User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive2

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello MarkGallagher/Archive2, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

• Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
• Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Create a User page
• Be bold
• Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax ^τεχ 06:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

1000 edits

<homer>Mmmm....chocolate!</homer> Thanks for that mate, notice you're coming up to 1000 yourself. Will have to find a suitable award for when you do.

Cheers, CTOAGN 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*In recognition of reaching 1000 edits, I've got you a beer. Cheers! CTOAGN 13:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What RJFJR stands for

RJF is my initials, the JR at the end is for Junior, which I am. When you put them all together it is a palindrome, which I just think is cool. RJFJR 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

MegaGOFF

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --131.111.8.101 12:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia the next time you vandalize a page. --131.111.8.101 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Cute little anon, isn't he? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

AEJ Collins

Hi Mark - Brookie here - thanks for the reverts on the above - I have blocked the weirdo concerned for 48 hours for this scholarship! I suspect he picked up on this article after I warned him over some earlier vandalism. Hey Ho - off for a beer now! :) ...en passant! 16:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA!

Dear Mark: Thank you very much for your support on my RfA! I am truly honoured that so many people consider me a trustworthy Wikipedian, and I am most appreciative of my newly-bestowed administrator privileges given to me by the community. Your kind words about me were greatly appreciated; I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I sincerely hope I can live up to your description of "extreme awesomitude". :-) It has been a pleasure conversing via IRC with you; I look forward to further discussion, and collaborating with you here on the wiki. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Andrew McFarlane

Sorry, I made a mess of that one. Humbly apologetic. Staying well away from here on. I think I was stuffing beans up my nose.

All the best. Bobo192|Edits 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image use

Hi!

Well, first, I'm a relative newcomer around here..I happened to notice that you had uploaded the image that is used in the Wayne Rooney article. I wanted to know if its ok to upload images from the site that you used. Will it be legal if I do so for other players' pics? Do I need to take permission from the webmaster of http://soccer-europe.com/? Thanks! --Aabha R 08:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton!! You've made my day! :) --Aabha R 08:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ManU

Why is Manchester United F.C. so popular with vandals? Aabha 12:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

True-blue Liverpudlian, huh? ;) Aabha 11:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Worry not, they talked me out of it. I'm sorry I scared you. -- Essjay · Talk 06:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Eric the Illiterate and Mr Carr the Paranoid

Thanks for your comments. I do try not to bite, but it becomes difficult at times. The issue with Skyring wasn't stalking, it was just that he was an egotistical troll. As for Eric, I don't deny that he knows something about some things, but he is also illiterate, rude, antagonistic and opinionated, even on subjects he knows little about. What am I to do with someone who can't spell their own surname? Adam 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a legitimate interest in most australian history pages. I suggest Mr Carr is paranoid and for some unstated reason he accuses me of stalking. By the way my name is CORRECTLY spelt. "What am I to do with someone who" is so insecure they flail around looking for errors in dark unlit places. Any one could describe him as equally "illiterate, rude, antagonistic and opinionated" just that we get on with it and submit to assertion backed with evidence. Please note my editing attempts of Mr Carr's 'History of Melbourne' recasting has been 85% accepted (which about my average for all my editing) by wikipedians. So I suggest he calm down and accept the reality of wikis--they are mass edited. Eric A. Warbuton 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:PR

You'd have to wait till sat. I'm almost inactive these days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi MarkGallagher. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ill take up your offer...

Mark, as you kindly offered to review any of my editing attempts you may peruse these:South Australia-Victoria border dispute and Joint Sitting, Australian parliament, 1974 Fell free to edit at will. Eric A. Warbuton 04:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you...you and android have totally brightened an otherwise poor day. I really appreciate the feedback :-D EricN 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Windows Vista

Please join the discussion at User_talk:Lewispb#WinVI before (or perhaps after) reverting my edits. --tyomitch 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

On Tony's RFC...

Your response to Davenbelle warmed my heart. Too often on Wikipedia we allow people to make outragious claims without comment because they are hurting someone else, and by responding we risk bringing ourselves into the fire and suffering because we decided to set things right. Davenbelle's reply was over the top, and I thank you for calling a spade a spade so clearly. --Gmaxwell 17:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Mark for expressing yourself on the Miguel Piñero issue. The dispute ended in friendly terms between Dali and myself. Take care Tony the Marine 07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

barnstar

Hi thanks heaps for the barnstar. I had accidentally discovered photos on wiki commons relating to countries that werent being used, theres so many there that its been hard to choose which ones to use! cheers Astrokey44 12:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD

Hello: Can you expand on your criticism of my edits on the AfD page? Am I not supposed to be discussing articles on the AfD pages? That article has been up for some time and my responses to others comments were made much earlier in the discussion before there were so many edits in place. Writing "factual, verifiable, and neutral," does not impress me as being an argument for inclusion as many people are these three things but do not meet any criteria for notability. I see trollderina post it repeatedly on AfDs with no further explanation for her vote. Being fairly new at this, I am curious what her reasons are for voting this way. Thanks.—Gaff ^ταλκ 14:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. In this particular article, it seems that the playwrite is just too new and has onyl produced one play. My understanding is that this is not enough to warrant inclusion. I hate to send another users contributions down the drain, but maybe they would be better posted someplace else. My first WP article was promptly flushed and I reposted it on blogger. If you're interested see:http://christopherburkegibson.blogspot.com/ —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Award

For continuing to keep tabs on non-free content and images, and for writing clean content to replace it wherever possible, I award you this barnstar. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

G'day. Thank you for the welcome and the helpful hints. I appreciate it. You have done some great work on a number of articles. Very objective and non-partisan. I welcome editing with you in the future.Stones12 15:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks...

