User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 11

4233:"team garage" and "concept car" are completely fabricated. The list of references you speak of concern the history of the maserti car and racing in general, which is secondary information that does not have to do with the main subject of the article. which is specifically the "cool victory" racing team. None of the references actually back up the content in the article regarding their team history or accomplishments. Just because they have a long history write updoesn't mean its correct, mind you. Ultimately, the purpose of this article is meant to help solicit funds for what I believe is a fraudulent company, and not posted for the benefit of accurate history, which is detrimental to the integrity of his site. If speedy deletion is not the direct course, would you mind suggesting what is. Tahnkyou 6226:, I know from whence you come. I think an alternative to splitting would be a more robust combination of article assessment regimes and semi-protection application, that would help things along. Having the quality rating appear on the article page rather than the talk page would encourage more editors to improve poorer articles, with the carrot of guaranteed semi-protection being provided for B-class or higher. This is similar to flagged revisions, a touchy subject, but with a slight twist. I think your threshold for inclusion ideas are good, maybe the establishment of major–minor or stable–developing namespaces might do the trick without actually splitting the project. Several comments in 2009 have been about a maturity plateau which has been reached, and that quality should be the greatest goal. 3774:

to say he would consider it. I presented a "Sectioned" version on the discussion page as was suggested and would have put it on the main page as soon as the prohibition was lifted but did not get a chance. I contacted three members of the WikiProject Biography/Members, all of whom specialize in Medieval research, One has a PhD. I also contacted a prominent author who also has a PhD in medieval research to ask his opinion. Since I just did this today, I had not had a chance to receive any input It seems that in this case those who are the most persistent get their way no matter how shallow their arguments. That is too bad. I do not have the time or the inclination to stay online all day as some of these men seem to have, so I cannot compete, nor do I at present have any desire to do so.

2804:

with banned users on occasion, hunting down their sockpuppets and so forth, but at the time I made that remark, the most recent ip to make unconstructive edits to the page had in fact been blocked. There have only been four edits in total to the article today, and I readily admit I don't have the know-how to evaluate the older ip edits. Frankly, as you have pointed out, you are shopping this problem around to several other notice boards and admins, so there is probably no need for me to be involved any further.

1973:

documentary. Sir, I mean no disrespect, but I feel you are disrespecting my town. My town is a great place and I feel you are diminishing it. So I ask you this, what stake do you have in this? None. But the people of Eighty Four do. You are disrespecting our town. If you do not allow all the theories to the origin of the name of the town, we will contact Knowledge with a petition of people who want all the theories to remain on the website, and ask that your account be banned from editing the Eighty Four page.

6379: 4761: 4121: 3633: 2496: 2466: 2427: 1684: 6494: 31: 3913:

of history. I have compromised because of time constraints, and repeated personal attacks which seem to be inserted in an "around the clock" time frame. I will also investigate dispute resolution. This man Marmaduke has reverted three times but uses "other reasons" in his "history" comments, hoping no one will notice. I have given up much in this effort, but I feel that I must fight for at least one paragraph to show an alternative point of view presented by scholars.

2238:. The IP who was adding the controversial salary data to this article has never participated on the Talk page, to explain the need for his material. He just reverts, over and over. His material has been reverted by four different experienced editors. On this basis, would you consider reducing this to semiprotection? Good faith IPs should not be shut out, but this editor has not yet shown good faith, in my opinion. He's just a person with an axe to grind. 687:"At their best, international medical schools give their students the education and training needed to enter a residency program in the United States, and those graduates who become physicians go on to serve many patients. At their worst, international medical schools take unfair advantage of desperate students, by accepting candidates who are woefully unprepared for the rigors of medical education, the USMLE, or the practice of medicine."" 1916:

about President Cleveland is not even the most widely held theory amongst the town's people. Most people say they believe it is named Eighty Four because it was the eighty fourth stop on the rail road that ran through our town. But whichever theory is correct is, and always will be, a hotly debated issue amongst the people here, which is why I believe all theories held by the people should be aloud to be posted on the Knowledge page.

2026: 5006: 4514: 2710:

again, it could have been speedy deleted again without the need for an AFD. It's a good idea to have at least one source lined up before posting an article, or to use the {{underconstruction}} tag if you are actively working on it. Looking at the deleted version, you never actually edited it, and the original author did not place a {{hangon}} tag which could have avoided the speedy deletion.

6345:

releases or websites. I have a more broad interpretation of the notability criteria than some, and usually regard any type of reliable source as enough to avoid speedy deletion for notability reasons. The crux of that criteria, which is often misunderstood, is that any type of credible assertion of notability is enough to avoid speedy deletion, actual proof is required to avoid deletion via

948: 3868:, and I apologize. I am frustrated because of my personal time constraints and having to learn this entire process in a short time. I will like to pursue the article but I do not think I have the time to do it quickly. I can see you have your hands full with all of the disputes you have to process and I did not help matters with my impatient remarks. Please accept my apology. 5126:. I realize that Balkans articles are perpetual hot spots for this sort of thing, but his edits are not blatant vandalism, so I'm afraid this does qualify as a content dispute. Additionally, since his edits are not blatant vandalism you should not have engaged in edit warring with him. Finally, since his account was registered two days ago, in two more days he will become an 6409: 3948:, they all did not have "Christian band" in the lead for a solid reason. This is the most disruptive time I've ever spent on this website - I'm sick of this, I mean can you seriously have all this talk on the talk pages of these articles to NOT do something then this guy comes around and forces these edits onto the article and calls it the "new consensus"? 2864:

who may be from a different race that he doesn't like. Have a quick look at Tajik's block history it will amaze you, this guy is always in a war-mood. As for me, I'm not falsifying anything or edit-warring with anyone or putting POVs in articles. If I were you I'd block him for a week so he can cool off with these silly games and take some time out.--

6100:. That is the crux of this problem, not who I am, or who you are. I have not been able to locate such sources to substantiate the claims in the Cool Victory article, and what sources and links there are are either Cool Victory's own site or websites that make no mention of the organization. It is therefore my conclusion that this is likely to be a 6281:, can you clarify what you mean? To me, if an article is sourced only to the subject company's website, and does not assert notability, then its spam, but I dont new page patrol often so Im not too familiar with the various categories. Also, do you think this article could be speedily deleted under a different rationale? Thanks in advance 1150:"The name being used was that of a person linked to legal disputes which effect Dr.Steel's company. This is just as bad, if not worse than if Dr.Steel's old name had been posted. This is private information that should not be available on Doc's wiki page so I see no reason as to why this would not be valid reason to have it oversighted." 770:. Second, according to the comment that was included with the 4im warning message that was given to the vandal, it seems that the vandal may have used one or more sockpuppets to create similar bad articles; this appears to be the reason that the 4im warning level was selected at the time the vandal was warned. 3383:- as a copyright violation. You subsequently removed the tag with a comment saying "not a word for word copyvio". But in fact starting with the words "According to testimonies", which is the 8th line of the article, it does seem to have been copied, word for word, from the B'Tselem report to which I linked ( 5130:

and semi-protection will not stop his editing the article anymore. I don't pretend to have the know-how in this area of knowledge to know if his edits are as false as you say they are, I really think it might behoove you to report the account to ANI. If he does get blocked, let me know and I'll lower

4351:

I came across your rejection of Speedy Deletion of Shahnawaz Farooqui which was marked db-promo by amanverma121. You're right, db-promo may not be apt but db-person may be applicable and hence I would nominate it for deletion. The journalist is only claiming self-promotion in that article and none of

3546:

I said that my edits should be reverted to what they were before Gunmetal Angel changed them. I was unaware that they were left the way that I edited them, otherwise I wouldn't have said that. Nonetheless, my statement can me interpreted either way. If he does change something, I will be on top of it

2863:

but he sneakingly goes around telling admins to block me. I've shown more than enough proofs, evidences, and reliable sources, etc, to make my point on talk pages but he shys away and asks you to block me. He just wants to start trouble in here by inviting Iranian editors to come and fight with those

1026:

