User talk:Johnleemk/Archive4

Welcome to my talk page; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.

You can add a new comment to this page here.

Archives:

BAO1984

I'm still a newbie I don't know where to pm you. Why did you delete this article? The information here is better than some "worthless" articles floating around. And I'm still editing it. I'm still gathering 'sources' and seems you guys are not convince? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Yunaffx (talk • contribs)

basic life ignorance

It is this editor's opinion that "15-year old computer nerds" lack sufficient life experience and understanding of human nature to make effective admins. But congrats in any case, and enjoy high school. -Naif 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John:

Just a heads-up, but my belief is that User:Naif above is a troll. Some points:

Wrote the deleted material from Sadness [1], but on the AfD (which you closed), wrote Delete. Clearly the product of a madman. -Naif 12:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is having a peculiar argument regarding Street harassment with Ambi (talk · contribs), and looks like he's started wikistalking him. See Talk:Street harassment for some details. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Calton, so first it's sly little insinuations that I'm a wikistalker, and now you're tracking down my edits to make them on other user pages... Hello? Is this an elaborate trolling attempt? Some esoteric irony accessible only to you? It's starting to get scary how my handle is showing up in all your edits... is this the love that dare not speak its name? -Naif 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I think that a block is in order for 12.161.0.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Izehar (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting schools you don't like

I am simply responding in kind to Max rspct's deletion of schools. If you block me, then to be consistent please block Max rspt, too, for an equal amount of time. He started the erase schools you don't like contest, as you can see from History. Hogeye 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfDs

Thanks for the reminder. I had been doing it previously. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Leslie Cheung Article

Hi Johnleemk: I came across you when I was reading your statements on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysian_lock-up_detainee_abuse_scandal and note that you're a Wikipedia admin. I would like to invite you to take a look at the situation on the Leslie Cheung article. You will note that the article needs a lot of copyediting, fact verification/citation/referencing and in general, cleaned up to be held up to Wikipedia standards. I have tried to copyedit, request for the main contributor to cite references in the article, etc. But this main contributor insists on deleting such edits and even tags on the page calling for copyedit, fact verification help. Please review the article and add your comments in. I think someone else needs to tell Augest, the main contributor to the article that Wikipedia is not his/her personal Web site and that articles need to be held to a higher standard. Thanks. --speedoflight | talk to me 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick adjustment

On the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors, you put that the decision was a keep although, in fact, there was a 13 to 8 vote to delete, therefore the decision is, in fact, a no consensus. If you could please adjust that to fairly represent the discussion, I would much appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Antidote 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I realize that no consensus means keep, but most people see a keep as meaning the majority voted keep. A no consensus however is just a default keep because a consensus was not reached. In terms of future debates on this article, it is unfair to have people believe the article was voted to keep when it wasnt. I would much appreciate if the article was just given a no consensus much like the other administrators have been doing to other articles. Otherwise, it just seems unfair. Thanks a lot. Antidote 19:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Johnleemk. Antidote 07:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Hi Johnleemk,

Don't mind if you can take a look at the above FAC? Thanks!

- Mailer Diablo 06:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gtplanet

Hey John. You recently deleted (or was party in the deletion) of an article called "Gtplanet", as a "non-notable website". In fact, although the article was originally created by a member not affiliated with the staff of the site (and thus "vanity" is entirely justified as a claim), the site is THE LARGEST resource for the MOST POPULAR game on the MOST POPULAR console on the market. I do hope that, in light of this information, you reverse this decision (and retitle it so that the capitals are in the right place - it ought to have been GTPlanet). I do not know if this is the most appropriate place to discuss this, but no others were immediately apparent. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.68.143.164 (talk • contribs) (moved from User:Johnleemk)

My apologies - as I said, no other place was immediately apparent. I have now added the text and corroborative evidence in the Wikipedia:Deletion_review section. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.68.143.164 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism

im sorry plz forgive me i didnt even think it would show up bro but i do have a constructive addition tho —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.111.105.238 (talk • contribs)

Can you please block this user?

Burp2006 also has a grudge against FireFox. See FF's userpage's recent history for evidence.--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page!

