User talk:^demon/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Spring cleaning?

Well, it would be, if you lived Down Under. If you still have energy left after this whirlwind of housecleaning on your userpage, please consider coming over to help me get rid of old magazines, books I'll never read again, and bric-a-brac I've been too sentimental to throw away. Not that my userpage has this problem.... (Drat, maybe I should have paid you that $50 to find out how far away you live before asking, but then I've never dealt with PayPal.) Pardon my snotty cheerful irrelevance and irreverence; when a neighbor beats the dusty parlour rug out on the front lawn, I'm the brat who'll shout "ouch!" at each stroke, or sing something to the rhythm, so perhaps you're getting off easy by comparison.   ;) – SAJordan talkcontribs 05:38, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC).

In reply to your reply: suggestions? Dunno; you can see I haven't done much with my own (it started with the single line "An occasional visitor"); but I look at beautiful userpages like Essjay's and take mental notes, learning wikicoding from their example. I'm sure you've seen pages you admired as much; as Heinlein said of storywriting techniques, steal from the best and file off the serial numbers. I don't know whether our tastes are similar, so any other suggestion I make might be useless to you. That said, at the moment I'm leaning toward a utilitarian userpage for myself that can fit on one screen, so if I add much more information, I'd probably use small text in multiple columns, with few and small (if any) graphic elements or boxes. This would be much less pretty than a userpage like Essjay's, so the idea probably demonstrates either a deficient aesthetic sense or a low aesthetic priority on my part. (Also, currently I'm indef-blocked from Commons on a false charge of "making threats", so I can't add my own graphics.) – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:01, 30 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Elaragirl has also recently redesigned her userpage, very nicely, so take a look there. – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:01, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Diana Ross Playground

My contribution was not vandalism, please see the talk section of said article for my arguments about what Bernhardt was saying and why is diva (negative and unsourced usage) okay but bitch not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.100.99 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC).


Diana Ross

My words are not nonsense, you obviously cannot read English.

see talk thereof--24.183.100.99 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Immediate intervention needed

One of the signatories to the mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to act in bad faith, by continuing to unilaterally move hundreds of articles, without consensus or any attempt to proceed through WP:RM. Do you have any authority to request a block, or to put a "freeze" on such moves while the mediation process is on-going? Or what other action do you recommend? Multiple attempts to ask Yaksha to stop have not been successful, and I am concerned that unless there is immediate intervention, Yaksha is just going to continue on, moving hundreds more pages, escalating the dispute and further complicating the situation. --Elonka 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a block at WP:ANI, in case you would like to participate: WP:ANI#Requesting block for non-consensus page moves. --Elonka 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.  :) --Elonka 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Yaksha is not complying. :/ Do you have a recommendation for a next step? --Elonka 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I think. At least: My understanding, is that MEDCOM has no official authority on anything, it can only make recommendations, but it's entirely voluntary as to whether or not anyone has to pay attention to those recommendations, correct? At no point (to my knowledge) did I say that anything coming out of MedCom was binding, nor did I say that you'd given any kind of "ruling" on the guideline. There are a few people claiming that I said all kinds of things, but there have been a lot of bogus "Elonka said" claims throughout this process.  ;) In reality, I believe that I've been trying to be very careful as to my interpretation of what you said, and I've been very carefully always linking to diffs as backup.[1][2][3][4][5] If you think that anything that I said was misleading, I do apologize, and would blame it on the "hurried" nature of my posts. This "time pressure" situation is frustrating, as rather than having a day or so to contemplate an action, it seems that rapid responses are necessary because of how quickly these moves are being pushed through.
In any case, I see that the mediation was rejected, which saddens me. :/ If you do have any recommendations for how to further proceed at this point, I would be most grateful for any advice. --Elonka 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"MedCom has confirmed that there is not currently consensus, and has issued a "cease and desist" on further moves" Gee, that sure sounds like you said they've given a "ruling". --Milo H Minderbinder 13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I apologize if my comments to you were harsh, one in particular was made in response to what was claimed that you said instead of what you actually said. I didn't go back and read your original comment before posting my response, and that was a mistake on my part. I respect your opinion, thanks for the clarification. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination?

Ok, you said you fixed the page where I blanked my nomination. I really dont even want anyone to know I ever nominated myself... I'm actually quite embarrassed I did that, with what little experience I have. That's why I blanked the page. I dont even want there to be a record of it...Any way you can remove it?--Cookie 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, ^demon. I would advise against blanking it and instead leave it as a normal archive, although I think that either way would be acceptable, as long as a statement is placed to look in the history. (I'm not sure if his intention is to not have the page viewable at first, or just not in the records, but if you do decide to keep it blanked, I would recommend at least having a link to the history on the page.) However, I'm inclined to keep the nomination as it is: it will always be in the history, and attempting to hide it wouldn't really achieve anything, in my opinion. We could instead explain to him that if he continues making good contributions, it's unlikely that anyone would bring up a failed nomination here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Landmark Education

While I support the effort of folks to resolve the dispute I don't consider myself to be an involved party. As I said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Landmark Education, I've only been slightly enagaged, mostly some talk page comments a month ago. If you as mediator think that my participation in the mediation would help then I'd be willing to then I'll be happy to help. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: Resubmit or edit original?

Hi there. I have a question about a mediation request I recently put up: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Toyotomi_Hideyoshi. Unfortunately, I didn't include the names of the "Involved Parties" as I thought they'd do that themselves as/if they agreed to mediatation. My question is whether I can edit that mediation request page or should I resubmit it from scratch? Thanks. Geeman 10:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

MediationBot

Ah, thanks for fixing that. —ShadowHalo 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request Regarding Octothorp

  • I've had my inclusion of the above term, at the top of the article, on the Number sign reverted twice by the same Wikipedian. Can you please intervene and ressolve the dispute?
Also, my opponent has defended his position on his talk page, instead of the Artcle.
Essentially, my position is that WP policy frawns up self-research or opinions. Since I have established that Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines octothorp as the term whose meaning is the symbol #, User:Dicklyon must accept my position to include the term next to Number sign.
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature and Xmas Box

Hi. thanks for the messages and I've now stopped putting the Merry Christmas boxes while welcoming the new users, thanks for letting me know about the server information, if you wouldnt mind, would you please revert the merry xmas box if you can or do whatever you were going to do, anyway thanks for your advice, also another thing: how do you change your signature becuase I noticed yours is 'demon' then 'omg plz' which is a link to your talk page and your user page, so I would be appreciative if you could tell me how so I could change mine. Thanks!

Regards..........Tellyaddict 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Help on the Signatures

Hi, I've tried to change my signature with the help of your code and I did it successfully once and now when I sign my name it keeps repeating the time, day and date so it appears twice, and I don't understand how to stop this from happening and now its not appearing (my signature so I have had to write my name instead of sigining it), please help! Thanks.........Tellyaddict

Your talk page

Could you check this page, since you have managed to add it to Category:WikiProject Fire Service, which is not quite correct. You are probably using the articel template instead of the user template - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fire_Service#Project_templates --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, with the help of you I finally can get my signature working again, you were right, it was not working because I was signing pages with four tildes and it was signing my signature and putting the date on twice and putting my whole user page as my singature! It'll take me a while to get used to typing three tildes on the keyboard instead of just clicking on four on the Wikipedia tools. Anyway; thanks for your help and quick relpies. Thanks; and have a Merry Christmas! TellyaddictTalk 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I do the NYC to Virginia trip often, but send me an e-mail, i'll put your name on the e-mail list, you'll keep updated, and if you can come up for something, feel free to come up. I imagine "commitment" will be very loose with us —ExplorerCDT 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

About your club

I live nowhere near New York, only coming up there to visit my family sometimes. Thanks for the offer, though!--CJ King 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I meant to talk to the person above me. Sorry!!--CJ King 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Evolution

How is that the very people that are censoring the discussion are allowed to quash the mediation? How is this possible? The people that are accused of conspiring to keep the discussion as they see fit are the ones that are allowed to say "Naw, we don't want to arbitrate, we don't want to get into trouble for abusing our powers."

Can you explain this to me? What will ever happen to mods that abuse their power? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Med Com Nominations

Good evening (GMT time); I hope you're having a nice night. Just dropping by to let you know I've posted my nomination at the Meditation Committee nominations area, in the event that you choose to support, oppose or otherwise comment on my nomination.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 22:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My problems

Ah, thanks. Well, can I send you an e-mail? I'd like to tell you my problems with a mail. Sergeant Gerzi 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've sent you a mail. Give me a shout if you haven't received it. Sergeant Gerzi 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you received my mail? Sergeant Gerzi 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've sent you another mail. Sergeant Gerzi 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nudging along a case

Good morning (GMT time); as you may know, I am not a member of the Mediation Commitee. However, seeing that a case was being delayed because one participant had not given his consent to having a non-medcom member mediating his case, I decided to act upon this.

I hope that this is acceptable by your standards; if not, I am happy to revert my invitation to the user.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UoP mediation

Any additional guidance you could give would be appreciated. N6 08:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Pending Cases

Good afternoon (GMT time); there are a number of pending cases at Requests for Mediation. I would be more than willing to take one on - it would benefit the Committee by clearing part of the RfM backlog, and benefit me as it would help demonstrate to the Committee my mediation abilities pending my current nomination.

However, the acceptance of the case requires a member of the committee, and therefore I am requesting a case. I would be more than happy to take any case accepted, but I do have my eye on this one and I'd get started immediately if it was accepted.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have offered to take WP:MEDCOM/Jews for Jesus 2. Would you care to reject or approve as you see fit, on behalf of the Mediation Committee?
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I'd like to say I'm glad my noms gave me a good summary and that my answers to the questions were found helpful; with any luck all my future comments will be similarly constructive. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buddy

Hey demon,

I liked your User page info, I'd like to get to know you better can we talk?

Cheers Za

Return

Thanks!. I saw a couple items waiting there for a while. Should be easy enough. -Ste|vertigo 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I like you!

You're funny.:)NinaOdell | Talk 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

About blocking vandals

The warning ladder does not apply when you are clearly being disruptive and making personal attacks. The edits you referred to by 199.111.20.34, especially the last ones, are indefensible. WP:RBI. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee nomination

Good morning (GMT time); I see that you have opposed my nomination to the Mediation Committee. This position means a lot to me, and so I'd greatly appreciate any feedback from you (such as key reasons for failure) so that I can learn from yourself, and improve as a Mediator and Wikipedian.

In particular I'd appreciate any comments that you have on the current Mediation Committee case that I am mediating, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus (2).

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

John Edward mediation

Hi ^demon, I got back from my trip, but I'm totally sick and won't be able to participate until I get better. Probably a few days at most - I hope! I havn't even looked at any of it, I don't want to get sucked into it and make my recovery take even longer... :) Thanks! 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ^demon! I appreciate your putting in the mediation delay. Don't catch this flu, it's terrible. I'm still recovering, but hope to be back in action in a couple of days. I'm supposed to travel again next week, but I'll try to particpate from my destination - if the mediation starts by then. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to feel much better and am slowly starting to contribute again! Thanks so much for your help and understanding! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm back to normal, so if you want to take the case off hold, I'm ready to go! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Aline Murray Kilmer

Hi there. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you over on Aline Murray Kilmer, because that would be petty. However, you may wish also to 'correct' the sentence immediately before the one you edited, which reads "...she graduated in 1908", thus keeping usage consistent within the article. Have a sparkly nice day. — mholland 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How strange... that comment wasn't meant for you at all! Ignore me, I've clearly gone slightly mad. — mholland 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

...Actually, no, I'm not mad. User:ExplorerCDT appears to have copied your talk page header and left the new discussion link pointing here. — mholland 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions

Hi ^demon, thanks for instructions for accepting and declining mediation cases. Sorry for troubling to fix all of them. I would take care of it from now. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Thanks for repairing: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Travb (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

you rock! Thanks for all your help.
The Working Man's Barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks.