There has been some discussion about locking the Doctor Steel page temporarily. I don't think that is entirely necessary at this point, but it is an option I might pursue should this sort of behavior continue. (Ideally, I'd like to see the whole talk section regarding the name dispute expunged, but I

6344:

like "world class," "highly innovative," "state of the art" and so forth. They don't just discuss the subject, they openly try to convince you that it's the best of whatever it happens to be. Often they also turn out to be blatant copyright violations as well, just reposts of the companies own press

5676:

Coming here from the ANI post. I am an admin (don't ask how that happened) and a leading figure in some of the Christian content (see above) but even I have to say that hardblocking this name is not warranted by the circumstances, and certainly not without at least a prior explanation as to why. For

4786:

Skin? troll? nah - my opinion - just stay away from the indonesin language issue unless you actually want to get involved. Very simple - you were as troll like at Mersaults talk page - no need to go any further- you're a damned good admin in what you do - just the water in the Indonesin stuff is not

3912:

I have again asked for "Page Protection". I have heavily compromised my article by only inserting one paragraph with states the alternative point of view and added an unimpeachable source. I think the alternative point of view should be left in because without it there is no fair and balanced view

3773:

One final comment Beeblebrox: I tried to show you a newer version with styling amd sectioning according to article Earl of Pembroke and asked for comment. It was ignored. I tried to compromise adding a quote which was presented in one of their remarks. It was ignored, whereas before Marmaduke seemed

3603:

in a helpful and meaningful way. If your intent is to record a market trend as opposed to promoting a particular business, you should write an article about the overall trend. In any event, language like "the world’s first online real time media exchange to trade in advertising inventory from across

2709:

references or sources. The deletion was not a "mistake" nor was it related to your "attitude," the article at that time did not meet the basic criteria for a Knowledge entry because it failed to credibly explain why this person was notable and it had no sources. If it had been recreated in this form

1732:

I don't consider it wheel warring if another admin decides to block a username where I had just left a note. (wheel warring is reverting of an admin action, and that's not an admin action). In that case I did so because it didn't seem like the user was trying to be disruptive. Since that user hasn't

1561:

Hi Beeblebrox, I got a deletion from you. No problem :) It was my first article! So I asked an admin and I'd like your help as well. I asked about getting "Matt Furey" article unlock or active. It was basic information taken from his website, such as his birth city and competitions etc. You can read

1536:

from lawsuits. Now that you have added a free license to the site that is no longer a problem. I hope you carefully considered this and read the full text of the license before releasing it, as that content (all of it not just the text) is now public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose,

1504:

Hi Beeblebrox, I created the Richard Klotzman page the has been deleted for suspected plagiarism from richardklotzman.com. I built, wrote and maintain the site richardklotzman.com and have added the necessary licensing text to the site as per Knowledge guidelines. I will now repost to Knowledge with

6442:

for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever

5166:

No need, I'll sort it out. One *very* quick look reveals this user probably only created the account to push a POV. On the Croatian Knowledge, this user also has an account created on the same day (18 October) with the userpage consisting solely of "Stop communist-fascist-Nazi propaganda!" The user

4891:

I think the conversation on your talk page might actually have given me some insight into what you intended. If I understand correctly what Merbabu is saying, there is maybe a cultural issue in play here in addition to the language barrier? That would explain why I am having so much trouble getting

4818:

from Australia. Just to clarify, I did not say "you are a troll" but that your message was "irrelevant trolling" in that it seemed to be written to deliberately belittle and anger. I wrote three different responses to it, and didn't post any of them because I couldn't seem to get through it without

4173:

I userfied it for them just now, but if you want to restore it go ahead, I'd make sure to tag it as under construction or it'll probably end up CSD nommed again in about five seconds, you know how it is... You have a point though, I admit I didn't even click that link before deleting, I'm usually a

2803:

Well, admins are expected to be experts in the policies and guidelines they are asked to interpret and enforce. You can't expect us to be experts on every topic that receives a protection request. It is not my intent to encourage a banned user either though, in fact I have been known to "do battle"

2255:

Not sure I see your point, Ed. Semi protection would still block ip and new users. The point of the full protection is to try and force the ip, and everyone else involved, to discuss on the talk page. There is now an active discussion of this very issue on said talk page so even though the ip isn't

1915:

Hey this is Wrightman690. You sent me a message about the Eighty Four page. Well sir, I live in Eighty Four and all the theories that I posted are commonly held amongst the people of Eighty Four, and I believe that it is wrong to only have one theory on the Knowledge page. The theory that is posted

1613:

As far as recreating the article, I would again suggest you create it as a user subpage by following the link in my message on your talk page, it can be moved to article space when it is ready. As far as the copyvio situation, this can be a problem sometimes with basic facts and statistics, but you

1333:

I am the person who reverts vandalism under that IP, so I made this account so I could still edit if the IP gets blocked while still being from that IP. I'd prefer if I kept my username, as the "temp" at the end of my username should show I'm not that IP, yet I would be if it weren't blocked at the

1118:

to get it permanently removed, not only from the page but from it's history as well. That procedure is somewhat over my head, only a few admins have the ability oversight material. It seems you may be in a position to confirm or deny whether actual personal information has been revealed. If it has,

1095:

troubling. Which is why, after conferring with one of Dr. Steel's close personal friends, I decided it was necessary to bring it to your attention. Now that I know about RPP, I may ask for semi-protection if it continues. Hopefully it won't. Anyway, thanks for your help and your input, I appreciate

761:

at AIV because the level 4im warning that the user had received was apparently invalid/inappropriate. Apparently, I need to make a few clarifications. First, although a level 4im warning was issued to the vandal, I am not the person who actually issued said warning; the warning message had actually

5681:

or something. And I have to say that referring to the breasts and nipples, while often involved in offensive language, can also be at least potentially related to wetnursing/breastfeeding, which I have a good deal of trouble seeing as offensive. While I could, potentially, see asking the editor to

5505:

Having a username with 'penis' in it is far less ambiguous than this example, for starters. Personally, I'm not seeing anything offensive in this name and IMO, username-blocking it would be an overreaction esp. given that there's every possibility that we're driving away a new, productive editor -

5485:

Disruptive = hard block? As far as lack of notification, if it's so bad to require a hard block, the user knows full well what they are doing, and telling them again (keep in mind they've been told by the block page) won't do anything (especially since they can't exactly do anything more with that

5453:

It does offend contributors. Maybe not you, but it does offend some people. What if we have a female editor who thinks that "Nipple37" relates to somebody obsessed with nipples? It thus does "mak harmonious editing difficult or impossible". As far as disruptive, think of it as somebody creating an

4232:

Hello, Concerning your refusal for speedy deletion of the Cool Victory Page- The information expressed on the page is inaccurate and false, and for the purpose of trying to raise funds. For instance, they have no racing history counter to their claims. More so, much of their history, such as the

3468:

to happen, because it is somewhat contrary to the idea that this is "the free encyclopdia anyone can edit." I looked again, and while there is significant vandalism to these pages, it looks like it is usually being caught and reverted fairly quickly by yourself and a few other vigilant users. I've

2380:

I've kinda been doing the same thing, leaving "bait" lying around, he always takes the bait and gets caught and blocked again, and then the cycle starts over and the exact same thing happens again. I thought I might try a different approach and try to take away some of his toys. If it doesn't have

1972:

This is not undocumented. There is a independent documentary made by the bloggers who's website is located at eight-fourglyde.blogspot.com. They travel to my town and they ask people why the believe it is named Eighty Four. None of the theories I presented were not mentioned, at least once in this

1597:

I can simply say the same, but site his website as the source? I mean to say, if I try to change something so simple to my own words it still gets tagged as copyright infraction. It's such basic information, such as place of birth, competitions won, places he lives... Also, how to unlock this name

1011:

Since the Doctor Steel page passed AfD, I have been religiously watching the page (I'm a bit OCD, I refresh my watch list every hour or two) to make sure nobody came in and added inappropriate "promotional" content, as the admins feared, and also that nobody vandalized the page, a concern of mine.

