User talk:The Land/Archive/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The Land 2 Thought you might be interested in this 3 About the Fifth World Council (5WC) 4 Closing AFD 5 Military dolphins 6 Calton 7 High Kings 8 Esperanza Spam 9 coercive monopoly 10 coercive monopoly survey 11 RfA 12 Johann Wolfgang's RfA 13 Thank you 14 Dispute on WP:GRFA 15 Re: Age 16 RE Fuddlemark RfA 17 Nick Vaughan 18 Mark's RfA 19 Thank you! 20 I'm an admin now!! 21 Do not... 22 Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page... 23 It's Looking Good on Your RFA 24 Notability/WP:Importance 25 what are you doing with Bogdanov Affair? 26 Esperanza elections 27 Congratulations! 28 Take a look? 29 Brian Peppers 30 Joe's RfA Thanks 31 My RfA 32 My RfA 33 Cyber Law 34 Goods 35 Marginal Revolution 36 AFD relistings 37 Fascist economics 38 AfD Superinflation 39 Some people just never learn... 40 Rant of the day 41 Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham 42 My Homepage 43 Writer's Cramp 44 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby 45 Accouting good 46 My RfA 47 My RFA 48 Old VfD Discussions 49 "Dispute" 50 Thank you 51 Arbitration 52 Final decision 53 Covered call 54 Welcome Message 55 Andreas Katsulas 56 Introduce myself and ask for feedback 57 Serbophobia 58 Economic impact of AIDS 59 Just another RFA thank you note 60 RfA nomination 61 Whitemoor9 62 Your vote on my RFA 63 Tone's RfA thanks 64 Hey there 65 My Rfa 66 Regarding ==Master Craftsman== 67 Valentine's Day vs. Saint Valentine's Day 68 Hi. 69 Bubba 70 Conflict of interest 71 BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Steve Irwin: 72 Recentism 73 Battle of Bint Jbeil 74 . 75 Scott Yates 76 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantli 77 Go raibh maith agat! 78 Nathaniel77 on Keanu Reeves 79 Flaying 80 Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy 81 Deletion review for Chuck Wissmiller 82 Woo! 83 Content Forking 84 Revisiting an indef block 85 Simon Pulsifer 86 Simon Pulsifer on deletion review 87 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 88 Thank You 89 Another thank you 90 Reason 91 I see dead people 92 Rational Response Squad AfD 93 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy 94 Rightmove 95 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

[edit] The Land

Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hand? God made the land for the people! Gerry Lynch 12:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! Hurray for Georgism! Matthew Platts 14:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might be interested in this

I've just created The Land (song). Perhaps you might be able to add to it? Matthew Platts 14:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the Fifth World Council (5WC)

I'll have you note that Cesidian law is not my own legal system if there are over 200 people who have accepted it, not to mention that your own computer follows the same law naturally...

In addition, I'll have you note that among the members of the 5WC are also 2 real and registered international organisations, one registered intentional community, one Australian cooperative, and an American organisation. As John Lennon once sung, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Also, the fact that my nation (TTF-Bucksfan), and other Fifth World self-defined micronations are virtual entities, does not in itself make them non-noteable. Amazon.com and Google.com are also largely virtual, but nobody says they are not real or non-notable.

I would ask you to go to the Fifth World Council's website, and do a little background research, before you single-handedly and arbitrarily exclude its existence from the Wikipedia. I'm not going to fight with you on this, because I'm too busy with my nation, my organisation, and my own problems to do so, but if you think your will, not God's, is going to win in the end, I can assure you that you are very mistaken. --IndigoGenius 15:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing AFD

A reminder: {{oldafdfull}} goes on the article's talk page, not the article itself. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion process for more information. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Just twigged that ;-) - Thanks! The Land 09:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Great work spotting nonsense articles. But, if it is patent nonsense, or meets one of the other 'speedy delete' criteria {WP:CSD), could you tag it as {{nonsense}} or {{db|give whatever reason}} or even just {{d}}, instead of sending it to afd? You'll find it a lot less effort - and it saves work for others too. Thanks. --Doc (?) 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military dolphins

Hey, Sorry, I didn't realise we were editing that page at the same time. Still:

Well, I included it on the basis of an article in the UK Independent newspaper. You are probably right that it's nonsense - but I'd prefer the article to cover it.