Fir e Fox 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq - AfD closing

Hello Johnleemk! A question to you as you were closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq - why did you choose to keep it? With what it currently has - a mere rewording of the title - it's not a wikipedia article; as one of the voters confirmed, there's nothing of value which could be derived from translation of the arabic original. Could you kindly explain you reasoning please? Thanks in advance, and regards - Introvert ^talk 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you are saying... it is in English now, you bet :) but is it an article? I was doubtful about having such a lame stub behind a blue link. Wouldn't it be rather misleading? Maybe better keep a red link and hope it'll motivate a someone to actually create a real article, rather than tolerate such a poor sub_substub. But, who knows, maybe it's the other way around..? - maybe another editor would find it easier to add info into a stub but would hesitate to write an article anew. You see, this is the very question which I, as a someone who's been helping out at WP:PNT, have to answer every so often: does this stuff merit a translation, will it make an article -- or there's no hope? I guess, for this particular one, it'd be fine with me to leave it as is, not a big deal (and a redirect to the "main party" article wouldn't seem to be the right thing to do anyway). Appreciate your response, though, kind of helped to think it through. Thanks! - Introvert ^talk 08:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:199.243.125.2

I quote:

Don't be a playa' hata'. Your nonsense is enough. Go get a life. I'll help you by blocking you. 31 hours should be enough to lose your virginity, no? And then I'm sure occupation with paying for child support should be enough to give you a life outside vandalism of an online encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? I've removed your comment from the user's talk page, and replaced it with a more simple one and without personal attacks. See WP:NPA. Thanks. IanManka 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Spears

How do u cite —the preceding unsigned comment is by 222.165.172.131 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism

Thanks for the help reverting the Massachusetts Wrestling article (twice now!). That same IP range (User:216.20.1.218) has been responsible for deleting the entire contents of MassWrestling.com's privately run wikis, forcing me to ban their IP range from the site I run. How, by chance did you happen to notice the entire page deletion? Does being a SysOp enable you to review drastic deletions like that which happened? Why has this IP (range) been given multiple "final warnings"? Please block this IP from further vandalism. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 129.10.116.80 (talk • contribs)

King George

I think using such informal nicknames that could be seen as politically motivated should not be allowed. On top of that, I have never heard either President Bush nor Geo. Steinbrenner refered to by that name. A lot of other names, both good and bad, yes. This sort of fluff stirkes at the heart of why Wikipedia has such a low reputation as evidenced by recent news stories. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

Bill Clinton

Can you tell me what was factually incorrect about my revision to Bill Clinton's article? The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority. It is not correct to say he was acquitted. He was found guilty my a simple majority of senators but not the necessary 2/3. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

Clinton article...

How else do you illustrate facts then? I meant to call no value judgements simply clear up the facts. He was not acquitted as the article states. Also, the word "resignation" is not even appropriate as his ability to practice before the Supreme Court was suspended. Is suspension somehow neutral but not resignation? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

Clinton article

I did not realize that I had removed the reference to the four charges of the House and have no objection to them being there. However, to delete other facts that are beyond question goes too far. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

Thank you...

I have attempted to re-edit the Bill Clinton article based upon your recommendations. Hopefully, it will suffice. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

I have changed the Bill Clinton impeachment to read the number of senators who voted guility vs. not guilty in following with how the impeachment trial on Andrew Johnson is portrayed on wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)

Um, this anonymous user is spreading misinformation ... the Senate vote was 50-50 on one charge and 55-45 to acquit on the other. I think he's using debate over the wording to try to insert this factual inaccuracy into the articles. --Jfruh 04:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles For Sale

Could you please consider removing or pushing for the removal of the reference on this album's page to the first 3 tracks forming the "Lennon Trilogy." I've read a mass of prime Beatles material over the years and have never read or heard of this term. There appears to be no provenance given to the reader during the relevant section of the BFS coverage. (It's doing my head in). Similarly, the use of the word "sombre" to describe these songs is entirely a matter of opinion and therefore breaks the neutrality code.

best wishes,

88.111.49.126 14:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflage Peer Review

Hello, you once edited Camouflage. You might be interested to know, this article has been nominated for peer review. novacatz 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

An allleged actionable objection is still outstanding. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD result tagging

Hello Johnleemk.