At Kelly's request, I searched for the two images on the Richie Ryan (Highlander) page. I found a place where you might've gotten Image:Richieryan.jpg, but I can't determine its copyright status. Image:Rich123.jpg, however, doesn't exist in that form anywhere in Google's index. There's an image that looks like it might be the same original picture, only shrunk down and given a dodgy border, but that's clearly not your source. I've tagged both images appropriately. Cheers

Thanks for looking anyway. I had that pic (Rich123) for a long time, but someone else put the other pic, not me, so I don't know where he/she got it. Should I look for particular sources/websites that have same pics and then tagged it, although I didn't get the pic from that source (but at least have the same pics)? I mean, the pics have been around in the internet for almost ten years, who knows the originality of it, and the official website usually realease all the copyright... Which source should I use? Thanks. HoneyBee

Kelly thinks that Image:Rich123.jpg might be a cropped screenshot from Highlander. I wouldn't know, not having watched the programme (I don't even know if it's available in Australia), but if you can tell us whether or not it's an image that has appeared on the programme, that would be great. A screenshot would be fair use to illustrate the character of Richie Ryan (Highlander), and possibly (we haven't resolved this question) Stan Kirsch as well. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved

Either the pic was from promophoto (and it spreads around the internet) or there's a big posibility that it came from a screenshot. I watched the programme (it was 10 years ago), and the character appeared in that pose during opening montage/scene. Should we change it to fair use? And who should change it, anyone or the administrator? Thanks! HoneyBee

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar Mark! "Wow! My very first barnstar" I'm chuffed! :-)

The tips that keep on giving

My gratitude for your welcome message and the tips. Tastes like lead 09:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote, but you are incorrect in saying I harassed a user. He said things behind my back on RedWolf24's talk page, saying that I am a Joe Somebody and not deserving. I did not say anything bad about him, so why is it harassing? He also apologized on my Talk page if you would have cared to look. Please explain, I'm very disappointed by these unfair oppose votes. The image tagging, as Durin noted, was only on one photo, we all make mistakes, nobody is perfect. My edit summaries have also been improving vastly since this RfA started, if you had looked at my recent contributions. Thanks again, and please explain your vote. — Wackymacs 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arsenious acid!

LOL, your message made me smile, I've not have the best of days and that cheered me up immensely! Thanks for tidying it up a bit - hopefully someone can create a new article, like you said. :) XYaAsehShalomX 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominator AFD voting

You asked on an AFD, "What's this thing with the nominator voting now, anyway?" It says in WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion that the nominator should "Consider creating the first entry... to begin consensus gathering." Regards, --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that the nomination was assumed to be a vote for deletion unless otherwise specified (such as in listing orphaned nominations) since you're not supposed to bring pages to AFD unless you think they should be deleted in the first place, but then I had a couple where nobody voted and the closing admin stated "no votes recorded" and I thought, what about me? So I decided to add my own vote just to be explicit. (As a side note, I also think that if there aren't any votes, the AFD should get relisted, not closed). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I put the text in question into the template, where's MarkGallagher's comment you're referring to? I'd love to participate in the discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett

I've pitched an alternative solution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett. Let me know what you think! BD2412 T 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

re:James Milner (footballer)

Hey! Thanks! Aabha | talk 12:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please look at this RfA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 12:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA.If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dipankar Nagchoudhuri), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A Question

You reverted a vote page for adminship. You reverted my comment. I would like to know why. ip,s can make comments. If you did not know that then I understand. I would appreciate your input on this. Thank you. 163.20.85.7 15:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate what you did

Some of these days I will get an account but for now I watch to know. Your honesty gets my vote anytime.163.20.85.7 15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RfA

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominator voting in AfD

Hi Mark, I saw your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Noblemen about not voting in addition to nominating. With respect, I disagree with your assertion. There are plenty of nominations where no delete vode is intended. Admins/Editors that are cleaning up incomplete AfD nominations for instance often create the afd2 and enter the afd3 entry in the logs without judgement on the document. Having the nominator put the first entry in does a few things: First, it sets the format to keep communication clear. Second, the intention of the nominator is clear (eg, they're not just cleaning things up). Third, if you'd like to change the official policy, please do so in the proper place, like Wikipedia_Talk:Articles for deletion, not in the text of your vote in an article. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. You didn't respond the first time I inquired, so I fear you may not participate in talk (which would be unfortunate), but I remain cautiously optimistic. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominator AFD voting

You asked on User_talk:MarkGallagher#Nominator_AFD_voting "I put the text in question into the template, where's MarkGallagher's comment you're referring to? I'd love to participate in the discussion."

Though I don't know where the original remark came from, more recently he stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of Noblemen, "Please don't indulge in the silly habit of voting in addition to nominating."

I am interested in the proper protocol to follow when nominating articles for deletion as well (I vote as well as nom). Keryst 14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no proper protocol. Ben took it upon himself, despite previous discussion (see User:Kelly Martin's comment on AfD talk), to add the "you should also vote" text to the AfD instructions. It has now been removed. So let's not have any talk about uniliterally "changing official Wikipedia policy", please.