My point was that it is covered in the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program article, which I think is the right place for it, since that's what it's referring to. Also, the fact that the indie and many other papers, TV stations, etc. have covered this doesn't give it any additional credence, because they're all just quoting the Observer article, which in turn comes from Leo Sheridan. Wide coverage doesn't give a story weight if all the coverage can be traced back to a single source who doesn't provide a shred of evidence for his clearly wacky claims. It does merit a response, which is why there is a response in the NMMP page. — Johantheghost 14:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calton

Sorry, it's my given name. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Kings

The Annals of the Four Masters is the main source of the mythical/legendary/semi-legendary history of the Irish people and kingship.

It can be found rendered online at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/

Regards --JohnArmagh 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] coercive monopoly

Thank god somebody else grasps this "coercive monopoly" thing. Or, I should say thank you for taking the effort. (RJII)

"...continuing to argue with him [ User:RJII ] will not solve anything except making both of you more angry." You may be right (although I'm not angry, just kind of exhausted). I keep hoping that he will come around and participate in a reasonable discussion: seriously, what's the alternative? We have to reach a compromise and a consensus, don't we? I don't really see any other avenue to that other than to continue reaching out to him. The only other alternative I see is for everyone else to give up any attempt at creating a NPOV article and stop editing completely (which was what had happened prior to the page being protected: everyone had more or less given up and abandoned the article to RJII). That's no good for anyone, Wikipedia least of all. So we have to keep trying to reach a compromise with him. Sooner or later, he'll come around. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I no longer believe that he'll come around, but I am at a loss. I have no idea what else to do. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] coercive monopoly survey

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now RJII is deliberately disrupting the discussion, scrambling up responses so that the thread of the discussion is completely lost.[1] Can I get a show of hands on who would support a complaint at this point? I have really, really tried to avoid this, but I don't see any other alternative at this point. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Sorry about how your RfA went; as it says on the tin, editcountitis can be fatal. :( I'd be happy to nominate you a bit further down the line, when you'll be innoculated against it. :) Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I too am sorry. Just stick around, build up a good edit history, and you'll make it down the road someday. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 16:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for your response to my RfA. I really appreciate the comments. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute on WP:GRFA

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Age

Thank you for the apology. I removed age as a criteria for my nominating someone (not voting for or against someone) about a month ago. I realized it was in error, especially when juxtaposed with a comment I made that people who vote on edit counts are off base. I said something along the lines of that a person at 1999 edits not having the qualities needed to be an admin while at 2000 they suddenly do is absurd. It's equally absurd that a person of 24 years 364 days would be someone I'm not comfortable nominating while someone 24 years and 365 days is. The clock strikes midnight and suddenly they're golden? I was wrong. The rest of my standards for nominating (not voting) take care of any issues that might come about because of immaturity. Some people age 10 are more mature than some people aged 50. My actual voting standards are really pretty low. I'd quite happily vote for someone with 200 edits if I otherwise thought them worthy. Have a look at my comments on Wikiwoohoo's RfA, who had 147 edits at time of his first nomination. --Durin 16:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE Fuddlemark RfA

Hi Land, Yeah, it dawned on me while I was having lunch. This wikibreak I'm taking is getting the bad side of me, since I've been only reverting vandalism on my watchlist and by the time I read those comments my joke detector was off. Oh well, I guess making a fool of myself for once cannot hurt anybody. Right?

Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

Best, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Vaughan

I don't think this should be AfD'ed, I think you should remove it. Quentin Pierce 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove the AfD completely. The person is notable, but instead just let the AfD take its course, who am I to decide whats good or bad for wikipedia. Quentin Pierce 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark's RfA

Thanks for your support. I'm kinda befuddled, still, so looks like you succeeded :-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

The article was protected after discussion with Jimmy Wales, given the contentious nature of the article, and the upcoming CNN interview about it. Danny 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support to me and to Durin's beard on my RfA. The final tally was 50-0-0 and I assure you that I'll work to the best of my ability in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 11:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not...