Thanks for making sure the mediation page works flawlessly, a job that I personally would never want to do.

Hats off to you! Travb (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfM/Religious Significance of Jerusalem

Good evening; I've placed a request at the above page, in the hope of assisting the Mediation Committee in another case. I am completely unwilling to mediate it without the complete permission of the Committee, and, since you are the original Committee member who accepted the case, I am placing this request on your talk page.

I've placed a few notes on the request page, regarding my other case, etc... which are quite important.

Awaiting your response,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you delete the request for mediation for African American Vernacular English?

I plan on refiling the request for mediation for the article African American Vernacular English, it was rejected because only one party was listed as being involved although two had signed up to mediate. I forgot to add the other party to the 'involved parties'. I want to re-request a mediation but when I try it just takes me to that same page. So could you please delete it so I can refile it? Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English Wikidudeman (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How can a user be banned from editing a page?

I am requesting User Sean D Martin be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article. Not only has he distorted facts, but he constantly attacks users, even the person the article is about. Please help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cle0patr4 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I recently posted a mediation request...

Was it rejected because I didn't add content to that request? It's my first time doing something like that and am just now learning about this stuff. I never this big a problem in other pages I edited.--Iamstillhiro1112 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok,

So how do I go about fixing that, am I able to edit the original page, or do I have to create a new one?--Iamstillhiro1112 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/John Edward

I just noticed that the request was "on hold" because Dreadlocke contacted you saying that he was 'feeling a bit under the weather'. However Dreadlocke has been posting frequently since then. I do believe that the mediation should start back up again because right now the Article could use some major edits that might conflict with this mediation.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User Dreadlocke seems to be well now. He said he was feeling 'under the weather' 3 weeks ago and has been contributing often since then. I wanted to see the mediation continue because I wanted to remove the "POV dispute" tag from the top of the John Edward article. No one has justified it's being there.Wikidudeman (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your !vote regarding the one-man-one-woman userbox

Hi, regarding your !vote on the one-man-one-woman userbox. I respect your opinion, but Quentin Smith has brought up a very essential issue. Basically your !vote seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, knowing and showing one's bias is important, especially when one is on the mediation comittee. Anyway, should I ever find myself in a situation that requires mediation I hope you won't mind if I turn to you. Best Wishes! CharonX/talk 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So, do I wait?

Sorry to ask again demon, but trying to request for that Ermac mediation again brings me up to the Rejected request page. So can you comment on what I need to do? Should I simply wait until that page is removed? Cause from what I understand tr;ying to edit that article is bad.--Iamstillhiro1112 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lang-de

I have un-deprecated the template. Can you undo your edits that replaced it until there is consensus on the Template talk:Lang-de that it should be in fact deprecated? Unlike a TFD discussion, the addition of the "deprecated" category to a template is an action that can be done without consensus or discussion and without notifying the users of the template, so I don't think the template should be replaced by a bot. Kusma (討論) 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward mediation

Oh, yes ^demon, I'm ready to rumble with the mediation! I left you two messages that I was well, and ready to go on Jan 31st and on Feb 13th,[6], [7]. I guess I left them in the wrong place on your talk page? I'm not sure why this is upsetting wikidudeman so much, since he has played no part in it. I believe his interest in this may have been enhanced due to a recent dispute he and I had over what I viewed as his uncivil remarks. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation

Do you have a comment on my response to your criticism? I'd like to gain consensus to move forward with an experimental try of the proposal. Several members of the arbitration committee and Jimbo have supported the idea and six volunteers have stepped forward to become trainee mediators. If there's anything specific that I haven't considered yet and need to adjust, please let me know on the proposal talk page. It's a bit confusing to follow your comments since you refer to another proposal at the same time. Cordially, DurovaCharge! 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RfM

Thanks for letting me know, Chad. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know also. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MC Chair

Echoing what I've said a couple of times on the mailing list, congratulations on your appointment[8], and I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job. Again, repeating myself, "...if you need anything adminy done, my talk page/email is ever-welcoming :)". Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Housecleaning

I filled the form out right. Chuck Marean 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Also, These images are needed for the article I'm writing. Please undelete them. I can not take these pictures myself.

  • Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg
  • Image:Scrub sponges.jpg
  • Image:Yarn toilet brush.jpg

-- Chuck Marean 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the other party doesn't want mediation, should the mediation notice be removed from the article's page? I guess permission is needed for those images, since I could theoretically buy the procucts and take the pictures myself. What I want to know is how to reserve a name for an article, since it will eventually be ready for peer review.--Chuck Marean 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hi ^demon,

Just to alert you to this: It's probably unwise to substitute your sig. It places unecessary toll on the servers, and it's much more conservative to simply place the code in the appropriate field in your user preferences, and to check the "raw signature" checkbox. Thanks! Geekman314(contact me) 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay quote

I didn't want to reply to your comment on Essjay's talk page because I felt it deserved to stand by itself unmolested. I just wanted to say that on more than one occassion over the last few days I've thought about that quote of Essjay's and have wished he'd simply followed his own advice. Cheers, —Doug Bell talk 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all too true, but it doesn't make the quote any less profound or applicable. ^demon[omg plz] 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably so, although there is often a contradiction between "better", "happier" and "more firendly". Sometimes, the process of making something better does not make it happier, and vice versa—particularly when considered only in the short term. While the Essjay affair has certainly done nothing to make Wikipedia happier or more friendly, at least not today, I do hope it has served to make it better, at least for tomorrow. —Doug Bell talk 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MediationBot

I've temporarily unblocked this bot account, as your statement suggests that the project is being adversley affected by this block. We can not have bot's running without accountable operators though. I plan on reblocking this bot in 10 days if an owner is not established as having control of the account. This can be done by having the bot log in and edit it's page to reflect the new operator. (Or the old operator can return). Essjay specificaly stated that his bots "will no longer be running." and "My tools will be taken down shortly" so this unblocking may not start the bot back up. We have been speedily approving activation or trials of bots to replace Essjay's bot at WP:RFBOT, you may request a new bot there. Let me know if you have any other needs. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then I'm reblocking the old account. See my note at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MediationBot1 though, about gettnig the old name. — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paytakaran

I don't understand why you would want to delete evidence that non-admins need to use for the ArbCom. Why would this charter say this? Do you mind if I recreate it in my userpace at least? Khoikhoi 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cases

Hi ^demon. I was wondering why there haven't been any new cases added for mediation recently. Does it have something to do with the bot, or what? Regards. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ^demon - I just felt I'd better note that the bot has automatically deleted the category you added earlier. I'll change the code of the bot at the weekend (or later) to allow that category to be included. Martinp23 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sulla mediation

Understood about the limitation of the mediation committee's remit. Thanks for the interest. I'm not interested enough in Sulla to research and source corrections myself, I am however interested in NPOV and compromise. Cheers Vincent 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the case. I have a few questions.

  • What is the next step?
  • Who is the mediator? Are you the mediator or will you find a mediator or must we find a mediator?
  • Where and how does the debate happen? On the Rfm page? On the target talk page? On the mediator's talk page? Via email? All of the above?

I am very tempted to revert immediately Sulla16's last edit, but I'll hold off a few days to give the process a chance. Cheers, Vincent 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism Mediation

Hi,

A number of editors were discussing this mediation and its scope on the discussion page, and one editor Timeshifter, wanted to be removed from the mediation list. Before I had a chance to do this, the mediation was closed, even though a number of editors on several sides of the issue wanted to move forward. Simply be de-referencing one page and trimming the list of editors, this mediation could have been very constructive. I realize what you did was technically correct, but now what is the next step for those of us who still wat a mediation? If we trim down the range of pages and issues, can we open up another mediation request? Thanks. --Cberlet 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Inbox Alert

Good evening (GMT time); when you've got a spare minute, would you mind checking your Inbox? Thanks, and hope you're well.

anthonycfc [talk] 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Hey. Your bot is subst'ing templates that are actually un-substitutable, e.g. [9]. Matthew 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It certainly shouldn't have been created, I can't see any benefit from it :-\, anyhow, cheers for fixing it :-). Matthew 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining TFD nominations

Do you mind combining your template nominations here? Due to WP:MULTI, it's best to not have discussion about very similar topics in the same place. GracenotesT § 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot error

Demonbot2 was replacing a lot of {{cleanup-date}} tags with {{cleanup|date=}}, which doesn't work. Can this be undone by the bot? Or should we change the cleanup template to take a date= argument (currently, it takes an argument, but it works like {{cleanup|February 2007}})? Mangojuicetalk 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From Ep TFD

  • Delete per copyvio, name of template, un-needed server strain, etc. I was bold and went ahead and subst'd all the instances of it. Apparently you can't just substitute the template...reverting my bot's edits... ^demon[omg plz] 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may find the Special:ExpandTemplates interface useful for "substing" templates that get like that. --Random832 13:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Question

Hi! Last month, I attempted to join the committee, but was found not to be experienced enough. Essjay invited me to volunteer for cases "when you (me) see the backlog tag go up." Consequently, I either do not patrol the page enough or you folks are very efficient, because I've never actually seen the flag! :) With this in mind, along with the recent dust-up over Essjay:

  1. Can I still volunteer for cases?
  2. If so, at what point is it appropriate for me to volunteer?

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. --SilverhandTalk 18:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:CURRENTHOUR

Yeah, I figured out that {{#time:}} had superseded that type of template, and put a deprecated tag there afterwards. Thanks for linking to the discussion, however. :3 Blast 13.06.08 0734 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla

Might have to halt the progress there. See this. I think that you may want to comment on it. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for WP:PDD

Hey demon, I'm getting kinda impatient with the mediation for Wikiproject Psychedelics. It's been more than a week now, and no moderator has been assigned yet! When can I expect the mediation to get underway? Thanks! Jolb 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I commented on your biases :-D.

PS: good luck in your RFA run. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your My RFM

Thanks for noting that; I wasn't sure of the proper procedure. It's a shame it collapsed, really, but they were not willing to continue. —Xyrael / 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Medcom caseload

Hi ^demon. Ive just about finished most of those mediations, though some might require follow up. Ill take the finished ones off the list. -Stevertigo 08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Henry the Navigator article

I think someone needs to get involved in the nasty arguments, most quite incorrect, of one "Dr. Lisboa" re the article on Prince Henry the Navigator discussion page. His discussion points are almost totally wrong, he refuses to acknowledge the fact, and continues to insult those who correct him. I have not the patience to initiate a formal mediation process. But I will say that with contributors like Dr. Lisboa at work, you will never get a decent article on Prince Henry.