615:

With all due respect, I'm not blanking any content, but merely re-posting an updated article. The article you restored dates from 2007. I'm not sure if you know, but the UHSA School of Medicine has a new administration in place as of now, and all their academic programs have been restructured, for

4813:

on Mersault and Erik's talk pages. How could you possibly construe that as trolling unless the template did not apply to the situation? It didn't seem to bother him near as much as you, he very politely provided a translation of his remarks and went about his business, whereas you for some reason

3963:

Oh, wait nevermind, it's technically settled, although I don't understand his forcing on the article for the Devil Wears Prada, but I'm guessing it seems more notable seeing how they are almost the definition for Christian music (or Christian metal and what not...) or maybe it's just because he's

655:

I'm not convinced that is the case, but it really doesn't matter. You are edit warring, regardless of the validity of your edits. If you find your edits being reverted, the proper course of action is to discuss on the talk page, not just keep re-inserting the same information. More information on

6250:

project is interesting because they preserve good, stable versions of articles that are valid topics for classrooms, and don't bother with the latest results from "America's next top model." Of course as an admin I find myself hardly working on actual content anymore, there's always a backlog of

5222:

The word nipple is not so blatantly offensive in and of itself that it warrants a block. If I recall correctly it was reported by the name watcher bot, which reports anything that has certain words or literal patterns in it, and they are often false positives. I'm not sure why anyone would be so

4972:

Beeblé has hadagmail explaining all (im still waiting for the right train to go through transylvania in the middle of the night folks!)as for keyboards this is the worst i hve met - butnever look at agift horse in the mouthwithout yawning and sharing the cud chewing vapour... tht wasnot alcohol

1015:

I started a section on the talk page about it, and this person posted, and his posts began to sound more and more like an agenda. (From what I am told from inside sources, there is currently a behind-the-scenes legal dispute going on that this discussion does not help, either.) The person always

2639:

in an attempt to remedy the problem with her user name being the same as the business she is doing public relations work for. I have been counseling her about conducting public relations work in accordance with our guidelines and will be asking that the second account be unblocked, provided her

3137:

hi. I am everywhere singlelogin: the joystick. Here the name is occupied by someone else. On such projects, where I can not have a joystick I joystick.pl. I had so also the Commons before it could be changed on the joystick. You can check out. I am not in any way connected with such a possible

906:

comment from my RFA ? I don't disagree with your point per se, but I think the opposer provided useful information about my editing history, which the closing bureaucrat and other reviewers can judge to arrive at their own conclusion. I would really like it if we don't end up commenting on the

6057:

Who or what is a Beeblebrox, is that your first or last name? My name is Ric Lee, I do not hide behind some fake user name. Who are you? Why would you accuse someone of being a fraud yet hide your identity? It seems if there is some kind of deceit going on here, it is you. Please identify

5834:

Yeah. We could probably chalk up a lot of the RfC formalism and what-not to silliness. I would very much like there to be a button to push and get NYBrad to write a 3 page summary weighing pros and cons, but what can you do? Thanks for taking a crack at it, sorry the whole thing is a mess.

1577:

Re. the message on my page: Thanks for asking. Since this is a site which offers free documentation for practically any use, the posting of copyrighted material simply does not jibe with this site's licensing. That said, it is more than OK and is in fact encouraged to use and to cite other

3216:

I think that is an excellent idea. It is almost certainly an eligible subject, but the previous version not only was blatantly promotional, but as it turned out, copy/pasted from the colleges' own website. If those problems can be avoided I'm sure the two of you can produce a decent article.

4324:

I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I left on your talk page. The supposed "bot" is not going to be unblocked until they are answered, and frankly I believe you are outright lying about it being a bot at all since it does not seem to have ever engaged in any automatic editing.

616:

example, they have a nursing school now, and have eliminated all their distance learning programs. The present article on UHSA is inaccurate and outdated. So, I would really appreciate it if you could help me write a new and updated article. Thank you for your time and have a good day :-)

6202:

Actually, I really did think it was pretty much verging on blatent spam but I was being somewhat tactful and hoping the casino would do more to tone the page down and make it informational than just update their opening hours every few weeks as they seem to. I didn't think an out and out

2401:

Hello. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner; I had to take a day off the project as my middle child is sick. Regarding your message, while similar in some ways, I am not sure the editor in question is following the usual modus operandi. So unless our friend has developed a case of

6245:

Hm, you have some interesting ideas, I like the concept of putting the rating right on the page, we essentially already do this for stubs and featured articles, but not anything in between. However, the guaranteed semi protection for B or higher would be extremely controversial. The

5378:

Beyond a reasonable doubt, the person who created this was thinking along the same lines of human anatomy. The whole point of the username policy goes beyond "accounts likely to vandalize." As far as wheel warring, my understanding (that is shared with other administrators) is to be

5271:

They don't have one single edit to their name. Frankly this feels like wheel waring, in that I made an administrative decision and it was overridden before being discussed with me. I won't further the problem by undoing the block, but I urge you to do so. It is clearly overly harsh.

4475:

In answer to what I think your question is (although you still have not answered the questions I left on your talk page) that user also should have communicated in English, but the section you are referring to is over two years old, so there is little point in worrying about it now.

5644:(undent) thing is, I already asked for outside input at the username policy talk page, and four users have already chimed in and said it was a bad block.It's worth noting that HalfShadow commented before I even asked for it because they apparently were as shocked as I was by this. 4787:

so cut and dried as usernames and vandalism - and this effing budapest keyboard i drivingmecraz -youoweme a pan galactic grgleblaster when i get back to australia :) - third persons are irrelevent when you all me a troll when i am not - just get on with what youre good at mate -

3935:

As the final part of the issues I am having with the user GaudiumInVeritate. He is continuously adding "Christian band" to the lead of every article and is the cause of these edits wars and furthermore has technically forced all these edits to all these articles, they include

3663:

I have offered both styling changes and a compromise. The styling was not even commented upon, and the compromise has only been on my part. At least two out of three of the people protesting the early earls of clare with offer no compromise of any sort. What do I now do?

5046:

on Balkans articles. Frankly, I was counting on help preserving article quality from these standard issue POV-pushers I revert every two days, not some silly "equal treatment" with an edit-warring nationalist account making ridiculous edits bordering on outright vandalism.

924:

Geez, I'm not sure what to do now. I went over to the guys talk page just "sniffing around" for some idea of why he's acting like that, and he's just been indef blocked for disruptive editing and sock puppetry, so probably the whole remark should be removed or indented.

4850:

hell edit 2 conflicts - large bit lost- hey javanese stalemate - it ill take more than this bloodyhungarinkeyboard - sorrydidnt mean to ome overcondecending or rude - i came inlate onwht youh being doing - will tryto email anncomprehensible gmil about thi-cheers

5800:

I'm sorry you got frustrated. Please understand that gridlock and complaints are de rigueur for the RfC process (especially this one). But understand that no one asked you to make the close and that you can't expect 0 pushback on a close like that. I reverted

3190:

and he has expressed to me that he needs help with the article that you have erased. i explained to the user the terms of speedy deletion and what G11 means. i am going to help him with the article then recreate it along with the deleted redirect for the acronym

5849:

My feeling is that when it became apparent some time ago that A Nobody wasn't coming to the party, this turned into a prep-work session for a future ArbCom case rather an a real attempt to resolve a dispute. Oh well, I'll just get back to my normal activities.

166:

Several of the articles I've expanded were stubs that I believe that I've very definitely positively contributed toward. Check my contributions if you don't believe me. He, on the other hand, just lives to mess with other people's work. Something needs to be

5433:"Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible. Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Knowledge." 1351:

I just re-read the policy, and it says it's "not recommended" but it's apparently not actually against policy, so if you want to stay it can. You realize of course, you can have a user name and still be perfectly anonymous. (don't tell anyone, but I'm not

4676:

article last night because of the BLP vandalism. The lock should have now expired but is still on. Is it possible to get this article unprotected? I will keep it on my watchlist and won't hesitate to report it again should it get the same trouble

698:

Kansas has filed suit against a dentist for using the title "M.D." without complying with state licensing requirements after obtaining a medical doctorate through an accelerated 18 month course of internet classes, clinical rotations and lectures at

2854:

The above person (Tajik) is beginning to be disruptive, he's lying and trying desperatly to block people who he hates on the personal level because of their race or ethnicity. I'm kindly, in a very civil manner, discussing with him and others at

5363:

Ditto that. While what is offensive is often in the eye of the beholder, it is ludicrous to claim that the word "nipple" in and of itself indicates a desire to vandalize, and you haven't answered my point as to the perception of wheel warring.