..WP:DNFT. -Splash^talk 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

The Land:

Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your vote of support in my recent RFA. I will attempt to utilize my knowledge of online communities in a manner that benefits Wikipedia.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's Looking Good on Your RFA

I thought i'd congratulate you early. Good job, my friend. karmafist 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability/WP:Importance

I have often seen notability used as a reason for deletion. Please supply me with evidence that this is not a reason to delete.--File Éireann 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what are you doing with Bogdanov Affair?

your edits to Bogdanov Affair and Talk:Bogdanov Affair are curious. why didn't you just revert the vandalism? it almost appeared, at first glance, that you were taking part in the vandalism. it all just looks odd. r b-j 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. i didn't understand all of it, but at least i am convinced you are not a bogdanov sock-pupppet doing vandalism to an article that is unflattering to them. r b-j 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza elections

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, use it wisely. silsor 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! --Whouk (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw in the Signpost that you've become an admin. I'm glad to hear it. I'll know you'll do well. Congratulations. -Willmcw 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look?

Can you take a look at speedy Big Gay Bear, esp the history? I don't want to get stuck with a 3RR, though I really doubt it would apply to me. Thanks.

Oh. And congrats. --Elliskev 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that was a definite speedy candidate, now deleted. :-) The Land 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

In the spirit of Wikipedia, I support getting a consensus on AfD, but you seem to forgotten to put up a new vote on that page.

Did you simply intend to link to the vote records as a way of promoting debate? If that's the case, I think you should have done so on the discussion page.--Aleron235 22:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the listing with a new AfD page. The Land 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe's RfA Thanks

Thank you for your kind support on my successful RfA! If you are in need of support, my door is always open to you (and anyone else who may need a sympathetic ear). Regards, Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a fantastic 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi The Land, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Law

Hi, I get into places, get very enthusiastic, and I hope I do not go overboard or out of bounds. I have now been trying to help out with the Cyberlaw project ... you can see my presence on the talk pages of the project, of most of the student groups, and I added a little bit to the project itself. Also where some of them had posted stuff & left off the 4 tildes, I did an attribution fix, then tried to do a helpful reminder on their talk pages about that. Where I found a student group had already learned that technique, I supplied tips for them going a step further on what can be done. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I plan to post this to the talk pages of the two administrators helping out with the project: +sj + and The Land User talk:The Land. Since I been burned a few times stepping on toes with different views than mine about what's appropriate, I have become a little less bold, and stated stuff on Talk pages before some input, giving folks a chance to encourage me, or say No. Acting on Sj guidance, I went ahead and made some comments on the various student group user pages, to try to help them out, and also on the Harvard site. (here I am there.)

I request that you first visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cyberlaw, noting the links I placed under Teams and Participants, and also in Structure, Note that Frontleft has added a couple of images. I have doubts that there has been a correct statement of copyright permission from Harvard students to Wikipedia. This may be a test to find out how soon WP finds out that there is a copyright problem, or it may be a student inexperienced in what needs to go on Image pages. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goods

Sorry about reverting your changes, but large changes like that really should be discussed first on the talk page, there is already some discussion there and some external links that directly contradict some of your changes, not that I dont think it could be improved! Martin 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal Revolution

I'm not sure what possesed you to believe one of the most popular economics blogs is "not notable." The phrase "not notable" does not mean "not notable to The Land". It means "not notable to anyone but those involved" (BOCTAOE). If you are against any blogs what-so-ever then just say it. Some blogs really aren't notable. But this one is. --MShonle 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD relistings

• LX/LuelinX (AFD discussion)
• Charlie Butt (AFD discussion)

Please don't do that. Just re-transclude the existing discussion page and leave the discussion open. Uncle G 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascist economics

PLEASE help with the dispute in this article. Do you recognise this as manipulative pseudo-intellectual propaganda, or is it just me? Thanks --sansvoix 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Superinflation

Is there a particular reason you wanted this deleted? If it looks underdone, I'm still working on it.