I noticed that you have been including recent AFD results for certain articles nominated for deletion. However, it seems standard procedure in WP to include such results on the top of the page, and by using an existing template to address the deletion process and result in detail, as seen below:

This user page was nominated for deletion on September 8, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

The syntax of the template is as followed:

{{oldafdfull|
| date = 
| result = (default value is "keep")
| votepage = (default value is "{{PAGENAME}}")
}}

The same template may be included more than once for articles nominated more than once for an AFD.

Happy editing! ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 14:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi Johnleemk,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi John,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I've seen you around for a long time, and it means a lot to me especially to get a cliché vote. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --D e ath phoenix 15:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks:errata

(responding to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Blogs) Have you seen the Wikibooks:errata project? --DavidCary 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please help me

Hello,i just want to tell you something.I don't know why people keep on sending me(my ip) message and said i did something bad to the articles and I change my IP address all the time...How comes?I didn't do anything to en wiki!I REALLY don't know why 'cause Ｉ　haven't edit articles in en eiki for a long time.I do have an account but I everytime I come back to wiki i am not logged in.And before I log in,i recieve messages from different user...i didn't do anything to damage the article .I'm sorry my english is not very good..please help me to find out why this happen if you could... —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.186.238.165 (talk • contribs)

Since your IP has probably changed, I'll break with my usual practice and respond here. Your internet service provider rotates your IP address at different times of the day/week/month/year. This address is often shared with many other users. So, you get their messages. It's like sharing a house with other people who you never see and never are aware of. You get their mail but as far as you know, nobody else lives with you. I know this is irritating, but it's a result of technological limitations. Sorry. Don't worry, though. If you get blocked, just email an admin - anyone. We'll unblock the IP (and maybe stick a warning label on the user talk page so other admins won't make the mistake of blocking a shared IP again.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr

Is there a specific reason you didn't delete this when you deleted Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr. It was nominated for deletion and the AfD on the site redirected to the Abu Jahl one. Frankly, of the ten "...contribution to the battle of Badr" article's that have been created, 9 of them have been deleted.Pepsidrinka 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi, you left a final vandal warning for User talk:82.110.238.116 but he/she is up to it again (just vandalising Hurricane Katrina) -- Thanks, Mikkerpikker 09:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

You voted to cleanup, can you be more specific. Do you want to prune the list or remove it? Thanks.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Finnish-Swedish relations

Sorry false alert... i did not know there were separate afd talk pages, which i totally missed. sorry, my bad, still a bit new on wikipedia ;)

Gillis 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Election

Hey John, despite the oppose, I wanted to thank you for your comment, and I was wondering if you had any ideas on how I could keep the core of my ideas while making them less instruction creepy. karmafist 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately all that's about is because those who have put their reasons at WP:FUC in regards to no fair use on user pages haven't given any legal(real, not Wikipedia) reasoning (codified or precedent). John, you're a great guy, but please don't make me choose between what I believe and my friendship towards you. I've already sold out too many times in regards to those things, i'm quickly burning out from it. I'm going to talk to a few friends of mine with an inside track in regards to some userboxes where permission can be recieved for the logos (the US Democrat and Red Sox boxes), and i'm going to contact another lawyer friend of mine on this, BD2412 basically agreed with me on the Template:User US democrat talk page, but even that doesn't seem to be enough for people. I shouldn't have bothered to try to fix the inherent problems with this place and just stuck with welcoming -- I hit 1000 today. karmafist 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I tend to take things way too seriously under stressful situations. What do you think, should I quit the election? The only reason I haven't left it yet is because of comments like rbj's. karmafist 08:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, i'll just stop looking at it. I'm betting i'll get 15%, but i'll take odds ;-) karmafist 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Be

Thank you for editing "Let it Be (song)". While I agree about the picture (maybe you could upload that picture to Wikipedia and then repost?) that chart was copied from another single's page (I think it was "Get Back (song") and not fully edited. Please do not revert it again, as the information it now contains is entirely correct. I removed the single links because Let it Be was the last single, so there will be no following single. Thanks! My name is archie 15:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) My name is archie[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! --Winter 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifting (motorsports)