1007:

I am in need of an admin's guidance/assistance/watchful eye/whatever. Since you were the one that took note note of the Doctor Steel debate and put the page into AfD, I figured you might be the best person to come to; you seem like a fair guy.

4819:

being obviously pissed off, so I just removed the whole thing. By happenstance Mersault's talk page was still on my watchlist because it was automatically added when I left the template, which is the only reason I even saw your remarks there.

2992:

regarding the Peter Daniel Struve page you deleted. He is similar to an entire group of names and page you have listed. We were not done with who he is yet. Please return the page so more information can be added. Please do not jump the gun.

3508:

Oh, that's very reassuring. You warned him for editing tests without even indicating what you were talking about. And you reverted as well, it takes two to tango my friend. And you did in fact say yesterday that your edit should be reverted

1562:

his answer below and my followup questions. Any advice would be appreciated greatly in getting my first article up and running. I'd like to get other Fitness Celebrities up and going in the future, so this applies to those as well I'm sure.

4153:

has a lot of hits for the subject as well. Also, I think that was a bit BITEy to the page creator who expressed willingness to expand it. Maybe you should have considered userfication instead. Would you mind if I restore it? Regards

4148:

Hi there. I conflicted with you on that deletion. I was about to decline the deletion and I think you should have too. It's was about a subject founded by a notable person and as such this alone was an indication of significance and

3158:

It's not a blatant violation, and the domain name is "parked" so there's not any tangible issue and you can probably keep the name without any further bother about it. There is a process for taking over another user's unused name at

1484:

That's OK i understand i was just trying to give the guy sometime to do what he could. I would suggest maybe giving him a copy of the article in a sub page for him to work on getting it written where it does not cause any copyright

3353:

Just checked I See Stars' page. Somehow, Gaudium is managing to edit the page, and has also vandalized it saying that "they were all born women." Are you sure you blocked him, because he doesn't seem to actually want to help the

4567:

Much better ways to spend one's time. I've completed nine FPC nominations since walking away from that mess. Although to be candid, several were wrap-ups of restorations that were either already done or in progress. Toodles!

2679:

Hello Beeblebrox. You've deleted a new article in the middle of my improvements and searching of sources. I recreated it again, in my opinion the subject meets our criteria and the article could be useful for our readers. Check

4804:

it, but parts of this message and all of your previous one read as extremely condescending and rude. And there is not any sort of special exemption to policy for Indonesians. Or for admins from other wikis. Or for admins on

2910:

of these internet sites and selective quotes by unreliable writers you can list. Quantity is not the same as quality! Here are three excellent, academic references which fully disprove your pseudo-scientific OR and POV:

1770:

Would you consider unblocking this user so they can change their name? Since the bar is no longer in operation, it does not look like he is trying to promote a business. If unblocked, he will presumably work more on the

1113:

Hmm. I'm not sure, because I don't know if personal information really has been revealed. In other words, if his real name is in there somewhere, and he does not want it published, we might be able to make a case to use

158:

As a New York Mets fan, I've been going through some of my favorite players as a kid, and adding to their sites. I've also added to the season pages. Yankees10 is up to his old tricks again. He keeps undoing my edits to

1020:). (I know nothing else about him other than he also posts a lot on the Bubba the Love Sponge page, and a Google search showed he posts in the Howard Stern Wiki a lot, also anonymously. WHOIS shows his ISP as Comcast.) 3594:

Regardless of your intent, the article was written more like a press release than an encyclopedia article, and indeed listed press releases among it's sources. Also, trying to "bring notice" to something essentially

3523:. This is one of the silliest disputes I have ever seen, and you playing the innocent victim in all this is not helping. If GunmetalAngel does something else you feel is out of line, you should consider a report at 1890:

for more information on adding appropriate sources. Also, in the future, please add new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top, sign your comments using four tildes, like this:~~~~, and most importantly,

1775:

article, which seems harmless. (I'm not swearing it would be kept at AfD, but it looks notable enough due to the mentions in newspapers). He is proposing to change his name to JustSomeGuy, but that name is taken.

3975:

I understand your frustration and I also appreciate the restraint you are showing. If you feel the articles are being damaged or becoming factually incorrect, you may want to pursue some low-level forms of

4610:

article for speedy deletion. I figured it would be beneficial to come here and see if my next attempt follows the guidelines for an acceptable wikipedia article. It is currently visible at my user sandbox

3609: 6137:

I tried posting something about Motoroids, which is genuinely a pioneering organisation. My article was deleted even when I put a Hold On tag. Kindly have a look at the talk page of the deleted article.

6112:, but please remember to comment on the article and it's sources, and not attack the character of the other contributors, as you have done twice already: once with your remarks on this page and once here 3153:

I do not know your procedures, but if you could help me get my nickname to this basic design would be grateful. A person who usurps my nickname not edited for two years. Sorry, my english is no good :(

6323: 3777:

You need to take out the first three references. They represent my research which refers to the validity of the medieval earls of clare and contradict the version you now have reverted to. Thank you.

5092:

Now it is completely and utterly useless to reason with him, I do not see why I ought to waste my time explaining Wiki rules and discussing this nonsense at length. I already tried to talk to him on

3531:, remembering of course that anyone could find the same information I have related here via your edit histories, and that reporting at such boards usually leads to scrutiny of all involved parties. 5965: 5713:

Agree, this is a terrible assumption by the admin. It would be far easier to say "Damn guys, I made a mistake, I was having a bad day and didn't think it through" rather than carry this obviously

3709:

I've been asked to comment -- I know about 'the wrong version', but I strongly think this should be reverted to a version that looks more like a Knowledge article with a proper lead, etc. Perhaps

1528:

Sorry, my talk page has been busy today and I just noticed your post. Blatant infringement of other websites is subject to speedy deletion without discussion. Permission needs to be established

706:

Now, if you look up references 4, 5, and 6 – these are completely outdated or only apply to the older non-existent UHSA academic programs. Sir, will you help me do something about this? Thanks.

6302:. To be deleted as spam the tone must be clearly intended to advertise. There are now several refs attached so it's unlikely to qualify for a speedy for notability reasons, I suggest you try a 3178: 5167:

should be appropriately warned of ARBMAC and all disruptive edits to date reverted. The account name also translates, I'm advised, to "First Brigade" and has somewhat Nazi-ish connotations.

4553:

Damned sexist templates! Anyway, thanks, I did the best I could with it, although I'm sure I still managed to piss off a few participants. Gonna sign off for a few and do something else...

1377:

Thank you for the information. I know, but I wasn't really anonymous under the IP anyway. Might as well keep it that way. And sorry for putting it here instead of my talk, force of habit. -

1012:

Recently, someone was trying to add to the page Dr. Steel's "real name." Now this was entirely conjecture on their part, but they were adamant in placing it there even after I removed it.

1177:

Well that's maybe even more alarming. I've just sent an email notice asking for oversight, I think I'll go ahead and redact the names from the talk page while we wait to see what they do.

3311:

Ok, i'll leave Gunmetal a message on his talk page, asking him to take part. Although i was not part of the war, i see its just going to hell. So i'll try to get in touch with Gunmetal.--

3067: 4928:

In case it isn't clear, SatuSuro, an Australian, is travelling around Europe at the moment and using rather oddly configured keyboards in net cafes, hence the sometimes mangled wording.

748: 6203:

confrontation would help very much and everyone had ignored a 2 year old "This is an advert, clean it up" notice. I guess it was the wrong approach but thanks for the feedback anyway.