I understand why the "nominators should vote" suggestion was added: because of fears that nominators' intention might be ignored. However, I strongly disagree with it, as I explained on the AfD talkpage. The intention of the nominator should be made clear on this strength of her arguments; if it is not clear, then her arguments weren't very good, and no amount of copy 'n' paste "I, the nom, vote delete per nom" bullet points can – or should – hide that fact. The fact is that a great many votes on AfD are pathetic. "nn d", the stereotype paraded about outside AfD, is quite true. At least one person should be able to explain why an article is deleted, and that person is the nominator. By encouraging the nomination to be Just Another Vote (which we have all seen happen, and not just from the pen of User:ComCat), we are doing a grave disservice not just to the articles, but to anyone who doesn't choose to label themselves as an extreme inclusionist.

Why am I pointing this out in my comments to individual AfDs? For the same reason I am pointing out every good nomination, and every poor nomination. "AfD is broken", "the atmosphere is toxic", "the community is close-minded", all common refrains on Wikipedia, and not at all unjustified. I am trying to encourage good behaviour, and discussion on bad behaviour. It may not help, but it certainly cannot do any harm. Now, everyone I have asked about this nominator-voting thing has done one of three things: a) ignored the question; b) said "but I don't want my vote to be discounted if it gets close"; or c) said "it's in the instructions for using the template ... isn't it?". 'a' I can do nothing about, 'b' is patently silly, and 'c' is, as far as I am aware, entirely Ben's doing. I am hardly working against consensus; there is no consensus to work against.

I trust I have answered both your questions, if not necessarily to your liking. Feel free to contact me at any time; if I am unable to respond immediately, however, I may forget (go ahead and remind me if you must). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I believe Kelly Martin severely mischaracterized my change, and have left a comment to that effect in the AfD talk. I understand and respect your position, but I still feel that anything that adds clarity to consensus should be strongly considered, especially for something like AfD. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hearthy welcome!

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. As a computer science student, I use Wikipedia regularly as an 'objective' source of information. I try to do something back by watching the change-channel, and revert vandalism. However, there should be a more efficient way of contributing to the community... Can you help me with that? AngelovdS 20:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA! — Phil Welch 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Thanks for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator, Mark. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. I swear that from here on out I will try an alcoholic beverage before speedily deleting it. ;) Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFB

MarkGallagher/Archive2

---

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (17/17/4) meaning that it failed, if you have any advice on how I can be a better editor or administrator please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again for your support. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day Mark,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

my Rfa

Mark, that edit you cited while voting neutral was from a long time ago. There is another edit summary with almost the same lingo from August, though I can't find it right now...I can link it if you want. I recognize that edit summaries such as those appear very rude, but I assure you that they were completely tongue in cheek...I guess I have to work on my playful banter and ensure that edit summaries as those don't get misunderstood to be sentiments I actually have when the fact is that I actually don't feel that way. Let me know if you need any further clarification.--MONGO 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA

Since we chatted about this on IRC, this notice is really for the benefit of anybody who may have your talk page on their watchlist (hi fellas!)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MarkGallagher_(second_nomination)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Frank Rijkaard cleanup

Hey fuddlemark,

Can you please look at this article and tell me what else needs to be done for the clean-up tag to go? I asked User:Mandel, who'd originally tagged it, but haven't got a response as yet, so thought I'll get your opinion. Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed most (hopefully all) of the copyvio stuff. Seems to be fine on that front now. Will work on rewriting/expanding the portions that seem incomplete sometime. -Aabha (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Mark,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

GraemeL's RFA

Hi MarkGallagher,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation requested

Please elaborate on your comment “Please try to put more effort into your nominations...” in my AFD nomination at LukeSharp. It seems to me that my statement that the subject of the page does not exist should be an adequate explanation. It is not clear to me what more is needed. •DanMS 18:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my reply. •DanMS 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

I am deeply appreciative for your reconsideration and for voting to support my RfA. The "butt" of my "joke", Rama also voted to support me as well and I hope you see that he knew me well enough to know that I certainly meant no harm. I am gald to see you are having an easier time of things than I did and wish you success in your soon to be promotion as well. I'll see you areound and happy editing!--MONGO 08:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Given your reasoning, I suppose that I should try to avoid doing anything all that different from what I've already been doing. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 15:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations fuddlemark! NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats indeed Mark. It's well deserved and long overdue. Feel free to add yourself to Aussie admins.--cj | talk 03:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well done - get that mop out! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 15:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Electrical engineering

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your observation on the contradictory nature of the electrical engineering article's lead.

I have changeed the artcle's lead so that I believe your concern is addressed and removed the tag.

Please take a look at the revised article here and advise me if you are happy with the changes at User talk:Cedars.

Thank you,

Cedars 05:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 07:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on hitting a century in your recent RFA! I unfortunately missed the party. Join wikiproject cricket to celebrate your adminship. ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Cruft

Cruft is an unpleasant redundant thing. Yes, I'm happy with the phrase and think it accurate and succint. --Tagishsimon (talk).

Date format

Mark, regardless of whether you think it should be YYYY-MM-DD or M D Y or whatever, the wikilinks are to the year as separate from the day of the month.

