User talk:Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Hi Michael, I made some significant changes to the section that you didn't like. I was wondering if you could take another look at it and let me know what you think. Could you respond on the articles talk page or on the FAC? ThanksBalloonman 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School Charlottesville Virginia (2nd nomination)

Don't relist an article on AFD the day after the first debate was closed. If you have a problem with the close relist it on deletion review. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 07:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've moved it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:World War I peer review

In this portal peer review, you made some comments regarding changling the layout of the components to put the "Read more" "Suggest an article" and "More articles" links in-line at the bottom of the boxes. I'm not exactly a technical wiz, so if you could give some guidance on how to accomplish this, I'd be grateful. Also, I've tried to incorporate your other suggestions - let me know what you think. Carom 02:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yu- gi -oh abridged!!!! respond why u would do such an inhumane act

you have deleted an excellent article about the popular youtube series yu gi oh abridged that is recently in conflict with youtube. Your argument for taking it off is that it is not popluar enough. There are thousands of people that are subscribed to littlekuriboh (guy who makes the movies) on youtube, let alone the millions of people unsubscribed. There are much less popluar articles on wikipedia and it wouldnt be right to leave this deleted. We dont know your motives but you may be trying to protect youtube. We the viewers would like this article of yu gi oh abridged back. check out all the video responses and replies and rating to see if there are enough people! 1 2 3 see the vandilism page for the links

[edit] My RFA
Thank You,
Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 04 for your Support!
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.


...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Michael, I just noticed your comment on Glen's talk page explaining the situation with the duplicates of Riana's RfAs. Thanks for clarifying what had happened as it all seemed rather bizarre. Maybe if that happens again, just tag one of them for speedy? I notice above a nomination for your good self. I hope we see that go live soon. :) Cheers, Sarah 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal peer review

Hello, Michaelas10! Since it has been a month since you nominated the Philosophy portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Rfrisbie put it on a review, but I only created the subheader. You can see I was one of the reviewers myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for not noticing (I must admit this was a bit of a templated greeting). Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your DYK nomination for Dutch barn was successful

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On February 14, 2007, a fact from the article Dutch barn, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zabriskie Point Photo

I've uploaded a new version of the photo for FP consideration. I had not noticed that I uploaded the photo with a copyright notice. No offense intended. Please take a new look and reconsider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Zabriskie_Point#.5B.5BWikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FZabriskie_Point.7CZabriskie_Point.2C_Death_Valley.2C_Late_Morning.5D.5D Thanks! Jlkramer 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note my original reasoning for opposing. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Vandalism to my User Page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. RedSkunk 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And when you're ready for RfA, do let me know - I would love to nominate you (or co-nom with Arjun). – riana_dzasta 07:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kerala portal

Hey, I wanted to ask you about your comment about a "DYK suggestions page" during the PoPR itself. But then I went on a wikibreak and I later forgot. I've never actually seen it implemented on a portal. What do you suggest we keep as the criteria for a DYK to be included in the portal? Same as that for the main page? Right now, all DYKs that make it to the front page are added.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please answer

You wrote this:

Are you the same user as 71.96.245.52, Trampton, Dalmation, Teddey, and Jupiter12? Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, why do you ask?Trampton 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did do it through another computer, I own three computers.My family is three people:my wife,my to be born child,and me.I own one,my wife owns the other, and the last is currently a family computer(myself and wife), when my child is older I will give that computer.

How do I voulunteer at the help desk?

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086Talk 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christ Illusion

Thanks for the congratulations on the article talk page, which is much appreciated. I will get it to FA one of these days - prose is always a hard issue to address in an article. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors provide information

Inserting color is certainly not NPOV. Never in my wildest dream would I expect to hear someone say that using color inserts some sort of improper opinion. Intelligent use of color provides an additional way to convey information. That is why no one would use a computer with monochrome screen even for business applications. Color can and should be used as a clue to classfication. For an example please see {{Infobox Album}}. Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not propose that editors choose their own colors. The colors should follow a classification scheme such as we already use for music albums. To your water example, it would not make sense to simply color all water-related articles blue. However, if we had a color coding system for chemical compounds, a scheme could be devised where all acids are blue, bases are red, organics are pale in color while inorganics are bright. Then an orgainic acid would be pale blue. Similarly, we could use color to organize species. Mammals could be one color, amphians another, etc. Again, we already do this for music albums. Johntex\talk 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Copyeditor's Barnstar