Auto-updating user/admin stats

I took the liberty of modifying your quote from me to incorporate the original's source code, to keep the numbers current, rather than keep them as they were at the moment of copy-and-paste. It's amazing how fast the numbers change, and therefore how fast they'd become outdated if we didn't auto-update. I'm glad you find those stats inspiring; so do I. -- Ben TALK/HIST 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed case

No I havent. Thats new technology to me. -Stevertigo 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Question on my RFA

That is a very valid question that, to be honest, hadn't crossed my mind before. As I said on the question itself:

I had planned on remaining the chair, regardless of how this RfA turns out. I hadn't seen any potential conflicts of interest in being either chair or admin, so I honestly hadn't thought too heavily on this. I do understand that there are situations in which serving in one capacity would make serving in another a potential issue (serving on ArbCom/MedCom comes immediately to mind). However, as most chairs of the committee have been admins while chair, I don't see any reason why I could not do the same. However, if there is some potential issue that you see with this that I'm overlooking, please bring it to my attention.

Do you see a potential conflict of interest? I'm very curious, as this question now has me thinking about that quite a bit.

Regards ^demon[omg plz] 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine possible conflicts of interest but not any likely one. Your RfA is going to pass by a sizable margin so this is somewhat moot. I could see people going either way on your answer. That is, if you say you'd stay some people might be concerned about conflicts; if you say you're going to step down some people might be concerned about loosing a good chair. I wanted !voters to have as much information as possible.
I do think that there are many new editors who, right or wrong, view admins as moderators. Your admining may put you in the other group, but again this can be fixed with a little awareness on your part that you are doing two jobs. I'm sure you'll be able to balance the two roles. Good luck. -- Selket Talk 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

XfD Barnstar

The XfD Barnstar
For your contributions to the TfD process, I award you the XfD barnstar. Keep going this way and good luck for the Rfa! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about your 'bot

BACKGROUND: I proposed Template:Youth Empowerment for deletion, since it was set up to include an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink collection of articles with only a slender thread of connection to the topic. The template's creator refined the template, leading to a decision to retain it. The template itself may have been refined, but it is still displayed on many pages where it looks pretty silly. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Youth_Empowerment&limit=100&from=0.) I removed it from a few articles, but I was thinking that if the person who created the template didn't do that task, it ought to be done by a 'bot. User:John Reaves referred me to you, due to your 'bot.

QUESTION: Can your 'bot that can clean up the irrelevant links to this template, keeping the links in articles that are still included in the template?
--orlady 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the TfD link that you requested over on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_14#Template:Youth_Empowerment
My general notion is, as you inferred, to just make sure the template is only on the pages that are listed in the template, but no others. (I don't think it belongs on a few of the pages -- i.e., those for broader topics -- that are listed in the template, either, but that's a minor issue.) --orlady 04:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arlen Ness

Hi, my name is Mitch. I have recently started my first wiki article, Arlen Ness, for a school project and I have a question for ^demonBot2. I've been working on this article and it's still marked for clean up. Do you have suggestions to help me clean up my page? It would be much apprieciated, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphoss (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

move user talk?

I noticed a recently registered user, user:Wedudley, has moved his user talk [10] to another page. Is this admissible? In case it helps: The user is editing only William E. Dudley, of which he appears to be the subject. The article is currently on AfD, nominated by me. Couldn't find anything on WP:USER referring to this, but the move (and the new name) seem a bit weird. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I suppose if there's no problem with it policy-wise, I'll just leave it. My primary concern was to save the user further trouble. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

I have some advice for you. Someone who failed a Rfa got many people opposing him because he was answering the oppose votes. I would hate to see you fail your Rfa because you are a fine editor. I suggest that you do not answer but let others defend you. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TVep

ah yes, i will digg up my example. Shouldn't take too long. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Replace TVep with this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate&oldid=117676245 and then you can substitute all the template cases. (I have to admit, it's a pain to figure out :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Beat the 'crat congrats...! The Rambling Man 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmph =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Nichalp, couldn't resist!!! The Rambling Man 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, ^demon/Archive3, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

Congrats, consensus has been reached and you've been given an early promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulamations :P Martinp23 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the succesful RfA, Chad. All the best. :-) - Anas talk? 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your new mop! — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    Congratulations on your new mop! — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, congrats. Let me know if you have any questions! Prodego talk 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Well done. Go grab yer mop and bucket - Alison☺ 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your new and shiny mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey good luck with your new tools! Majorly (o rly?) 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA Thanks

No problem, man. You deserve these tools, and I'm certain that you won't let the community down. Congrats on becoming an admin, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, there aren't many AOR's. Well done. Xiner (talk, email) 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your new Big Red Buttons! I trust you won't explode the Wiki; in fact, I can only envision you making it better. Happy editing. ♠PMC♠ 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Just thought I'd swing by to say congratulations on becoming a sysop! Kntrabssi 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Avi 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers!
Cheers!
No problems mate, you've worked hard and displayed all the behavior that a good admin should. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"RFA Thanks"

Are you just substituting that message? I've seen it on innumerable talk pages now.  ~Steptrip 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if he was substituting the message. A lot of people do that to save time. // DecaimientoPoético 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, just wanted to make sure he / she wasn't spamming or anything (like an admin would, but you never know ...).  ~Steptrip 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those 'personalized' responses have been popular forever. Well at least since 15:26, 23 September 2005, when I made my first edit :). Prodego talk 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! (and I don't mind 'personalised' message :) ) – Riana talk 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected mediation

I'm the user who chose not to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of male performers in gay porn films. The {{RFMF}} tag is still on the Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films page. I don't know what the procedure is in these cases, but I doubt it would be a good thing for me to remove the tag. I think it should be removed; I don't know if that's something you should do. Perhaps something along the lines of the "request for mediation not accepted" message box should be added to the talk page instead. Thanks.—Chidom talk  03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure if you look around, you'll find that I rarely hesitate to be bold; however, there's enough heated debate on the page without there being added friction because I deleted the tag after having caused the mediation to be rejected.... Maybe I've been unduly influenced by Sarbanes-Oxley?
And my deepest sympathies—if you ever need to talk... um, oh, wait! My unrestrained congratulations on your new status and tools! Have good days.—Chidom talk  04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

mediation-l

Are you a list administrator (or, incidentally with Essjay retired, do we have a list admin)? If so, can you please swap my subscription to my new email address, per the email I sent to you two days ago. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why to hang on

This is a growing page which will have many users within a few days. Please hold for a week.

Mediation Committee

Hi.

I note you are the current Chairman of the Mediation Committee (my sympathies). I used to be a member of this committee (although I actually did very little work, for a variety of reasons), before joining the AC about 15 months ago. If I were to rejoin the MC, what would be the process? Is it as simple as moving myself from section to section? Perhaps you could give me an introduction into current procedure, since I haven't been involved in a good 18 months...

Many thanks,

Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sam Korn. You are still a member of the committee. You are simply considered an emeritus, or inactive. You can become active again whenever you like. Just move yourself from WP:MC#Mediators_Emeriti to WP:MC#Active_Mediators. Welcome back!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing... Is there any chance you could give me level 5 access to #wikipedia-mediation so I can get into it? Many thanks, Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you register for an account on freenode? See m:IRC instructions#Register_your_nickname_and_identify. Once you've done that, let me know what your freenode username is. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. smoddy, wikipedia/smoddy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I tried typing "/invite smoddy #wikipedia-mediation". Did anything happen? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave him lvl 5 access, he can /join it now. ^demon[omg plz] 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, what's the command for that? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Really quick Q: should anyone ever subst {{RFM-Request}}? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_Request_for_Mediation:

Add {{RFM-Request|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the talk page of all involved parties.
Add {{RFMF|Article that is the subject of the request|Name of the mediation case (from the RFM page)}} to the top of the Article's talk page.

Nowhere in there says to subst. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and change Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_Request_for_Mediation section and asks people to subst it? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting reply on this ;3 - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you...

Sign my Autograph book? I think your Signature is awesome! ( you also seem to be quite a good editor!) --ÄtΘmicR€£igionesїgñ

deleted image help

I am new to editing Wikipedia and was trying to update the already exiting page for Larry W. Maysey by adding a photo and info box. I uploaded a picture (Larrymaysey.jpg) and you deleted it on Mar 31st at 20:26 with the comment of (orphaned csd i3). Larry's page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_W._Maysey. The info box I created worked fine but now the picture is missing. :(

Just to let you know, I am the owner of his POW/MIA Remembrance page at http://www.scally.com/mia/maysey.html and have permission from his family to use his photos. How do I go about adding the picture to his Wikipedia page?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Mfd's

I would like to start closing uncontroversial Mfd's. Is that okay? Answer on my talk page please. Have a nice week. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Special:Recentchanges is at MfD. It is hidden on March 25, but it was still nominated on April 1 Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wilma Blasini Perez

I have complete the form for mediation as per your request. --XLR8TION 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My Bad Joke

Is it ok if I move my bad AfD joke to WP:BJAODN? Toonmon2005 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Joke to BJAODN

Would it be ok to temporarily move my bad joke to my userspace until this MfD issue over BJAODN is solved? Toonmon2005 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sense of humour

Woah, way to have fun. -- Js farrar 02:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD joke

Hey! I noticed that you removed my joke AFD on George W. Bush. Why you said I "improperly" listed the joke? how should I do it properly? Wooyi 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Humorous redirects in project namespace

I noticed that you removed the joke from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, but the linked page (Wikipedia:Credit Card Registration) still exists. People tried to speedy it. It is now a redirect to a user subpage, which does not have a humor tag on it. Is this acceptable (as far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy on this)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjd (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

You're very welcome!

You're very welcome my friend! That's another one down for now... Happy editing! Lradrama 12:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD FYI

^demon, thanks for all your recent activity. For clarification WP:TfD#Template:Confirmed-nc wasn't a speedy keep, it was a snowball close. The guideline for what constitutes a speedy keep is at Wikipedia:Speedy keep and the ... guideline / rejected-historical / non-anthromorphised / no-one-knows-what-to-call-it-or-tag-it-with page that details the snowball clause is at Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Regards, Iamunknown 06:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Kwan

Can you explain more clearly why this was closed as "Delete" given that the article in question met WP:ATT and WP:N in general (citations from Taiwan, HK, and mainland newspapers), as well as WP:MUSIC criteria #1 specifically (nationally charted hit --- a song of his was ranked as the #4 duet nationally by the central television station in a country of 1.3 billion people). The Delete votes consisted of two guys who voted before the article was sourced/improved, one guy who didn't bother to conduct a proper search and so mistakenly claimed it only had 670 GHits, and one guy with a novel theory, generally not supported by consensus, about how stuff can be notable in one language wiki and not in another. Thanks, cab 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kelvin Kwan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. cab 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA

With all respect, and I appreciate your taking the time to read the 150+kb of discussion. There should be one opinion closing that discussion, so either his or yours. Also, could you state consensus, instead of your feeling? It just does not read right. I do appreciate your taking time to look into this. With warm regards, Navou banter / contribs 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA MfD

Dear ^demon: I do apologise for "stepping on your toes", if you had your eye on that MfD, and I'm also sorry that you don't agree with my decision. It was my view that the discussion itself didn't reach consensus and didn't look like it was going to, so on that basis, it seemed natural that the only sensible MfD outcome would be one of "no consensus" under the circumstances. I would, however, like to respectfully disagree with your closure.

