User talk:Journalist/Archive 15

RfB With A Smile :)

Username Warning

Per WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG, obfuscation of your actual username in signatures is discouraged. An admin who hides behind a nickname lacks accountability; it would be difficult to find you on the administrator's list. Please change it soon or request WP:CHU.

—Malber (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature is fine the way it is. Thanks and happy editing! Orane (talk • cont.) 06:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:SIG says, "Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." WP:USERNAME says, "A signature should not be misleading." I don't see how "Orane" relates to "Journalist." IMO, an admin should be setting an example, not breaking the rules. I've noticed that you've blocked the username User:Orane out of process and without discussion. I've brought this to the attention of other admins at WP:AN. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, weren't you the one who said that all you had to do was hover over the link? And, don't you have some studying to do rather than track down all my diffs? —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because adminship is not a big deal. I'm sure you'll be right there to call me biased again because I voted oppose on your "We Belong Together" FAC farce again. Sometimes you can be so...Hollow. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you made admin considering how you take every conflict personally. —Malber (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it was some kind of Hollow victory. —Malber (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How nice, verification. Now on to checkuser. —Malber (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to say hi to Courtni and Cruz for me. —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, your first RfA didn't go very swimmingly. How many socks and meatpuppets did you have to use for your second? —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I bring up your admissions at WP:ANI, which usernames would you prefer me to refer to you as? Hollow Wilerding, Eternal Equinox, etc??? —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celinecruft

Hello Orane,

You keep removing celinedionweb but at the same time, you don't remove sites as YouTube or else. They are unofficial sites as well. So either you remove all unofficial sites, either you display them. But if you keep some and remove others without much consideration, I don't think it is fair. celinedionweb bring as much info as YouTube or else.

Best regards, 83.214.216.95 08:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and Billboard are comprehensive databases about the singer. They are not fanclubs/fansites, which usually serve to promote a singer rather than list the good and the bad about them. That's why I keep including them. Also, youtube has become quite a popular source/refernce site. Billboard has been one from the start. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orane, Then you should visit celinedionweb rather than decide by yourself it is a fansite. celinedionweb is a comprehensive database as well, go and take a look! It is neither a fanclub (since it is not a club of fans) and neither a fansite (since it sticks to the facts and don't "list the good and the bad" about Celine Dion, look at the discography, videography, event sections). celinedionweb is also a source/reference site since it is quoted in Celine Dion's biography and official sites. Best regards, 83.214.216.95 13:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orane, I would appreciate if you could reply to me... 83.214.216.95 11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orane, Thank you for your reply. I understand your explanation, even though I disagree with it. But anyway, that's the rules. Keep your work with Celine Dion's page. Best regards. 83.214.216.95 22:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with User:Tannim

The user has not made a good faith edit yet and is using anonymous AOL IPs to start an edit war. He fails provide correct links to his sources and insists on slandering Barbra Streisand. In fact all his edits are bad faith edits and he is a suspected sock puppet of a user with a history of sock puppetry who has been banned permanently. Please help, because I can't do this alone and this guy will keep on going until he wins either on Hugo Chavez or on Barbra and nobody is watching her page. KittenKlub 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus warning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Orane, WP:DFTT — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

Please stop wikistalking me. It's rather disturbing. —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you may want to discuss things before deleting them. Actions like that have brought down better admins. —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not stalking you. You are the one who keep speaking to me, so I reply on your talkpage. Secondly, the page that I deleted fit the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have a problem, then you know where to go.

And is there a reason that you keep making new headings for one continuous discussion? Is your aim to draw attention and paint a good picture for yourself. Well, no one is gonna buy it. Orane (talk • cont.) 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice salting of the earth, because, you know, that area was so contraversial. You embody the spirit of serious business. You may deserve your own article. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hey Orane, I have sent an email, that I'd like you to check ASAP if you can. Thanks. KOS | talk 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good business, I've replied. :) KOS | talk 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again lol. KOS | talk 12:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a rtinp23 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that was how you interpreted the message - I was using a template for the majority of the message, as suggested by other members of the AMA: {{AMA Are you active}}, and I added my own apology. The message is by no means meant to be an ultimatum, and I wish you the best of luck in your midterms. As an afterthought - do you mind if I update you AMA availability to "busy"? Thanks M a rtinp23 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA!