Just a gentle reminder to put the old afd tag on talk when you close an afd. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Much appreciated!--ViolinGirl^♪ 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria and inline references

Hi, just a note on the point you raised on the Platypus FARC (replying here as the vote is closed); the FA criteria include (2c) a "References" section ... enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations. Barring the unlikely event of an article where inline citations are not appropriate, then, inline citations are required. Mark ¹ 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PFPA/Martha

Loser! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBill (talk • contribs) .

alternative theories on the pyramids

simply put, i'm very disappointed in the decision made to delete the article.

By way of more detail, yes, the majority of the few posters to the 'delete' page were in favour of delete. However, two points.

First, the comments they had made were taken on board by me as the author, yet that didn't prevent the deletion of it. Why not, and what is the point of it then. Is something damned because of how it appears (after barely one day of existance, and existance that was REQUESTED by others) at the very beginning, not what it turns into? I was developing the page, bringing into line, much as most articles go through development which improves the quality and adds further information. This article was cut during this process. Why not, for example, delete the page on Khufu? There is plenty of non-NPOV statement on there. This page was about the alternative theories, which rightly and reasonably question the evidence cited for the dating of the Great Pyramid. It wasn't opinion, it wasn't actually against the rule of NPOV. It was necessary to balance the statements made about the Great Pyramid by the standard theory.

Second, unfortunately, the people who put their names against 'delete' have demonstrated little or no knowledge of the subject, and thus their views were hardly greatly valid. Much like mine would be on most other subjects, for example Malaysia. They took what was a page about non-mainstream theories as uneducated POV or pseudoscience, but they were actually in the wrong. The theories exist, and parts of them have weight. Now, they no longer exist and thus the subject is once again biased in favour of one POV. I made the point that once upon a time, not so long ago, the world was considered flat and women were not considered equal, and to say different was considered provocative. Eventually, enough people were willing to open their eyes to the alternative opinions and change was brought. I had hoped people were ready to at least accept the existance of the alternative theories and their evidence. Apparently, the answer, by the limited number of dictators... sorry, editors... who responded is clear. I am professionally an editor. It disappoints me when I see other editors with such a bad attitude. In fact, it makes one as an author very unwilling to contribute one's knowledge further. --Genesis 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the (incredibly) quick response! You're right that there is no point in contesting the decision, and I have already wasted too much time, energy and emotion into the process already, which is a shame. Everyone should have their view recognised, which is fair enough. And who is to say that a qualification means anything, let alone that its true. I have known papers writen by doctors, for example, as though they were knowledgeable but who turn out to be doctors of completely unrelated fields.

However, if the changes are taken (or being taken) on board, it kind of makes sense to revise the decision. Maybe there should be a 'warning' period during which it can be brought up to scratch. Maybe keeping the page in a holding area if it is subject to 'warning'. Maybe a holding area for new articles so they can be peer reviewed before going live to the public. Either way, something needs to change otherwise 'delete' is a pointless debate for the most part, especially when some of the debate contributors make completely invalid points e.g. about dating the rock. --Genesis 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Question

You deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of Sangju and Chungju, but while many voters thought merge and delete was possible, all but two voted for preservation of the content. There were three for merge and delete, two for merge, and one for keep. Clearly this represents a consensus to preserve the content. Since it is not possible to delete (or merge and delete and preserve the content then it should be merged. I'll be happy to do the merging if neccesary.--Samuel J. Howard 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't just do this myself in the first place was that I was hoping someone with more knowledge would do it. I guess I'll be more proactive in the future.--Samuel J. Howard 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Islamic Bosnia

Could you explain how when 16 users feel that article Unitary Islamic Bosnia needs to be deleted and 9 oppose deletion constitutes "no consensus" (see. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitary Islamic Bosnia). I don't know that we were supposed to work towards consensus on a term that is clearly disputed and has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks for your response in advance --Dado 05:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the term Unitary Islamic Bosnia and not the article Bosniak nationalism. Most of the discussion was led if that article should remain or not while it was obvious that the term Unitary Islamic Bosnia should not remain. Hence the redirect. The term itself is offensive Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and Flamebait that will certainlly cause a lot of grief and conflicts. I suggest to delete it. Thanks for your response --Dado 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about reverting the article - I presumed it was someone removing the AfD tag and didn't realize it had been closed and agreed upon. I'll be more careful in the future. -- Rediahs 07:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So {{stubs}} are not acceptable now, are they?