I replied to your comment on my talk page (I prefer to keep the conversation together) TimNelson 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I moved the entire discussion to the Discussion page for "Superinflation cycle", as I thought that's where it belonged TimNelson 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some people just never learn...

Thanks for the revert and block of Broadmindedtwentysomething. We figured he might have given up, but I have a feeling this one's going to be a headache for some time to come yet... Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rant of the day

Quit removing discussions on article discussion pages. This is a violation of wiki rules. If you think they are personal attacks...think again. Stating that people are engaging in ideological disputes is not a personal attack. You have, once again, a warped view of rules...but this is of course because you wish to abuse rules to get your prefrences achieved...as I've said the whole time. CUT IT OUT! (Gibby 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Yawn. The Land 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Homepage

Why are you deleting my homepage and leaving strange message on my User Talk page ? Cordially WritersCramp 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because your statements were offensive; you're blocked btw. The Land 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writer's Cramp

This guy User:WritersCramp is a Neo Nazi but he is obsessed with the English bulldog and keeps reverting my Bulldog edits.

Is he about to be banned for Nazi racism and anti gay policy?

Personal attacks right? Batzarro 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accouting good

Why on earth have you redirected accounting good to economic good? I can understand wanting to merge the two articles, but you dont seem to have that intention, please ensure that you merge in all the information that will otherwise be lost. Also the article will need a new title, otherwise it is a bit misleading for someone who is looking for the accounting good article. Martin 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you have "merged" in global public good to public good by simply adding a single sentence? this is terrible. Martin 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone searchig for "accouting good" will not want to be redirected to "economic good", if you do want to merge them then the article will need a new title. Martin 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, accepted on global public good, but I think we should rename the Good (economics) article to something else, possibly Good (economics and accounting). any better suggestion? Martin 22:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi The Land/Archive/Archive01, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old VfD Discussions

You may want to know that an automated bot is currently responsible in making sure that 5-day-old VfD discussions are moved daily. Please avoid moving them yourself, as they may not have passed the 120 hours maturity period yet. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dispute"

Hi again. I wish to avoid seeing others blocked. I have never spoken to this person prior for him blocking me on account of anti-pedophilia views. Unlike some most, I have never wheel warred, but I urge you to reinstate the block to avoid any further friction for today. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate. Talk pages are the place to discuss this; disagreements are not helped by blocking one another. The Land

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for trying to defuse the situation tonight with that silly userbox and the ensuing fiasco.--Jimbo Wales 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A well deserved award for you, The Land. Thanks for your efforts at defusing the great "Paedobox Imbroglio"! Well done, noble editor! Hamster Sandwich 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Excellent work on smoothing ruffled feathers - David Gerard 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covered call

Any chance of getting you to comment/edit on 'Covered call"?

Thanks, Smallbones 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit] Welcome Message

Thanks for the constructive olive branch, Land. I would love to if you know of another way to get signatures for it, ultimately to me who signs it isn't as important as how many people have signed it, for a reason you're hopefully going to see in a few weeks(that's a secret for now).

As for the newbies in wiki-politics, that argument just isn't cogent to me -- Joeyramoney was a newbie with no knowledge of or desire to get involved in Wikipolitics(he was a kid who saw a userbox that he thought was funny -- that's it under AGF), but he had it thrusted upon him anyway by a bloodthirsty mob. I'm sure if I looked there are probably more instances like that, and at this rate, there are going to be more like it. Newbies are still intelligent people, and I don't pester them if they don't sign it-- right now the ratio of people i've welcomed with that template to people who have signed is around 3%.

Also, i'd like to thank you for trying to defuse the situation last week that got me temporarily desysopped. I wish I had your calm demeanor in situations like that, but when someone innocent is being hurt by anyone, even Jimbo, my dander goes up. This goes for you too, please let me know if I can help you in anything if you've been attacked by someone. Karmafist 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Katsulas

J. Michael Straczynski is the creator af Babylon 5, and the creator of Katsulas' best-known role. If anyone's comments beling here, it's his. The video is as close to official as you'll get - I was given the okay by JMS to share it, as I've done this before for Richard Biggs, and have been employed in the past by JMS to create similar works. The point is to share something with the fans. Please do not remove the link again. TheRealFennShysa 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduce myself and ask for feedback

Hello The Land, I want to talk with you about two semi-related issues.