Orane, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support! --plange 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Wesleyan page

3 months ago you noted some problems with the content and formating on the page. I am working with user:Bluedog423 on improving some of its formatting and content. Could you provide your opinion on outstanding issues in case of a future FA nomination? Your time is greatly appreciated! Any help is greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Your service to Wikipedia is most deserving of this barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rafting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rafting.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could u help me keep the America's Next Top Model contestant Lisa D'Amato's article [[1]]. I really work hard for the article just so it won't be deleted please. Thanks--hottie 11:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Celine Dion and WP:AN/I

Hey there: there's a thread going on at WP:AN/I regarding your comment at Talk:Celine Dion here which I invite you to participate in. Snoutwood (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more to the point: I don't think that you meant any ill by that comment, but you really need to choose your words more carefully and be more civil. You can't just threaten a user like that: if you have an issue with someone bring it to dispute resolution. Snoutwood (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're treating this like you're being attacked. I'm not suggesting in any way that Velten is correct, or anything of the sort (and yes, I fully agree that a comment on your talk page would have been more appropriate, but then I didn't start the thread, so there you go). No one's asking you to apologise or anything! Really, I'm not against you here, I'm not fixated on this, and I'm somewhat baffled by your agressive attitude ("this discussion is over?"). I'm just saying that it's important, especially for an admin, to be civil, and that I believe that you passed over the boundaries of what's acceptable and could use a reminder. If my presentation is poor, I apologise: but on your part sometimes you're going to hear feedback that you don't like and you're going to have to listen to it anyway (that's part of being an admin). If I was looking for anything it would be more of, "Oh, I see where you're coming from, I'll be more civil in the future" or something than anything else. Honestly, just be polite and civil, that helps a lot, with Velten, in conversations like these, and elsewhere. Snoutwood (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I know what being an Admin is about (I've been one for more than a year now), but I digress.

This is what I'm talking about: you belive that I crossed a boundary; I don't believe that I did. You can't seem to understand that civility and being chummy with Velten gets you nowhere, and she has a tendency to play the victim after she has been reprimanded for trolling and eiting maliciously. You are right to think that I should be civil— and I am. But there are some cases where you have to ignore the rules if it gets you nowhere. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also familiar with Velten but I am still uninvolved in editing pop music articles. If you would like to post some diffs to WP:AE I will be happy to look at it for you. Thatcher131 00:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you drop this topic, Orane. People will not stop patronising trolls. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I'm gonna drop it. Tatcher131, thanks for your interest, but theres no point. When I spoke to Velten, she didn't actually do anything yet. It was just a precautionary statement. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements that you are civil and that "civility... with Velten gets you nowhere" don't go together very well. Anyhow, there doesn't seem to be any interest in a dialogue here, so I'm going to let it drop, although I have to say that it's disappointing that you continue to take my words in ways that I don't mean them. You could've dropped the 'Snoutwood doesn't understand how to deal with/is supporting trolls' face for a minute to see where I'm coming from if you tried, honestly. Snoutwood (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Look, I didn't say that I don't understand where you are coming from. I do. But just because I do understand, that does not mean that I should agree with you. Yes, editors should be civil and polite.... That's a given. However, these policies are generic and it is impossible for them to work in all cases; the 'ignore all rules' policy attests this. I apologise if you find a problem with the way I handled the situation. But as I've said time and time again, I handled the situation appropriately given my knowledge/history with Velten. I'm not saying that that's how I have handled all trolls/vandals. I'm saying that my way was the appropriate way to handle this case. If you can't see that, then you are guilty of the same thing of which you accuse me. Orane (talk • cont.) 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very well-worded reply: there had been a misunderstanding on my part and I didn't realize that you weren't ignoring my opinion :) No worries, then, we can just disagree on this one. Thanks again, and see you around. Cheers! Snoutwood (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

small favor

I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.

Thanks! Sharkface217 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log)
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Image tagging for Image:À_l'Olympia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:À_l'Olympia.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian collaboration of the fortnight

Hi. You voted for United States-Australia relations for WP:ACOTF. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. I hope that since you voted recently, you will find time to help even though you're mostly on a break (good luck with the mid-terms). Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B'Day

Hi. The reason for adding The Times review is to give a better indication of the reviews the album recieved. The reviews listed in the article are nearly all 4 stars - despite there being a more mixed variation of reviews. The fact that the one I removed is from Canada is irrelevant; also, Canada is not a very note-worthy country to include due the size of the music industry in that country. Japan, Germany and France (in that order) are all bigger music markets that Canada - as are other countries. But all that doesnt matter - because its not important to include any particular country; its more important to include a cross section of reviews that illustrate the reception the album recieve - and I feel the articles listed on BDay's page are too positive.

Therefore if you've removed The Times review - which is a very prominent review, then I am going to re-add it but remove a different review listed. Regards, Rimmers 03:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Template

Hi Orane,

is there a chance that you could add Celine Template

at the bottom of the Celine Dion main page?

With time I have created many new pages about Celine's singles, albums, videos and tours. It would be easier for Wikipedia visitors with this Template on the first page (I think). So, what would you say?

