User talk:Pacific 1818

RefTools gadget

Hello Madrid 2020! Please see my reply to your comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)#Proposal - Turn on RefTools gadget by default. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any thoughts about my reply? Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime statistics

Enroute to another call on January 19th, police were flagged down for a report hearing gunshots coming from a home on East Douglas near 19th and Swan. 25-year-old Marcos Sanchez-Equihua was found dead. Armando Ramirez is a suspect. ^[1]

On January 20, 21 year old Gabriel Madrid-Wilson was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful possession of marijuana for sale, possession of a weapon during a drug offense, and prohibited possessor, after he was accused of shooting a 16 year old boy near the Roy Laos Transit Center, 205 W. Irvington Road. Off-duty police officers heard gunshots then the wounded victim came to the transit center.^[2]

On January 23, outside Sky Smoke Shop, 247 W. Grant Road, near North Oracle Road, Dereck Castro, 21, was found dead with gunshot injuries.^[3]

On January 24, a north-side shooting of a male victim resulted in potentially life-threatening injuries. This happened around 8:20 p.m. in the 500 block of West Pelaar, near the intersection of North Oracle and West Roger roads.^[4]

Oh my, North Oracle road is really bad.

? Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pacific 1818. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson shooting

Watch the revert count, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt for deletion

The article Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions, Tucson, article

Hi, Madrid. If that article is going to survive, it needs a complete re-write. Remove all of the state by state condolences stuff. Put the organ donation thing at the bottom. Concentrate on the political reactions starting with the over-eager liberals like Paul Krugman and the NYTimes pointing fingers at the Tea Party and Sarah Palin without evidence. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion

Hello! Do you mind changing your latest comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt? Someone expressed concern to me, and I agree with them, that by having a bold title that says no consideration to merge? might be misinterpreted by the closing administrator a second !vote. Would you mind changing it to something like "Comment: no consideration to merge?..." Thanks for your consideration! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Because it's coming time for that to be closed, I'm changing it for you. I'm hoping you don't mind.~~ Nevermind, I see you did change it. I changed the bolding from comment: no consideration to merge? to comment: no consideration to merge? I hope that's okay. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pacific 1818. You have new messages at User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 27.
Message added 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I archived after your message, but I have responded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hi, I'm afraid your username appears to be a violation of our policy, because, given your userpage, it seems to be promoting a cause (Madrid's Olympic bid). If you're happy to change it, then all you have to do is follow the instructions at WP:CHU. Alternatively, if you disagree with me, we can seek outside input at a username request for comment. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many Wikipedians know about Madrid's bid? Almost none. But I will request a change in under 3 minutes. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pacific 1818. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ponyo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHUS

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research

The article The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Contains mostly opinionated content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Phearson (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research for deletion

The article The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Phearson (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pacific 1818 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request unblock. I am pretty sure that Tvoz, who had a content dispute with me and whom consensus was in my favor (including adminstrator C.Fred agreeing with me) is having me blocked to win a content dispute in the 2011 Tucson shooting article. However, Wikipedia has determined that "this IP address or network has been used against Wikipedia's policies (not necessarily by you)." See NOT BY ME. I am not at fault. Ok, I've lost my temper at times a bit but never too bad. Besides, this is a lounge so maybe I'm not at fault but I'm sure it is directed at me by Tvoz. Please bring this up to ANI and get this range block off. It is a permanent blockade.

Decline reason:

This request doesn;t evena ttempt to address the reason for your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pacific 1818 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request unblock. I have been a little rude, I admit. However, the block is at the request of Tvoz to win a content dispute. HJ Mitchell said that "this request doesn't even attempt to address the reason for your block". This is invalid for 2 reasons. Reason 1 is that no reason was given for my block so I have no way to address it. Reason 2 is that HJ Mitchell has a conflict of interest. He threatened to block me because of my user name (Madrid 2020) saying it was promoting the 2020 Olympic Games so I changed it. He has now thought of a new trumped up reason.

Decline reason:

You were blocked by a CheckUser for using more than one user account in an abusive manner. No one but a CheckUser can lift this block, so I've pointed the blocking admin here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] ttp://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?s=5177321

[2] ttp://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_bcb91163-b1a2-5fe0-a420-0c2615ca1bd5.html

[3] ttp://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_07bcce13-16f2-5fd9-ac2f-4da68605a769.html

[4] ttp://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_9144f28a-2848-11e0-9ec4-001cc4c002e0.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]