Whilst I can see merit in your MfD closing in terms of the right course of action, I might point out that in fact your closing decision does not seem to be addressing the consensus (or lack of) developed during the discussion and instead reads like your own personal MfD vote on the matter. For example, "I have read all of the arguments here ad nauseum, and I have listened to both rationales since the beginning", "I feel that this group is inherently bad for the community and our efforts would be best served elsewhere", etc. are not summations of consensus developed on that vote, but are instead your own personal decisions upon the specific issue of the subject.

It is my personal view one should not close MfD discussions by basically ignoring the discussion and carrying out what you think is best, as it would otherwise render the whole object of MfD - to gain consensus, or to indicate a lack of it if it is not gained - entirely void, and make the outcome entirely a matter of arbitrary decision on the part of the closing administrator. I hope you can, at least, see my perspective that merely a cursory inspection of the discussion shows there is not a consensus to "Esperanzify" nor delete the page. If this is your personal opinion, you are of course free to advance it; but you should not close an MfD on that basis. Of course, I am not going to fight whatever you wish to do instead, and I will stand clear of the MfD should you wish to carry out your own actions, as I am not in the habit of wheel-warring. Thank you very much for letting me know, and I do hope you don't consider me hopelessly obstinate for disagreeing. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I do admit my closing statement does read like a personal opinion, and I wish I could've phrased it better (I'm not the best with words). The main reason I believed that consensus leaned towards delete was I believe that not only yes/no had to be taken into account, but rather the strength of each side's argument. You were correct in saying that if numbers alone were taken into account (and done by simple majority), the weight of the argument tipped towards deletion. However, as the numbers were too close, consensus could not be reached on numbers alone. Therefore I took the liberty of reading into each side's argument and I believe those advocating deletion presented a stronger case, if you will. ^demon[omg plz] 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear ^demon: Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I can see your point, definitely, and this was exactly the reason why it was closed as "no consensus" - there wasn't really any consensus to either keep or delete. The trouble with assessing this on the basis of the strength of argument expounded by each side is that it is extremely subjective, in that it will be entirely reliant upon one's own views on the subject; the strength of a given argument or proposition is, unfortunately, always in the eye of the beholder. Consensus is not the strength or weakness of comparative arguments; it is to do with what gains a general support in terms of aggregate views held by Wikipedians (a far greater bar than that of simple majority). Wikipedia:Consensus sums this up well:
"While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. ... To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus." (emphasis mine)
In other words, what one is testing is whether there is consensus towards a particular point - you don't insert your own reasoning as a "tie-breaker", as it were. If there is no consensus towards any side of the debate (which I think is evident from the discussion) it isn't acceptable to pre-empt this with your own decision making. This is how things on Wikipedia have always been run, I believe, and it isn't something one can circumvent merely because of one's own opinion - which was, at least, how it looked, and your assessment above of your view that the deletion advocates presented a stronger case has no relation to consensus. I am not trying to be argumentative nor unpleasant here, but I do feel you may not fully understand the manner in which Wikipedia precedent considers consensus to exist. Thanks a lot for listening to my rather long diatribe on the subject! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

closing xfDs

G'day ^demon,

first of all, I'd like to congratulate you on attaining your sysop bit. We always need more admins! I'd like to ask you to be a bit more careful if you intend to close xfDs, however. Closing xfDs takes experience (oh, they always want people with experience!) and care (I should know; I've gotten into trouble myself for comments made when closing).

Your closure from the AMA MfD is a good argument for your preferred outcome, but it's not a good xfD close. While there is an element of subjectivity to any good close, one should never replace "this is how the argument ended up" with "this is what I want to happen". Speaking of gaffes, a big big big no-no is to say "no, no, no" and post an alternative closure on the MfD. If you disagree with how another admin has closed an MfD, feel free to take it up with him as a private Wikipedian, but it's stunningly poor form to stand up and say "I am a big bad admin, and I say this person is wrong!" Just imagine if you had closed the MfD, and Nick had attempted to publicly shame you. It's not called the Golden Rule for nothing. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool bananas. You can't throw a brick on Wikipedia without conking someone who's done something silly at one point, so — welcome to the brick-hittees' club! And, again, congratulations. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

Per the TFD debate, would you think it a reasonable solution to redirect this e.g. to {{notability}}? >Radiant< 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Hi, why did you delete {{Infobox North East England place}}, that was a reasonably new and valuable template for WikiProject North East England? Tellyaddict 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I didnt know it had been the result of a TfD debate, I'm not criticising but I thought after deletion you were meant to provide a link in the reason for deletion to the deletion debate if their was one? Tellyaddict 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Not meaning to sound rude or uncivil by my comment, I hope you didnt take offence to it .Tellyaddict 14:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if you want to add the responded template just add {{responded}} and if you did not respond then add {{not responded}}, if you would like me to make any images like that for you or ones similar to on my Userpage just leave me a note, if you want I can have it done by tomorrow. Thanks and no negative feelings, maybe I came over as snappy. Cheers - Tellyaddict 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help..

Dear sysop.

im having a dispute with a user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El_C

he is reverting my links regarding actual information.

i have tryed to talk to him, but to no effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#nazarian

please be so kind as to help..

best regards

Neslepaks (ive made an account)

↑or ^

Why do you begin your name with a carat. In BASIC it mean to raise to a power. ↑demon looks better. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Padlock

Well, ehem, being the stickler-ish, grammar freak that I am, I'd like to point out that, in your quote, it should be "we need to lock ourselves up". Unless you meant for it to be "our self". Regards, Squeak

Really? Well, that's quite interesting. Do you happen to know who wrote it? Squeak 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. Squeak

Thank you very much! Squeak

Happy editing! Squeak

Strange Subst?

You had your bot subst someone's signature here. Was it supposed to do that? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

I obviously have an idea what it's getting at but, just out of interest, is there any particular significance to the quote and padlock on your userpage? – Steel 02:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And here's me thinking it had some deep philosophical meaning. – Steel 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wacky Killian Wildness

Hi

I'm trying to figure out the best way to deal with an increasingly antagonistic situation developing on the Killian Memos Discussion Page.

Background: I've been contributing there off and on -- mostly off -- since last fall. I had been looking into 70's office technology and have been providing links to info as I uncover it. All of the evidence has been pointing to the memos being created on once common, but now almost completely forgotten about early word processing equipment, which turns out to have been a booming business by the early 70's. Actually this plus some proportionally printed Texas Air National Guard memos from the late 60's pretty much completely undermines the initial contentions driving the forgery charges, including [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47 the very first post that started it all].

I've also been culling through the DoD record database on Bush, looking for any interesting matchups between them and the Killian memos. I recently found a killer one: one of the memos that CBS never used was a very short one dated February 2nd, 1972 that mentioned a flight certification concern of Killian. Since I've been finding a 100% correspondence between the DoD records and the memos, I thought to rummage through Bush's messy flight records, enter all the data into a spreadsheet, and then sum and chart out the result. I found a lot of strange activity around the date of the memo, including a sharp rise in training flights (the yellow line) that indeed showed that Bush needed corrective action to meet flight certification.

I initially used this flight certification issue as one example of how ludicrous it is to believe that any forger would have gone to the trouble of analyzing flight records that deeply, surmising that Bush had trouble meeting certification, and then would be confident enought to include this as a passing reference in a very short memo that CBS didn't even bother using. That is until I discovered something even more interesting: CBS had obtained the memos on September 2nd and 5th, 2004, but the flight records were not released by the DoD until a couple of days later on Sept. 7th. Since there were absolutely no other records available that could have been used to recontruct or even deduce the flight certification issue, the memo could not have been forged under any circumstances. Since its print characteristics are the same as all the other memos, that absolves the other memos as well as being forgeries. Ipso Facto.

Because I had previously shared info I had come up with on the Killian Wiki page, I thought to do likewise this time. And that's when things got ugly.

The current problem: I first added a post a couple of week ago to the general discussion, as well to the separate Wiki on authenticity. I fielded the expected objections pretty easily, following Wiki guidlines for reliable sources and all that. One poster, "CWC", started getting hostile when he kept ending up on the wrong side of every discussion, and then he sent an email to my Gmail account with the subject line "Loss of Privacy" -- it was a threat to reveal my true identity with info he gathered from GoDaddy. I responded by pointing out that a person living where he lives and having his profession should try to exercise better judgement. I wasn't going to report him at first, but his factless hostility got annoying, and when he publicly admitted to sending the email but that it wasn't really a "threat," I thought to report him to Wikipedia and ask that he get banned from editing. Unfortunately, I apparently missed a step in filling out the form -- it was posted and then lost without any action being taken. "CWC" disappeared for a short while, though, but then came back to cause a lot more trouble, including making redactions all over my posts and getting some other poster named "Alabamaboy" to completely delete my main original post (which had been moved to R.I.P. Rathergate)

Addition to these two jokers, there is yet another troublemaker named Andyvphil who resorted to personal attacks, including creating whole new subsections to attack me, all of course without a shred of evidence, including even a link, to back up anything. All just malicious nonsense.

What I would like: Is some idea what's best to do. I really think "CWC" should be banned from any further Wiki editing, considering both his email threat and his more recent specious redactions. Andyvphil should also be banned since he behaves like the discussion page is a right wing blog site for posting nonsense and attacking people. I'm not so sure about "Alabamaboy" -- his profile seems to indicate that he's a legitimate, serious editor, but his behavior and actions in this Killian matter warrants at least an admonishment. I'm not going to put up with the redactions for very long in any case unless somebody shows me where I'm wrong. I'll put everything back, lock the page, and file complaints against everyone, this time without mistakes.

I tried going through the Wikipedia arbitration form thing and things got really messy really quickly. So I thought to get some simple advice first -- simple advice for a simple matter, no?

Thanks for your consideration. Callmebc 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you help with some research?

Hello ^demon,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I notice that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating and as a mediation co-ordinator? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

errr...

What exactly is the meditation committe?(I'm not to keen on reading the meditation committe page) The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Please reply on MY talk page

A very belated congrats

A very belated congrats on becoming an admin! I need to remember to congratulate people more often, heh. – Chacor 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I got your message and wanted to thank you for all your help. I wasn't sure how to reply (if that's possible) so I just started a new topic.

I couldn't have added the picture to Larry Maysey's page without your assistance. It worked perfectly and I am very pleased. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alvalanna (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

errr...

What exactly is the meditation committe?(I'm not to keen on reading the meditation committe page) The Phoenix Enforcer(talk to me) 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Please reply on MY talk page

Oh and another thing, why is it called the meditation committe(does it have any thing to do with meditation?

Please reply on MY talk page

The Phoenix Enforcer(Talk to me) 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Starmen.Net's entry?