I noticed you voiced an opinion in the first discussion on a Copyeditor's Barnstar/Award which was archived without decision. If you haven't already, would you please check in with the current discussion? The !votes/opinions from the first discussion, althought noted at the top, are not being counted in the current tally. It would be great if you would also weigh in on your preference of graphic design from among the choices (currently eight different images, the last being added at around 15:23, Thursday, 1 March 2007). If you !vote, please update the tally near the top of the discussion. Thanks. --PigmanTalk to me 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Lady Records

Hi Michaelmas, thank you very much indeed for your advice on the peer review. I've made many of the changes you suggested, but if that offer to go over the article yourself still stands ... :) Proto ► 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Michael, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't remove the ref spaces I add to articles. There's no policy that says we have to do it one way or the other; it's for the editors of the articles to decide. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a matter of preference, and the MoS is not a policy anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But FN doesn't require that there be no space. Someone added it for a while, but without discussion. It's a formatting issue for the editors on the page to decide. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hi, I would like to nominate you to become an adminisrator, you have over 9500 edits here, i believe you are familiar with policy, you are regularly on WP:MFD and other WP:XFD debates, you help a lot with vandal fighting and your have been here since early to mid 2006. I believe you would benefit greatly from the tools. Please contact me on my talk page to tell me whether you would like to be nominated or not.Thanks Tellyaddict 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards Coordinator referendum

There has been some conflict at Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Please vote on the Coordinator referendum. --South Philly 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof

Is there an equal of VandalProof that can be used on a Mac? Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 02:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there currently isn't. Although it's listed under featured under development so it should be released eventually. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is an equal to VandalProof for the Mac, called VandalGuard. I don't think it's as good, though. Sr13 (T|C) 08:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject

Hey, I'm starting a new WikiProject (sorry that I haven't responded in a while) called Mathematics Construction. The temporary WikiProject is here. Hope you can help! Sr13 (T|C) 08:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi, Michaelas. Just a quick note to say thanks for your support at my RfA. Great level of support, and a humbling result. Keep up the fantastic work you do for the project! Cheers. Bubba hotep 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Hi there, sorry for the lateness of the reply, I was away! Anyway, if you would not mind, I am going to stand by my decision again of failing it because the sections are very long and should be split up into sub sections, I think there should also be more images, although this is not an official requirement, if you have edited or made improvements to the article then thank you but I'm still going to fail it, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and happy editing!!! Tellyaddict 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Recording and mixing and the Reception could be split up into sub-sections, hope this helps and answers your questions.Tellyaddict 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what, I'll have a little think about it and check extremely closely and reconsider within the near future. Regards - Tellyaddict 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Check Good Article Review where the article is listed. The user has specified no criteria, no nothing - his reasons are so lame it's on the verge of laughability to be frank (only I don't find it funny that people can do such rubbish reviews). LuciferMorgan 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect I find that opinion highly offensive, please assume goof faith their is no need to be nasty about it, I reviewed it per the criteria and what I thought about it and I stand by my opnion, please refrain from adding comments like this in the futre. (please note I'm not talking about you Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 04). Regards - Tellyaddict 22:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm you didnt review it by the critiera, you didnt bring up any valid points as why you failed it. I suggest you review articles at peer review, rather then GA. M3tal H3ad 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Visual arts peer review

Ciao, Michael. I recently requested a peer review for Portal:Visual arts and, as you are someone who has provided significant useful commentary in the past, I would very much appreciate your insights. Cheers, Planetneutral 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your prompt reply. I'll certainly make some of the changes and invited requested further comments on others. Your thoughts would again be most appreciated. Planetneutral 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilchrist FA comments

Hey, thanks very much for your comments on the current FA nom for Adam Gilchrist. User:Dweller and I have worked on resolving your issues, if you could spare the time to let us know if we've met your concerns, that'd be great. Each of your comments has been individually addressed on the article talk page by the way. All the best The Rambling Man 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! The Rambling Man 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] newbie testing?