Is it Wikipedia policy to not have stubs holding the place of names?

Pazouzou 12:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Politics

I agree saying the level of press freedom allowed by the Printing and Presses Act is a matter of pov, but simply agreeing with the reasoning that it is 'to prevent public disorder and promote national security' is as much a pov thingy.

Also, 'ketua menteri' is used in the states with no kings ie. Sabah, Sarawak, Melaka and Penang. This is no minor difference, as the term is widely used, and has not been supplanted by Menteri Besar, and is the official term for the position of head of government in these states.

cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whodhellknew (talk • contribs) . Whodhellknew 12:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cheers

Yeah the article 'to' can mean that. I apologise then, because I automatically interpret such sentences as an assertion. Alls well, thnx for that :). Sorry for noobishnesss of no sig

cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whodhellknew (talk • contribs) .

Whodhellknew 12:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: Linkimage

Hi there, you voted to link the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio rather than provide it inline. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Linkimage... Mikkerpikker 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Johnleemk! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful?

I am unclear on why these very helpful links were removed. The site is authored by my mother who is a Pharmacist and medical writer as well as my father who is a Psychiatrist. The site also includes a support forum which is about to be launched. Could you please explain how this is not a useful contribution with unique value to the reader? The content is also unbiased, and there are no ads on my site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanandrew (talk • contribs) .

AfD

HOLY FREAKING CRAP THERE'S NO CLOSED DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TO GET DONE! I noticed you finished off 4 whole days of it, so thank you so freakin' much. :) Just a week and a half ago we had an 8-day backlog, now there's none! =O Mo0[talk] 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD script

I don't think your AFD closing script works. I first put it into my monobook file (User:King of Hearts/monobook.js), which already had a popups script, and after that neither the popups nor the AFD worked. So I removed the AFD script and switched to Cologne Blue skin under the file User:King of Hearts/cologneblue.js, but it still doesn't work. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Charming Man FAC

I believe I have addressed all your concerns regarding the This Charming Man featured article candidacy. If you could, please look over my changes and see if you might change your vote now. Live Forever 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's urban legends

Looks OK now, and have changed my vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Illusions

Hi John, what do you mean by no concensus when the result of delete to keep is 3/2. Can't it just be deleted since it has a majority vote of deletes? --Ter e nc e Ong 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA medal

Being second on the Wikipedians FA list, you really deserve this medal. For your excellent contributions to articles, I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

€2 cc FAC

Could you help me with implementing Cite.php? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 07:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: Could you take a look at User:Nightstallion/sandbox and tell me if the references are sufficient or whether you'd change anything about the article before putting it in articlespace and FLCing it? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

Fantastic work on Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I know you worked hard on it, figured that I'd say thank you for the excellent and neutral article :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cite tag

Whoa! How does that work? I am very interested in using something better than {{ref}} and {{note}}, as these slow me down. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well waddya know? Add the <cite> tag into a heading and you have a hidden comment :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin

Was the result of the Aladin vote to keep the article or was it to redirect it to Aladdin? It's been redirected to Aladdin and I don't know whether to revert it or not. Englishrose 14:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Adarsh

Hi, you closed the above vote as Keep. However, there were 3 delete votes (by the nominator, i.e. me; User:Miljoshi and User:Bhadani), three keep votes and 2 comments (one by me and another by a non-voter, User:Tintin1107). At best, the vote can be closed as a "no consensus to delete." The reason I am raising this point is this: In future, if this article were to be put for deletion again, ppl would say the vote was keep last time, so let us keep it again. Please consider changing your summary for the above from "keep" to "no consensus to delete" or re-list it for more comments. If you need to reply, please do so on my talkpage. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/French_people

There seemed to be some active debate on the deletion of this article. Many voters asserted that this article was original research; others claimed this article should exist because similarly named articles existed for other countries; and others asserted that the article should exist because of some ethnicist POV.