2119:

with Arkelweis before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to

1598:"Matt Furey" and also "Matt furey" so the basics of this guy can be presented in an article? Thanks for your help! And where should I post these questions, on your talk page or mine? 785: 5820:

eh, that was probably a good idea. It's just seems so silly to be talking about re-opening it now that it has in fact been thirty days, and no actionable conclusion has been reached.

350:

with Jps 1001 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to

6038:

Could you please consider reapplying semi-protection to this page, as it is getting regular vandal traffic lately? I don't know what Maxim did exactly and he is not around. Thanks –

3210: 1838:

Hi Beeblebrox! You delete dmy Wonderland Wigs entry. I have never used Wiki before. Please may i have my article and then i can polish it up and make it more encyclopedic? Thanks,

1715: 1690: 5558:

I'll answer the question for you: not very likely. Beyond a reasonable doubt. I stand by my block: if you feel it was so out of line, you are welcome to submit a comment to ANI. --

907:

oppositions' motives, since that makes the RFA process unnecessarily confrontational. I know this request is unconventional, but would appreciate if you would consider it. Cheers.

4912:

wow you have broken through the improbability drive mate and got it by the tail- its that phone number in islington- youre right. cheers- you also have anemicemail aswell- cheer

4814:

decided I needed a stern talking to about not getting involved in the affairs of Indonesian editors. And I'd be delighted to get you that pan galactic gargle blaster, but I am a

3752:

Thanks. It will look better and be easier to work on. I've found before it's easier to start with a stripped down version if an article is a bit of a mess and then rebuild it.

5286:

It could be too late in any case; I don't know when he blocked the name, but I'm assuming it was about eight hours ago. I doubt whoever the name belongs to even cares anymore.

4202:

Nah, that was me restoring it. I have made it a stub for now. There are quite a lot of sources apparently, unfortunately most of them can't be accessed through Google. Regards

2179:

with a damp cloth this afternoon, since much the articles appear both to be inaccurate and to lack references. I think I'll spend my time doing something more useful, though.

2115:

with the following edit summary '(downgrade PROD to merge (to List of paraphilias; also add Refimprove, and reduce list of links from 4 to 1 example website)'. Please consider

723:

I'm not even going to read that. I don't have any interest in taking a side in your content dispute/edit war, and my talk page is not the place for such a conversation anyway.

6230:

pushed me toward the feeling that there needs to more concentration on limits to when and how spending editing time is really productive. Good work on the admin recall draft.

1593:

Ok, so for example, if I want to say "Matt Furey was born in a small town in Iowa, named Carroll.", which is not easy to make original or different from the statement made on

4896:

to respond to my queries about his other account. (that an the he seems like he's probably just a kid who doesn't know what to say since it's clearly not a real bot account)

2832:) which not only reveals his lack of understanding, but is also racist and offensive. I have complained to many admins, but none of them feels responsible. At the same time, 2247: 1071:

Well, that is a little troubling. The article doesn't need protecting at this stage, but if there are repeated attempts to add unverified information it can be reported at

2227: 1045: 5055:

he made a list of nonexistent articles that refer to war crimes even though the "Reprisals" section explains the matter fully (with sources, of course, not his own ideas)

2057: 1401:

Some people end up tripping certain abuse filters but do not actually succeed in making the edit. Either way, they have revealed themselves to be a promotional username.

4833:

I can't shake this feeling of deja vu I am having over this, it all seems very familiar all the sudden. Did we maybe yell at each other a bit a really long time ago?

3712:

and as people agree, the article can be built up. As it is, I think not only does it no look enough like a Knowledge article, it would be hard to discuss through DR.

2923: 2899: 1266:

Fair enough. Mainly making sure you're aware there's no exception for user space. (I've encountered other editors who didn't know and routinely removed speedy tags.)

577:

a word for word copy of another page can be speedy deleted. That is not the case here, and it is more appropriate to list at the copyvio noticeboard as you now have.

6322:

I might, as you said, it now has some refs, so I might just let it simmer and see if it amounts to anything. Im more concerned about if I am mis-applying CSD tags.

5802: 4957:

are not infrequently found and not all cafes allow you to switch to EN. Some European keyboards also make vowels difficult to type as they use punctuation to handle

3922: 3907: 3877: 3786: 3673: 3608:

and see if you can come up with a more neutrally-worded article that simply reports information a dispassionate tone. You can create the page by clicking this link:

3587: 6392: 4774: 4134: 3970: 3646: 3583: 2513: 2479: 2444: 2190: 1701: 1378: 1335: 996: 247:

for a couple of days. I think it will be helpful, as editors will spend less time blindly reverting each other and more time finding common points of agreement.

4865:. Somehow I really feel like just laughing at this and not thinking about it anymore all the sudden. I'm gonna go over to WP:3O and call off the outside opinion. 3540: 1587: 1386: 1368: 1244:, and the way that was written, I'm not so sure I would have deleted it as spam even if it were in article space. Spam is spam wherever it may be, but the bar is 5941:

I had another checkuser check things out to see if Rlevse was missing anything, and he wasn't. There just isn't enough data to draw any decent conclusions from.—

4372: 3653: 1627: 1599: 1563: 1204: 467: 5349:

It's not your job to decide that. If the name isn't immediately against the rules, you wait and see how they edit. I'm not even an admin and I understand this.

4701: 2929: 1215:

FYI, WP:CSD states that, in regards to general criteria, "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)." Thus a

806: 6124: 4397: 4016: 3997: 3569:

Need your help in creating this article. The aim is not to promote Lastminuteinventory.com but to bring to notice the new trend in media buying. Please guide.

2315: 6191: 5096: 4432: 2256:

there, the protection seems to be having somewhat of an effect in spurring conversation. If it's all the same to you, I'm inclined to let it run it's course.

1662:

Oops. Sorry about that, that was my first time doing that. I previewed it, and all looked ok, but I'll be sure and do that in the future, thanks for the tip!

1550: 1275: 1257: 1186: 1162: 1142: 1128: 1107: 1062: 363: 5185: 5042:

Beeblebrox, what you have there is a typical nationalist account created a few days ago making nonsense edits out of some sense of "patriotic duty". This is

4965: 4946: 4932: 4650: 4607: 3798:

Obvious/glaring problems with the version you seem to prefer were the lead (nothing like the Earl of Pembroke article) and citations. You might want to read

3625: 2986: 2219: 1963: 273: 197: 5691: 4470: 4334: 3172: 2719: 2664: 2038: 1757: 6146: 6131: 5708: 5671: 5570: 5553: 5498: 5480: 5466: 5448: 5426: 5409: 5395: 5373: 5358: 5295: 5281: 5266: 5248: 5176:

Thanks for stepping in, I was only asked to respond to request for protection, I did not intend to get involved in these unending disputes on the Balkans.

5171: 4980: 4842: 4485: 4342: 4273: 4197: 3851: 3761: 3735: 3721: 3347: 3305: 3246: 3226: 2882:

already blocked, with more than 100 accounts. People do not get blocked with more than 100 accounts for nothing. Secondly, you are desperately pushing for

2336: 2283: 2265: 2228: 2132: 1904: 1820: 1802: 1514: 1506: 1469: 1451: 1431: 1084: 962: 4111: 3482: 3469:

just put both pages on my watchlist, so I'll be able to help out in this regard whenever I'm online as well. If it spikes up badly again, re-report it at

3126: 2390: 1671: 1322: 986: 934: 885: 845: 732: 669: 586: 5140: 4919: 4905: 4886: 4828: 4642: 4150: 3892: 3815: 3700: 3425: 3411: 2085: 2071: 2000: 1924: 861: 648: 6362: 6315: 6239: 5859: 5844: 5829: 5638: 5344: 4800:

This is exactly the attitude that made me simply remove your previous message. This style of conversation may come across as witty or whatever when you

2945: 2873: 2357:

often likes going back to edit the pages of his old discarded socks, I had left this page unprotected (but on my watchlist) as bait. I have been using

2152:

There is unfortunately no way I can keep you from endorsing false and unreferenced information. I can however inform you that the keyword here is spelt

1023:

Not really sure what I want done at this point, other than to bring this person's poor behavior to the attention of the admins. Which I have now done.

