User talk:Risker/Archive 1

Talk page Archive #1 - January 2006 to Dec 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Risker/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

james blunt girlfriend

unfortunately my bin has been emptied! it was last week's issue of the newspaper, probably 2nd nov 06 but not sure...

update: found it! http://www.varsity.cam.ac.uk/arts/424/1/

James Blunt

Raise the issue on the discussion page for James Blunt. This often brings resolution to disputed issues. Kukini 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme request

I am trying to figure out if there is a way to get massive copyright violation off a page sooner than the 7-day holdout. The page is James Blunt entry. Since it is a very active page, whoever winds up removing the copyright violation will be spending hours reconstructing the whole thing. I'm not knowledgeable enought to know where to go for help on this one. Risker 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just remove the copyright material yourself, there's no need to go through the 7 day waiting period. Just mention on the talk page that you have removed some material and why.--Commander Keane 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Wikipedian Petadeo - James Blunt Edits

Hi there. Sorry for the slow reply, I have only been able to be on Wikipedia sporadically over the last day or so. As far as Petadeo is concerned, you seem to have a good handle on things. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzyboard

There has been a load of edits recently, but the main problem with this article is that it doesn't belong in the wikipedia. --J a son ^(talk) 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt External Links

Sorry! I was over-keen on my removing of links, please feel free to put my mistake right! Robdurbar 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt singles

Sure, I'll add in the extra releases.

Thanks! Camcallister 11:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no way to add them in the chart without making a mess, so I just listed the re-release info in the Notes section below the chart. Camcallister 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hi, some of the userboxes on your userpage have moved location, so the code on your userpage needs to change to the new location. My bot updates the location for you so we can delete the old location of the userbox. To fix the two remaining userboxes just simply copy the new location (which is in the orange userboxes) and paste it over the old one. For more information on why this is done and how to do it, see WP:GUS. If you need any assistance, feel free to drop me a line.--Andeh 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not vandalism

My addition {{;a|Chemistry}} to WP:MVP was not vandalism. it was a typo of {{la|Chemistry}}. I saw that you corrected it calling it "vandalism". -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jeffery Bennett Article

I am compiling a list of awards and honors for Dr. Jeffery Bennett and will need some time on that. Perhaps I praise him too much by calling him world renowned. I felt he was noteworthy enough for wikipedia but if not, so be it. EnjoysButter 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rush (band)

Ah, very good. :) I guess to clarify, "simple vandalism" has a pretty narrow definition (which is part of why we can block for it so quickly, of course). I do get the impression that the user's being a bit disruptive, since I don't think I see any attempt at discussion on their part; there's always still 3RR and general disruption (either WP:PAIN or WP:AN/I as appropriate). Good luck. Luna Santin 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jeffery Bennett

You're welcome. The article's gone already (WP:CSD#A7). Being impartial is not a requirement if you use {{prod}} (as I did) or if you go through WP:AFD (which is a lot more work) – other editors will look at it, after all. If you feel uneasy about suggesting deletion, you can add {{notability}} to the article to (hopefully) attract the attention of other editors. Rl 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About World Innovation Foundation

Thought I would take a moment to explain my actions with respect to the AfD of this article here on my talk page in case anyone was curious - and partly so that I will recall them myself. I have added several comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation and also in AN/I for this date because I was very concerned by the quality of the debate and the logical fallacies - particularly the appeal to authoritythat was clearly evident. It concerned me that far too many assumptions had been made about the behaviour of a new wikipedian. Many new editors may come to work on one article, slowly branching out as time goes on, usually starting out with subjects that relate to their "first" article. There is practically no mentoring or contact taking place. Many new users may never look at their user page or discussion page. Thus it is easy for even a well-intentioned newbie to cross an invisible line that draws a reaction from experienced editors and/or admins, and the brickbats can fly. In this case, I felt it was unfair that the person nominating the principal editor of this article first blocked the editor then nominated the article for deletion. The logical consequence was to prevent the person in the best position to defend the article from participating in the debate; this was rectified once it was pointed out, of course. It was also worrisome that not one person had bothered to comment on the talk page of the article itself about their concerns and permit the primary editor to try to address them before putting the article up for AfD.

What I hoped to see was a realistic assessment of the problems with the article and whether or not they could be addressed. The original reason for the AfD was non-verifiability - however, not much had been done to determine this was the case. Several editors spent time actually doing some research trying to find supportive (as well as unsupportive) information - and they should be credited with doing the true work of the encyclopedia. Other editors reviewed the information from a different perspective and assessed the article as being about a non-notable subject, which seems to me much more defensible than the lack of verifiability.

I actually have no opinion one way or another about whether this article should be deleted. My interjections into the debate were primarily to ensure that the process in this case was transparent and fair, which I now believe it is. Risker 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blunt, Bristol, etc.

I have nothing citable at the moment, nor do I want to divulge the nature of my source. There must be some way of looking into who registered / matriculated at which UK university and when. --5telios 09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BW Expert

You might want to put this under AfD rather than PROD. I had previously PROD-ed the article, and the original author removed my PROD without any notable improvement to the article. He will probably do the same to yours. If you list it as an AfD, it becomes more publicly open as a potential delete, and it is harder for the original poster to remove the deletion warnings in bad faith as is the case with this article. I might do it myself. I will keep you posted if I do. --Jayron32 02:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your PROD to an AfD. In the furturem, if someone deletes a PROD and does NOT make changes to the article to correct the problems the PROD was for, set it up as an AfD. Check WP:AFD on how to do this. This makes the deletion debate public and makes it impossible for the original author to restore the article merely by deleting the PROD template. --Jayron32 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD usage

Be certain you use AfD only for contested deletes. Check the history first. The first time you propose to delete a page, use PROD. If someone removes or objects to the PROD, then consider moving it to AfD. --Jayron32 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James Blunt discography

Thanks! The only advice I can offer you right now is when you do cleanup the James Blunt article, remember to cite your sources. Looking through the article now I see a lot of claims, but nothing to back them up. Also, most articles are moving away from trivia sections so you might want to remove it from the article. If you need any help or have any questions please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I hope some of those suggestions help. Good luck! -- Underneath-it-All 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt Uni

Fair enough - I must have got confused somewhere. Thanks for the supporting info.--5telios 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt

Nice clean-up of the article; I had it as a to-do, but I think you've done a better job than I would have. I see your point about the "Personal Life" section. The only concern I have is the statement that Camilla Boler was the subject of the song "You're Beautiful," and the lack of a reference for that, particularly as an interview with Boler indicates the subject was Dixie Chassay [1]. I have not found any references indicating that Boler and Blunt were in a relationship prior to the writing of that song, which seems to have occurred prior to Blunt leaving the military. Do you have any published information that would support those statements? Thanks. Risker 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - one of those "fan" articles that just keeps growing, and then needs a lot of pruning. In retrospect and looking around, I agree - Boler is pretty clear the song is dedicated to her on one occasion, but about Chassay. Suggest you rewrite - Rgds, - Trident13 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Prod

A mention in the Guiness Book of Records is sufficient notability - and the Prod was on notability. If this had been challenged and removed I would not have had a problem. 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Razor Gator

I'm not quite as active as I should be, but from what I can tell, the result of the afd wasn't carried out. If it was, then it's obviously been recreated :)

Place an AFD on it again, please... but reference this. Then, call for a concensus speedy delete... I'm sure that'll work, ;)

If it continues, I suppose we could put one of those "This article has been deleted for a reason. Don't make another one" temps up...

Thanks for the comment about the M&M article, I'm glad you liked it :) Kareeser|^Talk! 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up on Razor Gator. Turns out the AfD Result wasn't carried out (since the history was intact... I should've seen that one long ago). Anyway, I speedied it as a G4, and it's gone for good. This time, it's been protected, so we won't be seeing that again... Kareeser|^Talk! 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! As you've probably realized now, proper communication is key, and lots of things can be done if you notify the right people or tell people what's going on. If in doubt, always ask, but don't forget to be bold once in awhile! Kareeser|^Talk! 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikiproject - Musicians: James Blunt tag

It's nice to see someone taking an active interest in a musician article. Honestly, in my opinion the article is very close to a "B" rating, but I marked it as a "Start" based on the following:

The length is closer to that of a Start article.

Infobox: could use a bit more information in it. The template is located here. Some of these fields could be benificial.

Singing Career and Reactions to Success could use a bit of breaking apart (i.e. seperating Singing Career into two parts such as Pre-fame and Post fame)

Perhaps a small Trivia section would be a nice addition to the article as well, provided it is well policed. Unfortunately, it could be a magnet for vandalism. One or two pictures of James, or an appropriately placed picture of an album would be nice. Also, the inclusion of:

at the end of the article could add a bit to the article.

I certainly wouldn't raise a fuss if you wanted to tag it as a B article. I leave that entirely up to you. Cheers, --Thereen 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Disobedient Child is still linkless, I think..

I saw that you removed the linkless tag. I wondered why - of the 4 incoming links, 3 are from lists of unlinked pages, and the 4th is from a talk page. I think the same applies to at least 4 other articles you removed the tag from, that were in my watchlist. --Alvestrand 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

So, did I accidentally change it from Blount to Blunt (on the James Blunt page) or did I revert an edit by an IP? I must admit I'm not so quick on the uptake today, really tired for some reason. So I either got confused and messed up an edit, got confused by your talk comment, or both. I gotta get some sleep... But I also gotta study (exam argh). Edward Wakelin 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, speaking of ways to make the note on not changing Blount to Blunt clearer... Is there any way to bold a bit of an edit box? Or put a note on an edit page? Or maybe just put in two notes, one before Blount (as the family name), the other after? Edward Wakelin 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt protection

I protected James Blunt on request at WP:RFPP. I saw that the article has been heavily vandalized (few dozen vandalism/vandalism revertions in the past few days). Usually if I see an article is being vandalized frequently, I will protect it. That's usually how protection policy works. For more, see WP:SEMI. Thanks, Nishkid 64 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt Vandalism

Thanks for the tip. Actually, I just started using VP today and it is a little more confusing than Twinkle that I was using before. It's going to take some getting used to or I may just switch back to using Twinkle as it was easier to follow the edits and reversions. Warfieldian 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Short term" vs. "brief"

Greetings, I noticed you changed the lead sentence to change the word "brief" to "short term". This does not correspond well to the facts. The phrase "short term" leaves open the idea that his employment was only going to be short term whereas the word "brief" doesn't. Does that make sense to you? (→Netscott) 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better if a bit longish... not meaning to demean teenager values but "brief" employee isn't going to have such connotations for a mature audience. (→Netscott) 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest something like "briefly employed at Wikia". (→Netscott) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

Nice work :) Glen 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I do agree. That was quite the glaring nugget of WP:OR and soapbox ranting you skived off. Gwen Gale 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would Bob Dole say? I hear ya! Thanks for the note that brought me a smile. ;-) (→Netscott) 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "tjstrf"

Don't worry, I'm used to it. I've had the ID for over 6 years now, and people have been quizzing me on the meaning that whole time. The answers to both the inspiration and why I keep such an unusual ID can be found starting in sentence 3 of my user page. --tjstrf talk 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Essjay controversy

Thank you for editing this article. Please note that the "typo" you have been correcting is actually a direct quote in which the original author made a misspelling. So that we do not change the quote, the expression [sic] has been inserted to confirm that the "error" is intentional. Pardon the note, if you are already aware of this; nobody wants a revert war on such a fine point. Risker 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regards. Wiki Raja 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy lede

Thanks for your kind note. I'm afraid I still think the old lede was superior because it gave the reader more information faster. But the article has already seen enough reverting. Thanks again. Casey Abell 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

organizing the article

Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)

You have a disagreement with the other editors too. Or have your changed you mind. Please clarifiy your position. If possible, I would like you to divide the huge section into two separate sections.

Reaction

Outcome

Currently, the article is cluttered. I know you agree with me on many points. We were doing a good job of working together in the beginning but then somewhere all focus was lost. A few minor adjustments will make the article readable, presentable, flow better. Many people are reading this article and it is below par in quality. The style of the article can be improved. Thanks. QuackGuru ^TALK 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you specific questions which you are not interested in answering at this time. Please tell me your position. Your comments on my talk page have little to do with my questions and suggestions. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight

Agree on the blockquote. Gwen Gale 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORTHEPEOPLE

Yeah, I actually added that today--thanks for the edit. That sort of mindset had been bugging me the past few weeks (and other people, from comments I saw) but there was no 'thing' for it till today. thanks for the copy edit--I try to write too fast I think... - Denny 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to your note

just a note that I left a note on my talk page in response to your note on my talk page ;-> -- Kavri 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information

upon using these false credentials in "content disputes"^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=115468890&oldid=115461506 When you get a chance, please add this information back to the article. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Additional academic resource: http://www.cornellsun.com/node/22155 Risker 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactfully tacking, sailship tactics, and a most taxing exercise in English.