Hey, one of the staffers pointed out that you had nominated the Starmen.Net entry for deletion. I don't understand why you would do that...wouldn't it be better to just make a quick post on the forum to tell people we need to clean it up or something?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to bring it up, but I don't know if you use the forums anymore, and I don't want to post on that deletion thread (for the same reasons that I don't edit the Starmen.Net entry myself). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reidman (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Cleaning up one's own User Talk Page and False Accusations

This was discussed before by other administrators but I cannot relocate where. Wiki does not state that one cannot clean up garbage on their own User Talk Page and the said discussion by the administrators ended without stating that it is disallowed. In this present incident, I am being falsely accused of editing or deleting someone's Talk Page. I have no idea what this is all about. The user left an IP address that leads nowhere. The comment left on my Talk Page today states:

":: Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked for vandalism. --24.176.136.74 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)"

I would like to delete this distracting unjustified accusatory commment and a few other similar accusations because they are malicious and distract from the intellectual academic content that I focus on. I try to run a clean show and don't appreciate my Talk Page being cluttered up with threats and false accusations that take away from the professionalism that I am trying to maintain in my articles and edits. Who is doing this? It is a disturbance and harassment. Thank you for your help.Valich 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to User talk:^demon

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Signaleer! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your response, I've already contacted the owner of the bot. I am aware of how to insert an image, this was not the case. The site is not affiliated with myself, I've explained the fact that the site is featured on the official U.S. Army Fort Leavenworth Buffalo Soldier Monument external link on the webpage which apparently you did not look at, thanks but no thanks for the help. -Signaleer 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page

This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requestion for mediation (David Irving)

The request for comment didn't resolve the dispute. The fact that most people disagree with me doesn't seem like a valid reason not to have a mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving Wikidudeman (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am a first time user and I am perplex as to why my "food testing Strips" article is sited for deletion. I made some changes based upon the comments that I got from the java chat room. Rob (Desaderal)

Closing of actor filmography templates deletion discussion

Hi. You closed the TFD discussion found here as "delete all except those stricken", but it seems you forgot to actually delete the templates. I just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wild Forest speedy

You removed the speedy tag I added to the article The Wild Forest, on the grounds that "hoax" is not a valid speedy criterion. Technically, that's true. But this article fits a pattern of Disney-related hoaxes created by indefblocked sockpuppet vandal Lyle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I've tagged such articles as prod and even taken them to AFD, and they always end up getting speedied anyway. I'm starting a WP:LTA entry on this user. szyslak (t, c) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

... is only awesome! Excellent work :) - Alison☺ 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Great timesaver. Any way of putting it into MediaWiki, for people whose monobooks are funny? – Riana ऋ 03:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree. Did you look at the extra links in the version of the list of reasons I posted to its talk page? if so, what did you think of them? DES (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Glad you liked them. Didn't mean to imply a rush. Thanks again for this tool. DES (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD script

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For the hard work and creative scripting that is CSD AutoReason, a service to both the admin and the user communities through more accurate deletion descriptions with links to policy. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar
Even though you already have a barnstar for the CSD script, here's another one. Beautifully crafted deletion script. Makes life so much easier, for both the deleting admin and the user looking at the log. Well done. ♠PMC♠ 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nima Baghaei 2

"Basically, it boils down to this. Have you been around long enough to learn the basics and you haven't screwed up too bad?"

Personally, I would consider two recent blocks for 3RR as "screwing up too bad"... --kingboyk 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Less is Moore?

Worry not. I shall endeavor to find a free image of Rog as Bond and slap it on the page. Callum J. Stewart 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was the article about Helgardh (band) deleted?

Well, I would like to know the exact reason of why my article about Helgardh (band) was deleted. I think the band deserves this kind of recognition, and not only the band, but the whole metal scene here in Colombia, because as you may see, there is not a single article about a Colombian black metal band and I thought: why not start with this particular band? I'd appreciate it if you could give me an exact reason and if you could give me an advice about how to get this article posted. That would be it and good luck to you!--Dagon192 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Inactive Meditator?

Hi, It seems that User:Stevertigo is busy. He is currently meditating White people page and it seems that we need a meditator there. Should I wait for the return of User:Stevertigo or file a new meditation request or something else? Thx...KarenAE 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo was mediating a dispute between myself and User:Lukas19. In a case in which I did not participate, Lukas was banned for one year for tendentious editwarring on White people among other pages. Recent edits suggest an extreme alignment between KarenAE and User:Lukas19's editing style, perhaps even sockpuppetry. Regardless, the mediation request is moot, though I am trying to respect the spirit of the mediation regardless.--Carwil 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

70s show

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:70sPilotCircle.PNG&diff=126731307&oldid=125841859

I double checked this image and I do not see any fair use rationale for either of the articles (That '70s Show and/or That '70s Pilot) where this it is being displayed. If your comment means that you intended to add this information yourself, please let me know. As of right now your edit is a bit confusing. — CharlotteWebb 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Uponor

Hi! I am undergoing discussion with User:Eggheaddesign about deletion of Uponor per WP:CSD#11. Maybe we were wrong... could you review it? Please see User_talk:Eggheaddesign and provide him with some facts/clarifications, or undelete the article if you think it is convenient. Rjgodoy 15:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Project Offset

Did this article go trough an AfD, or did you just delete it for the hell of it? I would think tagging it with some clean up tags would be appropriate as the game is verifiable before you delete it. If it was written as an ad, that could be easily fixed... Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

is absolutely brilliant. I just have a two suggestions: change the wording on G12 to read "blatant copyright infringement" (it currently reads "Blatant Copyright"), and make the capitalization consistent (some of the reasons have all the words capitalized and some of them don't). Natalie 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ^demon[omg plz] 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'm surprised no one thought of this script sooner, quite frankly. They should just build it into the MediaWiki software, if you ask me. Natalie 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...hmm...

Apparently you're studying "Bachelor of Shit" :P ~ Anthony 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Kurt Nimmo

Alan Cabal

I do not understand how you can say that the blocks on these articles is justified.
The article on Kurt Nimmo has been blocked for over a month, even though the issue originally under contention has been resolved. Jayjg had no right to block the article because I might edit some other part of the article.
How is what I did on Alan Cabal edit Warring. I reverted one other persons edits one time. Doesn't an edit war have to go on for a little longer.
Let me walk you through a timeline. In the space of one day I made a complaint to Jayyg that it was time to lift the ban on Nimmo and he refused. In the same he blocked the articles on Ward Churchill and Alan Cabal. He always seems to convientely block the articles after by edits have been reversed. How is this not wikistalking.
Please I am asking you once again to lift the bans on these articles. There were banned not on some neutral plan to keep the peace, but because of a bias Jayjg has against me. annoynmous 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Okay I'll admit that the Ward Churchill article counts as edit warring, but how does Alan Cabal count as edit warring. I have a total of 4 entrys on that article, how is that edit warring.
Kurt Nimmo has been blocked for over a month. Isn't there a limit on bans. Don't you think the bans on these two articles should be lifted. annoynmous 02:57 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Alan Cabal speaking. I fully approved of the article in its original form, although I think it bears mentioning that I am frequently accused of "anti-Semitism" for equating Nazis with Zionists and suggesting that the great dramatic sui generis "HOLOCAUST" might have been just a tad bit exagerrated. Have fun, be excellent to each other, fuck Israel up its tight little herpes-ridden ass RIGHT NOW, preferably with a chainsaw. ---AC

Henry Pollack

Could you look at the article Henry Pollack and see if it isn't baised or if he is making too many edits. Also i believe some of his sources have nothing to do with what he is discussing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callelinea (talk • contribs) 23:04, April 30, 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe what Callelinea is referring to is the fact that the subject of the Henry Pollack article is editing the article itself, raising WP:AUTO issues. Tabercil 05:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [11]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DataSynapse

Why did you delete our company pages - DataSynapse, GridServer, and FabricServer? They were not blatant advertising as the content simply stated what the company does and what the products do. We didn't promote anything. In no way were these advertisements.

How is it any different than the following sites? They too have a few links directing other to their site. We only had 2. The other links were to unbiased 3rd party write-ups on our company to show worthiness.

- ColdSpark, Inc. - United Devices - Quest Software - Platform Computing - VMware


Thank you, DataSynapseInc

Why was the article about Habitat for Humanity Armenia deleted?

I really do not understand why the article about Habitat for Humanity Armenia was deleted. The article about this charity was informative and there was no advertisement whatsoever. There are pages about HFH Canada and Ireland, so why not Armenia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.113.25.195 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Abuse help

I couldn't find anywhere to report abuse so I just resorted to contacting the closest administrator. Please look at my Talk page on my profile. A user there has written some less-than-kind comments, to put it mildly. I don't know this user and have never encountered him/her. Please look into it or direct me or the issue to someone who can take care of this issue. Thanks.--SOCL 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What th—?

Mr.Z-man, who is not listed as a member of the Mediation Committee, has

—SlamDiego 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now informed that there is a difference between the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee. —SlamDiego 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northport0491.jpg

Perhaps I'm blind--the image currently says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.". There is no such fair use rationale that I can see (perhaps you thought the box itself asking a fair use rationale to be listed was it?). Please have a look; I didn't shove back my notice in case I'm missing something. Komdori 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick word...

You know, ever since I requested that MedCom case and you denied, I always thought you weren't too fond of me. Then you come out with very strong support at my RfA, and then co-nom. I must admit, that surprised me! You truly are a great editor, and I hope to work with you in the future!

My kindest regards,
Anthony 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Weeaboos

  • You recently deleted this category which I marked as vandalism. The author, AgamandTheTrue (talk · contribs), has vandalized several userpages and should be blocked, and his sockpuppet too. See my report at WP:AIV. :) JuJube 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

csd.js

Hi ^demon. Would you object if I took your csd.js and made a page protection version of it? I'll give credit where it's due, of course. – Steel 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, because I've already made it :P – Steel 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There we go. – Steel 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Montenegro flag

Why the hell was it deleted? It's a flag, they are not copyrighted, so I really don't understand why you had removed it... Sideshow Bob 20:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... I haven't noticed it was pending for deletion. I'll just re-upload it and put an appropriate template, as I did to the flag image linked to it that is nominated for deletion as well.Sideshow Bob 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The CSD images you asked me to help with

The autoblock went away. You can delete this now: Image:USS Lofberg.jpg Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 01:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM/Phi Kappa Psi

I made a request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation. I appreciate that the Committee may simply be busy or pondering, but I wanted to make sure that the request is seen. The other active disputants have agreed in principal to mediation by a member (or by members) of your Committee. —SlamDiego 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template orphaning request

Hi ^demon. I've closed the tfd you started on the Dragonball templates, so could I request that your bot orphan the the templates? There are quite a bunch, which is why I think a bot is the best solution. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The four codes, DB, DBGT, DBZ, and DB Movie, correspond to three versions of the show and the show's movie. I think replacing the templates with plain text stating what movie(s) the characters appear in is the best solution (As you mentioned in your nom, these symbols mean nothing to those unfamiliar to the show; words, however, mean something to everybody who can read English.) For example, {{Appears in:DB, DBZ}} would be replaced with "Appears in [[Dragon Ball]] and [[Dragon Ball Z]]", and so on. How does this sound? Can a bot do that? Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Nuclear Power Plant Picture

You deleted this picture Image:Nuclear Power Plant 2 cropped.jpg, giving the reason in Nuclear Power as "(Removing image using NPWatcher. Reason given was: "Per CSD I3 - image has an invalid license".)" I obtained that picture and it was released for unrestricted use - I had a fair amount of trouble getting it. Before I go to the Deletion Review process, would you please restore it and put an appropriate license tag on it? Simesa 01:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind -- They swapped pictures on me, mine is just fine. The one above is a cropping of a different picture. I'll let that picture's author decide what to do himself. Thanks, sorry for the confusion. Simesa 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for revision

Hello, I wish to discuss the archiving of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 27#Template:Military-Insignia (2nd nomination). You closed the discussion because "Closing as no consensus". I basically started this mess and I ask that you reconsider this action.

If you re-read the long discussion you will see that the problem is a major legal one: The template claims all insignia is free use due to Geneva convention and the opposite claim is this is a misreading (more like "wishful reading") of the laws. If the second option is true (and honestly, no one brought any legal proof otherwise) it can cause legal action against us. I don't really think any country will ever sue Wikimedia Foundation for this type of infringement, but if they do, we (meaning also other projects using the same template, e.g. commons) are in real trouble.

I'm not active in EngWiki (I am SYSOP in HebWiki), so I don't really understand the local processes of deletion, revision and legal aid, but I plead with you: Do Something. This template cannot stay as is. Sincerely, DGtal 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy comment. I still ask you to reconsider a more aggresive action, but the action you suggested is certainly a minimal requirement. Since I don't deal with templates much even in hebrew, I request you add the text you suggested, including some explaination. Thanks again, DGtal 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So I'm a Vandal?

Your recent edit to Category:Images with no copyright tag as of unknown date 2007 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem that you are :P - sorry for the inconvenience. Martinp23 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Spiner.jpg

You claimed that copyright info had been added to this image but I fail to see a source.Genisock2 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angellocsin.jpg

Hello, I noticed that you removed the {{no copyright holder}} tag with the edit summary "Has source info". It does indeed have source info; but that is not what the "no copyright holder" tag addresses: that tag addresses the fact that no copyright holder is indicated. The image is from http://angellocsingallery.blogspot.com/; can you tell who the copyright holder is from looking at that website? I cannot. Unless we can determine who the copyright holder is, the image should be deleted. --Iamunknown 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:2142 hud.JPG

Hi, I noticed you deleted Image:2142 hud.JPG as having an invalid fair use tag. I was looking over it when it was deleted. I was about to clear the CSD label. I was wondering if you could say why you think it was invalid? --Selket Talk 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going on the note that said it was a screenshot from the beta, which violated the company's NDA. I felt that violated any potential for fairuse. ^demon[omg plz] 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Selket Talk 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When you remove images from pages...

Please remove the whole image tag, not just the image :) You're doing a great job on the follow up for licenses, just remember not to mess up the pages ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

omg plz wtf

Can you please pay attention before deleting images that have a "non-commercial use only" licence, checking whether fair use is claimed?? Images cannot be undeleted. The nerves of Mstudt (talk · contribs) are frayed already. She is trying to upload images under fair use which are at the same time licenced under a non-commercial licence. "non-commercial use only" images are only CFD if NO fair use is claimed. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

More generally, "speedy deletion" does not mean "instantaneous deletion". You should not warn a user, and in the same moment delete their images. Give them a moment to react, for chrissake! Trigger-happy article deletions can always be undone, but with premature image deletions, you can really cause damage. dab (𒁳) 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

so? If you are contesting fair use, why do you speedy delete the images on grounds of the "non-commercial use only" licence? There is a reason "fair use disputed" is not a speedy deletion criterion. If you dispute fair use, you use {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}. Unilaterally deleting the images without warning is a very bad idea. dab (𒁳) 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Dear Administration,

I am seeking help for the last 20 days. I wrote an article on renowned Spiritual Personality Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but it was not just deleted but also been protected to prevent re-creation.

Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?

Look forward to your positive response.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Ancient Egypt and race

You've accepted this for mediation but the two involved user have been blocked again for 3RR and edit warring. I wanted your opinion on the appropriateness of seeking arbitration to have these users blocked from editing this page. I'm not sure what can be solved at this point with just a "sit down" between these two editors. I'm not sure how much you've looked into the article in question but a once over of the article its talk page should shed some additional light on the problem. Regards. NeoFreak 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:$05a.JPG

Hi - you recently deleted the local copy of this image because it had been moved Commons. However, it appears that it used a fair use license ({{Money}}), which means it's not allowed on Commons. Could you check, and if that's correct, restore the local image, so that the Commons one can be deleted without messing things up here. Thanks --Davepape 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks

Hey, thanks for moving my signature to a userspace. this makes it alot easier than b4.
DarthSkynyrd

War Governors Conference

Hi. I was wondering about the last photo I put in this article. It was printed before 1923 and I have permission from the historical society that owns it (in which I am a member). I tried to re-categorize it, but still threatens deletion. I'm a first time poster, so please tell me what I need to do in order for the photo not to be deleted. Thanks for your help. Chamberlain63 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A rather late RfA thanks!

Good evening (GMT time) ^demon; I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship. As a result of the discussion, I'm pleased to inform you that I'm now a Administrator! I've already been making use of my new tools, so if there's anything I can do, give me a shout!
Kindest regards,
Anthony 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

MediationBot1 misbehaving

Just a quick note that MediationBot1 is leaving messages for users that don't exist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MediationBot1. I've not blocked as it doesn't appear to be doing any harm. -- Nick t 12:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Improperly filed request for mediation

I'm currently involved in a dispute on the article Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. A fellow editor filed a request for mediation, but I have no idea how he did it. Unless theres something I missed, I think he may have simply created the page without actually following the process laid out on the requests page. I'm not sure he even looked at the mainpage for mediation requests. Anyway, is there anyway I could get [12] deleted so I can file a proper request? AniMate 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate

Just cut down a 30 minute, annoying job into a five minute cakewalk :) Cheers, Daniel 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Race

Hello ^demon

There is an unassigned case pending mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race. I was hoping you whether you would consider taking on the mediation for the case.

Regards Muntuwandi 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Contribs Userbox

I like the idea of incorporating the user contribs into the userbox. That makes it easier so you don't have to go through and count it once and awhile and find the userboxes again, get an updated one, it is automatic now. Nicely done! Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see.....well, a "nicely done" for you and for everyone involved. It is a really cool idea:) Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC Cloak Request

I am ^demon freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/^demon. And if Sean doesn't do it, I'm gonna /slap him. :-P ^demon[omg plz] 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sure thing. It's my mistake, I'll help with it. Aquarius • talk 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC/Google Talk presense

Hey; are you available at Google Talk (or IRC) - I need a quick chat.

Regards,
Anthøny 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Secure Computing

I don't understand why you deleted the entry for a multimillion dollar corporation. I generally track the contents of that entry and though I haven't looked at it recently I don't remember any blatant advertising. Was there evidence of some market droids jumping in and replacing the community-developed content with ad copy?

In any case, the solution should be to fix the entry not to delete a well-linked article. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

I know the guidelines for Request for Mediations require everyone to agree with mediation, but I fear Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) might not be accepted simply because the remaining holdout, AlexanderPar (talk · contribs), just has not been online since the opening of the request for mediation. There is no doubt in my mind that he would accept the mediation, were he available on Wikipedia. In fact, prior to the official opening of the request there was a discussion on the talk page about opening a request. Someone had started a section on the talk page, entitled "Arbitration", and AlexanderPar objected noting that, technically, mediation was the next step in the dispute resolution process. He thus proceeded to create a section that was a near carbon-copy of the "Arbitration" section, save the new title – "Mediation". Furthermore, when I attempted to merge the two similar sections, he obstinately reverted, citing his agreement to "mediation" and not "arbitration". I really do not believe the request for mediation ought to be stalled due to just one person's inability to be online at the moment. There are plenty of other people involved in the mediation already who support Alexander's position, and thus I do not believe his side would be at a serious disadvantage. -- tariqabjotu 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

People

Hello! I'm afraid I disagree with your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name. Apart from the sheer majority of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded. "It has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; "no reason for deletion" is simple falsehood; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true either. We can use bots to populate categories if need be; if many people comment on such an issue I think we can do better than "not everybody agrees so let's do nothing". Yours, >Radiant< 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I asked Radiant (on his talk page) to comment on my proposals for actually doing something about LoPbN, but there was no response. I see that he correctly points out the poor keep reasons, but doesn't mention what I said (and no, "it can be maintained" is not an accurate portrayal of what I was saying, but then I don't really know what Radiant's opinion is on what I said because, from my perspective it looks like he has nothing to say about my contributions to that debate). Sorry to rant like this on your (^demon's) talk page, but it is intensely frustrating when I spend time coming up with ways to move forward on these issues, proposing new things that weren't brought up in the previous debates, and going so far as to set out a bullet-pointed plan for what could be done, and then see people showing lack of imagination and saying (effectively) "give up, it is too difficult to reform, just delete the lot", or "give up, it is too difficult to reform but still worth keeping". I'm saying "let's actually reform this, here is a plan". I realise an MfD debate is not the best place for this, but I would like to start a discussion somewhere on how to move this forward, but not on the LoPbN talk page, as that may get deleted one day and I don't intend to write loads and then see it deleted (another reason why I started the debate on the MfD page). I'd also be happier if everyone could work together on the proposal I've put forward, but I fear Jerzy (who has also been rather unresponsive, though at least he said he was short of time) and Radiant and others in that debate, will remain entrenched in their positions. Is there any way to persuade people to work together on something like this? Or is it too much to expect people to invest time and effort to reform something, when it is much easier to vote keep or delete? <sigh> Carcharoth 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And maybe some discussion will now restart at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name, where I've replied to a comment Radiant made. So the above might become moot if productive discussion restarts at the MfD talk page. Carcharoth 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since you didn't respond here, I've listed it on deletion review. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For Image:Hobn.png

recently, I made legalcode for ECopyleft CODE 178iC[13]. If this legalcode authrized for EDP policy, I'll re-upload this picture. thanks. - Ellif 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seymour Sidney Cohen

Is an OBE and emeritus Professor at the most famous medical school in england. I could simply undelete, but I want to check with you first. General practice at AfD is that full professors are notable. DGG 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry--I gave the wrong name, so no doubt you coulnd't locate the article. It was Sidney Cohen. DGG 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2 image speedy deletes under G5 to undelete...

Can you undelete Image:027_ERP_gantry.jpg and Image:Image:Alfa_Romea_159_at_the_dealer.jpg (you deleted them)? They were deleted under G5 (contributions by banned user) (they were uploaded by User:VK35). After the deletions Jimbo Wales determined the uploader was not a sockpuppet of a banned user. Funpika 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log of second image. I think my typo was that I accidently put Image: twice. Funpika 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Cohen

Can you please undelete Sydney Cohen. He clearly passes WP:PROF, being a Fellow of the Royal Society as is noted in the article.- Newport 21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will third this request. A Fellow of the Royal Society is a claim of notability. If you disagree with it's inclusion, it should at least go to AFD as it does not qualify as a speedy. I see you have been active since DGG & Newport have posted here. Can you please respond to those queries? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's appreciated. I have asked Newport to source the article. Based on a quick Google search, I don't think that should be hard for him to do. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) ThanksDGG 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Newport 11:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-WWII-in-Color

Hello, I noticed images like Image:A-36A color.jpg with no copyright information and noticed that you closed the deletion debate of the template {{PD-WWII-in-Color}}. Can you tell me what was on the template to help determine the copyright status of some of these images? Thanks! :) --Strangerer (Talk) 04:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Orwell Park School

I'm really dissapointed that you deleted Orwell Park from Wikipedia. I am a former pupil and found the information provided to be true and accurate. I can not believe that it would be deleted when other schools such as the Dragon remain posted. Please put it back.

Improper image deletion

I think you mistakenly deleted Image:Dial-promo-pic-july-2003.jpg. Someone removed it from the Sun Dial article, which resulted in a bot tagging it as unused fair-use. The bot notified me, so I added the image back to Sun Dial, but you deleted the image anyway and then removed it from Sun Dial. Could you please restore the image and the link from Sun Dial? —Psychonaut 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

image is unfree and is unused

Hi, I noticed you removed the picture (Cheetah_MTI_Brochure.jpg) I placed in the Lamborghini Cheetah article. The reason given was: "Per CSD I5 - image is unfree and is unused". The picture came from a brochure that I own, that would make it FREE (and public domain I presume), and was used in the article there by making it USED. Can you explain why you removed it?KnowBoundaries 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you own a brochure doesn't mean you hold the copyright to its contents, or that they are in the public domain. Did you write the text and produce the photographs or artwork on the brochure? If so, then you hold the copyright, and can specify a license of your choice. —Psychonaut 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a response to a deletion and modification that one of your reviewers made regarding SkyFreighter and SkyCat. The response talked about an infringement on a product "SkyFreighter" and technology "SkyCat" that are trademarked by my corporation and being commented upon by aviation week (and others globally). I am the originator of these technologies and the/our descriptions are shared openly in the press and public although their use is by news, government and customers. My email is llf@hacinc.us URL is http://www.hacinc.us. and others. I would like to have these included as relevant and appropriate to what I believe your web site is intended to portray. I am not advertizing but presenting what is factually a reality. I have also provided trademarked serial numbers. If my request is not possible, then I wish to withdraw all references to any of my technologies and products. I will provide a list and will require that any reference to terms that are trademarked by my corporation be deleted regardless of the originators.

Lou Foltzer llf@hacinc.us

President and CEO

Can someone explain to me the proper way to add images that are scanned from a brochure? I noticed that others have contributed images of scanned covers to magazines, album covers and the like. I found one such image (in the article for TUGboat) using this disclaimer:

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.
The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.
It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:
the person(s), product, event, or subject in question where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any Other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.

That would seem to fit the image I wanted to use.
BTW the company that created the image has been defunct for some time and I recieved the brochure recently from its former CEO. -- KnowBoundaries 12:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

^demonBot2 mistakes

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that your bot, ^demonBot2 made a mistake when updating Template:LDS Temple list and Template:Infobox LDS Temple. It was replacing deprecated template “ft-m” with “ft to m”, but it put a square bracket where it should have put a curly bracket. See diff here. I’ve already fixed it, but I don’t know if it made the same mistake elsewhere (it doesn’t look like it did). Jaksmata 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again?

Uh, you’ve done it again. With these edits, here, and here, you’ve goofed up the same two templates. It’s not just putting a square bracket where a curly one goes; like before, you’ve substituted templates that take different parameters and have different output. You should probably double check both the syntax and effects of what you’re doing when editing these templates. Note also that they both have the {{esoteric}} tag. My apologies if this sounds harsh – I know you’re just trying to help, just like the rest of us, and I appreciate your efforts. Jaksmata 06:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh!

There was probably no hope for it anyway, but you snowed the MFD right when I was trying to clarify my nomination. Friday (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Query

At Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi, under “Issues to be mediated” I entered:

Shall the the article on Phi Kappa Psi contain a discussion of a rape that took place at one of the Phi Kappa Psi chapter houses?

Committee member Anthøny has rejected this, writing:

Rejected – no issues to be Mediated have been given.

Since this reason for rejection is plainly false, could you please restore the request? —SlamDiego 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfM appears to have been restored by Daniel, but notices and whatnot are now fouled. —SlamDiego 05:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the notices. Daniel 06:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD Autoreason

Have the scripts changed or what? They have suddenly stopped showing up since yesterday! (I am using IE7) --soum (0_o) 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask the same question. I've been off-wiki for a couple of weeks, so my bad if I missed a conversation somewhere, but I really liked the autoreason. Natalie 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hurray, it works again! And just in time for a ridiculous backlog at CSD... Thanks a mil! Natalie 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Its working like a charm. Great tool you have cooked up. Cheers. :) --soum (0_o) 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has our school page been deleted

Why did you delete our school page "Churchill Heights Public School"

CSD Autoreason again

Hmm, nice addition to my monobook. Cheers! The Rambling Man 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:PeppersGhost.jpg

I restored this image because I was in the middle of adding a fair use rationale when you deleted it. Hope you don't mind. --Spike Wilbury 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleted

Some CD covers. Why?

Oni Musi

Hi ^demon,

I notice you deleted Oni Musi. There's also a redirect to it a Oni musi. Can that be speedily deleted as a redirect to a red link?

Fg2 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

AMA MFD

Hello! Didn't have time to discuss this earlier, I've had a long and busy week ^^;; (User:Eloquence is a slave driver IRL. "No you can't touch wikipedia, you're supposed to be coding now!"... "O_o... umm.. Jawohl herr hauptman! :-P").

But to answer your statements... of course it's quite ok for anyone to close a *FD. If you can't do an actual deletion or what have you yourself, you can just ask a friendly admin to do it for you. No problem whatsoever :-) (well, not as long as you actually follow consensus of course ;-) )

Note that MFD policy was set as part of a set of compromises during the creation of the current AFD and MFD system. One part of MFD policy that was set as part of the compromise was that MFD was not allowed to delete projects or policy. There are several reasons for this, not least of these including the near certainty of wheel-wars and circular deletion debates. (and I once had fun enforcing a deleted policy. Let's not do that again ;-) )

Re-opening this particular MFD does technically count as disruption, and is therefore technically a blockable offense. This is an offence which I'd like to start enforcing again too, since people have been abusing MFD recently, and that does have to stop, you see.

Though, since I know you meant well, we'll skip that part today. ;)

In future if you'd like to run closure or historification debates, please use RFC, which has a form which is actually quite suited to this kind of debate.

Thanks for your time, and have a nice weekend! :-) --Kim Bruning 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg

Greetings! I've reviewed WP:CSD#I7 and I don't see a clear reason why this image met that criterion. I'd like to have your response on my talk page if possible. Thanks! --Ssbohio 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the undeletion. It's always nice to get what you want without even having to ask for it. I'd still appreciate, though, if you could let me know how it met I7 when it was deleted, so I can improve the fair-use claim on this and any subsequent similarly-licensed images. --Ssbohio 11:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayne mansfield images

I have noticed that you, or rather your bot has deleted two images concerning Jayne Mansfield on 26 May 2007: Image:Jaynemansfield4.jpg and Image:Jaynemansfield2.jpg. Both were deleted upon charges of violating WP:CSD#14. Both were uploaded by User:Philbertgray, who was warned appropriately by User:Abu badali on the status of both the images on 15 May 2007 (though I have no way of being sure, but I guess Abu badali also tagged those images with a no license tag at that time). Unfortunately, Philbertgray is inactive for the moment, as I have found out that he made no edits later than 6 May 2007.

This was a situation of miscommunication. Both the images were uploaded in perfect accordance to WP:FUC#1, and therefore should have carried FU licnesing along with appropriate sources and copyright information. I am sure I can carry out both the tasks for the images in discussion - proper licensing and source information.

Therefore, please, can you undelete these images with a 48 hour deadline to fill-in the blanks? If I fail to carry out the tasks I promise to, you always can delete them again. Please, respond to my talk page. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, check if the image info for the images are correct this time, as well as their usage. Respond to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCarthy

Why was the Paul McCarthy article deleted? McCarthy is an internationally recognized artist. I can't remember if the actual article was well-written or not, but the artist himself easily passes any notability test. Freshacconci 11:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Of course you will not understand this comment to the fullest potential but we reserve the right to judge your deletional behaviour as harsh. (at least harsh, to keep this material open to all ages) Think about it. Communicate before deleting stuff. Think about how your actions might be viewed. (yes, there's a universe out there) Communicate again. Only then, my friend, you might consider whatever.

BTW: reading the other feedback you appear non-human in nature.

Ignorant multitail deletion.

About the misjudgement in the deletion of the Multitail page:

- It was not an advertisement; i did not even write multitail myself - how could it be an advertisement then?! - Communciating is O so hard - Acting human is even harder - Looking at the contributions on this page you lack in management of expectations as well - Learn from this.

Thank you

You have deleted my Template zh-wen-0 right? Thank you very much!--Edmundkh 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Mexico

I know you want to be fair and wait for all parties to respond, but is there a limit to the "extension"? Is it acceptable to vote "pending" so that the deadline could be extended indefinitely? --the Dúnadan 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paul McCarthy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul McCarthy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Freshacconci 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Demonbot's User contrib change blatted an link that was important to me :-(

Probably not your fault, really, but the template change of user contrib meant that I could no longer find this page [14] which I enjoy using as an overview of my work. It would've been nice for those of us using that template to have this link remain on our own userpages when the template was changed... Natebailey 06:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't see the link because it isn't highlighted until you hover over it. I tried clicking on the number or the earlier text and there was no link! Perhaps the template could include a dotted line or similarly subtle emphasis that there is a link there? Thanks for responding! :-) Natebailey 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please restore Image:ProtectiveLife.gif and Image:Kadikoy rugby logo1.jpg

Please restore Image:ProtectiveLife.gif and Image:Kadikoy rugby logo1.jpg I was able to fiund the copyright holder for each. --Eastmain 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

How am I gonna request another mediation for the article Ashina. Eiorgiomugini 10:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Hello. I've given you level 5 access in Wikipedia, as you requested on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. One 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This Barnstar is for your great work in wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Keep it up! James, La gloria è a dio 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Help in dispute resolution

I would like to ask for your help in an ongoing dispute in Talk:Catalonia (autonomous community). I am not using the normal procedures (say, requesting for Mediation, for the second time) because given its bureaucratic requirements, one of the parties (User:Maurice27) knows that he can keep the discussion going on while imposing his version by not signing for mediation, so he is not obliged to accept a neutral review of his arguments.

I am utterly frustrated at the situation there in that one user is monopolizing the article, while 5 other users have disagreed with him. These five users agreed on a consensual version, which he ignored and reverted by claiming "they are all nationalists", and as such, the consensus is invalid, even if everybody agrees, because "we are all wrong". His reiterated insults[15] and ad hominem arguments[16], not to mention his improper behavior and language[17] have caused other users simply to give up and walk away. Hypocritically, he claims that we (the consensus) are imposing our version and monopolizing the articles.

While he has been blocked on several occasions for violating Wikipedia's rules and/or for indecent behavior, the only administrator that is involved in the discussion happens to agree with his particular point of view, so, arguably, he overlooks his misdemeanors. I have asked the administrator to help us work towards reaching a solution (to which he responded that I have "weird ideas" of what adminship is), as well as to take affirmative action in face of the reiterated insults and misbehavior of Maurice27.