1. I read your comment on Pedophilia Project page. Your suggestion was much better than mine : ). (I suggested something like child abuse) I left a comment saying such and it was removed. The comment that replaced mine diminished your comment. Everyone doesn't how to agree with us. : ) But our opinions need to stay on the page. For now, I'm very willing to WP:AGF and consider the removal a strange wiki-error. (DanielCD put my comment back.) That said, I hope you will return to the project frequently to make sure your view is expressed.

2. As a co-incidence, I am planning to Rfa ASAP. I fear my involvemet with this project could cause the type of negative votes you mentioned on your Rfa sub-page. There are other things that complicate my nomination. If I lay out the situation would you look at it and give me some advice about how to present myself in the best light. Of course, if you have serious issues with my nomination I want to hear them also. Thanks, FloNight ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you, your comments were very helpful. I planned on doing more Afd, but got side tracked by WP:PROD. I'll get back on track. : ) I made a check list of items to complete before RFA. I'm just about done. Again, thanks for the speedy reply. FloNight ^talk 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbophobia

This is an article that survived an AfD vote a while ago, but has since been relisted due to obvious violations of WP:NOR WP:Notability Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and WP:POINT. Please go here and vote. Asim Led 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, I don't see what the problem is. Was it somehow horribly wrong for me to do so? And second of all, if you want to ask me a specific question I believe the proper course of action is to ask me on my talk page instead of leaving a completely unrelated comment on the AfD page in bold text and with two questionmarks for emphasis.

To answer your question, I suggested the AfD to you because you had previously voted for deletion in a related AfD case so I thought the issue might be of some interest to you. I also know you're not from the balkans, and think the debate could use some reasonable outsiders instead of being turned into another partisan issue. If it's not of any interest to you and you disagree with this, you could've simply ignored it: simple as that. Asim Led 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He does that to many, nobody likes it, and he still keeps doing it. Only questions is - should it be renamed? Instead of deletition proces, there should be a vote if it shold be Serbophobia or Anti-Serbism --Milan Tešovic 12:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear TL, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA nomination

Thanks for the nom. I have accepted and my nomination is now live. —Whouk (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitemoor9

Hi, I have changed this one's block duration to indefinite as is policy for this type of page moving that he did.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone's RfA thanks

[edit] Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Was successful, but honestly, I didn't appreciate your WP:POINT statement. Indeed, I found it downright insulting. -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding ==Master Craftsman==

Thank you for your comment, it really made ME feel valuable.

68.148.165.213 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentine's Day vs. Saint Valentine's Day

Sorry for any problems I may have created. The discusssion of Valentine's Day vs Saint Valentine's Day has been on the board for over a year and it seemed to me there was a consensus. Anyway, I'm fine with whatever name you want.Kauffner 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi.

I'm a new user at Wikipedia -- that is to say, I only recently created an account -- and I was wondering how you get those cute little boxes that say things like "this user is an intermediate violinist" onto your userpage. It didn't say how to do that anywhere I read. Can you answer me on my talk page, please? Thanks. -- Ellie041505 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to have a lot of fun with that right now.....:). Ellie041505 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bubba

I shortened it to 48 hours. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Hi, not to be contentious (I've already said that I'll quit updating the Amnesty International page), but.. "1. you are getting paid to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (either directly, as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly, as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); 2. you expect to derive monetary benefit from editing Wikipedia, as, for example, the owner of a company you are writing about;"

I meet neither of those descriptions. I'm a professional journalist who works for AI, however, my contributions to wikipedia are as an individual with knowledge about the organisation and its campaigns. I am not being paid to edit here, nor do I expect to profit from editing here. I'm concerned with ensuring NPOV status of the article (including asking for proper write-ups of criticism to balance the piece between left and right criticisms).