120:. I was in the Kenai/Soldotna area during the fire and being from Pennsylvania, had never seen anything like that before. It was wild to say the least. 6264: 5926: 5908: 5740: 5599: 5539: 5522: 5161: 4748: 4595: 4576: 4562: 3561: 3083: 3008: 460: 399:

Looks like we sprotected it at the same time. Just to let you know that I've no problem with the 1 week instead of the 2 weeks I put on it at first. -

339: 328: 318: 145: 6459: 5726: 4215: 4183: 3109: 2970: 2813: 420: 6335: 6204: 4457:

Erik, I don't mean to be unfriendly, but you do not seem able of write in English at the level required for being here. You may want to consider the

4241: 4188:

Looks like he already re-created it on his own, and as I suspected it was instantly nominated again. I tagged it with {{underconstruction}} for now.

4142: 3458: 3180: 1846: 5088:, which is a Croatian fascist salute, he completely butchered the lead, removed sources, and added his own personal "interpretation" of that salute. 2751: 1522: 6252: 5961: 5761: 5717:

poor judgement-call on any further. (Edit: Just realizing I'm only a user and you're all admins, so my opinion probably doesn't matter here. o.o )

4725: 3369: 3326: 3282: 707: 640: 617: 4094: 6385: 6378: 5198: 4654: 4619: 2849: 2374: 2293: 2108: 2097: 1343: 758: 750: 431: 381: 343: 2782:

was banned for reverting the nonsense of this IP, while the IP itself is free to edit. Knowledge certainly has an admin problem in the field of

5070:(I am too, but I know Wiki :). Its a completely marginal alternative name for the language, not even used in Croatia (even Croatian Wiki uses " 4226: 1683: 6088:, a fictional character. I am not required to and will not be discussing my "real world" identity as it is not relevant to this conversation. 4318: 2914: 2895: 2763: 6158: 6073: 4340: 2894:

scholarly sources which represent the current consensus among academic specialists, replacing them with your own OR and unreliable accounts.

1785: 1722: 1456:

Allrighty. Having never tried to do any such thing myself, I didn't know there was such a notice. (I just tried so I could see it myself but

454: 326: 4309:

Oh i'm sorry Beeblebrox and Draeco. Yes, that spurious bot (Erik E VestBot) is a my bot. Help, freing he in order to can edit in Knowledge.

3957: 1234: 6415: 6223: 6217: 6109: 4686: 3187: 3147: 2381:

the desired effect I'll take it back off, it's basically an experiment to see if there's anything that will actually slow this loony down.

1697: 1656: 903: 715: 625: 541:, and there are no clean copies since then. The website claims copyright with no wikipedia compliant licence. I have listed the article at 6212: 5114: 2415: 1607: 4662: 4627: 3604:

all media platforms" is a large part of the reason the article was deleted. I suggest you try working on a new draft of the article as a

3599:

advertising, if I take your meaning correctly. Knowledge is not an instrument for announcing new trends, but rather an attempt to record

2563: 1748:

Like yourself, I didn't see any point in blocking them since they seemed to have stopped editing, that's really all I was trying to say.

5731:

No no no, if there's one thing we admins need it's feedback from "regular" users like yourself, your opinion is valued and appreciated.

2825: 2693: 1742: 1571: 4528: 4417: 2647: 2095: 1578:

websites in the creation of your original content. In short, use copyrighted material as a source of information but not of words. --

1307: 389: 6481: 5239:

them for that without even bothering to explain why to them. Clearly, we have vastly different understandings of the username policy.

3820:

Mugginsx, you seem to be missing one thing about my participation in this affair, so I suppose I will have to just be blunt about it:

2194: 819:

The creator (and main editor) of the article requested deletion on the AFD. The tag was csd-g7. The article should have been deleted.

176: 5790: 5653: 5225:

but if you really feel it's that bad consider leaving a message on their talk page asking them to change it, or use {{uw-username}}.

5216: 4502: 4451: 3883:

I understand your frustration, Knowledge can really make your head spin when you are a new user. Your apology is of course accepted.

3442: 2610: 2535: 1195:

PS. I just added a new section to the top of the Talk page that should help in case of future events like this, lmk what you think.--

565: 476: 233: 128: 6290: 4299: 4253: 3396: 3296:. I'd like to hear from GunmetalAngel in that discussion before unprotecting, but it's good that you were able to find that source. 2655:

I've just left the new account a welcome message, hopefully your words will be heeded and we'll get a good contributor out of this.

6166:

The reasoning you provided does not address the reason the article was deleted, it was written like advertising, as opposed to the

5984: 5891: 5745:

Your opinion matters exactly as much as any admin's. We're all only glorified janitors, after all :) Thanks for speaking up here -

3402:

Tag the page with {{subst:copyvio}}, and when you save the page the tag will blank the article and instruct you on how to proceed.

2795: 2509: 5326: 5098:- he completely ignored my explanation of how WP:COMMONAME works and simply went on to patronize me calling me a "communist" ("ex 4167: 2906:, what you are writing - via selective quoting and pseudo-scientific nonsense - is factually wrong and biased. It does not matter 1537:

anywhere in the world, even in a modified form. There are still some issues with the promotional tone of the article and your own

6560: 6552: 6547: 6535: 4707: 3556: 3502: 3192: 2984: 2778:. I have no idea why the admins are encouraging banned users to propagate factually wrong and nationalistic POV. A few days ago, 1416: 97: 89: 84: 72: 828: 403: 297: 256: 6530: 6522: 4997: 3433: 2459: 1858: 210:

Your image upload of Palni's house violates her privacy. It should not have been uploaded, and has been nominated for deletion.

67: 59: 6047: 5968:. I hope this is self-explanatory. Please feel free to amend or comment. No idea if it has legs, but I think its worth a try. 916: 6399: 5400:

As is baldly apparent from the above remarks, at least three other user do not feel that this was "beyond reasonable doubt."

4049: 3949: 2440: 2034: 4874: 3037: 2012: 1936: 6065: 5950: 5814: 5583:

templated them to explain the situation? The talk page is still redlinked, I notice. That's just completely unacceptable -

4368: 2557: 1494: 4794: 4633:

That looks like it would no longer qualify for speedy deletion to me. I think you can safely move into article space now.

2980:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1986: 744:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6154: 5031: 4026: 3254: 1267: 1226: 3726:

Yea, it really doesn't look to good right now. I'll flip it back to the version you noted and explain on the talk page.

3521: 2820:

I do understand your point. But again, I frankly ask you to at least semi-protect the article against IP POV. The IP is

793:

I understand all that, it does not change my feeling that the user was insufficiently warned. If they are a sockpuppet,

5093: 4547: 3579: 3520:

say, so from where I stand, he acted in good faith based on what you indicated, as he stated in his edit summary here:

3510: 3387:) - and that makes up more than 80% of the article. Perhaps you can tell me what the proper procedure is in this case. 3024:

Peter Daniel Struve was born December 14th 1952 in San Diego California. His family lived in Fullerton CA until 1990s.

2865: 2604: 2344: 2186: 2008: 1932: 1248:

relaxed for user subpages, as that is exactly what we ask users to do with articles that are not yet ready to go live.

507: 502: 5775:

Agreeing that this was a bad block. So what if they were thinking anatomy? It still doesn't blatantly cross the line.

4862: 466:

Following your dismissal of my speedy delete request for this article, I have done some more research. Please look at

1499: 1289: 1017: 763: 511: 1133:

Thanks very much for this information. I will relay it and see if they feel this needs done, and get back to you. --

683:

I’d like you to carefully ready the UHSA article and confirm for resources used. For example, the 11th reference –

6247: 5979: 5783: 5634: 5566: 5535: 5494: 5462: 5422: 5391: 5340: 5212: 4249: 3446: 3231:

I appreciate your support to move forward. results to follow if the original author on board. ill keep you updated.

3000: 2030: 1854: 1444: 1409: 224: 4304: 4102:

I'm satisfied from that response that he understands what a serious situation it is when one makes legal threats.