The other option that sprang to mind was that it could be related to the word tactics, but upon checking my word derivations, that's from Greek and means "to raise an army". A funny coincidence, given that the two both can refer to skillful management of a situation. So long as it's not changing tax. --tjstrf talk 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

The edit summary was disingenuous because it made it appear as if it was just to correct the phrase "External Links", when in reality the links were being deleted altogether. Quatloo 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread it, is all. Gwen Gale 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

WP:MFD. I'm gonna tag it in a couple minutes, to get it out of the way before it gets dumb. - Denny 06:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the correct link to the New York article. Check my edit. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check my edit. It is in my edit that was reverted. The correct link to the New York Times is in the slightly expanded article that I also well organized. I did a great job of moving the wikiboxes where they were originally. Drive-by editors did a poor job of modifying the boxes. If the pictures have BLP concerns then they should be nominated for deletion and have a full discussion there. If they survive the nomination for deletion then do not have BLP concerns. Question. Do you think I am being disruptive by organizing the article and better detail. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview my edit and be my voice on the talk. Click on my edit and remove what you believe was not necessary and keep at least the organized article, the missing letter, the corrected link, and the proper wiki boxes. At the moment the wiki boxes looks funny. The see also section looks funny with the boxes there. Please let me know what you think about me edit. Thanks. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The corrected link is in the article. The other link I will find and add if I find it and after you edit and clean up my last edit. The letter and a few other things were done that was an improvement for the article. I will wait for your clean up edit first. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush. I will wait for you to clean up my edit first. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

Thank you for your comment on my talk page! I did find the articles you submitted extremely useful. Continually, I always remain neutral, but sometimes people discourage my edits. I comprehend why someone might not believe me, especially when SeaWorld has not officially announced the calf's name nor gender. Although, I never had a problem before, especially when I announced other important information concerning the Orcas. As I previous posted on the opposing side's user talk page, "Furthermore, the sex of the calf is not a secret because anyone with knowledge of an Orca can determine the gender. The difference is quite pronounced! Male Orcas have an elongated white pattern stretching towards the tail in the genital region. While the female Orcas' white patterns are much more rounded with mammary slits visible. Hence, I am capable of posting any common information on websites, such as Wikipedia." I assume the average person is unaware of the definitive way to determine an Orca's gender. This is why I decided to leave the information as undetermined! Continually, I do not have the time nor energy to discuss minor details, especially when people are unwilling to listen to the evidence! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SWF Senior Trainer (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the rapid response! I comprehend everything and I never assumed visual evidence would be considered "Original Research." As a scientist, visual evidence stands as factual. I guess that is not the case with written articles. Anyway, thank you for all of your help, corporation, time, and understanding. SWF Senior Trainer 04:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could I ask you a favor

I've (with Gwen Gale!) done a lot of work on the article RegisterFly. You have a pretty good objective eye... would you mind going over it? The article has become much, much more stable and I think it actually has GA/possible FA legs eventually. I'd love to get more eyes on it. I put it up for Peer & Good Article review just now also. - Denny 08:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interesting doesn't quite cover it... each time it seems like the past 48-72 hours I go afk and then peek at my watchlist and theres some silly hooha going on. I'm just surprised my idea for the Watchlist notice was so well accepted...! I was expecting talk, not half the people to go, "ok!" and thanks for the RegisterFly assist! :) - Denny 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Ha, maybe a little on the heritage, I requested protection from anons, that will stop false and useless information thankfully for a week or two, cheers, keep up the work :) Artaxiad 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay meta-editor/troll continuum

Well, I don't think you're a troll. I was over-generalizing of course, but it struck me how many of the editors on Essjay controversy I recognized from pages like WP:AN/I rather than the encyclopedia proper. --tjstrf talk 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now watch him revert me... --tjstrf talk 06:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what do you know! He already has! Some people just don't catch subtle hints... --tjstrf talk 06:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*beats head on wall* I know it sounds mean, but I really hope he ends up blocked. We've tried being nice, pointing him to policies, being blunt, and in Scott's case even cursing at him... all that's reasonably left as far as dispute resolution goes are the bureaucratic hells of RfC and ArbCom. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The smilie is a part of his damned sig. The constant little smirking face at the end of his diatribes has done as much to annoy me in several cases as the diatribes themselves have. I can think of worse things to do with your signature, but not too many... --tjstrf talk 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I would have left it at your edit if I had known you had made one. I was in the middle of reverting Abercrombie, got edit conflicted by Quackguru, and when I resubmitted my edit you had already made yours so I didn't see it. And yes, it's a real shame about Gwen. Even more so when you realize that the edit war in question was over whether or not to have the phrase "wearing brown leather jackets"[2] in the article. --tjstrf talk 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Overreaction on Azatoth's part in my opinion. Also sends a bit of a double message, as we now have, due to actions by two admins, a dispute that can't be discussed on penalty of block for disruption. --tjstrf talk 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys might be curious in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#However_whatever. I suspect Blue Tie is them. - Denny 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for clearly stating my position better than I could myself on the Essay controversy page. I think we have a can't see the wood for the trees situation due to the length of this dispute. David D. (Talk) 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD of Essjay forks

Yes, by all means please do nominate them. We do not need to leave googleable forks of articles sitting about in userspace. (In fact, most of them deal with Essjay the person rather than the related controversy, and as such are on a subject we agreed at AfD not to have an article about.) --tjstrf talk 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a mass-nomination, all you have to do is edit the mfd1 template by adding |Thegroupnom'sname to it and then making that subpage. So you want something like {{mfd1|Essjay userspace forks}} --tjstrf talk 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I miss this (short on time the next two weeks) please hit me on my talk page to let me know when the MfD goes up. - Denny 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay sandbox

The content of that sandbox is not really going to be needed as I thought it might. I was just going to reuse the subspace for some other material but if you want the History gone too then that's fine. I've tagged it for Speedy G7. NeoFreak 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Until that day then :) NeoFreak 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments re: banned user Light current