Should you wish to mediate, I can give you a brief summary of the points being discussed. But more importantly, we need affirmative action of an administrator against users who resort to insults, sarcasm, personal attacks and the like.

--the Dúnadan 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

w:en:Image:Rgb-raster-image.png

Hi, you deleted w:en:Image:Rgb-raster-image.png citing CSD I8, but it didn't meet CSD I8's criteria. The version at Wikipedia was a different image, with a different upload history. --Kjoonlee 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rocky.jpg

I was hoping you could shed some light on a problem. I originally split off Luscombe 8 from the Luscombe article last year, and based on the history of the article (my very first edit is here), Image:Rocky.jpg has been there since the beginning. Now, I'm not questioning a need to police images and ensure that no copyrights are violated, however I would like to think that when I created the article the image was of an airplane, and not a CGI representation of Rocky Balboa. Could you please assist my sanity and tell me that this used to be a picture of an airplane? Thanks. McNeight 20:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:TriasJasmine1 523 SM SS.JPG

Hi,

You deleted my image ( TriasJasmine1 523 SM SS.JPG ) but I do have the proper permissions to use it.

The photos were sent to me by the photographer Sthanlee B Mirador.

Ashina

The Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) refused for mediation, is there anyway to ask him over and agree with the mediation? Eiorgiomugini 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bev_Bivens_-_San_Francisco_1965.JPG

Hi, ^demon. Why do you believe this image is not replaceable? Isn't it just being used to illustrate how some person looks like? --Abu badali (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As I noted on the image description page, the photograph is historical (taken in 1965), and is therefore not replaceable. She doesn't look like that today, 42 years later, and it's more encyclopedic to show an image of someone as they appeared at the peak of their career. --Eastmain 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27's block

Are you sure that this is a question of WP:OWN? Maurice is "quite a character", who probably deserves a cooling-off period, but I am not sure that you have made exactly the right call here... if you are going to block all editors who are edit-warring on these articles, you will have my complete support, also if you wish to advance any form of dispute resolution. As it is, I do not see what can be hoped to be acheived :( Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

DEMANDING FAIRNESS Non-standard cosmologies

[ScienceApologist] is a rather skilled group of Wiki-supervisors in physics. They seem very well educated, but mainly in Big-Bang-theories. There they defend their meaning rather fairly and good in the related DISCUSSION.

"Non-standard Cosmologies" are partly very old theories, mainly published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

In such old physics people of ScienceApoligist seem still to have deficits and act quite unfair: Since many weeks we asked for their serious meaning, as offered in related DISCUSSION there, without effect. Instead came anew bare erasion without any well-founded comment, not at all like in other sections (see Big Bang) where they discuss really quite fairly.

Our added section remained even stable until yesterday. Recently a ScienceApologist continues anew to erase old, serious, well-known physics, even as published and cited in PNAS!

Obviously they can no more understand old physicists. They erased again blindly, adding bare speak-bubbles only (like Mickey Mouse),

e.g. with "13:36, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv -- Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox.)" Or: "15:06, 28 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV pushing.)"

We kindly ask to put back our version from 28 May 2007 (of course an old-fashioned physician can enhance it, but this is the oldest, mainly misunderstood theory!) with our summary of

"On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space, PNAS 1929; 15: 773-779" with named and linked other WIKI-cites. We made it as a subsection of the part in order to declate the ralated last phrase:

Alternative metric cosmologies

The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric ... What is included are a number of models based on alternative gravitational scenarios as well as early attempts to derive cosmological solutions from relativity.

WE ADDED (to understand the last phrase, until then "put in free air"):

Gravitational redshift

Main article: gravitational redshift

Mentioned alternative gravitational scenarios are known as Einstein effects: Gravity influences photons. The gravity of a sun not only produces measured deviations (Gravitational lensing) of starlight at a sun, but also diminish centripetally the potential energy of a photon emitted by any kind of sun or another gravity centre. Because the velocity of a photon remains c, loss of energy produces such a redshift of the photon (see picture "Graphic representing the gravitational redshift of a neutron star" in Gravitational redshift). The divergence theorem, (Gauss' theorem, Ostrogradsky's theorem, or Gauss-Ostrogradsky theorem) says: “The sum of all sources minus the sum of all sinks within the surface of any Volume gives the net flow out of the considered region” (while all extern sources have no remaining effect); “applied to a gravitational field we get that the surface integral is -4πG times the mass inside, regardless of how the mass is distributed, and regardless of any masses outside” (theory of distributed masses, see “2.2 The Poisson Equation of the Self-Gravity”, especially “2.3 Free-fall Time” within gas in [Star Formation, Kohji Tomisaka, National Astronomical Observatory Japan)

Olbers' paradox is solved by Big bang. But Fritz Zwicky postulated different kinds of loss of potential energy by gravity, partly lost [citation needed] but even accepted by Hubble in a letter to Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan 15 May 1952: “Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us" ([18], Biblical Astronomer 2004, p.33). As to divergence theorem a (continuously) blown-up volume or real interstellar gas results in a higher sum of sole relevant inner gravity sources. Even a continuum of highly effective dark matter would produce its own growing inner centripetal gravitation. All this should result in an increasing gravitational redshift. While each source of the universe is equivalent, there exist no privileged region for gravitational redshift. This redshift would also be a result of the time dilation measured near massive objects, according to general relativity.[1]. Such a matter must consider also:

New negative matter

Application of the GEM theory of Gravity-Electromagnetism Unification to the problem of Controlled Gravity, Theory and Experiment completes the theory. Negative matter shows negative gravitation effect by divergence theorem and weakens the gravity field by a negative mass: All meanwhile growing inner real material included becomes less effectively. If there exist no real mass in a volume, the perturbed gravity field should lead to a negative mass layer and a lifting force in space. This must also effect the light (please help, e.g. in another article [citation needed]), see [19].

We are a group of German Astronomers, working distributed also with different IP! I am only a "ghost-writer".

We were nearly all Big-Bang fans until recent presentations of John Dobson 2006 over here. Now we discuss more differently and fairly also Non-Standards - We would like others do so as well... Researches were much work of our clubs with physicians, different kinds of doctors, even one Professor.

PLEASE HELP, e.g by a mediation!

wfckehler@aol.com 84.158.210.97 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning dictatorship? Please help in dispute, here related in section DEMANDING FAIRNESS Non-standard cosmologies

Hello,

Please kindly refer at first to our new section below, as cited in Headline.

ScienceApologist steadily erased now old but well-founded physical facts with all links, as used since Hubble (he discovered redshift but not Big Bang, as only few specialists know). Hubble confirmed Fritz Zwicky in 1952 with commonly well-known phrases (never committing Big-Bang), as here hidden in order to FALSIFY HISTORY furthermore?

Sorry, but ScienceApologist is very good in Big Bang with GRT but obviously unable to read and understand old physical theories and facts by physicians as seen in former times, since 1929 and as recited:

Looking first Einstein effect and his special Gravitational redshift with cites of extremely serious (even mainly WIKI-)links are evidences for the 1 phrase above initiated but nowhere explained part of Non-standard cosmologies.

Proposed DISCUSSION was never accepted. Recent 2 Lines is same bare SPEECH-BUBBLE-defamation and not at all serious.

We added now to make more claer:

"Gravitational Scenarios

In General relativity theory Einstein used all Energy and momentum Tensors most generally. His Stress-energy tensor is related with the Metric tensor by the simplified form (details see there): Gμν = κTμν. The special theory of relativity indicates already a general scenario, using masses and Energy by :E = mc2. The Planck-mass, defining the frequency of photons with m = h \nu \ /c² gives not only photon's energy but also a quantity of the redshift relation for any lost Quantum. Each method - as mentioned below - should be then a special selected part of GRT, each scenario considering different aspects as cause or effect only."

We would accept to put a signal that another expert shall help to make it better, but not to erase the missing explanation of the phrase before.

For our part of conservative and the part of critical German Astro-Group again - please answer to

IP 84.158.210.97 wfck 84.158.234.81 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Main page screenshots as orphans

I noticed that your bot removed the "orphan" tag from some images like Image:Netscape47.png, Image:MainPage-Netscape3win-brion.png, Image:MainPage-Netscape4winfixed-brion.png. However, my image Image:Main-Page-netscape4.79-redhat-linux-7.3-paddu.png got deleted being considered an orphan. Do you feel all these images should be treated similarly? Thanks! -- Paddu 11:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All of these were/are in use at only Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots and nowhere else, including my screenshot. -- Paddu 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Whstchy

Hi demon

I really need some mediation. I admit I am new to Wikipedia, and maybe I'v made mistakes, but so far I have written half a dozen articles, which have been accepted as valid. My problem is that another user, User:Whstchy, keeps putting my articles for speedy deletion, or AfD of CSD [whatever that is], even though this has been disagreed with by other editors who have taken his tags off. I am feeling that this is turning personal, and is becoming some sort of crusade against me by this lad.

He is damaging my articles and the reputation of Wikipedia with his attitude.

See

E G Bowen Glenn A Christodoulou E J Boys

as just three examples. He has also canvassed an editor to delete one of my pages when no one else responded to his tag.

Thanks

Jack1956 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RfM for Valencia (autonomous community)

I see that you're actually Chair of MedCom these days—belated congratulations, I don't usually follow such things too closely! I am trying to locate an old (failed) RfM for Valencia (autonomous community): it was filed on or around 2007-04-28, but seems to have disappeared without trace... Thanks for your help, Physchim62 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Max Martin

Hi, I'm still very confused about the policies in relations to the images of living person. When I first uploaded the picture of Max Martin on his biography page, I was rather unsure about whether if I could use it or not, so I assume that we cannot use it because it got deleted. I was wondering if you can explain to me what images can get posted and what cannot. They particular photo was from his own studio's website, so it's probably copyrighted. Thanks! Oidia 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User page for GearedBull

Hi ^demon. Any hints on why your deleted my user page are most welcome. Thanks! Jim CApitol3 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for setting me straight, would it be possible to restore the history if I promise to be a very good boy and not repost? CApitol3 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Hi, there was additional maerial there in the history, and beneath the Montzoar article that I would like to recover. Or could you advise if this simply unrecoverable?CApitol3 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you. CApitol3 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Prism

Hi. I noticed that you speedy deleted Blue Prism. I have no interest in the article, and only noticed it while skimming AfD and noticing that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Prism contained a red link heading despite a reasonably significant number of "keep" votes. I thought perhaps you were unaware of this, and just thought I'd mention it. Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like a strange AfD; the nomination appears to have gone a month without being added to the listing. --Maxamegalon2000 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore Secure Computing Corporation

I do not understand why you deleted the page belonging to Secure Computing Corporation. I was one of several contributors. Was it vandalized by the company itself? If so, then it would have been fine to revert to the community-developed content. This is a nontrivial company that has done important work in the past. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Secure Computing

I've posted something to another administrator as you requested. No doubt there are lots of people around here who work like I do - dropping in every few weeks or months to look at things. I would like to know how long the Secure Computing entry was marked as 'spam' since I didn't remember seeing such a thing. In any case, I think deletion of something that's been the work of a lot of separate people (and I doubt any of us work for the vendor) isn't at all appropriate. Better to fix it than to eliminate it entirely. Cryptosmith (Rick Smith) 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)