2234:

Hello Beeblebrox. I noticed your full protection of this article. A complaint about this article is still open at

5704: 4713: 3105: 494: 3639: 3632: 3449:. I've had to revert a sockpuppeteer's vandalism on both articles for several months now, and I'm tired of it. – 1422:

I'm afraid I still don't get it. I get it about the username, but how does one "not succeed" at making an edit?

6012: 6007: 4043: 2433: 2426: 2403: 1614:

have to find a way to say it in your own words. For example "Matt Furey is a fitness celebrity originally from

3710: 3332:

You blocked Gunmetal and Gaudium from editing I See Stars? Hmm. I guess if that solves everything, it works.--

2587: 2396: 6113: 6016: 5059: 2303: 1763: 1098:

Regarding the removal of that section of the talk page, I'm thinking that wouldn't be ethical, am I right? --

691:

The above is not true; the NAAHP never made these claims and you can confirm this by visiting their website.

2829: 2634: 2575: 1030:

I just wanted to make the admins aware this was going on. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

516: 6510: 5696:

Agree with the sentiments above. The bad block was compounded by the hardblock and lack of notification.

5435:

And also please explain why this warranted a hard block instead of simply asking them to change it if it's

5037: 3937: 2581: 1633: 594: 542: 47: 17: 4731:

I'm not sure why you asked me in particular to look at this, but I don't think it's a valid candidate for

3062:

where you can work on the article until it meets the basic criteria for an article, including citing some

2622: 5999: 4601: 3552: 3498: 2019: 1382: 1339: 6021: 5431:

You are (deliberately) missing the point. please explain clearly how it violated these policy sections:

4073: 2062:

Don't worry, it didn't fool me, while you were leaving this message, I was indef blocking the account.

1225:

tag should not be removed simply because it's a user page or subpage. Spam in user space is still spam.

6501: 6197: 6130: 3267:

doesn't continue to war with Gaudium. we should just make a rule that you need a citation for genres.--

3132: 2689: 2628: 2569: 1708: 1603: 1567: 1328: 977:

Yes, the issue is moot, but I nevertheless appreciate your effort in responding to my request. Cheers.

528: 38: 6324:

Knowledge:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion#11._Blatant_spam Field guide to proper speedy deletion

5660: 4061: 6467: 6443:

need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! --

6251:

username reports or speedy deletions or whatever... And if you like my proposal, feel free to say so

6052: 4682: 2045: 1210: 779: 437: 375: 105: 5223:

offended by that word that they would feel they couldn't work around someone with it in their name,

1638:

You should have know that when you add a protection template to another template, like you did with

6069: 6033: 4364: 4279: 3930: 3195:. if you have any objections to this please let me know. i am not trying to step on any toes here. 2727: 2616: 2551: 1283: 459: 5131:

the protection. (if this happens and I'm not around I don't mind if another admin does it either)

205: 6270: 6170:

expected in an encyclopedia article. I suggest you try working on a new version of the page as a

6150: 5869: 4413: 4141: 2684:

again and take it t o AfD, if you disagree with my attitude. Thank you, have a nice day. Antonín

2672: 2472: 2465: 1727: 1518: 1510: 1271: 1230: 1200: 1158: 1138: 1103: 1041: 445: 288:

Please revert to the more inclusive version "18:37, 20 September 2009 Verbal (talk | contribs)" -

6349:

on the other hand. If you have questions, there's always lively conversation on these topics at

4653:. If you know anyone that you'd like to review it, please feel free. Thank you for your help. -- 2836:

was banned permanently for reverting the POV of this IP (who, by now, has 100+ sockpuppets; see

703:

The above is a broken link. From the above, the “Controversy and criticism” is no longer valid.

6358: 6311: 6260: 6187: 6120: 5904: 5855: 5825: 5736: 5667: 5649: 5549: 5476: 5444: 5405: 5369: 5277: 5244: 5230: 5181: 5168: 5136: 4962: 4942: 4929: 4901: 4870: 4838: 4824: 4744: 4697: 4667: 4638: 4558: 4481: 4466: 4428: 4393: 4330: 4269: 4193: 4179: 4127: 4120: 4107: 4067: 3993: 3888: 3847: 3731: 3696: 3621: 3548: 3536: 3494: 3478: 3407: 3374: 3301: 3260: 3242: 3222: 3206: 3168: 3122: 3079: 2966: 2869: 2809: 2715: 2660: 2598: 2540: 2386: 2332: 2261: 2215: 2067: 2004: 1982: 1959: 1928: 1900: 1798: 1753: 1667: 1623: 1546: 1465: 1427: 1364: 1318: 1253: 1182: 1124: 1080: 1058: 958: 930: 881: 841: 802: 728: 665: 582: 481: 416: 314: 269: 252: 193: 172: 141: 6472:…sorry about that, crazy busy at work. Once I saw how overdue it was, I closed it. Thanks! -- 2206:

it, I simply declined to speedy delete it because you did not provide a valid criteria. Try a

6451: 5687: 5308: 5197: 5127: 4879:

Hhahah -thnks- hwne i get to elible fst kebord i will try to offer a more cohrent explanation

4612: 4498: 4447: 4314: 3941: 3143: 2918: 2856: 2685: 2644: 2529: 2502: 2495: 2406:, it probably does not require much more action than keeping a watchful eye out. Regards, — 2128: 1764: 1738: 1639: 1583: 1436:

They are shown the warning about the edit they are trying to make and they don't click save.

561: 524: 394: 359: 5454:

account User:Penis4543424: accounts like that "show a clear intent to disrupt Knowledge." --

5311:

gone wild. "Nipple" is not an offensive word. There are numerous uses of the word that do

4082:

while waiting for a comment from you. He seems to have retracted his legal threat. Regards,

3964:

from Ohio, just as the band is. I don't know, I'm not gonna push anything any further... --

6208: 6142: 6061: 5974: 5776: 5631: 5563: 5532: 5491: 5459: 5419: 5388: 5354: 5337: 5291: 5262: 5209: 4767: 4760: 4678: 4590: 4439: 4403: 4356: 4245: 4237: 4225: 4055: 3811: 3757: 3717: 3575: 3384: 3363: 3341: 3320: 3276: 3117:

Uh, is that a question? If so you need to try again because it doesn't exactly make sense.

3093: 3004: 2996: 2350: 2311: 2279: 2243: 2145: 1996: 1920: 1850: 1842: 1816: 1781: 1533: 1437: 1402: 771: 281: 220: 153: 5414:.... what, he was thinking "Oh, I'm a mechanic, I'll refer to the nipples on an axle"!? -- 538: 8: 6326:

also mentions tone so I guess ive just never encountered an article that is actual spam.

6029: 5955: 4360: 4011: 3965: 3952: 3454: 3264: 3101: 2766:, but if I revert him, I'll probably get blocked by some admin. The IP is that of banned 2546: 2411: 2370: 2327:

know about how it works... Anyway, I just went and made that change, thanks for the tip!

2116: 1652: 1300: 1115: 998: 982: 912: 857: 824: 711: 644: 621: 520: 498: 449: 6108:

in order to solicit contributions. You are welcome to comment at the deletion debate at

4952: 6350: 6081: 5989: 5936: 5052: 4977: 4916: 4883: 4855: 4791: 4658: 4623: 4409: 4037: 3918: 3903: 3873: 3782: 3669: 3421: 3392: 3380: 3138:

domain. This is my nickname and abbreviation of the country where you edit. Regards. --

3071: 3028: 2489: 2420: 2081: 2053: 1977:

A blog is not a reliable source. Please take your hollow, laughable threats elsewhere.

1887: 1733:

edited since, I have just moved it to the holding pen (I doubt he will again, either).

1556: 1490: 1196: 1154: 1134: 1099: 1037: 385: 347: 163:. He keeps removing stolen bases from his infobox and silly little nonsense like that. 6575: 5315:

refer to human anatomy. Hardblocking this username was a breach of AGF. Good grief.

1146:

I just received this from Dr. Steel's close friend Kato (who runs his fan club site):

6477: 6331: 6286: 6085: 6025: 5840: 5810: 5321: 3951:

Can you do something about this, please? He's the general cause of the edit wars. --

2837: 2593: 2048:. He doesn't seem to accept his indefinite block. I have already filed a SPI report. 1396: 1356: 1053:

I've gotta leave for a few hours, but I'll have a look when I get back this evening.