Given the complexity of the debate, I do not see why you closed it. I suggest we reopen it. David.Monniaux 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll therefore remove all unsourced points of view, statistics and other things. David.Monniaux 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this page should not be the one you wrote (K26-D28), but this one:
David.Monniaux (D), Epf (K), Eusebeus (K), Burgas00 (K), Hardouin (D), Khoikhoi (K), Thesquire (D), Tombseye (K), Lukas (K), olivier (K), 69.157.109.6 (K), Pyb (D), Jmabel (K), Stifle (D), Hégésippe (D), GôTô (D), Alvaro (D), Kassus (D), FoeNyx (D), Med (K), Jmfayard (D), nihon (K & R), Angus McLellan (D), Marc Mongenet (N), NeuCeu (D), Mais oui! (K) ,moyogo (K), Jcbarr (K), zzuuzz (K), Romary (D), Coyau (D), 195.93.102.69 (D), Khardan (D), Schutz (D), Almak (D), Teofilo (D), Darkoneko (D), Pabix (D), Padawane(D), Archie (D), Lapaz (D), Ariele(D) , Brendanfox (K & R), Grue (K), GL (D), Poppypetty (D), εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (K), God of War (K)

So (K)eep: 19 (D)elete: 28 (N)eutral:1
Many voters voted twice or three times. Is it still a no consensus ? Khardan 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)

Hi John,

I've noticed that you closed this vote with "no consensus". The way I look at it, the positions "replace the article with a redirect page to something else" and "delete the article" are more or less saying the same thing: the current article should go. Once you look at the vote in this regard, you will see the following picture:

Keep: David, Riday, Englishrose, JJay - 4 votes
Delete or Redirect: Ragib, Ezeu, Mukadderat, SockpuppetSamuelson, Krash, Stifle, Peter S., DreamGuy, KillerChihuahua - 9 votes

The current outcome has been used by the very vocal minority as a proof that the article should stay, which is wrong in my view. Is there be any chance that you might take a second look at your verdict and update it to "redirect"? This would help tremendously to solve this issue. Thanks. Peter S. 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Peter's appeal for you to clarify the confusion with deletion. Please look into talk:aladin. Also, please comment on my simple policy update proposal (ignored so far) aimed at preventing such occurrences: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. Tnak you, Mukadderat 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, once more. Your comments show that you are misunderstanding the problem. Please, PLEASE, read my Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. The issue here is not what you ususlly see "merge & redirect". What people are trying is to "throw away the topic and redirect to different topic". Which effectively amounts to delete of the topic in question. As you know "no consensus" means "keep". Once more, what people are doing is erasing any traces of the topic, not like it was merged in some larger article. Mukadderat 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s:Transwiki:Conversion of Dale-Gudbrand

Hi I noticed your new contribution over at Wikisource. We have large backlog of Transwikied items so it is important to do as much legwork on a text as possible before you Transwiki. The best way to find a document is by looking for the author (i.e. s:Author:Snorri Sturluson) which will have the most complete listing of works. However with translations, you will prorbably have to research a bit more as they are often under different names. In the text you Transwikied the introduction was Excerpted from the Heimskringla (The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway) by Snorri Sturlson which coresponds to s:Heimskringla were a copy this exerpt should already by contained in the complete text. There some exceptons where we would also want have an excerpt of significance on it's own page. Especially if is a unique translation, which is the other problem with this transwiki. There is no way of knowing who translated this exerpt. It could be a WP editor, but if it is part of a text published after 1923 it is likely a copyright violation. Even though the orginal writings are public domain, the English translation is copyrightable as a new work. So it is best to put a notice on WP asking for information from contributors before a text is Transwikied, as it may sit in the backlog for some time. And then it will be even for difficult to get the original editors attention. As it stands I will proposed this transwiki be deleted tommorrow, but if there is some reason this is a significant excerpt that should have it's own page let me know and I will work on tracking down copyright verification.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]