User talk:Akradecki/archive/archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Ads file info – show another – #53

Contents
Archive

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. Thanks!


Please add all new material to the bottom of the page!

[edit] Wow, what a busy talk page

You certainly are in the thick of things! I hope you're having fun. From what I see a fair number of people are already turning to you for advice and counsel... keep up the good work! ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, coach! Nice to see you back, hope all is going well for you. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Alan, could you move Gulfstream G400‎ to Gulfstream IV? See discussions on the G400 talk page if you need a rationale, and if you think we should poll first, I have no problem with that. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, but there's a bunch of double redirects that need to be cleaned up. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to find them all, and clean them up. - BillCJ 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more Battle of Washita River

Hey, so Yksin and I are trying really hard to use the talk page to work through the issues in this article (much to the chagrin of Custerwest). It would be great if we could get another voice/opinion on how it's all going so we can get this page unprotected and returned to a wiki-acceptable form. Cheers! Murderbike 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Will try to take a look later this afternoon. I stopped watching the page as it seemed that everyone was talking. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess Murderbike & I had the same idea. It seems as if one of the big problems for both HanzoHattori & Custerwest is in understanding the fundamental content policies of Wikipedia like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, & WP:V. I just wrote a lengthy reply at Talk:Battle of Washita River to Custerwest addressing a post he wrote in terms of these three policies, & I thought it might be helpful to have an admin eye to also take a look at it. I'm not asking for comment on our disagreements about article content -- just on the policies & was I accurate in my description of how they should be used. Any help would be appreciated. Is there anything I missed that he (& I!) should know? No need to reply to this message, I already know you're planning on taking a look. Thanks.--Yksin
Copyright violation. I just discovered that the entirety of the third paragraph of the section of this article called "October to November, 1868" beginning with "The Indians believed they had good bargaining chips" is a quotation from this article (about halfway down at Historynet. com. At the very least, this is a lengthy quote that, while its source is attributed, isn't marked as a quote. I'm pretty sure that this edit was done by Custerwest, though I haven't yet found the diff; I'm not so worried about pointing fingers, though, than in addressing the copyvio, either by removing the offending paragraph or at least putting it in quotation marks. Since the article's blocked from editing, we need admin assistance. This is also discussed here. on Thanks. I'm also alerting User:Evilclown93, in case you're not around. --Yksin 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Update. Here's the diff of when Custerwest added this. --Yksin 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Nightfire Archangel Class

You deleted my page, and your reason was very rude, I have my own website NOT just a MySpace, http://www.tmanninoproductions.com/, all you people on Wikipedia have nothing else to do with their lives but ruin other people's lives. Also how dare you delete my User Page and change my talk page. T.M. Productions 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:T.M. Productions. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Report if you like, I simply removed spam from both. Your user and talk pages are not a place to advertise your company. One more instance of spam, and you'll be blocked. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you seen this?

User:Born2flie

[And this?]

I actually like the guy, but man, what has happened? First dropping the TF he started, and now this? I understnad being frustrated with the way Wikipedia works, tho what he is frustrated with is different than my frustrations. But there seems to be more going on here. Anyway, for what it's worth, I'll miss working with him. - BillCJ 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BalanceRestored

Hey... would you like to adopt me and help writing my articles. They are too hot.. BalanceRestored 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am happy with what you propose, I will follow what you tell me and go as per your suggestions. I will surely make my edits at the sandbox and then after you are through with those I will edit as per your instructions.BalanceRestored 05:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created a BalanceRestored/Sandbox and created Todos as seen at your sandbox. BalanceRestored 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also created a draft article Sandbox/Pranava_Veda and also have copy pasted the upto date discussion at the draft's talk page. BalanceRestored 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Akradecki how are you doing? You want me to help you with anything?BalanceRestored 05:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, hi...I was just leaving a note on your sandbox talk page! Life has been very busy the last few days, and I'm about to go to bed (really tired!). I'm looking forward to talking more, hopefully tomorrow. Meanwhile, would you mind keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? Some articles might show up there in a language that you might recognize and be able to help with. Many thanks, talk with you soon (g'night!) AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What should I plan about this article?? There are many references already provided about this Veda at the talk pages. There's no reason this shouldn't be live. Kindly let me know how I can organize this article. Do you need any more inputs?BalanceRestored 07:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made a very small edit at Veda Veda 5 in Number have a look at the same. I've also provided citation for the same. BalanceRestored 10:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[1] Hi, I specifically created a section named "The Five Vedas", this is very important from the Hinduism point of view because, there is are 2 major groups of believers in India. Both are rival groups in terms of agreement to some of the issues. I persistantly have quoted references from an important text that is Arthasastra that clearly quote the Vedas are 5 in number. But was removed without any explanation. I had quoted a citation for the same. The editor has removed the entire narration about
=== The 5 Vedas ===
There are various texts that talk about the Vedas being 5 in number. Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) says that there are five Vedas. reference The Religious Authority of the Mahabharata: Vyasa and Brahma in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-401, Bruce M. Sullivan reference
I've been trying to get this a lot of times. But, this gets removed and this time even the reference of the Vedas being 5 in number from Arthasastra (1.3.1-2) is not at all seen. From here I will need someone really important like you to guide me with things.BalanceRestored 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of Gaimhreadhan

Hello, and firstly, I apologise for invading your Talk page to continue a slight discussion of the concerns that I have over your block; however, I think that the specific issue (of that block) is better raised here than on Gaimhreadhan's Talk page. Secondly, I'd like to thank you for responding to my own post, and giving reasons although, as you will probably realise, I still don't agree with you.

I should say that I don't know Gaimhreadhan, and hold no particular candle for him, although I do subscribe, in a general way, to his expressed views concerning Irish nationalism and terrorism.

I was concerned about the original block, by SirFozzie, because he has let worse things slide (see here) and because I've seen worse (here are some comments from Admins: [2] and [3]); by imposing his original block he gives the appearance of partiality.

I'm concerned at your block for a number of reasons; (1) because it doesn't WP:AGF - if you asked Gaimhreadhan, I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't have removed the comment himself; and, (2) because there is a danger that blocks can drive good editors away. Frankly, I think that you should have first asked Gaimhreadhan to remove the comment - and I can only repeat that I don't find it either specific or offensive enough to warrant a block - and if he didn't, then to impose one.

The whole issue of IRA-related articles has been a minefield for the last year, and Admins blundering into an ongoing situation run the risk of making things worse.

As I say, I don't mean to be rude to you, and I accept that you have acted from the best of motives; but I do think that you should have assumed sufficient maturity on Gaimhreadhan's part to allow him to correct a mistake or offense that was almost certainly unintended, while letting him make his point.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually asked Gaimhreadhan a few hours later to strike the "Green Nazis" comment when we were talking on my talk page. So he did have a chance. SirFozzie 23:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Major Bonkers, for the extremely civil way you presented your requests...it's definitely appreciated. I'd like to address your concerns, though I don't think I'm able to make you happy. First, I, can't really comment on SirFozzie's actions one way or another, and it really isn't my place to. I have, however, looked at the original comment that let to his instituting the block, and in that instance, I agree with his actions. I know the other editor can be frustrating, but the comments of Gaimhreadhan were definitely uncivil, and was completely justified.
In regards to my block not "assuming good faith"...have you really read WP:AGF? In the section called "About good faith", in bold text, it says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." In otherwords, I assume good faith until bad faith is demonstrated. In this case, an editor had been both warned and censured for incivility, and then one of his first edits after the block was to use very uncivil, inflammatory language. Sorry, but that's a clear demonstration of bad faith, and that's why I issued the block. A typo is an unintended mistake. Blatantly calling someone a "nazi" is neither a mistake nor unintended. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; we've made our points. Thanks to both of you for taking the trouble to review and respond to mine. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you! That helps a lot! So, should I revert articles that have titles with two words being capitalized that I already did before you told me the correct way to do it?