As for my somewhat intemporate language, there you have a point ;) In my defence, I am Irish! Donnacha 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick request, could you have a look at my three posts in the Amnesty International talk page? They're being ignored and there's some dodgy stuff in the article that could do with fixing (which I've said I won't do anymore). Donnacha 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Steve Irwin:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recentism

Ya, you're right. I just reverted (a sort of "hey, look" revert) but its senseless trying to initiate a discussion about the larger issue now. I should bring it up on the village pump. But it should be brought up. Why is Steve Irwin's death the largest section of his article? It speaks to the strengths (we can immediately verify it) and the weaknesses (that which can be immediately verified gets undue weight) of the system. You know what I mean? I see the recent event articles and think "hey great", and at the same time "why the hell are we wasting so much time with this!" :). Cheers, Marskell 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bint Jbeil

I would welcome your continued participation on that page, as some users are content to revert my edits without bothering to expalinthemselves on Talk Isarig 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .

How certain are you about this? So I was being discriminated against and now I am the incivil? I'd rather call it white arrogance and, just arrogance overall. Who do you think you are just to overrule someone else's hopes of beginning an admin? --Scotteh 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Yates

Please restore Scott Yates, which you deleted a few minutes ago. It was nominated for deletion by User:Njtigre , a possible vandal whose contributions consist only of prods and speedies. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Land Yes I am a new registered user, however I have been a fan of Wikipedia since its beginning reading random pages with passion. I am dismayed to see a fantastic resource of knowledge with very scholardly researched and written articles mixed into a mishmash of low quality useless information. I see Wikipedia turning into a landfill of garbage. Clicking on random pages now returns mostly article with low quality content, on people with no or very minimal short lived notoriety, companies advertising themselves, 6th grader school projects,..... Would you consider some local loser who made the newspaper for a car crash worthy of an encyclopedia article? I don't. One of the articles I proposed for deletion is a player (whatever game - I forgot) who, according to the article, never won anything. Useful knowledge for furture generations? Encyclopedic knowledge? I think not - this is landfilling of garbage. I only registered to propose some articles for deletion. I do ot consider myself arrogant enough to be able to write a scholarly article worthy of international peer review. Your colleage from Toronto, named above, calls me a potential vandal.... Is proposing to remove useless clutter is vandalism? Obviously his opinion. Most of my academic colleages share my view of the dumming down of Wikipedia. Excellent science articles, fascinating biographies simply burried under garbage. You mention in the talk page of the Toronto guy that you will be "watching me". Don't worry I will not propose anything for deletion of any article. I am losing my fascinationa and interest in wikipedia. I do not enjoy anymore clicking on random pages, because I have to click 20 times to find an article that interest me. Biographies of anime or game charactors do not interest me. My brief involvement was only my attempt to put my 2 cents in. They have been thrown back in my face. NJTigre

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantli

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go raibh maith agat!

[edit] Nathaniel77 on Keanu Reeves

I saw the capital 'W' and assumed it was the Willy on Wheels vandal, because that guy posts capital 'W' on the end - as in "WoW." EFG 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flaying

Is this what you really meant to do? Your edit summary says "rv unsourced 'rumours'" but it looks to me like what you did was to split an item in a bullet list inexplicably into two pieces, remove the request that the unsourced rumours be cited, and remove several appropriate links. If this had been done by a non-admin, I'd simply revert it; instead, I'm bringing it here, on the off chance that something is going on here that I am missing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ah-ha. I had reverted it to the wrong version! Thanks for pointing this out. The Land 10:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Chuck Wissmiller

I have just asked for a deletion review of Chuck Wissmiller. I believe the article should have been afd'd, not speedied. Since you speedied the article, I would like to ask you to comment on the deletion review. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woo!