Perhaps it's a test, I'll ask them not to copy my page as it can be decieving. I don't know about this, but s/he reverted him/herself a few seconds later. Anyway thanks for informing me. James086Talk 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

...and a particularly scathing episode characterizing Scientology as a moneymaking scheme and portraying sect members Tom Cruise and John Travolta hiding in a closet. In March 2006, Comedy Central parent Viacom, which had pulled reruns of an episode featuring the Virgin Mary hemorrhaging blood, canceled the Scientology rerun allegedly as a favor to producers of Cruise vehicle Mission: Impossible III, also owned by Viacom. This infuriated Stone and Parker -- eventually, Viacom capitulated -- but they really lost it when Isaac Hayes, voice of the ribald school chef and a Scientologist, quit and issued a public statement calling them bigots. "There are reports that Isaac had a stroke and Scientology quit the show for him, and I believe it," says Stone. "It was a brutal, up-close, personal thing with Isaac. If you look at the timeline, something doesn't add up."

  • There is a nice picture as well... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 06:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
    • The article is now loading for me, so I added the info with the citation. This is really looking like a potential FA candidate - lots of sourced citations, images... Smee 06:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Ahem, do you still want to work on bringing up the quality of the article? I'd like to help, if we could know specifically what needed to be done... Smee 07:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Yeah sure, wouldn't be very tough to bring this to FA. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I am sorry, I do not yet feel I know you well enough on Wiki to email. I am curious why you asked if I was pushing a POV, I don't know which POV you are referring to. Are you a Scientologist? I am not. My only goal is to help you bring the article to FA status, and introduce as many reputable secondary sourced citations as can be helpful. Perhaps we could discuss via email once I know your background a little bit more. Cordially Yours, Smee 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Okay cool, so we'll work on getting the article to FA status. I'll try to work on the copyediting/prose stuff at some point, along with others hopefully... Sources about the making of the episode itself - We can probably utilize some of the DVD commentary (from one of the 2 DVDs), but I will work on finding production info from other sources as well... This is fun, I've never yet helped to bring an article to FA status before and I think we have a good chance... Smee 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rolling Stone image

  • Do you have the gist of a good idea on a fair use rationale for the picture of Matt and Trey from the recent Rolling Stone Cover Story ? Smee 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
    • The usage of the image itself, specifically in the Rolling Stone article, was discussed in a recent article in the Times Herald-Record. I will put the citation here for future reference, and then I will add it into the article, unless you want to. Here is also some more citations/news about the episode, through a search for "trapped in the closet", on Google News. Some of these reputable news reports include reviews of the DVD, which can be used as reputable reviews for the episode where mentioned, that would have more staying power than some of the current reviews listed. I will add those later as well... Here is that citation template for the Times Herald-Record article :

Rothman, Robin A.; Sandy Tomcho. "‘South Park’ sticks it to Scientology again", Times Herald-Record, March 9, 2007, pp. Entertainment section. (English) 

Yours, Smee 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans FAC opposition

I really appreciated the guidance that your opinion gave me to work from. Often times, people remove opposition when the majority of their concerns have been corrected or addressed. Do you continue to oppose after most of your points have been addressed? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've continued my opposition, please see the additional comments. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see I have gotten you to withdraw your opposition. Now, I need some support. I have reworked about a half dozen paragraphs. Only one remains uncited. It comes from the following edit. I do not have the proper reference at my fingertips. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not mean to be a pest. However, tomorrow is 10 days after the FAC listing. Could you please state clearly either Neutral or Support (or Oppose) at the bottom my FAC discussion page since you have been so actively involved in the discussion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Hey, just stopping by to say thanks a bunch for supporting my Rfa which passed successfully on saturday, I am honoured to serve the community. Keep up all your great work on RC patrol, any problems or questions, you know where to find me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YAPPR

Michael, you were ever so helpful on my last portal peer review that I must invite you to comment on another one for the Portal:Library and information science. Many thanks for your insights. Planetneutral talk 04:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed, although there are nearly no issues. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes of the Insane

Hi Michael, I was just wish to once again thank you for your help with Christ Illusion. At the moment I'm thinking of elevating "Eyes of the Insane" to GA status which I think is possible, and maybe FA if enough sources are available. Right now it's at peer review, so any feedback you may have is greatly welcomed. LuciferMorgan 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Another Slayer FA hopefully. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy St. Patrick's Day!Happy St. Patrick's Day!

This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Trampton 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wii

I suppose some of those could be put back. Ones I don't think: changing the spelling of kidiness (this is person being quoted spelled it. You don't correct their spelling, that is what [[[sic]]] is for). 10th of March, "at the 2007 Game Developers Conference" is much better. Pokemon Battle Revolution has been out for several months, so saying it will be the first online Wii game is outdated. There are others, but it's 10AM where I live and i've been up all night, so I need to get some sleep. TJ Spyke 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Jaw dropping alacrity!