Thanks for you comments, though I will not be deviating from established policy based on your brief interpretation of an extremely longstanding issue. I refer you to WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, and invite you to review Light current's extensive and disruptive history of agitative editing involving the editors in dispute on David' D's talk page. The whole point of banning LC was to stop his exhaustive baiting on talk pages, implicitly tolerating a continuation of this would be hugely counterproductive in that it will simply encourage more of such behaviour. If you find reverting a banned user's comments to be "annoying" then I suggest you unwatch the page until he gets tired and moves on. I'll be happy to drop you a note when that happens. Of course, if you would like to make yourself familiar with LC's modus operandi and his innumerable socks and IPs, then have a suggestion about how to stop his disruptive editing for good, then that would be most welcome. Rockpocket 06:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I understand where you are coming from, but I think you fail to appreciate how this played out. LC's ban was not for editing articles - where he was actually a pretty useful contributor - but for talk page goading. I'm perfectly aware of LC's extensive contributions to the project while banned, but I let them slide as I have no interest in "chasing a banned user around" when they are not unduly problematic. However, once LC self identified and began to get involved in a talkpage discussion with people involved in the reason he was banned in the first place, it was my decision as a "well-informed admin" to revert, block and ignore until he got bored and went back to his anonymous editing. This is because, being familiar with LC's MO, you give him a talk-page inch and he will see that as an opportunity to take a mile. Then the problems will start all over again. Once I reverted his first comment, he then created a number of socks and went on a vandalism spree. I blocked those, so he returned from a number of different IPs and continued the vandalism. I continued to WP:RBI, at which point Gwernol bizarrely decided to counsel me on edit-warring (though, I note, did not see fit to warn LC's IP's for the same thing).

LC did continue to edit to irritate me, but that is what he is about - irritating admins until he gets to a point where he can claim admin abuse. I could have reported this to AIV, but what would the point have been, so another admin can waste their time doing what I did? Its not that much effort for me to rollback and block his IPs, and he will eventually get bored when he realises that no-one is engaging with him. LC feeds off attention (which is why he self-identified the moment his name was mentioned on David D'c talkpage). The only way to combat his disruption is to revert, block and most of all - ignore. This discussion is an example of exactly the sort of thing he hopes to achieve and thus is troll food to him. Therefore, while I note your concerns, I'll respectfully decline to continue to debate LC, and will continue to revert and block whenever he tries to subvert his ban. If you feel this is inappropriate feel free to open a WP:RfC, or you can ask another admin for oversight. I'll be happy to co-operate. Rockpocket 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where we do agree...

You wrote: Almost every fact about Essjay is negative. -- That part is certainly true, although I tend to think this is more Essjay's fault than the fault of anyone trying trying to write about it. Trust me on this one: "Facts" have a hard time being negative or positive -- they're just facts. It's how we interpret them which gives them "meaning." And if, in writing about this scandal, "almost every fact about Essjay is negative," this suggests to me that perhaps the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Essjay.

Also: "Bueller, Bueller..." is a reference to a (moderately) famous scene from the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in which the nasal Ben Stein attempts to draw any kind of response from a bored (to the point of sleeping) high school class. His repeated attempts to get a response are met with silence... not unlike the silence of those who were unable to identify anything other that one misidentification in an article allegedly riddled with errors. It's not "impossible to tell" what those errors are if there aren't any, but that's a nice rhetorical way to avoid actually having to point out any real factual problems, and instead, rely, Colbert-like, on a gut feeling. (Do you share Steven Colbert's distrust of facts?)

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think...

That User:C.m.jones is being treated fairly? You know, what with his being banned for trying to follow your suggestion? There's, objectively, a feeding frenzy going on right now, and why? Because he dares to think differently about the Essjay situation? Because even as an essay in his userspace, this topic is apparently too radioactive to be rationally discussed? It's just wrong... Bad policy, bad behavior, and a perfect example of the worst parts of Wikipedia "process." Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that C.m.jones has more or less dug his own grave here. Instead of making at least an attempt to address the criticisms of his version, he responded with ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. It's been my experience that admins keep a pretty close eye on people who (a) post on AN/I complaining about other users and (b) have a great deal of personal investment in deleted content. C.m.jones isn't the first to try to restore deleted content using a different title; I understand this is something that admins watch for, particularly after contentious XfDs. Risker 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARisker%2Fsandbox2&diff=120822329&oldid=120822101

Why do you think you can have this sandbox to work on the article and I should not have a sandbox. Correct me if I am wrong. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, those are (published) excerpts from the Essjay controversy talk archives. I made up the sandbox for the purpose of responding to a question in the MfD. As there is still a possibility that C.m.jones or someone else might choose to take the deletion decision to WP:DR, I had not deleted the sandbox. However, since you have asked so very charmingly, I will request that it be deleted, and have blanked the page in the interim. Have a lovely day. Risker 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. However, I would like to know specifically, why do believe you can have a fork of an article (a sandbox) and others can't. Correct me if I am wrong. Or do believe I can have a sandbox. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article.Risker 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain better:

Thank you for your responses. However, I would like to know specifically, why do believe you can have a fork of an article (a sandbox) and others can't. Correct me if I am wrong. Or do you believe I can have a sandbox. Under what type circumstance would you accept me having a sandbox. Just as you have sandboxes, I would like one sandbox myself. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) This above is more details for you to answer the question better. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the same words as you used above -- exactly how do you think that will help me to understand your question better?

I will be gracious enough to try to give you an example here. In another article I was editing, I found that there had been some unreverted vandalism that had removed several paragraphs of content; this occurred some time before, and in the interim other editors had added content to the article. If I simply reverted to the pre-vandalism version, those later additions to content would have been lost. So I copied those additions (and their references) over to a sandbox, and reverted the article to its pre-vandalism version. Then I took the additional content and reinserted it into the article, crediting the original editors. The process took a few hours. I hope you will find this example helpful to you. Risker 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully undrstand. Other editors have sandboxes for the sole purpose of improving articles. Why do you nominate other sandboxes while you continue to have your own forks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Risker/sandbox&diff=next&oldid=114231154 Do you think your fork is necessary and other editors should not have a sandbox. This is puzzling to me. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer going to tolerate this silliness, Quack. If you have a problem with me, take it to RfC. Of course, if you do that, they will review your behaviour as well. If you want to get a better understanding of the use of user sandboxes, I suggest you try someplace like Editor Assistance, where you can get this information from someone who isn't in any way associated with me. You obviously don't trust anything that I say to you. Risker 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

[3]
[4]
[5]
After Ned Scott had been advised his behaviour is "grossly inappropriate" and to "stop," you have made a comment to encourage him on be stating: "You're my hero." Risker 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Please explain your actions. Correct me if I misunderstood your behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your edit summary said, is it time to create a distraction? Further, your wrote, I see C.m.jones has reappeared. That reminds me of my last edit on this page [6]. I've never sent anything to MfD, and was sort of biding my time on this to use it when necessary, but perhaps it is time? Risker 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is considered disruptive behaviour to use the MFD to "create a distraction." If you continue with this kind of behaviour you may blocked from editing. Thanx. :( - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said already, if you have a problem Quack, take it to RfC. I will not be responding to any further comments you leave on my talk page. Risker 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gere

Hello, I have been waiting for you to get back to me on the Richard Gere talk page. Algabal 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

It strikes me that it is you who is pushing the agenda. This page has been repeatedly protected because of undiscussed, nonconsensus changes in descriptions of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The discussion of their respective roles in Wikipedia's origins is appropriately taking place on each of their articles. The current version is accurate, and there is no way that everyone is going to be perfectly satisfied with any version. Consensus often means that nobody gets exactly what they want. Risker 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you are absolutely correct that I'm pushing my agenda here. Why is so important that Wales and Sangers co-founding wikipedia be bastardized with revisionism? Thanks --Tom 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed to the compromise before as 'a' founder. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=114872942

Do you agree with your compromised position or have you reversed your position. What is the difference to you in stating a founder versus co-founder. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you are a bit confusd about what consensus is. People keep proposing different positions until one is reached that everyone can more or less live with. I can live with "a" founder, but I can also live with several other options - I don't care what it says as as long as it gives an accurate reflection of the CURRENT positions of Wales and Sanger, and the silly and pointless edit war over an issue that is essentially inconsequential to this particular article comes to an end. Risker 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you infuring we can disregard multiple and verifiable references and go by consensus if consensus makes a mistake. Consider this. What if consensus is against the reliable references? I suggest you read a variety of references on this matter. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, take this to the talk page of the article. I have responded to this question there. The sources contradict each other. Risker 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you haven't seen it yet, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru --Leflyman^Talk 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Post by QuackGuru was moved to the Essjay controversy talk page and responded to there)

Archive April 12-October 12, 2007

Your question on RfAr

I'm not saw if you saw this in response to your question on the requests for arbitration page. In addition to the Meta page cited by Fred Bauder, see also, for example, Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Usernames#Real names versus pseudonyms. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kind thoughts of me with regard to a new editor with a similar screen name, and the unexpected and thoughtful comments about me you made at the Request for Comment on that editor's user name. Smee 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful actions and kind comments. Though I do not object to the editor's choice of user name, your actions and comments about me are most appreciated. Feel free to retain the barnstar here on your talk page or post to your user page as you see fit, except this last bit itself of course. Smee 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Kristen Henderson

I noticed you removed the myspace link from the article. I was just curious why. I included because the band has been making a lot of announcements via their myspace pages. kc12286 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)kc12286[reply]

Richard Gere Gerbil

Please pay attention to what the majority of users say on the RFC for this issue. The verifiability of the urban legend is not the issue. The rumor exists and is well-sourced and will remain included until you show it should definitely not be included. Sparkzilla 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the re-writing of the list of reasons for inclusion/non-inclusion - thanks for understanding it was a good faith edit. Sparkzilla 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA discussion

Thanks for crawling through the history. I'm a bit ashamed that I didn't go look at what existed before the edit war to base a solution on ... especially when I was involved with the last major rewrite to the point of authoring it. I've suggested a little tweaking of the wording, mostly for semantics, but also as a nod to the "some sites are problematic" side of the argument. I don't think this approach will run afoul of your very understandable concerns about site-based targeting. Let me know what you think, and thanks again! Serpent's Choice 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[7][reply]

Please stop Censoring and Whitespacing Talk Pages if you do not approve of the content=

Also you accused me of making comments about Richard Gere. I have never been to his page and have no desire to go. PLEASE do not accuse me of this! I encourage you to examine his history page and prove where Cr8tiv has EVER contributed to that article.

Your fear of including the medical/legal term Fellatio to Hugh Grant's article is not based on the reality that a quick Google search of '"Hugh Grant"..."Oral Sex"' will result in over 21,400 hits! Clearly this is not my personal bias that such act of FeLLatio for hire is a proven fact in Police Reports. Please stop defending this handsome Englishman who got his hand caught in the "Nookie Jar" or "Nookie Jaw".

Wikipedia is not an Elitist playground of self appointed "Page Nazis" who refuse to record "The GOOD, The BAD and The FELLATIO." Cr8tiv May 8 2007 11:16

List of Rugby League incidents

Hi Risker,

I noticed you have placed a tag on the List of Rugby league incidents page, proposing its deletion. The tag says the incidents are "non-notable". The misdemeanors of the League players often attract more media and news attention than the game itself. The incidents listed are not libelous. They are taken from articles in major newspapers. It is extremely extensively referenced. You will find more references for this page than just about any article on Wikipedia. The massive number of references shows the intense media interest in the subject (how can it be non-notable when there's so much media attention?).

I think the issue is that some Rugby League fans get very upset by the existence of a list showing bad things their heroes have done. The incidents threaten their game, as sponsors withdraw after each incident occurs. But that should not be a reason to censor it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a fan page. It should show both sides of any subject.

The List of Rugby League incidents is the only concise list of all the League incidents that have received news media attention. It is the only place to see them in one place Lester2 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that this article was just deleted with little discussion. Weeks of work gone in a puff of smoke. It was not throwing dirt on players. It was listing what the Australian media was reporting. Some sports (eg Tennis) don't have these incidents, so they cannot be reported. Wikipedia's coverage of rugby league is now nothing but a fan site. A sanitized version of events, with zero difference from the sporting clubs' own fan pages. Previously, administrators had asked for this article to be referenced (which is what took most of the work). When the weeks of work was complete, it got deleted. Lester2 23:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the comment that this will be now taken to "full AfD". I don't think this is a good idea. If the list gets deleted, then it shows the bias of the other NRL related pages. I would propose that the other existing NRL pages be reduced from their current state, because they are full of scores (too many, and non-encyclopaedic), minor players (non-notable and therefore must be deleted) and endless sentences which contain uncited opinion. I would also propose that the comments from prominent womens' groups against particular players and clubs be incorporated into the club pages, as this information can all be cited (unlike most of the existing comments). I think a better idea is to leave the list as it is, in point form, on its own page. Deutsche Frauen Feministen 212.202.176.51 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rugby league incidents

I just want to let you know that I restored the article List of Rugby league incidents which you had prodded and I deleted because someone objected to the deletion on my talk page. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

We insist you assume good faith and stop making a borderline personal attack or assumptions.[8] Thanks. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

I was speaking about the discussion I read here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ (In May, I think). I call it a mailing list...maybe that's not technically what it is, I don't know. I thought I saw you there making some good points in the conversation. I don't know what you got from it, but I learned a lot from the discussion there. daveh4h 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

If I ever ran my first act as admin would be to block everyone who participated in my RFA for at least a week or two, depending on how much wiki-chaos their voting rationales would have caused for the project. I am a strong supporter of the preemptive block in situations where you can't be sure of the good faith of the editors you are interacting with. Best,—AL ^FOCUS! 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm backing off on the subject. Still, he was the one coming in with the bad faith, not me. Besides, there is a bunch of on-topic WP commentary on that blog, some of it referencing admins, though i don't believe it qualifies as an "outing" site per se.—AL ^FOCUS! 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's bull. I was involved in a civil exchange with LessHeard and you came in with your gratuitous attack. As for "backing off," you just posted on my talk page feigning ignorance. [9]--Mantanmoreland 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mantanmoreland, for what it is worth, I sincerely apologize for offending you. I don't intend to post further on the topic unless you want to make a federal case out of it.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Risker, do you have any third-party references to use this suggestion you have made?[10] Thanx for your help. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

I am done for now. I think that we are both interested in making the article OR-free.--75.36.170.208 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, one thing: If the OR has a link that does not support the assertion make, then please see if the linked-to page has anything unique to offer before deleting it. By that I mean, try to replace text with a relevant assertion in favor of just deleting. Also, you might want to look at what wikipedia-watch.org has to say about the Essjay controversy because Brandt is obviously a careful investigator and documenter.--75.36.170.208 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article is about the controversy, but don't you know that Essjay REDIRECTS to that page!? Furthermore, you can't expect newcomers to see his photo in the talk page. And the photo doesn't appear in his userpage nor his talk page. Since Essjay redirects there, then it is as seem that the article is also about him as well! There must be somewhere that newcomers can see his photo. You can't even expect them to go and see the photo in the Chinese article. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James Blunt

I'm sorry I didn't take the time to integrate the awards elsewhere in the paragraph; my reasoning was that someone else would add the appropriate material to the lead in an NPOV way sooner or later. But I'll keep your comment in mind when doing similar edits to other articles. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiker's Guide cultural references AfD

As per your request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references (2nd nomination), I have userfied the page to your userspace rather than deleting it. It can be found at User:Risker/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references; you can work on the article at your convenience, and move it back to the mainspace when you feel it's sufficiently developed. Walton^One 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1973 (song)

I have started and have been editing the page for James Blunt's song, 1973, and it seems you have been removing some content that I added. I am trying to give the single as much promotion as I possibly can, while informing other fans who are eagerly awaiting his new album, the b-side, and the 1973 video. I thought the promotional cover was neccesary if someone wanted to search for various James Blunt single covers, or just to inform others.

As for the behind the scenes photo of the 1973 video, it was taken by Frank Micelotta at Getty Images and was aquired by me from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20046330,00.html . I think this photo would be a great addition to this page until screencaps from the video have surfaced.

Thank you. :)

re "Thanks for the laugh"!

Thems the rules that be presiding! ;~) LessHeard vanU 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt discography

Thanks! I actually hope to take it to FLC soon once I'm done with the Natasha Bedingfield discography. -- Underneath-it-All 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect

I have sprotected Body Nullification for you - if you need your userpage sprotected as well, just let me know. - Philippe | Talk 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This revert

I think his contributions speak for themselves. --MichaelLinnear 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sprotect

I have sprotected your userpage and talk page. Thanks for reverting the... graphic... vandalism to my userpage. Someone's imagination is a little too active for their own good. Protection will expire on your userpage in two weeks - if you still need it at that point, let me know. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal/stalker

Oh, that's the common thread. Thanks--I didn't see it until you pointed it out. Yes, the IPs are Verizon from Lynchburg, VA. This kind of thing happens surprisingly often; the best way is just to keep an eye on the articles, revert and block and ignore. They typically get bored and go away after a while if people stay disengaged. Let me know if he bothers you again. Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

With the exception of the presence of certain editors, whose every edit to the article is contentious, edit warring, or just stupid, the article is fine. It's comprehensive, well-referenced, and well written. You may not think it's the best, but go compare it to the articles on Random article. :) The article probably won't pass this time around, but we can certainly try to improve it enough so that we can get it up there some day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let them war, it doesn't matter whether the picture is there or not. We can go improve the article where it actually needs it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congrats

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt

Risker,

I've edited the tracklisting on All The Lost Souls as the DVD does NOT contain 5.1 audio as stated (and as advertised by many retailers). The disc only contains PCM 2.0 audio - not even Dolby Digital.

Regards, J. (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Beautiful

You removed a see also link to "Shiny Happy People" I added to "You're Beautiful", claiming that their was no connection. The connection is that both songs have not only been sung on Sesame Street, but by their respective artists, and with lyrics altered especially for said performance. —MJBurrage • TALK • 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the gerbilling pic???

What happened to the gerbilling pic, it was a great pic?75.118.140.159 07:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Berry

It's easier to destroy than to create; to criticise than to improve. Whether you create or improve the article is your prerogative, but the easy way (deleting content) isn't necessarily the best way. The source for the statement you deleted is actually an AP story, a copy of which was posted on the blogsite the URL points to; The source was not the blog itself. The AP is still notable, but, in case they aren't reliable enough, there's also the Detroit Free Press, which covered the story in at least two articles, and the photo of Gourlay, post-beating, from the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, which I'd be happy to send you, but don't want to post, as it could make Gourlay look sympathetic. When it comes to sourcing, I try to stick to free sites whenever possible, but feel free to spend the $1.50 to read the same article from a different website. Don't assume that a blogspot URL means that the source is a blog post; Click the link & see. I hope this alleviates your concern, but please let me know if you need additional information. --Ssbohio (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's deletion

Think it out -- 700 revisions deleted such that no ordinary editor could even look at them. Is it reasonable to believe that all 700 contained such BLP issues as to require history deletion? If they did, wouldn't Phil be willing to cite facts to support his decision? If they did, would the first deletion have been reverted by another admin and the second deletion almost reversed by yet another admin? If the deletion were completely above board, why the secrecy? The policy doesn't require history deletion except in extreme cases. The article used to be triple the size it is now and it used to explain the entire story much more neutrally than it does now.

I'm not asking you to take my word for any of this. I'm just asking you to look at the facts and come to your own conclusion. Don't take Phil's word for it either. I've been pressing him for the facts since September, all with no result. I'm afraid to take it through the process because he has so much more experience with that sort of thing than I do. I'm a big believer that talking through a problem is the best way to resolve it. Unfortunately, Phil is as prone to tell me to "sod off" as he is to respond civilly. I don't know what to do anymore. --SSB ohio 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs

You spoke very well here [11] today. Never though call yourself "a little editor". We are all in this together to coin a phrase "size (of edits) does not matter" it is quality of contribution that counts and you contribute very well indeed. Giano (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thank you, Risker. (Hey wait, are you a sock of a banned editor cleverly duping us all?!) I thought it right to foreground your comment because it clearly got to the meta issue involved, in a personal way. I hope the "Chilling effect" point of principle is adopted; you might go over and support it. In fact, there might be a guideline worth developing with the idea.

I avoid ARB cases as much as possible, but this conflagration made me pause. ~~Durova, to be perfectly honest, sounds like a spokesperson for the Stasi:~~ "I will tell you what you need to know when I decide you need to know it." No, thank you. I might accept that from Jimbo, but even then, not uncritically. This strikes me as a case where it's worth denouncing the example because of the larger principle. Marskell (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:CIV, I strike my not particularly clever analogy. Marskell (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Very well said. I addressed that in my evidence.

[[12]]
[[13]]

Hope that speaks to your concerns? Durova^Charge! 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Thank you for your questions. I have however decided to withdraw my nomination as I do not think I am ready. Thank you however for taking the time to ask me a questions. Regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Name

Marching band now playing. ;) Lsi john (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the images! I only hope the purple of the marching band doesn't cause the eyeball to start throbbing. And here I logged in tonight, all set to start my first article. Well, there is always tomorrow. The important thing is that we all come back tomorrow and add what we can to the encyclopedia, as a collaborative effort. You know now that the next time I want to know something about images I will be pestering you, right? Risker (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Actually pictures aren't that difficult.. go 'edit' his page in that section and look. Or just go to any article and look how they have the picture there and copy it. ;) Peace. Lsi john (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Can't access my Yahoo e-mail at work. I'll reply--either through e-mail or at this thread--when I get home. Mr Which ^??? 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your exceptional (and much needed) explanation of the Giano/!!/Durova issue to me. It's cast things in a new light. Thankyou. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's vote-talk page

I'll use the "hidden" template; someone can revert if needs be. I'm hesitant to actually move it to an archive, mainly because the election is still ongoing. But the show-hide tag should work, I'd think. Good call. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, my pleasure. I haven't voted on Giano's page specifically so someone can still deal with stuff like this. Yay me. Have a look and let me know if that version works. I think I got the parameters right. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it looks OK to you, too. Crisis averted. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template: James Blunt

It has been added. Wikipedian 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vindication!

I have reported the error per the edit summary/warning instructions; don't worry. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HaHa, I have a name, if only a number ;D! 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because ME related articels can easily become hotbeds of partizanry and rioting. Anyway, the revert was appreciated. I just have to deal with a real person now, but that I can easily do. Thanx again, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken.

I hope I did not come across as strident. I was simply responding to someone who basically accused him of being a liar to the core. He has many faults ("FrankenGiano" being one), but being a liar is not one of them. Anyways, like I said, I hope my comments did not come across as strident. Mr Which ^??? 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ORLY

I've left a note on his talk page apologizing and explaining my thoughts. Cheers, L A X 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Done. T (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Elections - Votes

Not a problem at all. It is sensitive, particularly given how strongly people feel about the candidates - for and against. The suffrage issue is sufficient to indent, but I'm keeping an eye on RFCU blocks and bans, in case additional votes need to be indented for sock violations. Thanks again for helping out. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom - Giano

Thanks for notifying me about the change- but while I do agree Jimbo's treatment of Giano is a tad presumptuous, I still don't think Giano has changed enough to merit my support. I think I'll stick to the oppose (if I could find my original vote, I'd refactor, but my browser would crash on the page. :P ) David Fuchs^(talk) 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got a giggle

How long until someone reports my "archiving" as disruption at AN/I, do you think? Mr Which ??? 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, don't tempt fate!!! And any way, it's a WP:POINT violation. To be honest, I think JzG has just lost sight of the big picture, and none of his many supporters and supposed friends are willing to sit him down and talk honestly with him. If he could stay off AN/I for a month and do something completely different (CSD, with some major article rewrites and plenty of Real Life on the side, or something like that), he could perhaps regain perspective. Historically, what tends to happen is that people who were once decent admins become too narrowly focused, their ability to support the project is crippled, and eventually enough people get ticked off with them to file an RFC or RfAR. Instead of either leaving with one's head up, or just getting away from it all for a while and coming back with better perspective, the admin involved winds up feeling devalued, bitter and unwanted. From that point, rehabilitation is essentially impossible. And that really is a pity. Risker (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to my page, do you really think so? I'm certainly making a point, but I don't think I'm disrupting the project to make a point. You feel differently?

As for JzG, I would probably agree. We communicated a bit over e-mail during the Durova Affair, and he seemed a decent chap, but he does seem to have "lost the plot" a bit. I've tried, in my dealings with him, to never come across as too strident, while staying firm that I think he's not using the tools properly. I may have failed in my attempts to do so, but I think I've at least tried my best, his friends' characterizations of my efforts notwithstanding. Mr Which ??? 04:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, your page is fine - certainly not disruptive; I was only kidding about the WP:POINT stuff. I agree about JzG being an inherently decent fellow. He just needs to get away from this place for a good solid stretch - it's perfectly normal, if I spent as many hours on WP as some of the folks around here do, I'm sure I'd implode too. --Risker (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read his essay on the Durova thing? It was after reading that, that I realized he had become very frustrated, which explains a lot, but doesn't justify it. You should take a look if you get a chance. Mr Which ??? 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Guy is a decent fellow. I was mortified at the stances he took at the Durova affair, because he is intelligent, fair, and thoughtful, and I could only assume that the horrors of trying to negotiate the BADSITES stuff had pushed him into a position that wasn't comfortable for him. Perhaps I'm one of the soft peace protesters at home being protected by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men (a speech that was supposed to be satirical), but anyone who allows fear of the villain to turn him into a villain has succumbed to the dark side. "Even hatred of debasement can make your features coarse," as Brecht wrote. Geogre (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

for your support. Have a good night! --SSB ohio 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Actually, the "working draft" I posted isn't even a complete "first draft." Primavera's notability is as an author of numerous well-received children's books. Do you see a problem establishing notability for a rather prolific author/illustrator like her? And good luck on your re-write. If you'd like some help, post a link for me, and I'll work with you on it. Mr Which ??? 03:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually more of a fan of the short lede myself. Make it short, sweet, to the point, and get on with writing the "guts" of the article. I have some ideas of how I might expand the lede a bit, but I probably won't be doing too much to it. The meat of my expansion (and it will be a significant expansion) will come in the body of the article. Can't wait to see your ideas on improving blunt. Mr Which ??? 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babbo Natale (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry?