Max24 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. And I must say that I'm very impressed with all the great work that you have done. Thank you very much. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the links in the template to the main article. Cool! Well, I would love to create all Celine pages in one day, but I have a job and a person I love, so that takes time. Anyway, I try to do a little every day. Max24 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Marley

The Spanish wikipedia claims that she was born in Cuba [2]. Please provide verification for the statement that she was born in Jamaica, or leave the tag until someone else does. -- Beardo 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Carey

The claim in the body is not sourced either. Only the Diamond award is sourced. If it's not sourced by tomorrow, I'll remove it again. Funky Monkey (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your threat to me. You once again embarrass yourself by not knowing full policy. User:Jimbo, a person far superior here to you has made the following quote, as posted on my user page.

On POV-pushing

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Jimmy Wales, Tue, 16 May 2006 16:30:15 -0400

The claim I removed is rather a bold claim, and despite other lesser claims being sourced in the intro, this one remains unsourced, therefore I was quite within my rights to remove it. As we're all supposed to be adults here I have added a citation needed tag and request as a compromise you add the source to the claim. I once again remind you of WP:CIVIL and request you moderate your tone in any further correspondence with me. Funky Monkey (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forgive me for not clinging to every word that Mr. Wales has said. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a dictatorship. Secondly, the point that I made about you leaving information in the article was not made up. If I may quote the rule, it says:

"Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use ^[specify]
if it is not doubtful, you may use ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[This quote needs a citation]} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use ^{[verification needed]} tag to ask for source verification.
If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first."

So forgive me for following concensus-instituted policies instead of some random point of view that was uttered half a year ago. As I'm sure you are aware of, things and time change on Wikipedia. So indeed, I have not embarassed myself. I know the policies-- even if I'm not aware of every word said by Jimbo.

And don't quote "civil" at me. I was never aggressive towards you. And if you require sources, I'll place them on you talk page as well as in the article: proof. This first source is from youtube. Listen closely, the information is repeated a million times. Other sources: [3], 2000 World music awards results, Billboard, reported on mc archives, find articles, island records. Hope there's no confusion. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following procedure and adding the citation I requested. On a side note, it is true that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, but neither is it a democracy which means that the "random point of view" as you quote it is actually a policy decision enforced by Jimbo whether it was "uttered half a year ago" or not [4]. Also if you consult WP:RS you will find that Youtube should be avoided as a source. Also do you really think that a personal homepage on Geocities [5] that you quote is a reliable source???? I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here. Funky Monkey (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please, if it's not too much to ask, do not patronise me. I have sensed an ounce of this is many of your replies to me (for example, you telling me I have once again embarassed myself (?!?), the latest, "Also do you really think that a personal homepage on Geocities [5] that you quote is a reliable source???? I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here," or other such subtle, yet condescending, comments.)

First off, lets not pretend. You hate my guts, and you have done so ever since that time you basically demanded that I remove a playful sign from my userpage. Even though I emailed you about my actions I received no reply, and you continued to pop up in both my talk page (after I kindly asked you not to) and in other areas involving me (for instance, you found your way to, and opposed, my mediation candidacy because it was your opinion that I was guilty of "inappropriate edit summaries," which, I might add, has absolutely nothing to do with being a competent mediator) to, it seems, take revenge.

I'm not gonna deny that your indifference towards me isnt reciprocated. Believe me, it is. But I have tried to avoid you many times, and have spoken in the best possible way I know how. Howeever, it seems that whenever I do that, you find a way to call attention to my actions by randomly quoting policies at me or calling me out for doing something of which you yourself are guilty (I'm referring to the above comments where you threatened that "If it's not sourced by tomorrow, I'll remove it again," then telling me not to threaten you after I told you that I would give you the warning tamplate, leading to any appropriate actions).

The thing that prompted my reply here, however, was your way of asking me about the geocities website. No. I am not an idiot. I know geocities websites are not valid, authoritative sources. My intention (and if you wanted to see it, you probably would have) was to show that the fact that Carey was the best selling was almost common knowledge and found everywhere, ranging from youtube to the WMA site, to news reports, to billboard, to fansites, to biographies, to random sites. That is why I posted so many sources on your page. As you can see, the geocities site was not used to source "Mariah Carey." And yes, I am well-aware of the concern of youtube as a valid source.

Let me close by requesting that you contol youself. Don't speak condescendingly to wards others and the attitude will be shown in return. We are all adults here. And to quote you, "I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here." Orane (talk • cont.) 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am not patronising you. I made an edit that conforms to OFFICIAL WIKI POLICY [6]. You then "pop up" on MY talk page with threats of a warning and "leading to any relevant actions I may have to take" when all I have done is follow policy, policy I hasten to add that has been in place for "over half a year". Therefore your warning was in error.

Secondly It was you that started this discussion, when I had done nothing wrong, simply followed policy whether "random" or not, it is still an important policy. You should also have WP:AGF regarding that edit not waded in with warnings and threats.

Thirdly, maybe you should get some help with your paranoia, I don't "hate your guts", I don't know you. However, I am quite within my rights to offer an opinion, as I did when you put yourself forward for mediator, an opinion in my view that stands up considering your attitude here. The only I other time I intervened was when you removed useful information from an article. I simply replaced the information and informed you quite civilly on your talk page the reason for this. [7]. No warnings or threats just WP:AGF.

So I would suggest that if you want no contact with me, before INITIATING conversations with me as you did in this instance, and in the instance immediately aboveyou first check that I have indeed followed policy, and second if you still have a problem with one of my edits, you assume good faith instead of blindly wading in with inappropriate warnings. As I wouldn't dream of an admission of error on your part, I regard this conversation closed. Also I never received an email from you in the past, but would be greatful if you had anything to say to me regarding wikipedia,you say it here. Funky Monkey (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply confirms what I've been saying. I did not simply '"pop up" on [your] talk page with threats of a warning and "leading to any relevant actions I may have to take".' I reminded you respectfully, not to be too hasty and look in the body for the information was sourced there. That's all I said. You, on the other hand, were blunt and unyielding. If you hadn't behaved that way, I would never have dreamed of referring to any warnings.

Never mind that you believe the policies were on your side, a point that can be argued as you clearly see that the policy (and Mr. Wales) were referring especially to the removal of controversial/harmful information, which I pointed out to you. The fact that they may be on your side isn't what I'm getting at. The point is that the way you chose to explain yourself, and the tone of your replies are condescending (again, telling me to "get some help with my paranoia," telling me not to e-mail you, or using the fact that you may be abiding by the policies as an excuse for your blunt and disrespectful replies). And this didnt start now. It has been going on for a while whenever you correspond with me. For instance, when referring to the edit about the article long ago, you said "A simple check here, (this is an encyclopedia after all), would have shown you..." You don't see an ounce of unpleasantness in that? I know its an encyclopedia. I'm an Admin for it. And in case you have forgotten, you did display trollish behaviour (example) when the situation had nothing to do with you. I could cite more if you wished. And, if you weren't tracking my edits and contribution (trolling) you wouldn't have ended up in every issue I've been involved with to somehow oppose me (which, as I'm sure you have realised, had no effect on the outcome. I am still, afterall, a mediator :D, and I'm still using "Orane" as a sig)

Anyway, that being said, I'm going to ignore you whenever I can. But if I see you displaying questionable actions, I will approach you whether you like it or not (and I do encourage you to do the same— respectfully). I'm gonna be as kind as I can however. I just hope that you can return the favour, whether or not you feel you are in the right. Have a good life. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown (song)

Hello

Sorry to bother you but I'd like your help with something if you can spare the time please. I see that you're a mediator/admin and I've seen some of your edits, so I hope you dont mind me bothering you.

Ive recently started to edit the article "Downtown". Ive edited it to include information regarding a new release of the song by former Spice Girl Emma Bunton. The song is being released as a big charity single in the UK for Children in Need - which if you're not familiar with the UK, is a big telethon held annually and each year a single is released with all profits going to the charity. Singles in recent years been released by the likes of the Spice Girls and S Club 7.

The user SFTVLGUY2 originally created the article - and since reversed any edits that I have made to the article - whether it be about Bunton's release or whether it be about the original release (for example, creating an intro then adding the bulk of the info regarding the original to the 'history' subsection). He seems to think he has some divine say about what can or cannot be added to the article. Its clear to me that he is going to reverse any edits made to the article, therefore I would like a third party to monitor the article.

I have reversed the vandalism by SFTVLGUY2 and re-added the Bunton section to the article; SFTVLGUY2's main argument seems to be the inclusion of an info box, therefore I have left that out of the article until a consensus can be reached. I also started a discussion on the discussion page; not long after SFTVLGUY2 replied, another user voiced the same opinion as him. When I looked into it, it appears that ConoscoTutto has a remarkably similar writing style to SFTVLGUY2. Also, their profiles are almost identical. When I looked at their edits too, it appears they have posted in the same articles voicing the same opinions. Is it possible to check IP addresses etc to see if ConoscoTutto is an alias of some kind?

I really am not interested in starting an edit war over something so silly; but Bunton's release is a high profile single that is getting wide exposure in Britain. Imo the article warrants an inclusion of Bunton's release. At the moment, its simply information regarding the video and track listing that has been added - but I will be adding info relating to CiN, why Bunton chose the release etc etc once I get time to research what to include properly. In other words, I will be expanding the Bunton section to include more information.

I hope you can help and monitor the article - thanks for your time. Rimmers 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]