Thanks for reverting the most recent addition to my talk archive. I was actually conducting a little test and made that addition myself, after I logged out. Still and all, it's nice to know somebody has their eye on my archives. Thank you for caring enough to restore my archives to the last version I created (as myself). Jeffpw 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FL

I was recently notified that List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry was promoted to WP:FL status. It seems to me that this page should have something in the header saying "These are our newest featured lists:" with the last 5 or so promotions. What do you think? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need to, the newest featured items are already found both here and here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

Lol, thanks. I forgot to, because just for once, I want to see what C:CSD looks like when it's empty! :) – riana_dzasta 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, can I nominate you? :) I can whip you up a nomination statement within the next hour or so... (my nom statements tend to be a little longwinded :p) – riana_dzasta 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You have mail :) – riana_dzasta 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapped in the Closet (South Park) ...

  • Which is a higher rating, "A" class article or "GA" class article? In any event, I think the article is ready to be bumped to "A", that is, if "A", is higher.. What do you think? Smee 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Generally speaking, yes. However, the article could probably use a lot of copyediting and expansion before achieving that class. Please see the assessment scale for additional information on the accepted criteria. I will continue to work on it once the peer review is closed if no new reviews are present. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, sounds good, keep me posted and I'd love to help in any way I can. P.S. I love the new signature! Smee 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Enjoy!

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

Trampton 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Majin Buu et al.

That may not stop him for more than a couple of minutes. He's popped up at least four seperate sock IPs in the last hour. What sort of options do we have against this sort of thing? HalfShadow 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The protection policy states that temporary protection should only be used on for "preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses". However, only two of his IP addressees actively vandalized the article and both got blocked. Lets see if he comes back with more. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ipswich Town F.C.

Hi. Please explain to me how to use {{note}} as I've not come across it before and the template page doesn't really help! --Dweller 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for such excellent, pertinent comments. You've helped improve the article substantially. --Dweller 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Give me a word next time you'd put an article on FAC/PR. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It'll be Norwich City F.C.. We've started work on it already (check its history!) but it won't be at PR for a week or so. We're still deciding what will come after that, but it'll probably be another cricket bio. --Dweller 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pennsylvania state parks

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pennsylvania state parks. I responded there, could you please let us know there whether you want the spaces out of the notes or not? Leaving the spaces in follows the model of some featured articles, but we will take them out if you want. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He'll be back in three minutes.

What are my options, here? HalfShadow 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stay on watch for now. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LA

Congratulations on being made an admin. Can I ask you to add your name to WP:LA, it makes it easy for the rest of us to work out what's going on in edits like this. Ta. Regards, Mr Stephen 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see I may have been a bit 'slow' here :) Time to call it a night! Regards, Mr Stephen 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...for responding to my post on incidents with the block on User:Francis Escort. The individual immediately created another sock, User:Mam't a'nut', and has resumed the same disputed edits as the previous sock. I'm going to file a CheckUser report, but wanted you to be aware as someone who has had contact with the case. Dppowell 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFPP

When you undo other administrators actions, whether they were in error or not, it's normally polite to leave a notice on their talk page. I was quite frustrated when I went back to RFPP before and found you'd overruled me there without leaving a notice. Plus, it helps people find out where they've gone wrong should they be incorrect, like I was. Please consider this. --Deskana (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that. You clearly didn't make an action on the page itself except the notice, and I thought it wouldn't be very necessary to request you to correct own mistake instead. Thanks. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Overruling me was fine, but I would have appreciated a notice saying "Hey, I overruled what you said, because you were wrong". I'm sure you can understand that :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!


Thanks again for your support and comments - List of Pennsylvania state parks made featured list!
Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNU free licencing

Thank you for explaining Wikipedia's new policy on image licencing to me, I've been having every image I upload deleted and couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. I've been active on Wikipedia for about a year now but only recently started adding images, so I was brand new to the whole licencing process and very confused, until you kindly explained it to me. Rudy Breteler 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the lock on Global Warming

How long with the lock be in place? --Blue Tie 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until whether the article has neutrality problems or not is decided at its talk page. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand how that can be the standard. What will be your test for this determination? Does everyone have to agree that Yes it does or does everyone have to agree that no it does not? What happens if the people who like the page as it is locked say "It has no NPOV problem" and the people who do not agree with the page as it is says "Yes it does have an NPOV problem? What will be the determination in that case? --Blue Tie 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus. I'll keep watching the discussion for now. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is no ability for consensus on this matter because at the heart of the issue is this: Some people who have worked hard on the article believe their view is unbiased. Others firmly disagree. And it is not over just a few things but it goes through many things. Do you really believe that a great many people are going to say, "you know what? You are right, I am a POV pusher? All my edits are crap, do away with them." (Because that is essentially what would have to happen). I don't see that happening. However, suppose we can say that a consensus can be achieved. How is consensus defined? Is it that everyone agrees? That everyone agrees except for one person? Is it majority rules? Is it that in your opinion one side is stronger than the other? What is the measure? It seems to me, that wikipedia policies ought to somehow govern on some of this. (by the way, thanks for the answers!)--Blue Tie 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and this is the reason why the article has been protected in the first place. While some users can't possibly agree with others and aren't willing to discuss, the edit warring will continue. Now, obviously, not everyone are going to immediately agree with you regarding the issue. What we need here is an extensive review of the article for neutrality and weasel words, which can be achieved using a request for comment. Most information about consensus can be found here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the consensus page has one significant flaw. It says then if you do not agree with the edit take it to talk page and come to a compromise. That is a bit like the old cartoon that shows scientists describing a process of complex mathematical equations and then in the middle it says "something magic happens here". But on this particular page... global warming, I think that the current page has POV problems. And as long as there is no consensus on the matter (and I do not think there will be) it will remain locked like it is. So, it becomes essentially an entombed article with a tag of questionability. That, in itself, seems like an ok compromise to me on the article, though such practices really are not good for the integrity of wikipedia. Anyway, thanks. --Blue Tie 04:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Why did you remove the protected tag from Global warming? The page is still protected but now it isn't obvious, nor is it obvious that such protection does not endorse the current version. --Tjsynkral 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure what happened, I was simply looking at the revisions. Now unreverted. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming Prot/ 3RR

Congrats on your RFA (nice comfortable majority; I missed it was going on). Well done on protecting global warming... I was just wondering whether to protect the article or block Blue Tie for a 5RR on it. Do you have a game plan, since it determines whether I do the block as well? In theory as blocking users is a defensive measure I don't need to block the user if the page is going to stay protected for a while. However if it was a "heat of the moment" thing and you are planning on unprotect in the cool of the morning I probably should do a block. --BozMo talk 10:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually forget it. Looks like it has already been taken care of [[1]] --BozMo talk 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If I have done that many reverts, I probably should be blocked, but I am unaware of having done it. (It would be the first time I have violated that rule to my knowledge, but I could have erred -- everyone makes mistakes.) But I would like to know the reverts so that I could identify and apologize to those who were injured by bad behavior. --Blue Tie 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, as mentioned on the talk page, the article is protected so the block doesn't apply. Thanks for apologising. --BozMo talk 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

Hey, why did you delete the main page here? SGGH 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the ----?

- - Can you explain why you deleted the main page? TML 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) - - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gren グレン 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) - - Explanation? Trebor 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) - - Yeah I saw that too. "Holy shit someone deleted wikipedia!?" --ISeeDeadPixels 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to this important question. Witty lama 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're a sysop!

Hi, Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 04, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

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

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

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Michaelas! Happy mopping. :-) - Anas talk? 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done Michael! I knew you'd do well – if you ever need any help, just leave me a message and I'll get back to you asap! Good luck. Majorly (o rly?) 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Smee 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
COngratulations, you deserve the sysop tools! Tellyaddict 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! You haven't broken my perfect RfA nominee record! Oh wait, this is about you... ;) Congratulations, Michael, now help us out at C:CSD... – Riana ঋ 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very well done. Was quite easy in the end, wasn't it? :) Bubba hotep 10:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey a congratulations shout-out from me as well! Use the mop and bucket well :)...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I slipped. Dfrg.msc 09:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yu gi oh Abridged Will u ever respond?

