a good idea to just nip the whole thing off at the bud and let AdminWatch germinate into an actual process before we delete it based on suppositions about how it might work. Cheers, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, a "good use of IAR" award! /bows. Thank you ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD vandalism

As soon as the block came off the vandalism started again. How about permanent protection?--Doc James (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of MfD closure on talk page

Thanks for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. It's my understanding that, when a deletion debate is closed as "Keep", the talk page of the page proposed for deletion should be edited to provide a link to the deletion discussion and a statement of its result. See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany for deletion page. I therefore took the liberty of supplementing your close by adding the appropriate template to User talk:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. This seemed to me to be consistent with your close, and I assume your omission was inadvertent, but I wanted to call my edit to your attention in case you had a reason for not adding the template. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Xavexgoem, Merry Christmas!

Xavexgoem,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

No content in Category:GMN

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:GMN, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:GMN has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:GMN, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: medcab

I went in a few hours after (I believe I was playing TF2 at the time), but you weren't there, and nobody seemed to know what it was about. What was it about? — neuro(talk) 10:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Woo Jang-choon

It is not done yet but I've waited him to read his alleged bought book on him. Also I've waited him to translate the primary sources that he has used because he has proven that many of his edits are original research just like Empress Myeongseong and Imo Incident (the later is fixed by me though).--Caspian blue 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only reason that he has been silent is that the current article is his preferred version (as removing cited info and inserting original research regarding Empress Myeongseong). If I reverted to my "cited version", edit war would be resumed. I just have not wanted to make additional "edit wars" with him. I requested your input days ago, but you were also silence. The article still needs "intervention", so please do not close the case yet. Thanks--Caspian blue 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok :)

Dude it really is no big deal :) im not angry at you in anyway :P just I think that this was a little impulsive even for you. Seddσn talk 14:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Policy shortcut

Not the /best/ edit summary ever; I apologize :-) Perhaps we can discuss the merit of whether "policy shortcut" is necessary or preferred. A shortcut is a shortcut is a shortcut, imo, and adding the officious policy bit is potentially off-putting to newcomers and folks who - when linking to a policy via a shortcut - are trying to stress that this is policy, policy, policy; of course, it's on a policy page to begin with. I'm just out to minimize potentially Problematic Editors from unconsciously linking officiousness with common sense.

If that made any sense whatsoever :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) It was a bit pointy, I admit, but at least it gets BRD going :-D[reply]

Apology accepted.  :-)
The template's intended purpose is not to continually stress that something is a policy, but to convey that fact to someone led to a section via the shortcut, who might otherwise be unaware (unless he/she scrolls to the top of the page and sees the {{policy}} tag). —David Levy 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method mediation

Thanks for mediating the Bates method case. To clarify, what I have said is that the current cleanup banner is unhelpful and thus in effect is no more than a "mark of shame" on the article, not that it is necessarily intended as such. Also, from now on I'm going to try not to directly address Ronz on this matter unless he initiates further communication with me, as everything I have to say seems to be coming across as harassment and assuming bad faith. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one other thing which I considered reminding Ronz of, but didn't get around to before things really went sour. [2] PSWG1920 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with that :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ronz should read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. Pity I didn't notice it before things got ugly or I would have directed him to it. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine line between assuming bad faith and pretending to assume good faith despite bad faith about. The latter is always preferable. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you optimistic about resolving this? I wouldn't blame you for giving up. If voluntary processes don't work I assume there will be administrative action at some point. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz is making communication very difficult, now see User talk:Ronz#Bates method dispute. Is there any point in further mediation? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm starting to think we might get somewhere, see the latest comments at User talk:SamuelTheGhost#Talk:Bates method 4. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

I submitted a case to the mediation Cabal and for whatever reason it has been several weeks with no response thi is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School if you can facilitate the process it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!CoreEpic (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

Porn for the Blind

Hello. I nominated "Porn For the Blind" for deletion and a bunch of people do not understand (like you did) that it is a hoax. I saw you also agreed it should be deleted in the past. Can you reiterate your position? Are you allowed to? Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porn_for_the_Blind_(2nd_nomination)[reply]

WP:ANC poaching

Nice try. However, I must admit that your edit summary was quite amusing.

I've created a shortcut for Wikipedia:Assume no clue, which IMHO is actually better suited than WP:ANC. Hope it works for you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I won't insult you by leaving the template, but please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Same_sex_marriage_userboxes. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, when you delete a portal, please check Special:PrefixIndex and delete all of its subpages, eg [3] and [4]. Thanks. --B (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple J hottest 100

Thank you for the help and semi-protect, my friend. You are both a gentleman and a scholar, sir, and we tip our hats to you. Churba (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I should also give you my thanks as a homesick expat - I can now listen in peace, without constant history refreshes messing with my live stream. Churba (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the help with this mate. Squato (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]