RPlunk2853 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for all of your help!

Ok, thanks! I really appreciate all your help! RPlunk2853 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP!

STOP DELETING MY USER AND TALK PAGES, YOU ARE ABUSING WIKIPEDIA, I'M NOT ADVERTSING, I AM TELLING PEOPLE WHERE TO GO FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ME, I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS RIGHT TO DELETE PEOPLE'S USER AND TALK PAGES, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE I'M QUITTING WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE OF ALL THIS CRAP THAT I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH!

Sigh. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asruge?

Since you asked for an alert regarding further adverts from User:Asruge, I suggest that you look at User talk:66.208.14.82. Same links, may be the same person or an agent. He does write some nice tourist info, but it seems beyond the pale. I'm not up to IP tracing and such, so I don't know if these are definately related. Good luck, --Hjal 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup...I went to block them, and another admin beat me to it. Sometimes, depending on a person's ISP, IP addresses get randomly assigned, so even with this one blocked, the editor might pop up elsewhere...please keep me posted! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:T.M. Productions

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User:T.M. Productions. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Users can put external links to their websites on their talk page. I think a link to his own website hardly qualifies as spam. I've got a link to my webpage, and you've got a link to a purely spam parking site. [4], or should User:Blast san/userboxes/User website and others like User:UBX/MySpace be deleted because they only promote spam? McKay 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is persistent spammer, and removing spam in that manner is completely consistent with policy. In fact, these pages were speediable, but I elected to simply remove the offensive content instead. Having a link on a page isn't offensive, it's when the sole purpose of your user page is to drive people to your company's website that contravenes policy, and this user has admitted that's his purpose. Oh, an BTW, thanks for the reminder that my old blog link went inactive...I'll be removing it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Update...as this user decided to ignore the anti-spam warning, he is now blocked. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the block in the slightest. I'm merely saying that users should be allowed to publicise their own website on their user page. McKay 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If they're individuals, yes. If they're companies, no. Companies don't get to use Wikipedia to publicize their websites...that's the root definition of a spam link. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Alan, Lockheed is currently a redirect to Lockheed Corporation. It used to be a DAB page, but 2 users decided to make it a redirect instead. That being the case, it makes better sense to have the main page at Lockheed. Thanks for your you consideration, and as always, thank you for flying Canaan Knight Airlines. - BillCJ 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it. Good idea, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054

Alan, I guess this really is a BIG story! - BillCJ 18:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, err, uh...Admin, sir.

I can't believe you've let me carry this on for this long with Equazcion on the Talk:Helicopter page! Anytime you want to jump in and admonish the both of us will be fine, though. I've been quite over the top with him, only because I knew it would work and piss him off while at the same time changing his edits a. to something that read much better, and b. to maintain the majority of what I had originally written. So, if I'm the worst offender, I'm willing to accept it, but if it goes on much longer, he's going to hurt himself...have an aneurism or something. --Born2flie 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Born, I'm really out of it...we're going through a really big series of inspections with our 412, and I only get really short snippets of time to get online at break, so I've been limiting my editing and admin stuff to some narrow areas...haven't even checked in on the Helo page. Probably this weekend I'll get time to dig back into stuff. Hope your flying has been going well! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Alan, I couldn't figure out the coding of your user page. I also couldn't believe you didn't have dozens of these. Please do as you will with it but keep being a great admin. --John 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(moved)

Wow...what a pleasant surprise to wake up to on a Friday morning! Thanks for making my day. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ah the double irony

... you kept it, but Geogre deleted it. Sometimes people can't see when you are actually being more than fair to them...--Isotope23 talk 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost SR-71s

Alan, there is a dynamic IP user who keeps playing word games with the SR-71 Blackbird page. It used to say there had been x-number of plase lost, and a user (I assume the same one) kept adding comments saying they had all been found, etc. I have added warning and explanations to his various IPs over the last few months, but to no avail. I finally just changed "lost" to destroyed", but this user keeps changing it back, so I know he is aware of the history here. I have warned him at User talk:72.219.207.149 three times today. Thanks for whatever you can do, as you can. - BillCJ 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I see you have dealt with this editor recently, and was wondering if you could help.

Gaimhreadhan has repeatedly referred to me as a sockpuppet/reincarnation of another editor, One Night In Hackney. He continually refers to me as 303, which One Night In Hackney used in his signature as you can see on this talk page.

His harassment started when he left a patronising message on my talk page here. He then referred to me as 303 in various edit summaries and talk page messages - [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. He even created a userpage for me as well referring to me as 303 [10].

As you can see here he was told to stop harassing me by two administrators, as well as another editor.

Since then he has continued harassing me for over a week, repeatedly referring to me as 303 on multiple pages and continuning to make accusations - [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

He also lied to an administrator about my conduct. In this edit he says in his edit summary I removed comments "without comment", this is not true. I removed comments from an editor who has done little except harass me, and I removed SirFozzie's at the same time as it made no sense to leave them in place. However three minutes later I replied to SirFozzie on his talk page, and the false allegation was made 40 minutes after I had made this reply.

Other editors have also tried to get him to stop, discussion here, but his insinuations have continued since then.

Can anything be done about this harassment please? I see he has previously referred to Irish republicans as "Green Nazis", so it seems as though he dislikes Irish republican editors and harasses them, based on my experience and also his attacks on other editors such as Vintagekits and Domer48. Many thanks. Brixton Busters 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I and several other editors in the last day or so have asked him to stop. Let's clear the slate. If there is any new incidence of harrassment, please let me know. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. He has again referred to Irish republicans as "Green Nazis" here. While it may be a small section of the Irish republican population that he refers to, I still find this gratuitously offensive. I can only imagine if I referred to a section of the British population known as the British Army as "British bastards" that my time here would be short. Brixton Busters 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of this thread until now. Please note that Gaimhreadhan persisted in his behaviour past my final warn on his talk page yesterday. I have now blocked him for 24 hours for repeated harassment of the above editor. His unblock appeal has now already been twice declined by other administrators - Alison ☺ 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was also unaware of this thread until now. Let me be clear about this. It was the Provisional IRA ( a proscribed terrorist organisation) that I refer to as "Green Nazis". (But never in our encyclopaedia articles!). Most (ie a numeric majority in the whole island of Ireland) of the folks in Ireland are Irish Republicans and I'm one myself. It's the Provos that I loathe and detest. Either Brixton Buster has been very sloppy in his analysis or he's trying to twist what I wrote: [24] "Tribally, I am an Irish Republican. But not a mindless one that glamorises violence for its own sake, I hope. It's not just the hypocrisy and self-delusion I hate about the Provo's failed and wicked campaign of violence; it's the fact that they've set back the unity of peoples about 145 years."
  • "Irish Republican" and "Provisional IRA" are no more synonymous than "Mammal" and "Rat"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You completely miss the point. This is not Ireland, it is Wikipedia. Here, you're not an Irish Republican or anything else except a Wikipedian. Gosh, I wish you could live where I do...in my condo complex, we must have at least a dozen nationalities, and we all get along (and amazingly don't even bomb one another!). You folks in Ireland could really learn some things from us SoCal folks, if you'd just put down your bloody pride for two shakes. It is the same in Wikipedia-land. Leave your political/national affiliations on the other side of the computer screen. Here, we all are to try to get along, we all have one common purpose, to build the greatest encyclopedia in the history of mankind (that's all of us mankind, mind you!). This is a place for writing, not fighting, so leave your wars, your petty squabbles, your bombs and your nazis of all colors at home! Edit on! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I know I'm not involved here, but well said!! I couldn't agree more! Nationalities aside, we all need to just get along. Tom H 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't have any difficulty that we should leave our national and political PoVs at the door when we edit on Wikipedia. However, the (successful) campaign to block me was conducted on the basis that I was slurring and insulting other editors (and, specifically, self identified Irish republican editors) as "Green Nazis".
        • I was not.
        • I was (admittedly unsuccessfully) trying to make the point that deliberately muddying the differences between the various historical and contemporary flavours of the IRA, bowdlerising language so that murders and maimings of civilians were described in our articles as killings and actions, etc was carrying out the agenda of the Provisional IRA and was unworthy of Wikipedia. I categorised the Provisional IRA (not in an article) as "Green Nazis" because this is a) common shorthand in Ireland to describe the PIRA agenda of re-writing history and b) to allude to the efforts of Josef Goebbels, the German Nazis temporarily successful propaganda chief.
        • For our readers - knowledgeable and naive - these were not "petty squabbles". The terrorist campaigns by the various IRA's had thousands of victims. Hundreds died and thousands were maimed and orphaned. If the properly cited and referenced facts are covered up and de-emphasised, categories removed and abbreviations deliberately confused, then our encyclopaedia is the worse for giving in - covertly, overtly or just out of sheer boredom with all us "bickering Irishmen" - and the "Green Nazi agenda" has succeeded. With one notable exception, I've never campaigned to have any editor blocked or sanctioned here on Wikipedia.
        • You are fortunate to live in a beautiful and relatively harmonious part of the world and perhaps may not have noticed that there has been substantial progress made on the ground in Ireland recently. I don't expect you to read my talk pages before you block me (you're far too busy) and accuse me of not being able to leave my prejudices at the door, but if you actually examined my history of editing and the biographical details I provided, you might have been able to assume good faith. It might also have been courteous to bring my attention to these threads on your user talk page that mention me by name. I'll let the matter drop now if you will too...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOME QUESTION MORE

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?

Tobias, please stop using IP addresses to avoid blocks. One more instance and I'll block you permantently for ongoing harrassment. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That IP really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely--it's Deutsche Telekom and they rotate frequently. I'd say a week, tops. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite IP block?

I saw your indefinite block of the IP. No dispute about the merits of the block. However, are we sure that this IP will remain assigned to its current owner? If not, the block should probably be modified to a finite time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point; time's been reduced. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
He's just logging when you block... 15 mins should do the trick and if he continues a short rangeblock might be in order (hours... not days).--Isotope23 talk 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm jumping off to go to work...can you take care of this? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got your page watchlisted...--Isotope23 talk 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost due to navigational error

Alan, I'm about at my wit's end with the SR-71 page. Several IPs (apparently the same user) have been making changes to the text over the last few months. I have details at Talk:SR-71 Blackbird#No losses. This person is either a vandal, or the absolutely most stupid fanboy in the world! Jeff filed an AIV last night, but they declined to do anything (surprise!) Jeff has rewritten the statement again, but I expect the vandal to be back by tonight - he's having to much fun to give up now! Please help!! - BillCJ 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've s-protected the page for a week...we'll see what happens after that. There's a pretty strong consensus for not having long term s-protect, so I'm somewhat limited in what I can do. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for doing something. It's always more than AIV does, and I do appreciate it. - BillCJ 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaimhreadhan

Akradecki, after the block of Gaimhreadhan last week for refering to Irish republicans as "Green Nazi's" he has again today refered to republicans as Green Nazi's here. There has been consderable effort on the part of Irish republicans to remain calm over the past few months of heated debate but this kind of constant abuse should he have to be tolerated. --Vintagekits 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference here, and I made a point of it before: last time he called editors the slur, this time he's just making a political statement about the parties in general. As detestable as that is, civility blocks address incivility directed towards other editors. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I just think that he knows its offensive and letting it just slide past gives others the impression that it is OK to offend. --Vintagekits 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you post that to WP:ANI. The way I understand it, unless the incivility is directed towards other editors specifically, then there's not much I can do about it. Other admins may have other views, which I am happy to defer to. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have clarified in a section above, it is specifically the Provisional IRA that I referred to as "Green Nazis" and not "Irish republicans". I'm an Irish republican myself! Since the Provisional IRA is a prescribed terrorist organisation, I'd be amazed if any of our editors would ever admit to membership in the Provo's. If and when we do get an editor that admits to membership in the Provo's, I'll have to refrain from calling a spade a spade so as not be uncivil...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages and Alaibot

No, Alaibot makes automatic edits, not manually-assisted ones; see any of the task sub-pages for a statement to that effect. See my reply to the user whose comment you added to: if it's a well-formed disambiguation page, it'll be skipped by my bot. If it's not well-formed, attempting to detect that something is intended to be a disambiguation page is likely to be more trouble, and more error-prone than it's worth. These articles need to be looked at by a human editor, which is the whole point of tagging them in the first place. (I could of course just tag everything with a "this an uncategorised mainspace page, someone please do something about it, such are determining if it needs to be stub-tagged, categorised, or have its disambiguation/redirect syntax fixed", but that would less useful still, methinks.) And please try to adopt a less needlessly confrontational tone. (You may wish to refer to both the civility and blocking policies.) Alai 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First, my comment about it being manually run comes from the statement on the bot page, "This is a manually-run bot". This is still true of you bot, is it not? Second, the dab page I was referring to was properly formed, and thus was already cat'd, and third, guidelines allow for an admin to temporarily block a bot that is not operating properly. Bots are a great idea, but if they're not working properly, they can also do great damage, and the owners need to be ready to speedily address the actual issue, rather than trying to brush it off. You have not addressed what you're going to do about the bot, and what you're going to do to ensure that it hasn't tagged other pages improperly. Please address these issues. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Manually-run" is not the same as "makes manually-assisted edits"; as I say, the task pages make that clear. It means the batch of editing is commenced by hand, not the individual edits. (That's also the terminology bots generally use for that distinction, though not quite as consistently as I'd wish (or have suggested at the requests page that they be).) I'll add a further clarification to the bot's main page, just to be 'belt and braces'. Look at the diff you supplied again: the page wasn't tagged, and hence not categorised, and so was (in that sense at least) not well-formed. Policy allows for blocking of bots that are malfunctioning or unapproved; this is neither. (And "will be blocked" is rarely the most helpful way to start any discussion.) If you find any that actually were disambig-tagged (or otherwise actually categorised), at the time of bot-edit, then do please let me know, since that really would be a malfunction, of some sort or other. (I'm moderately confident it's not making any such edits, but I'm open to correction on that.) I'm not "brushing off" anything: I'm pointing out the several respects in which you're preceding on a mistaken premise, which leads you to conclude that 'something must be done'; and why these edits are in fact broadly useful (even beyond the utility of the many other edits in the same batch, that it's not practicable to distinguish them from), and certainly not harmful. What I'm going to "do about the bot" is continue running it as-is, at least until such time as some refinement occurs (or is constructively suggested, who knows) to me, that isn't likely to do more harm than good (as would, for example, ceasing running it; or running it in such as way as to significantly risk mis-tagging non-disambig pages as such, as against into a maintenance cat). If some way of spotting intended disambigs -- that are, bear in mind, both without the tag, or having that in the pagename -- without false positives does come up, I'll set about implementing it. (If one wants to be picky this would really also need another task request.) Given the infinite possibilities for mangling them, it's very unlikely it'll ever be free of false negatives (which appears to be the standard you're insisting on). Alai 07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem, and it's good of you to say as much. As I say, I'll give some further thought as to whether there's a 'safe' way to detect which of these might better be tagged with disambig, or disambig-cleanup, instead. Alai 02:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mojave Spaceport

Alan, I just herd there was an explosion there at the port. I hope and pray you and yours are OK. Let us know how you're when you can, but don't worry about anything else. Sounds like a mess there, and I'm sure you'll be busy a while. God bless. - BillCJ 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I'd left for the day when the incident occurrwd, but I talked to our pilot and he said that we had transported two of the four injured, and two others were killed. From what I understand, it happened at Scaled's rocket test site. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're OK. I've heard it was the SpaceSHip Two engine that blew. I guess we'll hear more soon. - BillCJ 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill beat me to it! I hear scaled composites and the mojhave and was wondering how close you were. Glad you are well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Things are rather somber around here this morning. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.

Wow...what a pleasant surprise on a rather sad day. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Earlier today, you speedy deleted the article EMILY's List Australia. This is one of the most significant feminist organisations in Australia - hell, it's one of the most notable political organisations in Australia. You also deleted EXIT (Australia), which is a very high-profile national pro-euthanasia group, run by our equivalent of Jack Kevorkian.

I realise that these appear to have been wrongly tagged by User:ExtraDry, but as an administrator, you're supposed to have the judgement to double check speedy deletion taggings made by others. Both of these articles are far from new, have been edited by numerous editors, and have so much source information it would not be hard to write a featured article about either. There is not a chance either of them would get anything but a (quite probably unanimous) keep vote if they were nominated on Articles for Deletion. Please be more careful with your speedy deletions in future. Rebecca 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, as an admin yourself, you should know that CSD A7 requires an assertion of notability. Neither of these articles contained that at the time they were deleted. EMILY's List Australia stated simply that it was the equivalent to a PAC in the US. There are zillions of those, almost all of which are non-notable. So if this one was so notable, why did it not have any refereces? I see it's been greatly expanded, that's good, but keep in mind the criteria...an assertion of notability. Neither of them had any references that established notability. EXIT (Australia) still doesn't, in fact your description above says more than the article does. As far as the articles were concerned, they appeared simply as non-notable political groups. Also, remember that it is the contributor's responsibility to provide the refrences and assertions of notability, not the admin reviewing the CSD. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator, you're expected to use some judgement with these things, not to "shoot on sight". Both the articles made clear that they were national organisations founded by notable people who also had their own articles. Would it have been too much work to do a quick Google and to discover that they were both, indeed, very notable, despite the fact that the current articles were stubs? What you did was just downright slack. Rebecca 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In re "shoot the spammers on sight"

I saw your "where's the letter?" post and wondered if this Corporate Vanity Policy Enforcement post is what you were looking for. — Athaenara ✉ 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's the one! Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
YaY! You're welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Company Overview Deleted

I was trying to reference our Wikipedia entry for our company, Anonymizer Inc., but the post was deleted. I do not understand why a company overview was deleted?? It was simply there to provide background on our 10 year old organization. Could you please provide me with an explanation as to why this happened and what I can do to correct this mistake? thanks - Jason

I think I vaguely remember this one, but a search of Anonymizer doesn't pull up the deletion log. What was the article actually called? Also, please check out our conflict of interest guidelines. It is probably not appropriate for you to be editing an article on your company. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service nor a place to promote your company, even if it's just an overview. We're an encyclopedia, and entries about companies have to demonstrate a certain level of notability. You should also be familiar with our notability guidelines for corporations. If the article didn't clearly demonstrate compliance with that guideline, it is most likely the reason it was deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, found it, restored it and sent it to AfD to get wider input on the deletion. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions for new Wikipedia editors

I was wondering why so many editors don't give a source for information they add to Wikipedia, and why so many stub articles have an external link section that was apparently created as a reference section. I think part of the answer is in Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. I glanced through them, trying to view the information from a complete newcomer's perspective. I saw a few things that might be contributing to some problems in Wikipedia.

  • Introduction "anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." Lots of newcomers and anons make test edits on that page, and source/reference information is notably lacking from their edits. Not even a little note in parentheses saying "I got this from my history book". Sometimes an inline link, but rare. It might be worth seeing if a ==Notes and references== section with {{Reflist}} or <references/> can be maintained on that page as a reminder. Plus maybe a page header CITE YOUR SOURCES.
  • Learn more about editing Thinking like an eager new editor, I went straight to Read about how to create your first article. The main points tell me to be bold, but they don't tell me to cite my references. In the second bullet in the second section I glance at this:
Good research and citing your sources. Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.
My impression from that is that research and citations are purely optional, the most important thing is to write about what I know about. I can always leave the verification problem to someone else... that's "better than nothing." I figure I don't have to do any real research to contribute to Wikipedia, because I can just write about what I know about.
  • Explore Wikipedia is my next stop as an aspiring editor. I've already looked around Wikipedia a bit and seen the articles, but I'm curious about who writes Wikipedia. This is text-heavy, but I glance at the first couple of paragraphs...
Volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a "Wikipedian".
It is Wikipedia policy to add to the encyclopedia only statements that are verifiable, and not to add original research. The Wikipedia style guide encourages editors to cite sources. Sometimes Wikipedians do not follow these policies because they forget or because they are not aware of the policy, and until citations are supplied, readers of the article cannot verify the content in question.
That's pretty boring. I want to WRITE. But I guess first I'd better glance at the...
  • Tutorial
  • Front page welcomes me to make edits
  • Editing explains Show preview and Edit summary Some of that might not make sense to me if I'd already created a Wikipedia username and started messing with my user preferences, but I get the drift.
  • Formatting Hmmm. Right. Good to know.
  • Wikipedia links I spot "When to link" and read "The easiest way to learn when to link is to look at Wikipedia articles for examples. If you're trying to decide whether to make a link or not, ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" Usually link the first, and only the first, occurrence of a word/term in the article, that does not have an implictly understood definition." Being a new editor, I don't quite follow that last sentence. I barely notice the lead sentence "Linking Wikipedia articles together is very important. These easily-created links allow users to access information related to the article they're reading and greatly add to Wikipedia's utility." I notice I have to use 2 square brackets to link to another page. I never get as far as reading about categories.
  • External links is wonderfully clear and simple -- I can DO that!!
  • Talk pages. I'm not interested in talking right now, I just want to edit. But I glance at this.
  • Keep in mind. This sounds boring, but I click on it and glance at it. Editorial policies... Subject matter... Neutral point of view... blah blah blah... I never really notice another messaage, because it's pretty far down:
Citing sources
Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References". If any websites would be of particular interest to a reader of an article, they should be listed and linked to in an "External links" section, and books of particular interest should be listed in a "Further reading" section, but only if they were not used as sources for the article. Citations help our readers verify what you've written and find more information.

Carefully hidden away is something of major importance to the integity of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute."

Based on this introduction and tutorial for new editors, I'm not surprised that there are thousands of unsourced and poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia -- and many short articles and stubs with "External links" sections and no citations. Wikipedia is only as strong as its editors, and new editors are often guided by Wikipedia's Introduction and Tutorial. 65.78.213.45 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...some interesting points to ponder! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi

Why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi result in a Keep? Absolutely no notability is established anywhere. Corpx 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because a) consensus was to keep it (four keep comments, one delete commetn), and b) secondary schools are generally considered inherently notable. If this had been a high school in the US or the UK, there'd been a large, loud statement of this. Just because it's in another country does not diminish this. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There were 2 delete votes - just that the second one was not bolded due to formatting issues. As User:Alansohn said on my talk page, there is no inherent notability for schools anywhere. Corpx 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are 3 delete votes, if you count the nominator Corpx 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, even then "no consensus" defaults to a keep. As for no inherent notability for secondary schools...methinks you haven't spent much time around AfD. If you disagree still, that's fine, take it to WP:DRV. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Campion Higher Secondary School, Tiruchi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corpx 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kawasaki Ki-61

Alan, could you look at Kawasaki Ki-61 page? Our Italian friend has dumped improperly-sourced text into the article. He is balking at my assumption that, because it's so well-written compared to his posts and other contributions, that it might be a verbatim text copy. WIth the language propblem, I an't be certian he really understnads my objections here, and thinks I'm just accusing him of stealing. We can't just copy copyrighted material, even with a source - it has to be rewritten. At least that is my uderstnading of WIki policy,and what I was taught in school when writing papers. Am I wrong on this? - BillCJ 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. That was certainly a very suspect-looking edit. Too bad his edit summary wasn't as well-written! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of e-commerce solutions

Why'd you delete it? I loved that page man!

Because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ecommerce solutions. Remember, it's not a vote, it's a discussion of how the article fits our guidelines and policies. After analysis of the discussion, discounting the comments without guideline/policy support, the "article" which is really isn't, failed to meet our requirements. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boink! :)

Have you checked your
mail lately, Mr. Anderson Radecki?
Much love your way! :)
Phaedriel
23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Washita River-related user conduct RfCs

As an administrator who has been involved with the long-term disputes about the article Battle of Washita River (which is still under full protection), I want to inform you of the two related user-conduct RfCs that have now been certified:

Thanks for your past efforts in trying to help us deal with the disputes about this article. --Yksin 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I read through the RFCs briefly, and was impressed with their comprehensiveness and clarity. Good luck! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use some comments from people outside the dispute. Thanks again. --Yksin 02:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Whoa, I've been at this all day now... think I better go eat. --Yksin 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Laffey

I noticed you were the last admin to delete Aaron Laffey because it met CSD. Laffey has now been called up to the majors, so can you please unprotect this page from creation?►Chris Nelson 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Just make sure that the article clearly describes his notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I just tried to edit it and it says it's still protected.►Chris Nelson 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, after I removed the title from WP:PT I forgot to purge that page's cache. It should work now. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C-5 Galaxy

Alan, the C-5 Galaxy has been hit a number of times this week by what a appears to be a single user with two distinct ranges of dynamic IPs. Examples are here and here. Can you semi-protect the page for a week or so? Thanks. - BillCJ 19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, see my reply about the Kawasaki edit war on the project talk page. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request, if it can be done

Alan, could you look at North American Union, and see if, A) you can retrieve the page, and put it in a sandbox on my userspace. B) I'd also like to see the edit history and users, if that's possible. There was an IP continually adding info to the North American Monetary Union page last week, and I'd be curisous to see if he edited that page too, and if the protection of the NAU page preceded his dumping text in the other article. It would be ironic in that I suggested a North American Union page would be more suitable for his comments! I am interested in the topic in theory, and if I can put together a good, well-source article covering all POVs in a NPOV manner, I'd like to do that, and the reapply to have the title unproteceted (howver that is done). Just the text would suffice if that is all you are able to retrieve. You can put in it User:BillCJ/Sandbox/NAU - NAU would be better than the full title, as some over-eager editor or admin might assume I'm trying to avoid the title block, or planning to recreate the page as-is! Thanks. - BillCJ 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I just found North american union. Would be interesting to see how close this is to what was AFDed, and if the creator is trying to avoid the block. DOn't worry abaout retrieving the other text, jsut do what you need to to see if this is block avoidance. I'll copy what is here now, and use that as my starting point. Thanks again. - BillCJ 03:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Beware of flying sand...I just dumped the text on to your sandbox page, and the history on to the sandbox's talk page. I would strongly suggest touching base with Tom harrison on this matter as well, since he's the admin that appears to have protected the title against recreation. Someone had tried to recreate it already after the AfD, and he redeleted it as recreation of deleted material. I don't see anything in the AfD that would prejudice its recreation if the AfD concerns could be met, but I'd suggest talking with him, tell him your intentions, and invite him to review the material. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will, and I'll have him look at North american union too, if he hasn't sen it already. Thanks for retrieving the old article - it's actually MUCH better that what is currently at North american union, which looks like it's based TOTALLY on Joe Corsi's book. In addition, it is highly POV. I'll be looking into getting doing an AFD on it if someone else doesn't beat me to it. THanks for the Edit list - the IPs of the person I was looking for is not on the list, but anyway! Thanks again! - BillCJ 03:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NP...we've been edit-conflicting...and I've already dropped Tom a note, so you might want to follow up there. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More rendition bird poop

Hey Alan - - - I've been plugging in more data on Tepper, Pegasus, rendition aircraft, et al...

Mark Sublette 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Hey, it's nice meeting you! I'm enjoying working with you on the dispute; it's always good to find level heads in these things..! – Dreadstar † 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute

Akradecki, you posted this on my talk page after I retagged the article as {{totallydisputed}}:

You seem to still be insisting on tagging this article, even though it has been explained to you that the tag is inappropriate. You are free to believe that the cause of the disaster as determined by the NTSB is wrong, however your POV belief does not qualify as a factual assertion that the biographical article is not neutral. Please stop adding the tag, or your edits will be considered disruptive.

But have you read my post on the article's talk page about my reasons before posting this? Because it seems to me that you dont even understand why am I retagging the article as {{totallydisputed}} over and over again. So to make a long story short I'm not tagging it because I disagree with the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB, I'm doing this because to my opinion this article is missing the Egyptian disagreement on the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB. So please read my post if you havent already, and please inform me about the appropriate action that should be done. Thank you. ñÅñÑüTalk 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your post, and that is not a reason to tag the whole article. You just said that your concern is only with one narrow area. So, read up on the NTSB and the ECAA reports from a technical point of view, and add factual material that supports what you think is missing from the article. Just make sure it's factual, NPOV and properly cited. And keep it brief...this article isn't about the crash or the controversy. That's in a different article. Also make sure that your material is based on fact, not speculation. You might want to read the ECAA objections to the NTSB assertions, then read the NTSB responses. In the areas of mechanical failure in the tail components, the NTSB actually listened to the ECAA (despite media assertions to the contrary) and in a very detailed manner, tested the mechanical failure theories. It's quite interesting reading, if you're into technical stuff. However, general stuff like "he wouldn't have done that" or "an Egyptian couldn't have done that" is speculation and is not based in demonstrable fact. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok Akradecki, I know this is becoming very boring but I want to ask you something, I am convinced now that the Factual Accuracy of the article is not disputed because it is based on facts, but is it neutral or does it deserve just a {{npov}} tag until the Egyptian Disagreement section is created !!! Because this article contains one sided information and doesn't contain the Egyptian POV. ::

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

I just want to thank you for your patience on my little experience on Wikipedia, but believe me I'm just trying to do the right thing. ñÅñÑüTalk 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about Al-Batouti's article, or the incident's article? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute not the incident. ñÅñÑüTalk 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the problem is that the Egyptian disagreement is based on technical aspects of the accident investigation and so that content should be in the incident article, not the article about Gameel. At most, a statement that says something like "The Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority disputes the cause of the crash, blaming technical problems, rather than any action of Al-Batouti". Would a statement like that satisfy you? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Obvousely, all the guilth is mine. Obviousely your policies allows you to delete all i write because 'original thinking' is not allowed, and interpretations of every policy is adapted to this o that one as holy war is called.

Well, now i have discovered that Bzuk, your goodfellow friend, has rollbacked all i wrote about Reggiane Re.2001. Since i wrote pratically stuff WELL KNOWN AND DEBATED BY OTHER AUTORS, and i have cited the source of every information, so my dear friend, give me the reasons WHY these are rollbacked. Bzuk continues with its attacks to everything i wrote even for the most silly reason (as 'it's not important' issue). This is problematic or i miss something? This is worsening the Wiki articles or i miss something? This is a vandalism made by him or because he is an admin he made only justice acts?

Since i have enough of him, i wuould discuss his manners in a place in wich i can effectively make worth to my reasons. If i cannot, this is a blatalant unjustice made on me and every contributor that even in good faith is bited by some burocrats. And as my ban in wiki, well if you allow me, i don't rate you a judice of my action there.--Stefanomencarelli 12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can clearly see why he rolled your back, and I just rolled back your most recent changes because you removed important information without reason, and, unless I missed something, you added a bunch of information without references. Also, and this isn't the sole reason but it's important, your English grammar and spelling really needs some work, and what you added was almost unreadable. This encyclopedia is expected to have a professional-grade of English. I don't mean to offend you, but your writing simply isn't there. I would strongly suggest that you propose text changes on the talk page and get input from other project members who can make sure that the material is factual, it's cited, it's supported by the citations, and it's grammatically correct. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You have rollbacked my version with the usual, silly justifications. Now i am not joking: this is vandalism whetever you says. And i will acted on you as you deserve.On problematic users page.--Stefanomencarelli 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring my edits up for review...I have nothing to hide. As an admin, I try to be as transparent and explanatory as possible for whatever I do. My recommendation still stands: propose your text on the talk page first, and get others to help you with it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
As Stefanomencarelli has not seen fit to inform you, you are being discussed here. --John 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Hey Akradecki, I wanted to thank you again for all the help getting some movement going on Battle of Washita River. And also to apologize to you for snapping at you re: the plagiarism question. This has been a matter of recent concern for me after it was discovered that a lengthy quote from a P.D. source had been placed in the article (by HH) in the past, sourced but without quotation marks. Essentially, it was the same thing Custerwest had done by quoting and sourcing the Michno article but not using quotation marks, with the only difference being that Custerwest's source is under copyright, but HanzoHattori's source is not.

As the article stands right now, however, HanzoHattori's source was removed, due apparently to sloppy editing during the edit war. I'm not sure that would have happened had quotation marks been used. Anyway, discovery of this led to a too-long & very frustrating discussion with HanzoHattori that he somehow turned over to questions about Serb nationalism; meanwhile, I did a lot of research about Wikipedia polices on plagiarism, which I discovered are very scattershot, unclear, & inconsistent. I started a policy discussion at Talk:Manual of Style, which was demoralizing to me because I discovered there to be a high tolerance for what I consider plagiarism on Wikipedia. Obviously I have strong opinions about it -- I work in an academic environment, where plagiarism is absolutely forbidden, regardless of whether the source is copyrighted, public domain, or whatever. But Wikipedia is not an academic environment, & there appears to be no consensus at the moment for a policy such as the one I suggested. So, I've given up on it.

In any case, strong opinions or not, I had no business taking my frustration about this issue out on you, & I hope you'll accept my apology. --Yksin 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely accepted, partly because I really didn't take it as snapping, just as a mis-understanding. Anyway, I would have thought that, since you work in an academic environment, you would have known that the real combatants at Washita were exiled Serb nationalists.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[smacking self on forehead]. Of course! Geez, how in heck did I miss that? ;) --Yksin 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefano Mencarelli

I just had the idea to check user:Stefanomencarelli's page in the Italian Wikipedia, and both his talk and user pages are full of polemics, accuses againt other editors, etc. like here. I has been banned from the Italian Wikipedia starting from May 2007 (this is why we found him here). He clearly looks like a frenzy editor who has no capability to conform to Wikipedia rules, wherever he goes and whatever he writes. We know that such people is not missing in this world. They just think the world's truth is in their hands; in a few words, it's a natural process that their Wikilife is short. --Attilios 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SR-71

Alan, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified 68.244.13.195 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan, maybe it's time for another semi-protect? - BillCJ 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel du Plessis

This article was wrongly deleted in my opinion from wikipedia. There was a bit of debate about it. Anyway of getting it back or will we have to start again? He has just been announced in the Namibian Rugby world cup side. Cheers Chickentacos 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at RfD

Please read my comments at the 7 August 2007 RfD you commented in regarding Wp:afd. You are wrong in thinking that deleting the redirect would prevent searches for wp:afd from working, and "bad precedent" isn't the only deletion rationale there is. I would appreciate if you retracted your statement or made it clear why it is still valid in light of my comments there. In the future, please read discussions you participate in prior to commenting to prevent stating something that has been stated and refuted. BigNate37(T) 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, may I respectfully request that you tone things down a bit. It's fine to disagree with someone, but to speak in such a rude and discourteous manner simply because you don't agree with my comments is not acceptable. As a matter of fact, I did read the discussion fully, including your comments. Maybe the problem here is that you just didn't explain yourself clearly enough. Maybe you'd like to explain in a more detailed manner to me how I got to the redirect page in the first place when I typed Wp:afd into hte search box. What would have happened if that redirect wasn't there? You have yet to explain how the project actually benefits from deleting this redirect, I've clearly explained that it would be helpful for folks like me who, accidentally or otherwise, type the search string in this way. Improve the project, don't just delete for pickiness' sake, and don't jump down another editor's throat simply because you didn't explain the technical aspects clearly enough. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that my comments were any less courteous than yours at the RfD. "Let's think about it" and "no brainer" are insulting considering the length I went to in my initial comments, implying I didn't put any effort into it. Quite the contrary, it took me quite some time and effort to formulate those comments. Regardless of that, you're right; I was quite terse. My apologies for the incorrect assumption—the points you raised were answered by my comments already, and your statement that "if we delete, we've done nothing to improve the project" seemed to have been written without regard to my previous statement that "there is harm in having Wp: redirects." I went on to explain how search results exclusively for the main namespace turn up these shortcuts and overshadow the encyclopedic results. That was why I assumed you had not read my comments end-to-end. At any rate, I thought it more appropriate at the time to reply at your talk page since restating myself would have diluted discussion at the RfD. I've given up on the notion of getting my points across at the RfD discussion, so please feel encouraged to remove my comments from your talk page should you find them unwelcome. BigNate37(T) 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.118.153.134

ALan, User talk:24.118.153.134 has been removing data from the F-22, F-117, and other pages over the past month that I've been watching him, and has lots of warning on his page to that effect going back a few months. Can you look at this, and see if something can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone has blocked him for a week. - BillCJ 07:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

(Barnstar moved to user page) Yksin, many thanks! It was a pleasure working with editors who were truly dedicated to making this a better place. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWSSB

I would nominate any article that doesn't assert it's notability. This one is barely a stub. Don't make nationalistic comments. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. 24.6.65.83 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making nationalistic comments. I'm stating that the nom is nationalistic...you're treating a government agency from India differently than you would one from the U.S.; additionally, the article did assert notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"let's not be americentric here" is a nationalistic comment, one that presumes a bias on my part. Once again you fail to assume good faith - the nomination had absolutely nothing to do with where the agency is located. 24.6.65.83 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
When the article clearly states that it is one of the premier government agencies in one of India's largest cities, that's an assertion of notability. I assume good faith unless bad faith is clearly demonstrated. Please read WP:CSD...articles that assert notability, as this one did, are not elibible for CSD. As I stated in my deletion summary, I highly doubt you'd be nom-ing the article if the initials were LADWP instead of BWSSB. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If the BWSSB article looked anything like LADWP it wouldn't be an issue; the notability would be obvious. But obviously nothing is going to alter the mistaken impression you have of me. Makes me wonder why you're so quick to judge and so reluctant to accept any other possibility. 24.6.65.83 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, stub status (meaning shortness) is not a reason to delete and article. In fact, stubs are encouraged. Better a stub on a notable subject that others can build upon than nothing. For CSD to apply, notability has to be asserted in the article (even if it's not backed up by refs). The article in question clearly asserted notability: a premier gov't agency, one of the largest cities in one of the largest countries, and it's been around for well over 40 years. All that was contained in the stub, so clearly it is notable. What I wanted you to see is that we need to have a broadly balanced view of content: you need to recognize what the article is claiming, that it is reasonable for it to be claiming that. It should be obvious that such an agnecy in India is going to be just as notable as its equivalent agency in the U.S., even if the article isn't as long. It is an unfortunate bias around here that many editors see what's around them, and think that's notable, but don't stop to consider that an equivalent subject in a country on the other side of the globe is just as notable. My comment wasn't at all nationalistic, but rather trying to get you to think internationalistic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I missed the word "premier" in my reading of the article; I tend to give such words, without something to back them up, scant attention in any case. I also don't consider length of existence to be notable - lots of businesses have far longer histories. I make no assumptions that similar entities are of similar notability. I've worked on lots of articles to which I have no personal knowledge and am physically far removed, all with the goal of improving Wikipedia.
Basically it was the assumption of a bias on my part that I objected to. If you had simply declined the DB without the accusation of americentric bias, I would have accepted that; I've made similar mistakes about assertions of notability before and will undoubtedly do so again. Your assumption of bad faith was very offensive and I hope you'll reconsider before doing so again. As an admin, I would hope you know better. 24.6.65.83 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If I offended you, I'm sorry. What I don't understand is why you insist on a negative approach to articles like this...tagging with CSD, then tagging with neutrality (how is the article not neutral? You didn't explain on the talk page like you're supposed to), then tagging with a sources tag. Why not approach it from a positive angle? You could have looked up sources and helped build the article, rather than tear it down. I'm currently doing just that, and have found plenty of sources, including reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the major water supply problems in Bangalore, and what BWSSB is doing to meet the needs. I'm currently adding this information to the article. It would have taken you just as much time to do something positive for this article as it took you to add the tags and all the discussion here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I could do that, yes, and I have with other articles, but quite simply I can't take that approach for every article I run across. I'm already bogged down in researching several others that I really don't care about. Most of the time I try to make some small improvement and move on. (I added the NPOV tag because of the word "premier" with no sources to back it up; it appears to be fluff.) Sometimes I'll try to track down the author of the article and ask them for sources; other times a more knowledgeable or involved editor will follow and correct the deficiencies (as you are). If nobody does, sometimes I'll return and work on it. Regardless, I am under no obligation to try to expand articles that I don't take an interest in. As the wizard Shazam once said, "That way lies madness." 24.6.65.83 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Your cultural bias is showing again...premier may sound like a fluff word to some, but in many places of the world where the Queen's english is spoken, it's merely a synonym for primary. I fully understand time limitations...you have no idea what that's like until you take on the admin role in addition to editing...but if you don't have time to deal with a stub, simply leave it for someone else, don't just try to get it deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Premier: Foremost, very first or very highest in quality or degree.[25] No matter how you parse it, there was nothing in the article to support such a claim, not even mention of others that could be considered "secondary." 24.6.65.83 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's a synonym for prime in a governmental sense, ie, "the position of the cabinet minister who is in charge of government affairs," (see [26]) and thus by default in British countries, the gov't agencies themselves. It is a dangerous thing to rely on a limited dictionary for a world language. Such dictionaries don't include regional (if you can consider the former British Empire "regional") and cultural variations of usage. Again, there's more to the wide world than your world. Open up and be willing to see that just maybe there's another explanation for things, and just because to you it's a fluff word, doesn't mean that it is so for someone else half a globe away. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KidGameRatings article deletion

I noticed you deleted my article KidGameRatings. I'm a complete newbie to Wikipedia contributing. I would appreciate it if you could give me more details about why the page was deleted. Conflict of interest (it was about my website)? Notability? Something else?

What would it have taken to make this an appropriate article for Wikipedia? I didn't see any obvious different between my article and the article for a similar website Boardgamegeek except that my article was shorter.

Thank you for your time. I'm just trying to learn how things work here on Wikipedia. I love this site, for all the great reference info that is here. (Please forgive too me if posting here is the wrong way to do things - it seemed like where I needed to post.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapax legomenon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for writing...the article had two main faults. First, it was about a website that did not appear to meet our notability guideline for websites. Secondly, it was written in terms that appeared to promote the website, rather than to be an unbiased, outside factual overview. When I looked at the talk page and saw that you had written it about your own product, it became clear as to why this was. As you can understand from the size of Wikipedia, we are flooded daily with people who try to use the encyclopedia to promote their businesses, products and services. This is one reason we have our conflict of interest guidelines. If your website is truely notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, then there's bound to be someone who's not involved who'd be willing to write about it. Hope this makes things clearer. Oh, and when you write on talk pages, please sign your messages with four tildas (~~~~). Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion John Daly's Murder Rock Golf and Country Club

It has been explained to you several times that the text reads like advertising, and so it's been deleted again, and protected this time. Please take a step back and learn about Wikipedia before proceeding. First and foremost, not all golf courses and clubs are notable, as we define notability. Second, you should read through the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style, and pay attention to images. You might consider reading through other golf course articles (for examples, see Category:Golf clubs and courses in California. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry I was mad. It is just frustrating. I dont understand how it could be any different. If the course was made up, then yes, it would not be notable. But it is a new course, they spend 6 million dollars on it. I dont know how having an article about that is any different than having an article about a new football stadium or something like that.{{}} Oh, and how was my article any different than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Beach_Golf_Links

An easy question to answer...I gave you a link to our notability guideline above. If you look, Pebble Beech has had external major media coverage. As far as I can see, yours has not. There are thousands upon thousands of golf courses in the U.S. alone...what makes a course notable is when there is something significant about it - or a significant tournament is played on it - which garners major media coverage. Notability isn't conveyed by a course's mere existence. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you. I guess I'll wait 20 years from now to post it. haha

Look, don't let this discoursge you. If you really are into golf course management, you surely have access to reliable trade publications, and I'm sure the encyclopedia could benefit from your expertise and the information you have access to. There's probably plenty of course articles that need to be expanded and have reliable sources added as citations...the project does need you, it's just important to learn the ropes, just like it's important for players to know course ettiquite. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DYK question

While I know that javascript based tools that calculate the displayed size of an article exist, when I use a copy-and-paste of the displayed text into a text editor on my computer needing to find an exact text size. In general it is not necessary to do this very often. The text of an article meeting the DYK size guidelines will generally fill a full screen on a moderately sized display without needing to use templates, images, or other space filling methods. --Allen3 talk 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move at Kyiv

Hello,

I am currently in a discussion on the Kyiv/Kiev naming page about moving the page to Kyiv, but although there is some opposition, the only argument now against moving it is that there was a poll about a move, and there was no consensus.

However, the poll which I had requested was closed in less that 15 hours, and no reason was given for that closure. Please don’t misunderstand me – I do not mean to insult anybody, nor do I take this as a slight or personal offence in any way, because I understand how much work it takes to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Administrators have many things to do, so they cannot spend hours discussing one poll.