you have deleted an excellent article about the popular youtube series yu gi oh abridged that is recently in conflict with youtube. Your argument for taking it off is that it is not popluar enough. There are thousands of people that are subscribed to littlekuriboh (guy who makes the movies) on youtube, let alone the millions of people unsubscribed. There are much less popluar articles on wikipedia and it wouldnt be right to leave this deleted. We dont know your motives but you may be trying to protect youtube. We the viewers would like this article of yu gi oh abridged back. check out all the video responses and replies and rating to see if there are enough people! 1 2 3 see the vandlism thing

Hey there! thanks for informing me that about Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series, but I'm afraid that having thousands of viewers alone doesn't make a certain video notable. Wikipedia has its own notability guidelines for web content, which all the web-related articles are expected to adhere. Did the series ever win any award on YouTube or elsewhere? Has it been published by notable creators (such as the Yu-Gi-Oh! creators themselves)? If so, I'd be happy to restore the article; otherwise you may simply request undeletion at the deletion review. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

- Michael Billington (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[[Make love not warcraft

Sorry, I didn't notice the fact the griefer was headless (surely there's a better image to illustrate that point though?). I hope the recent edit was acceptable- as I've tweaked the caption to illustrate both the weird gameplay and the SP character's portrayals in the game. The thing is, the Wikimedia board has recently passed a stricter resolution on the use of fair use images, (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy) and one of the implications proposed in WT:FUis that episode articles might be restricted to at most one image per episode. So unless we show some restraint in the use of images for SP episode articles, they might all get deleted. Borisblue 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Coast Mariners FAC

(blatantly copied from a similar comment by The Rambing Man) Hey Michael, just wanted to drop by to thank you for your comments in the FAC of the Central Coast Mariners FC article. You may be interested to know it achieved featured article status today. Thanks for your insightful suggestions and for helping in assisting the article's promotion. Cheers! Daniel Bryant 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Map3.PNG

Hey, you said that the second image had already been deleted as being redundant to this image. In actuality, the second image was redundant to Image:Old Ireleth map (1850-1873).PNG. I uploaded the image as name it was saved as on my laptop (Map3, as it was the third stage, the first being the crop, the second being the removal of the watermark), then I realised, so I uploaded it again with the wrong date in the title, because I had misunderstood the website I was using as a source. Apologies for the confusion, I was somewhat tired at the time. So, could you reconsider not deleting this image? J Milburn 17:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your e-mail, I guess it must have been lost in your inbox somewhere. What I said was-
“

Hi there. The problem was completely my fault- I kept on uploading the picture dispite the fact I wasn't ready. Too tired! Basically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map3.PNG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Old_Ireleth_map_%281850-1873%29.PNG are the same image, but Map3 is orphaned (because it is redundant to the other) has the wrong date (because I misunderstood the website I was using) and has a poor title, which probably would constitute deletion on its own. In short, please delete Map3.PNG.

Thanks.

J Milburn.

 ”
Can I have the image deleted now? Sorry, I just don't like having it sitting there! J Milburn 21:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Image:Badwareunderinvestigation.png"

09:46, 25 March 2007 Michaelas10 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Badwareunderinvestigation.png" (No fair use rationale ; 7 days passed.)

This is a logo. Wikipedia:Logos applies, and the image should not have been deleted. This removed one of the three logos used to indicate different types of "badware", messing up the article. Please undelete, and if necessary, mark as a logo. Thanks. --John Nagle 07:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only logo images themselves aren't an exception to the fair use policy, it applies stricter on them rather than on normal fair use images. See WP:IDP#Fair use rationale for information about fair use rationales. Thanks. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a policy. That page (WP:IDP) is just an "unprintworthy redirect" to a help page. The actual Wikipedia:Image use policy only requires an "image use tag". Suggest temporary restoration so the history and tagging become visible again, then an AfD if you still think it should be deleted. --John Nagle 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image use policy applies mostly to non-fair use images, so I believe WP:FUC is what you're looking for. Criteria 10 does require a fair use rationale — that is, a detailed explanation why the image meets the fair use criteria and how is it significant to the article. Old images uploaded without a rationale are removed 7 days after tagging, without an WP:IFD debate. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My contest

Hey, you've won $10 from my contest, but you never told me how to give it to me. Be sure to e-mail me with any relevant details on how to give you the prize money. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailed. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

You're an admin! I wish I could've supported you in RfA, but I wasn't aware that you were running for adminship. Well, congrats, and good luck! Sr13 (T|C) 07:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A message

