User talk:Mbhiii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Mbhiii! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Fuhghettaboutit 12:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] Fishers method

Hi Mbhii. I noticed your creation of "Fishers method," with the text "(see Fisher's method)." We have a function which allows you to create pages for alternate spellings of an article title that automatically redirect a person to the correct article, called appropriately a redirect. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect. I have changed the homemade version to conform to this markup. Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!--Fuhghettaboutit 12:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also recomend you using the redirect function instead of "see article". All you have to do, to insert the text #REDIRECT [[Fisher's Method]] into the article, and it will automatically go for the given (in this case Fisher's Method) article. In case you just write see, they won't find it, especially if you do not youse any internal link. --Serinde 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conventions

Hello. I've brought Fisher's method into conformance with some of the usual Wikipedia conventions. Note that:

  • Words should not be capitalized merely because they're in an article title. The first letter is always capital, and in links, the first letter, unlike the later letters, is case-insensitive. Accordinly, I hit the "move" button and changed it to "Fisher's method", with a lower-case initial "m". The edit history gets moved along with it, so if you look at Fisher's method (with a lower-case "m"), you're the initial creator of it, and if you look at Fisher's Method, with a capital "M", you find a redirect page whose edit history says it was created by me at the time I changed the title.
  • The title phrase, Fisher's method, should be in bold-face at its first appearance in the article, usually in the first sentence.
  • Subscripts, superscripts, and mathematical notation (TeX) are available; see my recent edits to Fisher's method.

Michael Hardy 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks for all your help on that one, Sample size, Mallow's Cp, Stepwise regression, and others in the last year. --MBHiii 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding signatures

Actually, signatures are not meant to be used in articles, only on talk pages. This applies no matter how much of the article you have written. See Ownership of articles for more information, specifically the section "Don't sign what you don't own." Khatru2 16:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I see it and stand corrected. --Mbhiii 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bushcronium warnings

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Bushcronium. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to find humorous entries related to a serious subject in Wikipedia? - Not really. We strive for neutral point of view, and that doesn't leave us much room for jokes. If you want to see some funny stuff that has been put into articles before, you can look at Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, but don't try to get yourself into there, it might be considered vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For anyone curious, here's the joke: New Element Discovered

A major research institute has just announced the discovery of the densest matter yet known to exist. The new element has been named "Bushcronium."
Bushcronium has one quasi-neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These are held together by dark force particles called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. W is the symbol for Bushcronium.
Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."
When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates, on orders of magnitude, more energy than Bushcronium, albeit as incoherent noise. Foxnewsium has 1/2 as many peons but attracts twice as many morons.
You may want to check out Uncyclopedia, which is a Wikia-hosted wiki designed to be a satire/parody of Wikipedia. It might have a place there. – Þ  05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Linear regression

If you make extensive edits to an article, please note the following requests:

  1. Provide an edit summary of your changes. Massive edits without summaries may be reverted as vandalism.
  2. Provide an explanation or reason for your changes, either in the article's talk page or the edit summary. Your edits to Linear regression changed "delta" to "theta" without any explanation of why. "Delta" has been acceptable so far for every other editor of this article.
  3. Read Wikipedia:Manual of style, in particular the Wikilinking section of that article. Your edits created wiki-links for every instance of the word "parameter" in the Linear regression article, creating many redundant links. This isn't necessary.

I have reverted your edits for the time being, and invite you to continue making constructive contributions to Wikipedia. -Amatulic 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Belated response to above two entries. Though "delta" works perfectly well (even implying a rate of change), "theta" is vastly more often preferred for representing a parameter to be estimated, and ease of recognition and legibility are key. I note, with content, the total rewrite by someone using the convention specific to regression which is to use "beta" for those coefficients. --MBHiii 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace war game

You call User:trialsanderrors's redirection of Peace war game "unilateral" [1]. The extensive discussion of this on Talk:Chicken (game)#Peace war game, Talk:Chicken (game)#Hawk Dove/Chicken and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory#Collaboration make it abundantly clear that redirection was more of a consensus than a unilateral decision. I wouldn't really care, but the article has remained without reliable sources for some time now which is a problem because it seems to agree poorly with reality. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawk-Dove, Chicken, etc. were in such flux that it took them settling down to agreed upon categories and representations for me to see your points. Peace war game now conforms.

I agree with you on expecting any payoff matrix, but some people (not me) are still of the belief that a very extensive matrix could adequately deal with reality. I read through the powerpoint, I'm not sure what you intend I see in it. It's a good powerpoint-- for explaining these and other aspects of game theory-- but it has nothing to do with War. Beyond the fact that the section is problematic it is also far too detailed and extensive to be on the main page (and as a subset of another section). Vandalism? I'm new to wikipedia but I thought I was following the "be bold" policy. No one here has posted anything in the talk page about this section here, and there has been no discussion regarding its inclusion/exclusion. Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not vandalism if I brought the issue up on the talk page and have good intentions for the article. I don't see how re-including or even writing the section without discussing or posting anything here doesn't amount to vandalism itself, using your definition. -DWRZ 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some advice

Mbhiii, I understand where you are coming from on the AfD for Unholy Alliance... but you are shooting yourself in the foot in several ways. I have learned from experience that the Admins who decide AfD's do not like it when someone makes too many comments. One or two comments to clarify a point are OK, but commenting to rebut each and every delete vote will not win you much support. In general tone, Don't argue against the delete... argue for a keep. Make your best argument and then sit back... let others have their say, if you made a convincing argument others will support you. I actually think a lot of the material you want to add is valid and worthy of inclusion in an article... but you are going about it in the wrong way... a lot of it constitutes original research by our rules. You have to find reliable sources that talk about this and report what those say, and you need to have your sources ready before you add things to the article. Good luck. Blueboar 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern mafia

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Southern mafia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Arkyan 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page formatting

When responding to another user's comments, please respond beneath theirs. I understand that you want to respond point-by-point, but placing your comments within theirs breaks the flow of the original comment and makes it hard for others to follow the discussion. Please see WP:TALK for more information. – Þ  01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unholy Alliance

Sorry, I didn't realize what you were doing (I was wondering why you put the article on the talk page). Often what people do is create a page in the user namespace such as User:Mbhiii/sandbox when they want to incrementally work on an article. Like I said at the AfD, I think there's nothing inherently objectable with the subject of the article. Wikipedia has sorta developed it's own conventions, and sometimes people that've been here longer forget that they aren't universal. Good luck on your article! --gwc 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNT

Mbhiii, I don't think you fully get the concept behind WP:SYNT... and since an AfD nomination is not really the place to hold a tutorial on how wikipedia works, I thought I would shift the discussion here so that we can discuss this further.

According to Wikipedia policy, we can not add Original Research to articles. This includes creating a synthesis (stating or implying that A + B = C). "Statement A" might be backed with all sorts of citations to a reliable source... "Statement B" might be backed with all sourts of citations to a reliable source... but unless "Conclusion C" is ALSO backed with a reliable source the rules state that you can not state or imply that conclusion.

You say that you are just doing a "compare and contrast", and that this is common... perhaps this is true in essay writing, but this is not an essay. You should not do "compare and contrast" in an encyclopedia... our job isn't to analize facts (which is what a compare and contrast is)... our job is simply to summarize pre-existing knowledge. If someone else has done a comparison, or has contrasted two pieces of information, we can say that they did so and that they reached certain conclusions... but we can not do so on our own.

Has this helped? Blueboar 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SYN, "that precise analysis (A+B=C expressed by the author) must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

In the Smith and Jones case, the author analyzed what Jones did (A) in light of some standard the author chose (B) to assert Smith may have been wrong about Jones (C) without citing a souce who agrees with the analysis. He takes A from one source, B from another, and asserts C on his own.

But in Southern mafia, there is no "Conclusion C." What are you saying are the A+B=C? If you assert I imply C, first of all that's not in WP:SYN, and if you do so on the basis of two different meanings of a term sitting on the same page, you'd better not read any dictionaries, your head might explode from possibilities.

Finally, there is nothing I "say in the article ... that connects a traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise to The Southern Mafia in the Senate." - User:Mr.Z-man It's him, making it up.

Note, wording changes to be less of a DICDEF and focus more on the two, separated subjects - no HOAX. --MBHiii 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep discussion impersonal

I appreciate your desire to not have the articles Unholy Alliance and Southern Mafia excluded from Wikipedia. However you need to make your arguments based on the merits of the content in question and stop calling in to question the motivations, beliefs, or percieved fitness of the editors who oppose you. Please read up on Wikipedia policy concerning this issue at WP:NPA. Most specifically I would like to call to your attention the second example under "What is considered a personal attack?" that reads-

  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

On multiple occasions you have called in to question someone's affiliations as a means of attempting to discredit their viewpoints, by either pointing out their religious affiliations or more recently by attempting to discredit me for a professed deletionist philosophy. Not only does attempting to downplay someone's opinion by pointint out what you percieve to be a conflict of interest not help the debate, but it is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Accusing me of having a hidden agenda is extremely libelous and does not have any place in a Wikipedia discussion. I'm going to ask you to refrain from making similar jabs at myself or others in regards to their beliefs or opinions, in accordance with the WP:NPA policy. I believe you have a lot of potential as an editor here but going to the extreme of trying to discredit other editors does nothing to improve the Wikipedia as a project, and does little to help make your points.

Again, to quote the NPA policy, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep discussion impersonal and I believe you will find the editorial process is better for us all. Arkyan • (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's all a matter of degree that should be perfectly valid to discuss. See "Iceberg" on User:Mbhiii. It depends on whether the position "ought not to" influence the debate and how material it is to the debate. I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from debate; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing an AfD log, as a matter of WK policy. To the "opinions discounted" idea, I'd like to add anyone who argues in extremely bad form. For instance, in citing the 2nd WP:NPA you overlooked the 3rd, implied "Threats of legal action." Libel necessarily involves "a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual." Repeatedly arguing in bad form so as to raise the possibility of hidden agenda doesn't make recognition of that an assertion of hidden agenda as fact. One should argue in a manner that preserves both the fact and appearance of propriety, including recusing oneself when appropriate. --MBHiii 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It is neither up to you nor I to decide when someone is fit for debate. That is the whole point of what I cited in the NPA policy - it is not your duty nor your prerogative to point out a bias, perceived or otherwise. Your continuing attacks on my credibility and continuing to try and discredit me is growing tiresome. I tried asking nicely so now I will put it bluntly. Debates on Wikipedia are about content and not contributors. Cease attacking myself directly. The same also goes in regards to your personal attacks against Blueboar and others. If you do it again I will not ask so nicely and will escalate the issue as per WP:NPA. Thank you. Arkyan • (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry you see this as a personal attack, but if you keep arguing using fundamentally bad forms, I shall keep pointing it out and asking that your opinions be discounted. Repeatedly doing so, with no apparent interest in reform on your part, should raise a question as to your motives. You may in fact be just a stubborn, otherwise bright guy who's slow to change, as a matter of personal posture to the world. I stand by what I've written; let's take it to the Admins. --MBHiii 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Trying to discredit an argument is one thing - trying to discredit the person making the argument is another. More to the point, the former is what debates are all about, the latter is a violation of policy. Since you have persisted in this behavior and continued making this a personal issue on the DRV, I am seeking 3rd party input on this matter. Arkyan • (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • sigh ... it is not a personal attack to point out that a person's opinion should be discounted when he uses a bad form of argument and that refusing to acknowledge what he's done should further invalidate his opinion. --MBHiii 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] continued from DRV

I am replying to you here because the topic was drifting from the purpose of DRV.

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23:

Comment - an editor who uses a bad form of argument, refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps harping on old, long-since addressed and now irrelevant points, should not be assumed to be well-meaning. Note, this last person, previously critical of both articles, seems to care nothing about Blueboar and Arkyan using bad forms of argument.
Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While it may seem to you that other editors are acting out of bad faith by refusing to consider your arguments, it may be that they find your arguments unconvincing. Some topics are inherently unworthy of inclusion -- see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. We should assume that Blueboar and Arkyan are well-meaning editors absent evidence to the contrary, as well as the multitude of editors who may wish to contribute to the article in the future. Page protection is an extreme solution usually reserved for pages that are frequently vandalized. If there is evidence that a user has behaved poorly, edited maliciously, or otherwise disrupted Wikipedia, there are mechanisms available to you to invite community oversight. (See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.) If the behavior is serious and persistent, that user may be blocked or partially banned from certain articles. You should be aware that the community will look at your behavior as well.