What is disconcerting, however, is that I was also told by an editor who disagrees with me: “You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.”

I would really appreciate any suggestions you may have.

I have searched through the Wikipedia guidelines, but I haven’t found any information about poll guidelines. I want to open another poll/request to move. I would love to hear your opinion in this poll.

I do have a request, however. Please let this poll run for five days. There are many people who are very busy in the “real world” who would like to contribute. This is a question of a new nation’s capital city of a relatively new independent state, and it is important to very many people. The discussion on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming is roughly 50 thousand words long.

My personal arguments for the move are summarized in point 24, the topic at hand, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#The_Topic_at_Hand, however, as I mentioned, there are very many people who have contributed to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Horlo 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for looking out, Bill...actually, it sorta was vandalism...Horlo spammed a gazillion admin pages with this message, and Anetode was just trying to clean up the mess...but that's ok, though...I replied on Horlo's and will copy the message here; to make the message make sense, the first sentence is referring to Anetode's message for Horlo to stop the spamming....)
As one of the people you spammed, I echo the above sentiment. But I will also address your question: If I were to participate, I would voice a strong oppose. The Ukraine article is not Ukrayina, Germany is not Deutschland. This is the English Wikipedia, and our guidelines clearly state that the common English usage is the preferred title. You have not shown that your version is the preferred English version. I live in the U.S., but as a hobby I've read much about Soviet history, and I have a nice sized library of books on the subject...all in English, most published in the U.S. (though some are from the U.K.). All have it spelled "Kiev". You'd have to provide some pretty compelling evidence that your version is the more common version here. Ultimately, why is it so important to you to change it? Do you realize how much combined editors' time has been wasted on this when there's so many articles that genuinely need improving?AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, Alan. YOu might want to remind the guy who revomed it what edit summaries are for :) I noticed this page Kiev awhile back, and find it odd that so many people oppose the move. India has a major city change its spelling, or even whole name, every couple of years, and the pages are moved the next day! Calcutta is at Kolkata, and Bombay is at Mumbai, and the former names are much more well know than the new names. And there are more. I guess it's just another sign of how far consensus messes up WIkipedia as much as it helps. - BillCJ 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that, brother! Especially the India thing. By a very wierd set of coincidences, starting with me saving a valid article from CSD, I've ended up spending some time yesterday and today editing it (BWSSB), and I'm amazed at how many different spellings for place names there are. Makes things very confusing. All I can say is that if I had seen a proposal about the name changes for the articles you mentioned above, I would have opposed on the same grounds. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I do find it odd that the move discussion was closed after not even a full day. DOn't we usually let those go on at least a week? As far as name changes, most people nowadays try to respect other nations wishes in names, especially if their in India. I guess 1 billion people in a former British colony matter a lot more than 50 million people in a former Soviet republic! At least they appear to have more clout. - BillCJ 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but keep in mind that former British colony is part of the English-speaking world, so they have a legit argument for "common" english version. And yes, straw polls usually run for longer, but that taken with all the other discussion, to me, shows a foregone conclusion. Just my .02, though. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage Home Magazine

Hey,

I made an article for Heritage Home Magazine a ways back and it was deleted as "blatant advertising for a company... ." While it was generated by me, its editor, it wasn't advertising — it was descriptive and I tried to keep any 'sells' out of it. The fact that I made it doesn't automatically make it spam — I'm a journalist and I consider myself honest.

I don't see how my page was much different from this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Journalism_Review — except for the lack of a few tags.

I'd like to request it be put back up and have the phrases you found objectionable removed. It was written in good faith.

Heritagehome 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Washita River

HanzoHattori has resumed his massive changes to the article; [27]. Dreadstar † 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried discussing it with him on his talk page, but to no avail. I'm not going to engage him in an edit war, although I did revert a couple of his edits..which he immediately reverted back without even bothering to discuss on the talk page, so he has once again shown he engages in such activity. He needs to be banned from editing the article. How does the 'community consensus' on banning users from editing articles work: Decision to ban #1 and right below it: Community ban ? Dreadstar † 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, he got busy. Besides not discussing on the talk page before making changes, his also edits show another typical characteristic: he hardly ever used edit summaries to explain his edits, & when he makes a whole bunch of edits all at one time, as here, its hard for anyone to know what his intent is. Pretty much as on The Holocaust, which is still under full protection because of his edit warring & his refusal to commit to refraining from edit warring if the article becomes unprotected. Two days ago I wrote an "Inside view" on his user conduct RfC about the problems on The Holocaust, as well as further comments on the talk page of that RfC, & I think he might have decided to reescalate after that.
The irony is that some of his edits would probably be just fine by other editors, if he just used the talk page & edit summaries, instead of just pushing right in there. I agree that it might be necessary to resort to a single-article ban for him on Battle of Washita River (& probably The Holocaust too), but I don't know the process either. --Yksin 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you saw my comments on his talk page, but I've had it with his disruptive edits. I'll be fairly busy today, but will be able to check in here occasionally. If he continues, I'm ready to take further action. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'm prob. going to weigh in on the talk page & go over his edits there. --Yksin 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He's not responded to a couple of new polls or anything else at Talk:Battle of Washita River yet, but there's some stuff going on between him & Dreadstar at User talk:HanzoHattori#Wikistalking, Samashki massacre & Talk:Samashki massacre of concern... incivility (as usual), removing POV tags, accusations of wikistalking. --Yksin 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

Updated DYK query On 15 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custerwest

I see you've already discovered the return of Custerwest with his addition of several linkspam links from his blogsite to Battle of the Little Bighorn. He's using his blogsite as a reference again too, which is absolutely illegitimate because his blogsite makes wide use of copyrighted texts for which he has no license. I.e., his additions violate WP:LINKS#Restrictions on linking. I removed them all before, & will remove the rest of them now. --Yksin 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: he had temporarily added his blog as a ref, then changed it to a different (non-COI) ref himself already. So, everything's okay now. --Yksin 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Levin

Alan, we've got some IPs continually adding unsourced info on a dispute between Mark Levin and Ron Paul supporters to the Mark Levin page, as here. Can you semi-protect the page while we try to get these people to talk? I'm being accused of "censorship", but they won't even address the legitimate problems with the material. One of the IPs even claims it from "multiple sources", but of course none are cited. I'm borderline 3RR here, if not over the 24 hour limit, but as this is a BLP, I think the reversions are definitely warranted. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BillCJ 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done...one week of semi protection. Hope things can be worked out. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt me PLEASE

mgeheren

can you aopt me

??????
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgeheren (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Looks like User:Arknascar44 has already offered adoption, so I'll defer to him, but I'm always available to answer questions. Feel free to write any time. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARRGGGHHH!!!

When did the nuts take over, ALan? Boy what a day! I can't seem to do anything right! Idecide to take a wiki-break, and one of the people causing trouble decides my wiki-break notice contains a "persoanl attack" against anotehr user I'm having trouble with! SHeesh. Oh, btw, there's an IP here that seems awfully familar. WOuld you be able to protect my user and talk page for the time being? It's OK if the answer is No. THanks for whatever you can do, even if it means editing my WIki-break banner to remove personal attacks! (If you think that's what they are.) - BillCJ 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A self-requested block might be a good idea too, to enforce my Wiki-break! But would I still be able to work on my sandboxes? - BillCJ 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Suevic

Hey there. I just had the pleasure of reviewing this article for GA - it's close and I've left some pointers on the talkpage. Let me know when you're done. Great work. The Rambling Man 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll start in on it this evening or tomorrow. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)