  • Hello! My name is Jaromir. Michael, thank you very much for your words at: [2]. Have a nice evening and good luck in everything you do: good or evil ;) under the condition that you treat this 'evil' part as a joke. :) --Riva72 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm.. I am sorry but I really have to revert some of your reverts. You do not know the seriousness of the problem.. I hope you won't mind. Cheers! --Riva72 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not on 'speaking terms' with ... I need the settlement of the dispute by the arbiters, the Commons administrators: Gmaxwell, Jastrow and Yonatan. C.C's attitude (the character?) you know. --Riva72 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not a spammer and, fortunately, I did not manage to revert your reverts. Smile! The day is really beautiful. :D --Riva72 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are not an administrator yet. Please, DO NOT run (do not boss, do not show). Choose the best phrase. --Riva72 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With the User Sherool we have a nice conversation. DO NOT be a killjoy. Really! --Riva72 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Spamming warning

Please do not spam my talk pages with the messages in the case you know nothing of. Thank you. These users know the situation. --Riva72 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please stop as well. --Riva72 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not threaten me! This spam messages should come from the users whom I am spamming, shouldn't they? Who are you? Their advocate? Please: stop be funny and silly! --Riva72 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A fresh discovery: the Commons and the Wikipedia projects are like a big globe or rather a big house, aren't they? The big one, the ugly and the messy one but it is "ours" and "free". :D The Commons and the Wikipedia.. Two rooms.. But I still wonder: is the English Wikipedia section a kitchen, a study room or maybe a hall? Do not repeat, please. :) --Riva72 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

Judging from recent posts here and their edit summaries, the deletion of the Main Page was an inadvertent mistake (gulp!). It may be worth leaving a short explanation here for a while, to stop other people adding "why..." posts! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my terrible mistake. Looked at the wrong page, pressed the wrong button. Restored immediately, so no damage was made. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly just a real-life havoc. Should avoid letting others near the computer. A full explanation can be found here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It's cool :) SGGH 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Surreal Barnstar
For taking WP:BOLD to its natural conclusion.[3] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly takes "Respect my authoritah" to new heights. My first thought was "OMG, they've killed Kenny"! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a barnstar for about every 10,000 edits I've done... you got one for just one delete. I've obviously been going about my editing of Wikipedia in the wrong way :) Michaelas10, a man more impressive than 300 Spartans. gren グレン 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on your 6th(?) barnstar! That one's for the record books. Keep up the good work, but use "show preview" next time you're editng the main page... (just kidding) :-P Witty lama 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the only other time I'm aware of that someone made a significant change to the main page while thinking they were somewhere else was this. The explanation is User_talk:Moriori/Archive_2#MAIN_PAGE. He got the rouge admin award for it, so I think you should too.-gadfium 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps not quite in the same league, this is another case of screwing up the main page by accident (mentioned in Talk:Main Page) [4] Nil Einne
The explanation for that is here,-gadfium 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the message from User:Rdsmith4 (and can add 2 and 2) - please don't feel too bad about this: we all make mistakes. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much every administrator has slipped up once or twice, I wouldn't worry about it. I blocked myself for vandalism once. Happens to everyone :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! 2 days in, Michael, and you're already rouge! Oh, I'm speechless. I do think it's funny that it wasn't restored for 3 WHOLE MINUTES, though!!! – Riana talk 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done!
Is this your house?
Is this your house?
Well done for being officially rouge, Mike. You may want to consider placing {{Rouge}} on your userpage to warn us when you're next likely to delete the Community Portal or somesuch... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)All hail Chairman Jim!

I have a new target for you: MediaWiki:Watchlist, I don't have the balls to delete that, perhaps you do ;) You realise that in a year's time during your RFB the opposes will be, "Remember that time that guy deleted the main page, well it was this guy." You have no idea how much I laughed at that. Oh yeah, congrats on the RfA, I can see you like your new buttons ;) James086Talk | Email 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this'll be a good story for the grandkids, huh? -- febtalk 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Late congrads on becoming an admin! Now, here's everything you need to know and do:

Cut a sheet of plain red or pink paper into strips to go around the table. The wider the tabletop, the wider the strip should be. Glue it down about 4 inches at a time, applying the glue directly to the tabletop. Place the paper on the table keeping closely to the edge of the table. Apply more glue to the strips so that they will adhere well. Continue around the entire circumference of the table. Use scissors to cut out the roses in the rose-printed paper. Cut along the edges of the roses so that the glued-over effect is not noticeable. Juxtapose the pieces of paper in order to cover the entire center of the tabletop. Cut out squares of rose-patterned paper. The square side should correspond to the width of the strip. Prior to pasting them on, place them on the strip to get a better estimate of the space between each square and the number necessary. Finishing touch: Apply two coats of varnish. Let dry.

Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ps, Do you really want your page vandalized? Because I have some lines of code that are just itching to wreak some havoc. Dfrg.msc 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't link to attack sites

Hi. I noticed that you reverted DennyColt's removal of links to/promotion of Wikipedia Review.[5] Please don't do that. I have reverted you back. See this determination by the ArbCom in the MONGO case, and don't link to attack sites:

  • "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking".[6] Bishonen | talk 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
There still isn't enough consensus to make it a guideline. If it would be all that simple, we could just have the attack sites blacklisted. The essay is currently undergoing discussion. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of these things. Not a guideline..? Did you think I was linking to the essay Wikipedia:Attack sites, that DennyColt referred to? No. I wouldn't do that, since you've obviously already seen it. My quote is from an ArbCom decision, per my link. It might also be interesting for you to check out a recent RFA which failed spectacularly over this very issue. If you don't mind my mentioning it, you're a very new admin. Do you really want to start out by going against the judgment of so many experienced admins and arbitrators and the Arbitration Committee itself? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I don't object to the decisions of the ArbCom, but perhaps we shouldn't hurry to remove any attack-alike site links right now. We still aren't certain about the definiton of "attack site", or how to remove them properly. Nevertheless I'd proceed to remove each single Wikipedia Review reference which had previously been censored out. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gracesepia.jpg

I noticed you deleted the above image. Had you looked to see what linked to it you would have seen that it was not attached to any article yet apart from a discussion about the license thereof. [7] By deleting it you have made it harder for that discussion to take place. MrMarmite 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License which allows anyone to use its content, images tagged with "used with permission" or an otherwise limited license became strictly disallowed. Once the appropriate license is found, you may re-upload it; until then the existence of an image doesn't associate with the license discussion. Thanks. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Had you waited a day, I could have just changed the tag inline with the discussion. The fact that you add the suffix with Respect my authoritah]] only further indicates you seem more interested in flexing your "powers" than helping. MrMarmite 07:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion requests cannot be put on hold unless timed. An instruction to re-upload the image after they are deleted due to such concerns is already provided at {{Idw-noncom}} — and, unlike articles, it isn't very difficult to restore an image without accessing deleted revisions. Please assume good faith. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism

Regarding your Weak Support: I made your suggested changes. Let me know what you think. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-11 17:22Z

As I've said, it could still use copyediting at places. I will not retract my original weak support for now. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Evanescence

Replied here. Armando.Otalk • Ev 01:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kefka Palazzo

In my attempt to clear up the double redirects page, I bumped into this redirect page. Apparently, there was a dispute at the page prior to becoming a redirect, so the page has been protected and can only be edited by admins (such as you). Could you correct the redirect to Characters of Final Fantasy VI? Thanks. Sr13 (T|C) 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slayer

Hey, thanks for the star; much appreciated. This was great edit, bty, nice work. Ceoil 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burntsauce continues to remove tag

Any suggestions? I've stopped because I'm sure that despite the removal of the tag not being allowed, I've tripped 3RR, but other folks are readding it and he is still removing. SirFozzie 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, although 3RR cannot be violated in own userspace. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

I wonder if you could use some other South Park reference in your signature. While ironically amusing, it may give the wrong impression to editors who are not aware of where it comes from. I realise that you were using the signature before you became an administrator but having that tagged on the end may give newer users the impression that administrators set the rules and must be obeyed. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being so prompt. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MessedRocker's Contest

Hello! If you have received this message, that means you have an article entered in MessedRocker's Contest. To help stimulate the contest, the rules have been modified: the next five people who promote an article to Good Article status will win, and that's it. Get writing so you can be one of the five! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

This shouldn't even be an edit war. It's one user attempting to impose their agenda of a major clause with absolutely no consensus or discussion. --Oakshade 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, this user should be personally contacted with a decent explanation. I've protected it for 5 days to allow the situation calm down, but you may request unprotection earlier if there's consensus. Thanks. Michaelas10 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleMania 23

It looks like the problem has been resolved on the talk page, if you want to take a look so you can unlock the page. TJ Spyke 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)