Your comments on Duja's RfA made me laugh :)) Thanks! - FrancisTyers · 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Forking

See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Content_Forking. Anthony Appleyard 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting an indef block

• 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log)

This user was previously indef blocked by you but then modified to a 1 month block in December of 2005 for their comments and innuendo concerning child predation, pedophilia, and Wikipedia. They have recently made comments on the Talk page of the DOPA bill in Congress that suggests in the least that some editors of the article are child predators and attempting to spread disinformation. They also left a diatribe on another user's talk page that included comments like "Wikipedo-admin". Considering this user's inability to control themselves when it comes to these issues, I'd like to see the indef block reinforced. Thanks. ju66l3r 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know the hardships of dealing with anon IP edits (in the past, I've bloodhounded a particularly difficult IP vandal who had access to all of Telstra's IP ranges). I appreciate you checking over the recent comments by this IP. I will let you know if it becomes a further issue. While Rookiee's edits may have been a problem, the rant that was left on that user's talk page (prior to wipe) included far more insinuation about Wikipedia and those who choose to edit it than anything pertinent to the banned user. There becomes a point where nothing of value is contributed and everything contributed has no value. Thanks again. ju66l3r 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Pulsifer

I see you've deleted Simon Pulsifer. This flies in the face of the AfD that was closed by Mailer diablo yesterday. Your deletion flies in the face of community consensus; even if it did not, the article did assert notability and A7 did not apply. Agent 86 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Pulsifer on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Pulsifer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Agent 86 22:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for reviewing me I will take your comments and try to use them to help me get better.--Seadog.M.S 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another thank you

Thanks for reviwing me. I've deleted some of the stuff you suggested to on my userpage, and I plan to participate more in AfD and RfA. --TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And my sig is still crying! --TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

The move that he was proposing was totally ridiculous, as everyone else also said. Someone else compared it with moving President of the United States to Argon (United States). By proposing such ridicilous moves, of which you know that everyone else will oppose you and that they will not be carried out, you make a fool out of yourself. That's just a fact, not an insult. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I see dead people

Thanks! It was in Wikipedia humor space but somebody from the No Fun Brigade PROD'd it while I was away and not one person saved it... I userfied it anyway though. Herostratus 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Snrk. I just read it again -- it is amusing IMHO. The nerve of them deleting it. Yes sure go to down. I wonder if Wikipedia:Biographies of undead persons has promise... Herostratus 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Response Squad AfD

The Land, I don't understand why you deleted the page for the rational response squad. The organization clearly exists, clearly has tens of thousands of listeners, and clearly has a ton of avid supporters (which unfortunately manifested themselves as socks). The article is encyclopedic, contains no weasel words, and is not promotional. I hope you will reconsider and re-look at the votes page. I am not a sock. I just can't understand any rationale for this page being deleted.

I agree. If a | Small Radio Station in the Midwest can have a Wiki page, then why not? I'm a Wikipedian since January 2005; I also happen to listen to their programing which is where I heard about the attack on their wiki page - does this make me a sock? Bdrasin 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the AfD discussion and find it rather distasteful. In full disclosure, I have not actually read the article in question (it got speedy deleted before I had the chance). After many/most of the "Keep" comments were comments like:

• • Comment User's first edit in seven months, thirteen total edits.
  • Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 17 out of 19 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page and this deletion discussion.
  • Comment This user's first edit.

It is hard to find any way to interpret this than the commenters think that only authors who regularly edit wikipedia should be allowed to discuss/vote on AfD. This is most definately NOT the way things are supposed to work according to [[WP:AFD] (my emphasis added):

• Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.

Notice it doesn't say anything about the number of edits the user has made in the last n months? The AfD process isn't supposed to be a "vote" but an exchange of arguments; again according to AFD :

• The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.

Since the anonymous/newly created accouts were themselves actually presenting arguments (again, I don't know if I would agree with them because this Administrator took it upon himself to short-circuit the discussion) wouldn't it make more sense to answer the arguments? And isn't a priori assuming that an anonymous/new account must be a puppet a violation of assume good faith? Bdrasin 11:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an archived copy of the original article that was AfD'd. --Cbenard 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rightmove

A deletion review has been opened on this article at WP:DRV#Rightmove. Since you deleted it, I thought you might like to comment. Mangojuice^talk 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)