Finally, the closing admin of any discussion has an obligation not to simply count heads but to also carefully consider and weigh the arguments of all parties. Even if those opposing you made faulty arguments, they should not affect the admin's decision if your arguments are superior. – Þ  02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, there are eight examples listed there, none of which have any relevance to the contested articles, and, once again, you refuse to look at (or understand?) the points I raise about the form of argument used. It would help to gain credibility with me (if that matters) to preface your comments to me with a restatement of my argument to show you have at least an inkling of what I say. -MBHiii 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectively, yes, yes, but page protection probably needs to be used more often against such attacks as these. Using bad forms of argument so as to stay constantly on the attack is "behaving poorly" indeed. The rest ... yes. -MBHiii 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned to you before, please avoid putting your reply inside others' comments.
While I am happy to oblige you to encourage good communication, I am worried by your default assumption that I am refusing to cooperate. I offer some possibilities you might consider that would be more in line with common Wikipedia etiquette:
  • As you suggested, I have simply misunderstood your argument.
  • You have failed to appropriately explain your argument.
  • Your argument is itself flawed, not in line with Wikipedia policies and common practices, or otherwise unconvincing.
Now, as to your request: as I understand your argument, you feel that the issues raised in AfD were addressed in your subsequent changes.
You have suggested that the editors opposing you have demonstrated that they cannot fairly judge the article for the following reasons:
  • They hold conscious and unconscious biases in regards to the subject.
  • They make arguments using faulty reasoning.
  • They reject your sound arguments.
And so, you contend that their opinions in the matter should be disregarded.
I find this argument unconvincing and out of line with Wikipedia policies and practices.
Back to the rest of your comments, I did not mention WP:NOT#IINFO because I expected "Unholy Alliance" to be listed there. The list is not exhaustive; it merely enumerates several classes which are clearly not worth of inclusion. I linked to the list to demonstrate that it's completely appropriate to conclude that a subject itself is inherently unworthy of inclusion.
Lastly, there are more appropriate solutions to an editor's bad behavior. If there are serious and persistent problems, they should be individually blocked or banned, which allows further work to continue on the article. – Þ  02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(When someone makes multiple points, interleaving replies is the best way to address them without repeating their entire text.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
(All of which is mere boilerplate and demonstrates, in no sense, that you grasp what I wrote.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
(Oh, I see, so this diversion to WP:NOT#IINFO was an attempt to address an argument I did not make.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
So, what do you intend to do about Blueboar's recent vandalism of Dixie Mafia, anything?-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Interleaving replies is usually not recommended because it breaks the original intended flow of thought, makes it difficult to distinguish which comments belong to whom, and is sometimes considered impolite. I am personally dismayed that you would choose to do so with me after I specifically requested otherwise twice.
If I fail to understand your argument, I hope that you can explain it to me in a manner I can understand.
I don't want to quote you to you, but you implied just above that deleting an article because the subject was not worthy of inclusion is a faulty argument. WP:NOT disagrees -- that's all I said or meant to say.
Having reviewed the edit in question, I can conclusively say it was not vandalism. A prerequisite of vandalism is the intent to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (From Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Content issues aside, I believe Blueboar when he says he acted in good faith. Good faith edits are never vandalism. – Þ  03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbhiii, where you may want to participate. Arkyan • (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Help with Unholy Alliance

I am not sure what you are requesting. I do not see you listed in the history so I'm guessing you were editing while not logged in. As such, I'm not sure what edits are yours. However, if you were the one adding this extra material, then that was correctly removed. Disambig pages are navigation aids and not articles. They should point readers to where material is discussed within Wikipedia. They are not for external links. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes that's me; I often move around during the day. There's an ADMIN User:Ezeu doing something I don't understand. Can you check Talk:Unholy_Alliance? Thanks, MBHiii 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Read Wikipedia:3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio warning on Your Neighbor's Son

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SON. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?_r=1&res=9504E6D9143AF93AA1575BC0A962948260 in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SON with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SON with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SON saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome. Arkyan • (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War origins

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed this edit I restored to give you time to offer a reliable source:

As early supporters of Henry Clay's American System, he and Clay put themselves in opposition to political forces in their own home states and probably cost Clay the Presidency. A federal tax system inspired by the work of Alexander Hamilton and later developed into the "National System" by German-American economist Friedrich List, the purpose was to develop American heavy industry and international commerce. Since iron, coal, and water power were mainly in the North, this tax plan was doomed to cause rancor in the South where economies were agriculture-based.

from the said article due to a legitimate challenge to its inclusion previously (although done in haste then) based upon Arbcom rulings regarding inclusion of "LaRouche" related material in articles not directly related to him. If you can provide us with a reliable source - I would be happy to support its inclusion in the article as it is accurate history. Best wishes. --Northmeister 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for page protection

I have declined your request to protect User_talk:63.98.135.196 as page protection is generally not appropriate for user talk pages. This is because a user talk page is the only way for other editors to communicate directly with one another, and protecting the page would in effect be closing the lines of communication. If you feel that an editor is being disruptive on a talk page, the way to handle the situation is to first discuss it with the editor on their own talk page, and if you are unable to come to some kind of resolution, please see our dispute resolution procedures. If you encounter a case of particularly disruptive editing patterns, you might want to post a notice at the administrators' noticeboard. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate tag use

This edit was highly inappropriate. Impersonating a Wikimedia Foundation employee is a gross violation and greatly disruptive. Any further disruption will be met with measures taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney not impersonating anyone; did it as myself. Be careful lest you libel me. It looked (from the page on which I found it) to be a valid way to call attention to your totally inappropriate meddling and micro-management. --MBHiii (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for impersonating foundation employees after being warned, and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- Avi (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Only foundation employees, or those authorized by them, may use {{pp-office}}. Please review the necessary polices and guidelines that will allow you to be a constructive member of the project, and refrain from disruptive editing or personal attacks. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Not sure if this is you, but you appear to be not logged in. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)