Therefore, your edit on Julia Winter was worthless; no article exists for [[1993-03-17]], nor will one. Please bear this in mind. DS 16:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC) well, don't I feel like a twit.

Thankx!

Thank you Mark for removing the tag on Daco-romanian page. This Mikka has only bias edits related to Romania, Moldovan language, Daco-romanian, Daco-romanian language and so on...--Bonaparte 19:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I strongly object you removal of the tag without looking into the matter. This guy persistently deletes the contents of the article. And I don't have any edits, only reversal this guy's political crusade. mikka (t) 19:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No is not true! He makes bias edits! At that page today was also User:Bogdangiusca and what he supports is false. Daco romanian means romanian. Look at the page of romanian language for yourself! He persistently deletes, removes parts of the text take a look yourself at Talk:Moldovan language!--Bonaparte 19:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok please have my deepest respect! I would like to thank you one more time!--Bonaparte 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Note one closing admin's talk page

Fudd -
Very nicely done. I think that I am going to make you my new role model, now that my role model is gone.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Malcholm

Hi fuddlemark

Congrats on your adminship! This is regarding User:Malcholm. He has been vandalising Ieroklis Stoltidis and Image:Stoltidis6.jpg. I have dealt with those, but there is an image that he uploaded to use on the Stoltidis article, and this seems to be a copyvio. Can you do something about it? Thanks -Aabha (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see

That you are doing protections now. :) If you ever feel an urge, we can always use help at WP:RfP. Right now it's just me, katefan0 and dmcdevit. We only get a few requests a day but any help there or at WP:PP would be welcome. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Motorized bicycle history

Um, wouldn't it have been much easier to say No consensus to do anything? :) Titoxd^(?!?) 05:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph - good. First paragraph - uncivil, and unfudd-like.
While I admit that putting that those two link at the top with (NPOV) was a bit stupid provocative and probably deserved some comment... well that was a bit strong.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I liked the first paragraph a lot, and the second was right on the money. My bad, and I acknowledge it - I let my overwhelming irritation with Pat get the better of me. Actually not with Pat per se, but with his repeated attempts to dilute the article with trivia, and if he can't do that, to keep creating new articles until eventually there is one which has a sufficiently low threshold to get his pet trivia in. Woohookitty gave up on him, I just got pissed off. Mind you, I don't think it was me who started the "summary" article, although it might have been I suppose. That's not the kind of thing I'd normally do. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

re:Malchom's picture

Is it just me, or is it actually besides the point to discuss whether the picture is doctored or not? I don't quite believe this is a space for that. (Even if it is doctored, this is probably the real aim behind it - publicity.) The debate really is about its copyright status, and whether we need it to be on Wikipedia at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Aabha (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page! Peace, delldot | talk 16:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recent speedy delete on AfD

It looks like you speedied 4 or 5 items inside a single set of at/ab templates. Is that what you intended? --RoySmith 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for reverting the vandalism of my userpage. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:American_terrorism

I agree with you that locking an article to avoid an edit war is a good idea, but that is not what you have done with the "American terrorism" article. After proposing that the "American terrorism" article be deleted and having that proposal denied by consensus, a few extremely biased individuals hijacked the article, renamed it to a made up neologism, and redirected people searching for the standard term to the one that they made up.

This is not an edit war. You protected a hijacking of an article that was essentially deleted against Wikipedia policy. Please remove your protection tag so that we can restore the article that was deleted against the established rules requiring consensus for deletion. --Peter McConaughey 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:Chaosfeary, who initiated the hijacking of the article and is the only person defending it in Talk:American_terrorism, is a known vandal. --Peter McConaughey 16:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Seven Articles

Yes I'm stupid. So fine, I'll put things in my own words and that. And yes, I'll ask for help if I need it. --Jamesbehave 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Shuffle Page

I posted last nite on the shuffle page.. I modifed the wiki to add a link on the main shuffle page for http://crystalpoker.net/securityreview.php I looked on the net for several hours trying to find a good article on shuffling algorithms for real world scenarios & came up with a lot of fud. All the articles linked in external links on the wiki don't really give you any real world scenarios situations. I found that page I linked to, and figured that putting the link on the wiki would be extermely helpful to others.

It's probably gonna be in Dr.Dobb's and the other tech daily's in a few weeks time; By far one of the better articles on implementing a real world shuffling algorithm in practice. I checked the main site and it looks like they just posted it a few days ago.

Greeting for a responsible admin

Hi, Mark (gee, that fall flat, in light of having looked forward so to starting "Hi, Fud' ".)
_ _ Eventuist, was that it? Gosh, that's encouraging; "deletionist" and "inclusionist" weren't divisive enuf means of undercutting policy.
_ _ In any case, thanks for doing the call (and keeping me from being tempted to, besides the more obvious virtues of your service to the community). I mention only in passing that "Delete if not expanded" should be a conditional Delete vote, rather than a conditional Delete coupled with a conditional Keep <wink>.
_ _ Rereading the final article, a substantial improvement in which i find material for arguements that the keep voters IMO should have made on the AfD page; they might have shifted me at least to no vote. In any case, it's far from being one of those outcomes that suggests either a miscarriage of the deletion policy (upsetting) or a sign that AfD policy being ill-conceived (worth being upset about).
_ _ I had some feeling you had said that yr talk page was for complaining abt you; hope you forgive me for misusing it by responding on it without complaint. [smile].
--Jerzy•t 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

American terrorism -- issues with User:Carbonite

Your note on Peter's talk page has hit the nail on the head, and I'm deeply grateful for it.

Can I add a couple of points to the discussion?

• a) User:Carbonite brought and lost the AfD, then, in what looks very much to me like inappropriate activity, instantly took control of the discussion on the page while it was quickly (and vandalously, in my view) redirected to its current non-consensus destination.

• b) User:Chaosfeary very recently violated 3RR and, if you will consult his history, you will note that he sometimes brings a (what's the word) zealous approach to partisan pages like this one. It was tis redirect that caused the problem -- [notice the absurd quibbling on geography] -- and no amount of discussion seems to be capable of getting User:Carbonite to shift the contents of the page back to American terrorism. That was the status quo ante before the article got hijacked, and that, in my view, is where the discussion should begin.

The talk page is extremely partisan, and I realize my questions there have helped to make that the case. Also contributing to this state of affairs, though, is the coup immediately after the AfD -- which failed in part because (Peter and) I offered many patient, carefully sourced arguments demonstrating that American terrorism is in fact a neologism in mainstream use.

The people who are not communicating with us now are the same people who were not communicating with us during the AfD. Suggesting that we build bridges with them is a little unrealistic at this point, and I personally regard User:Chaosfeary as a lost cause. Could I ask you to take part in some of the discussions on the talk page at American terrorism? BrandonYusufToropov

Brandon, I'm requesting that you cease framing the issue of the article's title as a dispute with me. As I've explained numerous times, I didn't move the article, protect the redirect or endorse the move. Other than presenting my opinion on the content of the article, my only other action was to ask Peter to stop using a cut-and-paste restore of the old article, as that would be a GFDL violation. I don't appreaciate that you've posted comments all over talk pages stating that you have issues with me or implying that I've done something improper. Please be advised that if this behavior continues, I will pursue a user conduct RfC. Carbonite | Talk 13:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to threaten Brandon with an RfC, Carbonite. He's a reasonable guy. Brandon was just pointing out that you supported User:Chaosfeary's coup d'état through your actions, which is easy enough to see. --Peter McConaughey 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

An RfC isn't a threat, it's a more formal discussion of user conduct issues. No punitive measures can result from an RfC. I did not support a redirect in any way. I simply asked you to stop using a cut-and-paste restore because of license issues. When I am falsely accused of actions that I never made, I take it quite seriously. Please tone down the rhetoric ("User:Chaosfeary's coup d'état") and perhaps review WP:CIVIL before making additional unfounded accusations. Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect help

Could you please redirect American terrorism to American Terrorism, with a capital T, which is emerging as the title here? (Or perhaps change the title to American terrorism, with a lower case T, which would be simpler still? Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

G'day mate

I bet these thankyou messages are going to take you a while :-) I don't have any advice (apart from start supporting a better football team) but congratulations on your adminship - it was well deserved. I was thinking of giving it a try myself when I get to 1600 edits or so (probably in 2-3 weeks) so if you'd like the honour(?) of nominating just say.

I just got a parking ticket while signing the book of remembrance for George Best at Old Trafford, and I've just bought GTA San Andreas, so I'm hoping the game features traffic wardens. And tanks. >:-D

File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review

Just to let you know, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslims in business is now being worked over at Wikipedia:Deletion review. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

dates and Americans

I have no problem when non-Americans' birthdates are denoted as dd Month, yyyy. However, birthdates of Americans,which includes that one page, are usually noted in the way that I have written. The way you wrote it was very dorky. Drdr1989 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't to upset you with the "dorky" bit (and it still is by the way - admit it); but the way you were writing in it before it always seemed to appear in that format that is shown on the article when I viewed it. Are you saying that we can design formats by personal preference or something? I'm still not sure I'm getting you. Drdr1989 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Robchurch

This message is regarding the page User:Robchurch. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 15:21 Z

My two cents below...Rob Church ^Talk 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Are you collecting vandalism warnings as well as welcome messages now? Brilliant idea. PILE ON!!!

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• This edit summary totally sucked me in. I couldn't click fast enough to see if fudd had lost it.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 22:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A thank you from Ann

Hi, Mark. I just want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA, and of course to congratulate you on yours. (I've been a bit caught up with college work recently.) I look forward to working with you. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Prescriptive Barony

Thanks for the style and link input here at Prescriptive Barony Skull 'n' Femurs 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Card

Cough. Just in case I forget later, “Vague sort-of-warm, yet stuffily English - Greetings of this Season-tide” to you and yours! ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 18:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

/me fuddles you

You asked for it, now you have to live with it. >:D --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's illegal in some countries, that. I'd watch out if I were you...;-) Rob Church ^Talk 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Hi, this is regarding your note on User_talk:Csssclll#Violation_of_WP:3RR. Thanks a ton for the support; it was badly needed, considering that I am a newly minted admin who is not yet a week old :) --Gurubrahma 10:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image menace

Hi fuddlemark

This user has been uploading a lot of pictures recently which are evidently copyrighted, as he/she mention him/herself. I put up a question on the user's talk page regarding their use, but there has been no reply, and certainly no effect, since there have more uploads after that. Some of the picture like Image:Wayne Rooney8.jpg and Image:Lampardwithball.jpg are not even needed as there already are fair use pictures on them, as you know. Is there anything that can be done to stop this? Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Terry Carlino

I can kinda see, if I squint a bit, why this article might be listed for deletion. What I can't see is why it was speedied. I've undeleted because he's all over the JLab reports and seems to be an important figure there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Australia national soccer team

OK man. Take a pill. It's. OK. :-D --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your last comment

If you don't see a difference between one of Top 100 most active Wikipedians ever and his trollish stalker without any contributions at all, you never will. It is a bad style to insert remarks without examining the matter, especially as I try to ignore Bonaparte's persistant trolling. --Ghirlandajo 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hand on the shoulder

I'm afraid there's a spot of bother over on the RfAr page. Seems like you've been accused of being a bit nutty...

I've returned, sort of. Thanks for the comments, and have a belated "you're welcome." Seems everybody's moving on...look for me as a developer, not an editor. Rob Church ^Talk 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you ever "vandalise" my user page again, you're going to be sorry. What the hell!? That gave me a chuckle! Rob Church ^Talk 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Dvirgueza

Hi, just FYI: I asume it was just a slip of the finger that caused you to roll back the sockpupet evidense I added to User talk:Dvirgueza, so I have reverted your revert there. --Sherool (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional Elvis impersonators

I'm a bit surprised by your close here as no consensus. Considering the "vote" line-up, and that the only participant not to explain his opinion was on the delete side (and thereby should have been discounted based on your argument) it looks to me like there was a fairly strong consensus to Keep. You seem to have expressed some bias against the article in the close (struggled to find any arguments for keeping at all, etc.). If that is true, perhaps a different admin should have closed this. -- JJay 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As a "keep" vote on this AfD, I have no problem with your decision. I came here to thank you for the nice little AfD discussion you added to your closing. It's a shame that more people will not see it. I'm going to be bold and remove any running tallies I see on AfDs from here on out. Turnstep 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

When you do this, remember to remove the subpage from the original day's log, otherwise it still appears there when another admin comes along, and looks like it's already been relisted. It's enough to just add the subpage to the new log. Thanks. -Splash^talk 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ianbrown's RfA

Thanks for voting in my recent RfA. I was overwhelmed at the turnout and comments received.

Ian ≡ talk 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Nothing in my userspace has even been vandalized until a couple days ago, and then it's both my user and talk pages. Interesting. Thanks again! CanadianCaesar 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage!

FireFox 12:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Help!

Hi fuddlemark,

I don't know what is going on. Something funny is happening on Image:Lampard.jpg. I'd uploaded an image from soccereurope.com, but now that image has been replaced..but its weird because I don't see anyone else having edited the file, from the history tab. But the image history heading lists an edit by User:Sebas87 on December 9. The image currently displayed is not the original one, and is definitely not from soccereurope. What in the world is this? -Aabha (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now I get it. Sorry if I sounded paranoid! And thanks a ton :) -Aabha (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IP

I answered you on my talk page. Can you tell me please the IP of user:ßonaparte? -- Bonaparte talk 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

W.marsh's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Andoris

LOL! Yeah, the guy was a bit weird. I guess "threats" is too strong a word, but that's what he seemed to be doing when he promised to keep reposting his nonsense. Thanks for the tip.  :) - Lucky 6.9 08:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

new comer?

I am not actually a new comer. I manily edit amharic articles in am.wikipedia. But thanks anyways. Elfalem 08:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Happy hunting, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

Hi. The user constantly adding POV edits to the Joseph McCarthy page continues to edit that page, and has now registered as GMB. Perhaps they will heed advice more easily if given from an admin. VegaDark 11:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure if you intended to, but you reverted your own edit back to the new version GMB has submitted (right after you reverted it to my last edit) before you protected it. VegaDark 11:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll respect that decision, but I feel the edits were extreme enough (constant references to the "leftist counteroffensive", "The left launched a witch-hunt..." etc. that nobody would have faulted you for the revert. VegaDark 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wang Hao De

Vanity bio's are perfectly acceptable grounds for speedy delete, if you dispute there is a mechanism to do so, simply removing the tag is not it. See WP:DVAIN. Wang Hao De created this article and seems to be the only substantial editor. If you want to kick it into AfD process, you are free to add that tag also. -- Jbamb 15:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

protection of Joseph McCarthy

You seem to have protected the page with the sweeping changes on it and the bad formatting. See [1] - was this a mistake? Because I think the entire statement In fact this the Red Scare was a myth shouldn't be in a revision to protect to. Of course, I may be entirely wrong. I'd just thought I'd bring your attention to it. -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lion King Talk Page

It appears to me, that the misunderstanding between myself and and Adam Carr, is being perpetuated, by proxy by another user in a highly condescending manner on my talk page. Furthermore, the said user, has left what appears to be a threat, namely, that I should "fear Ireland." Will you please look into this matter. Best wishes, Lion King 16:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you please take a look at the comment posted by Adam Carr below your message to me. I did not come onto Wikipedia to threatend or stalked. thank you Lion King 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and in my view it's not meant as a threat. Adam is trying to lighten the mood with a little joke, to let you know there's no hard feelings. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's OK Then, just tell him to stay well away from Millwall Ha,Ha, Ha! Lion King 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear God the Light Productions

You removed the speedy delete on this - I agree that db-bio was probably wrong but I'm not convinced about its notability.

P.S. Why don't you join the Rugby LEague WikiProject?

Tim Fellows 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, MarkGallagher/Archive2! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, and redirect

Hello! First of all, happy holidays!

As well, I've been trying to move and reorganise the various articles regarding Canadian lieutenant-governors: some have caps, some don't, some have hyphens, some don't. I know I won't get 'em all. However in my flurry, I erroneously created Llieutenant-governors of Alberta (notice the two Ls), so I thought it better to have it removed (how likely would someone else type what I did?) instead of it functioning as a redirect. Make sense?

I'd also like to edit the appropriate categories (to hark of the article names, if only for consistency), but I'm unsure how to do this yet. Thoughts? In any event, thanks for your input. :) E Pluribus Anthony 10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. I would normally concur with you, but this one instance is clearly an unintentional typo, brought about by a plethora of moves and concomitant strabismus. :)

Thanks as well for other counsel; I'll investigate what needs to happen to change the categories ... I'm looking to eventually change all of them (in a Canadian context) from lieutenant governor to lieutenant–governor (with hyphen, caps TBD) as specified in authoritative style guides. This might come across as being anal, even OCD, but this inconsistency is driving me nuts! :) Thanks again for your indulgence. E Pluribus Anthony 11:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sakal an-Khâr and Anarikê deletion

They should of been speeded in my opinion. These were created by a user who has been repeatingly adding this for months. He registered purley to post these articles has been vandalizing the deletion archives and speedy tags. They are directly related to the first one that was deleted and by that extention should have been speedied. He will proably post other fictional works as well QQ 12:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the matter further and I have left a message on the user talk page. I will not pursue this debate any further though as there is other work I'd rather focus on. I will just let the process go through for now. QQ 13:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hancock image

Hi Mark, I agree with User:70.194.194.76's removal of the Hancock image as not fair use. It would be fair use if the screen shot was being used to illustrate a discussion or critique of the film itself, but in this case it is being used to portray the film's subject. That's not fair use. If you carefully re-read the {{film-screenshot}} tag on the image page, I think you'll see that the current usage is not covered. Snottygobble | Talk 13:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Snottygobble | Talk 13:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism on my page and blocking odd river vandal guy. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Thanks for the tip. If you inspect the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelf, you'll see that I did write a nomination. The first voter came along and changed my nomination to a vote for some reason. I'm changing it back now. Thanks again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries; I hope I didn't over-react. See you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm Human

Sorry i will keep it under check Parys

Vandalism

Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Happy Holidays! Acetic Acid 06:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship and advice prior to that, I can certainly say that your guidance helped a lot in my understanding of WP policy. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

GMB

I received this email from GMB (talk • contribs) today:

"Maybe you can help me out. I was hoping that my permanent ban could be softened. What happened is when I came on I didn't know how things worked and got into an editing war. Its been my policy to come on aggresively in any new website to fend off swarming leftists so this was merely an extension of this policy. So the case against me has some truth to it. But what ultimately did it for me was pointing out a case of communist holocaust-denial.

"These leftists seem to have a bit of a lock on some of the political entries. I myself am not now particularly interested in doing a whole lot of direct editing of actual entries. But want to figure out what can be done to overcome the leftist bias of a great deal of the political entries that are often so blatantly inferior to the rest of the Encyclopaedia."

I wanted to know your thoughts on the issue, as I'm a complete outsider to this dispute and I don't think my perusing discussions and diffs has enlightened me enough on the subject. Think he should be given a second chance? I do note that the block was made mere hours ago, and I don't think I'd support lifting it just yet—but shortening it from indefinite seems reasonable. At least, to this ignorant and underinformed old softie. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked Kharan Page

• I wanted to request that the blocked Kharan page be reassigned for information about Kharan District of Balochistan province of Pakistan.

User:Siddiqui 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Protect the Republic of Moldova page

Hello Mark, first off hope you had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year when it comes. I have written to ask you to protect the "Republic of Moldova" page just as how you protected the "Moldovan language" page and I was also wondering if you could place a warning at the top of the page about the neutrality and factual accuracy of the page. I stumbled across the page a couple days ago and I attempted to clean it up both in terms of English grammar (with phrases like "Once Romania joins the EU, any unification between the two countries would presumably bring Moldova into the EU if it later unified with Romania" or "..., expressing the link between the same nation") and in terms of summarizing and organizing the contents, however, almost every attempt I have made, they have reverted. In particular it seems that some of these users have not only done a word-for-word copy of another entire article (Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova) but they removed the link to this article in what seems to be an attempt to hide the fact that the entire article is copied. I tried to summarize the "Movement" article in the "Politics" section and then just link it so it would appear more tidy, but they reverted it. I have also noticed that there are many references to similarities with Romania or just references to Romania, so many in fact that I have to wonder if those constantly inserting such references are not "ultra-nationalists". In my humble opinion such behaviour should not be tolerated unless wikipedia were to allow other articles to be similarly vandalized (e.g. having constant references to similarities to Germany in the article on Austria). Either way, what little interest I had in both Romania and Moldova is now quickly turning to disgust (I am not Romanian, Moldovan or Russian by the way...far from it, I live in the Caribbean). Thanks for taking the time to read this - Concerned Anon user, 27 December 2005