814: 534: 438: 248: 168: 113: 106: 5439:

offensive, and why you did not bother to inform them in any way on their talk page.

3493:

Certainly, as long as he does not revert my edits, continuing the edit war with me.

1505:

hopes that if I need to make changes that you (plural) might talk first. Thank you.

6444: 6439: 6431: 6235: 6043: 5922: 5887: 5874:

No, not the hair remover. (shows how culturally unaware I am..) Can you review the

5722: 5683: 5678: 4988: 4893: 4721: 4494: 4458: 4443: 4310: 4295: 4287: 4280: 4078:, whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is 3139: 2783: 2728: 2641: 2523: 2358: 2124: 2104: 1734: 1677: 1579: 1219: 639:) holds a personal grudge and biased views against this particular medical school. 355: 335: 293: 6372: 4951:

Haha, nah. I've had the same problem when I was over there, especially in Turkey.

1334:

time. I'll change it if I must, but as I said I'd like to keep it the way it is. -

1240:

True, but to delete a newly created user subpage at the drop of a hat seems awful

6354: 6307: 6278: 6271: 6256: 6183: 6116: 6003: 5969: 5900: 5851: 5821: 5732: 5663: 5645: 5627: 5559: 5545: 5528: 5487: 5472: 5455: 5440: 5415: 5401: 5384: 5365: 5350: 5333: 5287: 5273: 5258: 5240: 5226: 5205: 5177: 5132: 4938: 4897: 4866: 4834: 4820: 4740: 4693: 4634: 4585: 4554: 4477: 4462: 4424: 4389: 4380:

I don't think this article qualifies for speedy deletion at all. You might try a

4326: 4290:'s problems. I'll extend a hand, but it's up to him to take it. Here's hoping. - 4265: 4209: 4189: 4175: 4161: 4103: 4010:

Will do, but everything seems fine at the moment, thank you for your concern. --

3989: 3884: 3843: 3807: 3753: 3727: 3713: 3692: 3617: 3532: 3474: 3403: 3356: 3334: 3313: 3297: 3269: 3238: 3218: 3202: 3164: 3160: 3118: 3075: 2962: 2941: 2845: 2805: 2791: 2711: 2681: 2673: 2656: 2455: 2382: 2328: 2307: 2275: 2257: 2239: 2211: 2063: 1978: 1955: 1896: 1833: 1812: 1794: 1777: 1749: 1663: 1619: 1542: 1461: 1423: 1360: 1314: 1249: 1178: 1120: 1076: 1054: 1027:

didn't think that would be ethical, especially if it didn't come from an admin.)

954: 926: 897: 877: 837: 798: 757:

Hello Beeblebrox. It has come to my attention that you had rejected my report of

724: 661: 636: 578: 412: 310: 265: 216: 189: 137: 6509:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5235:

Sorry, I just checked up on them and realized you are an admin and you actually

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6303: 6167: 6105: 6101: 5875: 5795: 5698: 5380: 5149: 5085: 5075: 5063: 4736: 4673: 4381: 4085: 3803: 3799: 3470: 3450: 3097: 3055: 2961:

This has been reported to several noticeboards and will not be re-hashed here.

2775: 2771: 2767: 2407: 2366: 2207: 2112: 1883: 1648: 1541:

on the subject as well, but those can be discussed on the article's talk page.

1294: 1241: 978: 908: 853: 820: 546: 490: 482: 238: 6346: 6299: 6171: 5946: 5155: 5123: 5108: 5027: 4974: 4955: 4913: 4880: 4852: 4788: 4385: 4032: 3985: 3914: 3899: 3869: 3839: 3778: 3688: 3684: 3665: 3613: 3605: 3524: 3417: 3388: 3089:

it is ok - wikipu it to difficult do we just link to his website. Thank you

3059: 2883: 2701:

The new article is better than the deleted version, and does not qualify for

2295: 2235: 2137: 2120: 2077: 2049: 1895:

blank out or refactor other users talk and replace it with your own. Thanks.

1867: 1615: 1538: 1486: 1479: 1072: 794: 657: 470:, and if possible reconsider your claim that notability is asserted. Thanks. 444:

Protecting the article wasn't exactly nessesary, you couldv'e simply blocked

368: 351: 228: 185: 4615:. Is this a suitable article? Is this the right place to ask that question? 2755: 836:

I stand by the reasoning I gave in my edit summary. What's the rush anyway?

6586: 6473: 6327: 6282: 6175: 6097: 5836: 5806: 5316: 5122:

If your desired result was that he be blocked, you should have reported at

4815: 4781: 3981: 3977: 3835: 3680: 3528: 3063: 2887: 2860: 2833: 2779: 2754:: No, the IP is still around, falsifying articles and propagating POV. See 2146: 1947: 1871: 1772: 472: 282: 160: 6231: 6227: 6179: 6093: 6039: 5918: 5883: 5746: 5718: 5584: 5507: 5106:

lower the protection level. The guy should probably be blocked anyway. --

5005: 4717: 4570: 4541: 4521: 4507: 4291: 3293: 1951: 1879: 1875: 289: 122: 117: 3048: 2759: 6435: 5995: 4204: 4156: 3488: 2937: 2841: 2787: 2451: 1910: 1457: 632: 428: 400: 6341: 6340:

Usually such articles are overloaded with superlative adjectives and

4958: 3945: 1886:

as opposed to the blatant advertising that was the previous version.

3830:

going to get involved in the actual content dispute. Again, for the

1594: 136:

Thanks for the feedback, hope you enjoyed Alaska despite the smoke!

5942: 5882:? I think it needs another set of eyes to take a fresh look at it. 5023: 3464:

The thing is that protecting a page is something we don't actually

2165: 244: 4583:

I think that that is a fair summary, well done for taking it on.

2161: 346:

with the following edit summary '(source added)'. Please consider

5682:

change their name, I cannot see how this called for a hardblock.

5079: 4352:

the claims are cited or ref by independent third party sources.

2157: 2025: 411:

I already changed it back since you were apparently there first.

3834:, if you are not satisfied with how this is progressing, pursue 3163:

but certain conditions which are detailed there have to be met.

5253:

Yeah, way to assume good faith there. If they've actually been

5067: 5014:

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

4606:

Hello, it looks like you marked my prior attempt at creating a

4513: 3017:

Tell you what, here is the entire text of the deleted arrticle:

2274:

After a second look I agree with you. Full protection is fine.

2169: 1866:

In short, no. I would suggest you try re-creating it as a user

380:

Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for your message and informations.

6174:

until this problem has been overcome, and be sure to add some

4442:

in shares of about Ganti Nama of why may Indonesian language?

943:

I just checked, and someone did just that, so I guess this is

4539:

Dang, this defaults to the masculine pronoun. Ah well... ;)

3612:. I would also advise you to read up on our policy regarding 6408: 6395:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

4777:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

4692:

According to my clock it should expire in about 20 minutes.

4264:

once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page.

4137:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3649:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2516:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2482:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2447:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1704:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

767: 5879: 5099: 4937:

Are you sure he's not just really, really drunk? (kidding)

1153:

Let me know if and how we can proceed from here. Thanks. --

3826:. My only concern here was in stopping the edit war, I am 3679:

As I've suggested before, it is probably time to consider

2890:, ignoring the consensus among experts. You have actively 2156:, which is a dairy based dish typical to the districts of 537:

problems. The original article is a copy of part of this,

5486:

account). The pages get deleted within a month anyway. --

2365:, and have caught about a half-dozen accounts so far. — 3616:

in order to make sure you do not have one in this case.

3385:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200111_Whitewash_Eng.pdf

1016:

posts anonymously, but always from the same IP address (

116:

article. I just came across it while doing some work on

3047:

In 2008 Peter had a VERY minor role in Michael Frost's

5383:

when you disagree with someone's username decision. --

2705:

deletion. The old version did because it did not have

876:

be done. There's no harm in letting the AFD continue.

6384: