This is an archive of past discussions about User:PeterSymonds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, it's finally the day...! Some of you have been really anticipating it, and helping Wikipedia by preparing nonsense for the Main Page or doing other silly stuff. It's only 1 day out of 365, so us overstressed wikiholics should use the day to look at things a tad differently. ;) Have fun! Jamie☆S9301:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That took 20-30 min with the admin page search function, weeding out the cases where he reported someone without making any abusive complaints and the cases which various flamers filed against him friviously and where he didn't overreact. That leaves 13 incidents where he went too far, some of them grievously too far, over 10 months.
I don't think anyone's bothered to put it all together in one place. Now that I did, I'm suprised he hasn't been indef'ed yet...
As seen here - "The segment was accompanied by pictures of farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees -- and prompted hundreds of viewers to call in, wanting to know how they could grow their own spaghetti trees." :) I guess you guys aren't able to understand jokes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into the matter. I am concerned that this person is in no way a new user, they sprung fully-formed into wikipedia with a full-blown knowledge of procedures and policies. I have one other possible suspect, but if that doesn't pan out, then I have no idea what to do. The rodeo articles are an absolute nightmare. Montanabw(talk)22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Question about deletion of Alphonse Persico article
Peter, could you please provide some details on the deletion of this article? If there were problems with the sources, perhaps we could resolve them. I am just concerned that we are now missing an article on a very notable figure in this area. Thanks. Rogermx (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Rogermx. Yes, I fully understand that, but the issues wasn't notability, rather that the information was generally negative and without reliable citation. We often get complaints about libel in articles; article subjects, often not aware of Wikipedia process, write to OTRS or the Foundation with sometimes very legitimate complaints. We cannot really resolve this fully, but one way we can prevent this is deleting unsourced negative BLPs, or at least removing any negative information which is lacking citation. I will send you the article by email if you have it enabled, so you can either source it or stub it. I don't mind which, but negative unsourced BLPs have been a big problem in the past, so the less around the better. I hope you understand. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)14:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The start of Round 2 has been in some respects an explosive one, with one user in particular almost in the triple figures after just a week. There are obviously contestants with no points or very few, but as it is so early in the round this can probably be excused. Keep it up everyone!
Note that due to unforeseen circumstances, Mitchazenia has been eliminated from the contest. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Wrestlinglover (36)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (8)
Pool C
Ceranthor (80)
Pool D
Candlewicke (28)
Pool E
Ottava Rima (30)
Pool F
Scorpion0422 (36)
Current Wildcards
Climie.ca (30)
Matthewedwards (22)
J Milburn (16)
Rlevse (15)
Paxse (14)
Useight (12)
Theleftorium (10)
All scores are accurate as of the end of Round 1.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Im sorry, I thought only album covers were not allowed on my page.But anyway, what can I put on my page,pictures I uploaded myself, for myself? Thanks and Peace Out-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. You can put any free image on your userpage (perhaps search Wikimedia Commons, the depository of free images). You don't necessarily have to upload ones taken by yourself, but if you want to (and they are under a free license), then it is okay. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Expanding on this question...can I upload one of my own photos to WP if it is also on my Flickr page under a Creative Commons license? - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
...Which is too big to do on my own (/18, which affects ~16000 IP addresses), but I'll ask the CU to look into collateral damage. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to block this range again to stop this user from abusing the other IP pages and to stop personal attacks againest Fisherqueen? Momusufan (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was hoping you could help me or point me in the right direction with something. I've been having something of an edit war with another editor on the page of musician Alan Dubin. The main point of contention is that the other user is continuing to return pictures of album covers to this biography page, whereas it seems to me that a) the album covers listed on the page in the discography section makes the page cluttered and hard to read and b) album covers don't really belong on a biographical article, but rather in the pages for those albums, or maybe for the pages of the bands that made those albums, whereas this article is about the vocalist for those bands. I attempted to talk to this user on their talk page but they largely ignored me and continue to re-add these pictures to the page. Then I attempted to clean up the article by providing links in the biography to the pages for those albums, where the pictures are already posted, but the other user apparently doesn't like this as he removes those links when he re-adds the pictures. I'm not sure if I can tag these changes the other user is making as vandalism, so now I'm a little lost as to what the next step should be. The pictures were returned to the page earlier today and I'm pretty tired of removing them. Am I totally wrong here for trying to keep these pictures off the biographical page? I really appreciate any help you can give me. Rnb (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rnb. I think you're right; it makes the article awfully cluttered. Also, I doubt very much those images are in the public domain. I'll look into it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your help with this. Unfortunately, it looks like the user in question didn't like your edit, either. Rnb (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. With Hamish Ross, we generally treat him a bit like Grawp; block the accounts and don't bother tagging them. He has so many. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done my best to give a balanced interpretation, but of course each pointer is not without personal opinion. Thanks for informing me. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Request
Your not taking the time to familiarize your self with the material in the article or the issue under discussion but nevertheless admonishing me on my talk page for making an edit that anyone marginally well-versed in the article's subject matter (much less an expert such as myself) would make is not called for and could even be taken as offensive. I request that you remove the comment from my talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I may not be as familiar with the article's subject as you are, but I am incredibly well versed in WP:RS. That is what I am arguing: BLP subjects command our respect, and the sources need to be 100% reliable. The reliable sources take precedence over others. PeterSymonds (talk)22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If the sources need to be 100% reliable, then you should remove 4 out of the 5 sources that claim 4 wives, as per my discussion on that talk page. Your saying "the reliable sources take precedence over others" seems to indicate that you didn't read our discussion there very carefully, as we have sources that are at least as reliable claiming 3 wives or 2 wives. I can see why you were misled, because Cirt created the impression that the conflict was between reliable sources and consensus. You could have cleared this up, however, if you had just read all the material on the talk page related to the issue. The fact that you didn't, but still saw fit to admonish me on my talk page is quite inappropriate, and I ask you again to remove it.
Two experts on the subject matter voiced the opinion that a manufactured debate among sources about how many wives there were doesn't belong in the article because it is irrelevant to Hak Ja Han's life. You claimed re the controversial content: "If it is included in this article, it is relevant." I must not understand what you mean, because it seems like a complete non-sequitor. You also haven't responded to my comment:
There are two experts calling it irrelevant and one editor who is obviously not very familiar with the subject matter who apparently doesn't agree, but he has not given a rationale for why he thinks it is relevant. I'm sure you're not saying that I can go to some article where I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, add an irrelevant sourced debate, and then say it's relevant because it's in the article, and that I shouldn't be overruled by two experts.
Your argument that Cirt is "obviously not very familiar with the subject matter" would be far more convincing if he wasn't one of the article's main contributors. But that is not the issue. If you really believe it is irrelevant, which I do not, perhaps from an outside point of view, then establish consensus for its removal. Simply citing "two experts" is not enough; one does not have to be an expert on the subject to consider something relevant or not. In the meantime, the material is apparently staying, so WP:RS must be given full precedence as with all cases of BLP. Shouting "it's not relevant" has no substance because you fail to give a convincing reason why it is not relevant. But, as I repeat: If you believe the material is not relevant, please establish consensus for its removal. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Among the contributors to the article Cirt alone advocates that the sentence remain. All others have asked for its removal or have not stated an opinion. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately to date the majority of the other contributors commenting quite actively at the talk page of the article Hak Ja Han are SPAs with a singular focus of promoting the Sun Myung Moon organization/movement Unification Church. Not exactly the best sample of an NPOV view, and all previously heavily involved with debate on the article prior to my major improvements to it with over forty sources. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, PeterSymonds. You have new messages at Samj's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
About my recent ban: A request for clarification
I am starting this discussion on the talk pages of the three administrators involve with my recent ban: I wante to talk to the three editors/administrators I see as having the most understanding of the dynamics surrounding my recent ban: PeterSymonds, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom. I am not sure the most efficient method of doing this, so I will post it to each of your talk pages, as well as my own talk page. I if this is the incorrect procedure or if this is too long.
I do this as an effort to better understand where the dividing line lies between promotion and inclusion of legitimate inclusion of material, to better understand the dynamics of my recent ban further, and so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. And because I am really confused.
What I am lost with is how can it be considered promotion when including a individual in a wiki page when they actually are notable individuals in relation to those entries? I'll talk about specifics in this case:
Michelle Belanger in relation to the topics of DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Urn_(band), Vampire_lifestyle, Vampire_Secrets. Belanger has a notable part in these topics. She has been and continues to be a recurring presenter for the Dragon Con. she did appear in an Urn video with Don Henrie. She was the first third party published author to discuss psychic vampirism and the in a non hostile manner. And she was in fact one of the authors who appeared on the show Vampire Secrets. Additionally, with the exception of the Vampire_lifestyle page, she was listed in conjunction with with other individuals, and Belanger's inclusion in those entires was was done by third parties.
What I might be guilty of in those cases, and I will admit to this, is blindly undoing a series of deletes performed by another editor who might not have been aware of her involvement, when I probably should have more selective in my actions and what I chose to reinstate.
As for the Vampire_lifestyle page, I did seek to include the writers Raven Kaldera, and Lady CG, but since their works were self published, those references were removed. My choice to remove the references Asetian Bible from the Vampire_lifestyle entry came about only after a discussion I participated in on the Ankh page clarified to me that it was considered self published, and therefore did not meet the criteria of a reliable source.
Could I be considered a Belanger fangirl? Likely. But I would would doubt any entry that references notable individuals are free from input from those persons' fans.
But I am also a participant in the vampire community. A community I feel very strongly about, and one that I do want to see properly discussed in the wiki entries, especially with the sort of attention we have been getting because of Twilight, True Blood and all the other vampire related topics out there. And this includes being aware of the activities of one of our more prominent members – one who has even appeared on Fox news on December 8th as "an expert on the vampire community".
And if I were really out to be promotional of Belanger, I would have sough to include her on the Don_Henrie entry (a person she has had repeated contact with) and the Paranormal_State entry (a show where she is a recurring psychic consultant for). Instead, I've chosen to not involve myself in those entires, respecting the fact that if it is considered notable to other editor, she will be added. I've also not attempted to create a page for Belanger. Again, I leave that to come about on it's own from the collaboration of other editors.
What I feel I see happening with here is struggle I suspect occurs with an individual in the process of actually gaining notoriety. It might appear that the inclusion of Belanger on these topics is promotional attempts, but, like it or not, the reality is that she is indeed an author, presenter, singer, and television personality at this point. And the editors adding her to these entries are aware of this.
Now, if it will help, I will dig through and cite every single possible appearance of Michelle Belanger I can find in media that is not from a vanity or self-published source.
Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide on this matter. And I hope that simply asking for and attempting to give clarification doesn't get me banned again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Premature closure of Date formatting and linking poll
On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Fielding, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Shoemaker's Holiday (156)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (79)
Pool C
Theleftorium (88)
Pool D
J Milburn (46)
Pool E
Durova (136)
Pool F
Sasata (131)
Current Wildcards
Ceranthor (82)
Ottava Rima (82)
Wrestlinglover (77)
Rlevse (63)
the_ed17 (49)
97198 (43)
Useight (41)
Scorpion0422 (41)
Candlewicke (38)
Matthewedwards (33)
All scores are accurate as of 15:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Again I would ask you to consider the fact that I thought I was on a sock puppet ban initially. At the time I was researching the what constituted puppetry and in so doing read the section on meat puppets. If I was researching puppet ban issues, would I really have ask some one to join in and do the exact same thing i did? If NyteMuse had thought to contact me before she made the post I would have told her to stay out of it. Yes, we run in similar circles, but that does not mean I asked her to participate here.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going by their first edit, which was reverting back to SiIIyLiIIy's edit. Possibly meat puppetry but the edit struck of WP:DUCK. However, looking back over the page, I see it is an online community. Given the kind explanation posted here, I am unblocking the account, but SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy, I would urge you to advise anyone else from that community of our policies and guidelines to prevent any further unfortunate misunderstandings. Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you as well. I will be sure to pass on the importance of being aware of the wiki community policies and guidlines. Thnak you for your patience with us as well.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Susan Boyle
I'm kind of perturbed that after I reopened giving clear reasons why I was doing so, you came along and closed it again, ignoring what I had said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ignore what you said, but it came to a point of WP:SNOW. There was really no further need to keep it open. If you want to reopen it, go ahead, but it seemed highly unnecessary to keep it open any longer. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerns were raised during the discussion about existing early closing, especially SNOW closes. AfD guidelines should now be rewritten to incorporate the decisions in this discussion, and to direct people to allow AfD discussions to go the full seven days unless there is a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to close early.
Hence my previous changes. Since you don't object, I will reopen again. I know it's POINTy, but it's a recent change that needs to have attention called to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That is your call, but I find it alarming that such a rule has been put in place. Quite disappointing really. Anyway, thanks for the links; I'll bear that in mind. :) PeterSymonds (talk)16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
From having a quick look at the link discussion, it appears that there is no hard and fast rule that SNOW cant be used, just that it is discouraged. Jenuk1985 | Talk16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no point in making a change if it's going to be completely ignored, right? Besides, the BLP1E argument isn't invalid. This should go the full length to properly establish consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for a start its an inappropriate change that goes completely against common sense. Taking the common sense argument further, its common sense that this AfD was closed, it is a classic case of SNOW. Right now you are creating admin for admins sake. Jenuk1985 | Talk16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll obviously go along with the 5-7 day change, but I think it was kind of a stretch to pull that "NO SNOW" thing into that close (the AfD discussion on 5-7 days) at the very end of the discussion. — Ched : ? 17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO WP:SNOW is pointless in AfDs. It's been misused too much, like in the Susan Boyle thing. An AfD is not an RfA, where % of support votes counts. 20 people might cite a wrong policy, and 5 people may cite the correct one, and it would be closed due to WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
<* cough, cough *>, ahhh .. yea. I think I'm probably the guilty party on this one folks. I ran across the AfD here while checking through the Help Desk. I then mentioned the issue to Peter in IRC. At the time it looked like a clear SNOW issue, and to be even more frank, I also thought it was a forumshopping issue as well (probably an unfair assumption on my part). So ... all cards on the table, I'm most likely the one that everyone should be looking at if there's a finger of blame to be pointed here. I'll just go ahead an pick up my trout on the way out ;) — Ched : ? 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, I don't agree with that. The AfD crowd are generally a sensible and clueful bunch, who have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. They read the article and come up with a decision. Granted it could happen, but no, it would be highly unlikely for 20 people to cite the wrong policy. Now, that excludes cases of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and any off-site canvassing, but from every AfD I have seen, this is obviously not given undue weight in the closing decision. So I believe your concerns about an unfair vote are unfounded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it happened with the Susan Boyle thing. That's all I'm saying. A non-admin closed it citing WP:SNOW without addressing the concerns raised by those who wanted it deleted. Antivenin15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
for your advice. You see, I can edit again. But when I tried to edit the article, the removed information was already restored with the reference by other user. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Protect Total Drama Action. More assumptions and destruction of the format and content of the article. I have HAD it with the vandals of this article and I was wondering if you could please protect it (autoconfirmed) for about 1 year. Thanks! TDI19 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A year is probably too much at this stage; protection should rise in stages. 3 months should be okay for now, at least. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, no good version. She never created her userpage so I decided to protect it to make sure further vandalism doesn't occur. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peter. I noticed you recenly blocked 71.193.118.38 (talk) for 31 hours for "vandalism". This user also left Thrane some pretty nasty messages on his talk page. Would it be appropriate to extend the block? C.U.T.K.DT | C12:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey CUTKD. Yeah, I saw the attack. I think perhaps it's best to leave the block at 31 hours for now, as a first block. If they does it again, I'll have no qualms about extending it. The IP doesn't look very busy so an extension shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for the note, PeterSymonds (talk)12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My initial reaction was grant but those diffs indicate the editor needs a little more caution before getting rollback. I'll mark as not done. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Okey, thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the userrights conflict. I guess we could just fully protect the page every time we begin a review...! ;) PeterSymonds (talk)11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Given those only a few of us active over there it's probably a good one to use. Also, it means others can chip in with comments so when whoever started the review returns they might have additional info. Pedro : Chat 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Australia
You are quite correct. I was a bit stressed and just clicked rollback, forgetting that rollback functionality isn't the same in IE as it is in Firefox with Twinkle. Twinkle gives you the opportunity to add an edit summary but IE just rolls back. It was one of those "Doh!" moments after I'd done it but it was too late by then. Sorry about that. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Fingers crossed Sansonic switches to constructive editing when the block expires in a fortnight, they have signs of be able to contribute constructively. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably not necessary on review. The bluelinks are useful for documentation purposes. I'll consider it later though. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. You can open a requested move here, at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is not an uncontroversial move. If you want it moved, open a discussion there. Further, there was no discussion on that page, just a single post. PeterSymonds (talk)20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Nürburgring lap times
I noticed that you protected the Nürburgring lap times article a couple of months ago.
While a lot of the content issues have been resolved, recently there have been a lot of anon IPs edits, which are vandalism (ie changing random numbers) than content dispute.
While I prefer talk pages in this situation the talk page isn't going to change a thing, neither is an IP block as the IPs are constantly changing.
Could you semi-protect the page so that non/newly registered editors cannot vandalise it again please?
Thanks - it was hard work constantly checking that page for vandalism, also I was worried that someone would see it as a content dispute, not vandalism and bust me for edit warring or something. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Re WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonia1976, I completely agree, there is nothing else needed right now, since the second account is now blocked. (It wasn't when I filed the report.) I looked back through the edit histories of these articles and there seems to be a slow, months-long pattern of similar accounts, each used for a few similar unconstructive edits and then abandoned. This is my first time to file a sockpuppet report, so, may I ask your advice for next time? If and when the pattern repeats, should I: (1) add the new account(s) to this existing page, (2) start a new sockpuppet report page, or (3) just report the unconstructive edits to AIV and not bother with the puppet report? Thanks,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure you can ask my advice; I'll try and help the best I can. :) If you see any suspicious and long-term accounts, feel free to re-open the report with a request for checkuser instead of an ordinary SPI. Problematic repeat vandals can often have their IP looked at to see if a rangeblock/proxyblock is viable. It also could uncover any potential sleepers. However that's for any sustained problems with this editor, and a request for checkuser is premature at present. Worth bearing in mind though. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if that is enough for a DUCK, so I thought I would ask you. The similarities just seem to good to be true. :)
Sheepeh (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Peter. I came across a blog post complaining about negative claims in the article Joe Banner which you had protected in this state with the text "As team president, Banner has proven to rather want to make money then win championships, as he is behind the lose of many free agents such as Brian Dawkins, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, Duce Staley, Tra Thomas, Brian Mitchell, Derrick Burgess, and Jeff Garcia." I wonder if it might be wise to be a little more ruthless with regards to unsourced negative claims in WP:BLPs in future, or if you don't want to get involved with the content (perfectly understandable), post a short note at WP:BLPN so a volunteer can take a look. Regards, Skomorokh05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Just checking in with you regarding the matter we discussed via email (see 3/18 and your response on 3/22). Haven't heard from you since you said you'd look into it. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have you on ignore. When you have something serious to say to me (I am and was very busy), I will respond. Simple as that. Questions about why I won't talk about my religion are totally not the reason I'm there. Thanks for your apology in any case. PeterSymonds (talk)09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
could you please look over this article Hamas. I argue my edit is the more balanced of the two (although I am certainly open to a compromise)- and I think an edit war may begin anew. ThanksStarstylers (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:PeterSymonds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
= 
Done by Mfield (talk · contribs). Best, PeterSymonds : Chat 07:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A year is probably too much at this stage; protection should rise in stages. 3 months should be okay for now, at least. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing request. Pedro : Chat 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