This Anon user is node ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has been violating the Wiki's editing policies. Need to be blocked. --67.174.94.94 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No that's not Caribbean!!!! -->It's United States.--67.174.94.94 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This concerned user is most probably Node_ue, trying to hide again after an ip. As I said before, I won't reply any of Node_ue's messages, so I'll address you, Mr.Gallagher. First of all, the blockage of the page is required when there is no consensus, as you might notice in the history, only "concerned anon user" gets reverted, everybody else is happy with the content (for a good reason). As for Romania joining EU, this is very important for Moldova, and it is actively discussed here (Moldova) by many, and it is an important information (even Russian and Ukrainian politologists suggested Moldova to unite with Romania to automatically join EU). Romania is our neighbour, we speak the same language, we share common history (otherwise we wouldn't study History of Romanians, wouldn't we ?) and we share common culture. As for "concerned user" he has never been to Moldova, and he apparently thinks that it has nothing to do with Romania and is trying to remove all the information he sees about Romania in relation to Moldova. --Just a tag 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This concerned anon (and I am not Node_ue) has never been to Moldova (or Romania) and if I am lucky, never shall. And what's with this paranoia over whether or not I am Node_ue and if I live in the United States? Just because you believe something, doesn't make it so. Anyway, sorry for bringing this discussion to your page Mark, and never mind about the Moldova page, someone else protected it.- Concerned Anon User

This anon is a troller that has been blocked. -- Bonaparte talk 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you have decided to block me, I don't recall you being involved in reverting the edits I did to try to tidy up the Moldova page, but apparently you are in league with those who were. At any rate this "troller" will no longer rise to your bait (I doubt you can actually block anyone)- Anon

The user at 72.27.8.82 is not blocked (as evidenced by his ability to make edits here). As far as I can tell, he has never been blocked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair) 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your birthday and Christmas wishes to me. Looks like I'm a bit late for Xmas... Happy New Year to you too! Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fuddlemark

I know you can but... what does it mean?????? novacatz 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD comments

May I humbly suggest that you be more diplomatic in the comments you make about people's nominations and votes on AfD? It's clear that you have the site's best interests in mind, which is great (and I generally agree with your comments), but I think you may be guilty of some mild biting of newbies (and administrators) in doing so. (I noticed this on several of today's AfD discussions). AfD is a pretty thankless task, and directly criticising others will only discourage them. Even as a hardened admin with loads of AfD nominations and votes and death threats weathered, I found this comment mildly insulting (volunteer effort on NP patrol over Christmas vacation is effort enough, eesh!). Brighterorange 21:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi fuddle -- I've been nominating for AfD and using "Nominator votes" after watching the trend about a month ago where people were actually putting in separate votes, apparently because they thought that was required by AfD. It made my head spin. But this way seems very clear and explicit, and plenty of nominations are unclear or the nominator is cleaning up an orphaned entry, so it seems good to me. If you really think it's clear that a nomination is always a delete vote unless otherwise stated, I suppose I could lay off. bikeable (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your funny remarks on the Category:LGBT murderers deletion discussion. Even if they would be wrong (they aren't), I got a good laugh out of them! --Yooden

Why do you stalk me?

Hello, they say on WP:RFA talk that recently promoted admins are clueless and/or boorish. I didn't want to believe it until I ran into your boorishness on Bogdan's RfA and then on AfD. After that, I promised to myself never to take part in either of these proceedings. And now comes your disjointed comment on my talk page. Why do you stalk me? No offense intended, but please put more efforts into your admin duties. And please remember that harrassment and stalking are frowned upon. --Ghirla | talk 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is strange that you noticed what you term "offensive comment" on a certain obscure user's talk page, but didn't notice offensive nationalism in the only page he created and which you restored from redirect, for some reason that escapes me. OK, I will reread Wikipedia:Civility but you should reread Wikipedia:Assume good faith and rethink your approach to adminship. --Ghirla | talk 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ghirlandajo_.28Short_description:_troller.2C_vandal.2C_Anti-Romanian.2C_nazi.29 revert war, block please, severe block. --156.17.130.10 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a violation of the three-revert rule to me; sure, there's four reverts, but there aren't four reverts to the one version: he's warred with Bonaparte, and later with you over a different version. Both times he stopped well in time. Also, it happened hours ago: blocks are meant to stop current wars, not to punish for past ones. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No way spelling

I had no clue that "centred" was even a word. I thought it was just a random change. I checked in my computer's dictionary (American), and it couldn't find the word, but upon further investigation via Google, it turns out there are some uses of it. Sorry for that. Again, I thought you were just a spelling vandal, had no idea "centred" even existed. Cheers -- RattleMan 06:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwebel

You probably don't get all that many compliments on an AfD close, but I really liked your description here, which I found very balanced. Despite my vote, I thought that the article was borderline and that Schwebel was probably not yet a candidate for a page. However, I do feel strongly that abusing a confused newcomer through over-rapid tagging of an article without any sort of courtesy warning or explanation is dead wrong. The whole AfD could have been avoided had the matter been properly handled. With certain obvious exceptions (attacks, patent nonsense, etc), RCP should not be treated as some kind of race to belittle new participants and drive away potential positive contributors to the site. -- JJay 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Earl Bates

I must say that I disagree with your decision to close the AFD discussion as a Keep. To my mind the result was clearly No Consensus. While it is doubtful that in the near term that Wikipedia will be able to reach a consensus on this or similar articles, Keep implies that the issue is settled, and that is definitely not the case. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)