I may need some effin' JD. This shit pisses me off to no end. I'm trying to finish a damn article (the Primavera one), and I let this crap get in the way? What the hell is Sandifer thinking?!? As for the Arbcom, don't be surprised if Bauder and UC exact their revenge on Giano. He may actually get indeffed or something equally stupid over this. Mr Which ??? 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your note, and replied. It'll be hard to do, but I think I'll leave the angry mastodons to their dance as well. On a much lighter (and more fun) subject, how's the Blunt stuff coming along? I've been tweaking what I currently have on Primavera, but I'm hoping to significantly lengthen it tomorrow or the next day. Mr Which ??? 06:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. I'm interested in Blunt only from a human interest angle (particularly the soldier bit), though, as his music isn't my cup of tea. I'd be happy to give it a copy edit if you want another set of eyes after you finish. As for my Primavera article, I could use some serious help on formatting the refs properly, if you're skilled at that. I'm certainly not. Mr Which ??? 06:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have one book, one newspaper article (NYT Book Review), one interview, and (I think) 4 or 5 websites. I'm going to do a Google News Archive search tomorrow to try to back up some of my material more, and use my current sources to greatly expand the article. Any help you can offer on the formatting the refs would be greatly appreciated, as it's my biggest weakness. Mr Which ??? 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of pots and kettles. Mr Which ??? 17:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice Gordon's flip comment in his acceptance of the case? My only hope for this case is that NewYorkBrad will be able to be a reasonable voice to prevent people from damaging the project by making the case about Giano, and not the larger issues he raises. I made a statement regarding the case. I just couldn't help myself. Tony's (and others') statements about "faked logs" needed to be questioned. And the name of the case is simply abhorrent as well. The case is about so much more than "Giano II" as the case name implies. Mr Which ??? 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My work on the new article is at a stand-still. Check your email, as I just sent you a bit of an explanatory note regarding my participation in the project going forward. Mr Which ??? 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last post here. I've scrambled my password, and when I logout, it's over. You have my e-mail address. I'll be in touch. Mr Which ??? 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell, MrWhich. Perhaps our paths will cross again someday. I should probably give consideration to figuring out how to scramble my password, but to be honest I am probably far too boring to actually work up the nerve to do so; one day I will just not log on. Risker (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the private and the corporeal

You know, it's such a minefield to get into that I wonder why we bother. There are people who would have a lot of trouble being objective who are editing or poised to object. Suppose that a user had been arbitrated before for saying nasty things in IRC or conspiring to block and that there had been a finding of fact against that. Suppose another user had been blocked by anonymous IRC talk in the past and had his reputation damaged forever by it. Imagine those two users, plus all who agreed with them, looking at the page. I'm afraid that this is what we've got. I'm trying to be purely rational about it. I am more of a transparency extremist than most, I guess, but the fact is that I'm presumed guilty of being part of a party.

This is why I went on strike: personalities. I do wish people would just get over themselves. They act as if they have their own personal joy and prestige involved in some "win" or license on Wikipedia, and so they fight for themselves and their personae instead of for what would be the right thing if they themselves were not present. I.e. I try to look at policies as if I were never going to edit Wikipedia, as if I were just a guy who needed to read it. How would I want things to be done, if I were a user rather than writer? How would I want them to be if I were an IP editor correcting a single detail on Tietze's syndrome?

Don't get me wrong: I like it when people listen to me, and I enjoy compliments and stuff, but, honestly, this isn't Second Life or Friendster, and I don't want it to be. Geogre (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC stuff

I noticed your note on Mackensen's talk page. The following might be of interest:

That's not the pre-October 2006 case you were after. Hopefully Mackensen will be able to answer that. Apologies if you knew about these pages already. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC channels and recusal

If I recall correctly, most of the current sitting arbcom were made chanops on #wikipedia-en-admins after (either the last time this blew up or the time before that; I can't recall without review). If I recall correctly, I was probably added to the list. I have never to my recollection actually performed any chanop functions on that channel.

I log into IRC perhaps once or twice a month for a short period, normally when looking for a particular editor who I'd like to converse with in real time to discuss an issue (sometimes arbcom-related, sometimes admin-related, sometimes over something entirely unconnected). This may include visiting #wikipedia-en-admins. I am not a frequent participant in that channel or any others; I frankly don't have the time.

After considering your request on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that arbitrators who are chanops should recuse, I am going to respectfully decline. There has been an increasing tendency for people to call for any arbitrator who happens to have been anywhere near the events brought up in a case to recuse. This has not historically been the standard for recusal and I do not support its extension in this manner. I will recuse if I am previously involved in the narrow matter of the case before us, if I do not believe I can be fair, or when there is a clear reason why my neutrality might reasonably be questioned.

I don't think that mere proximity to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel is sufficient conflict of interest to render me impossibly prejudiced. If you believe otherwise, please discuss it with me; I am open to reasoned argument.

As far as this case goes, it appears that multiple parties have behaved in a questionable manner. If accepted, I will consider fairly all parties and all reasonable contributing factors to the dispute. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have told you this was coming, Risker. I could have told you. That's all I'll say. Mr Which??? 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're implying anything by that, Mr Which (whoever you may be) - please state it bluntly. If you think I'm just accepting this case so I can speedily vote to ban Giano, please think again. The problems are much broader and deeper than that. I would support renaming the case since it's not only Giano who has behaved problematically here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing I'm "implying" is that I knew that those directly involved with IRC wouldn't recuse themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. Mr Which??? 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the clarification. I don't personally consider my degree of involvement with IRC (as detailed above) to be sufficiently prejudicial; you may, of course, disagree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Matthew, I understood entirely what MrWhich was implying - that there is a historical resistance for arbitrators to recuse unless they are absolutely and directly involved in a case. I will be adding a coda to my statement on the RFAR page later today that touches on this issue, and I apologize that it is likely to seem a bit harsh, simply because the principles I believe are at play involve so few individuals that it cannot help but appear to be somewhat personal. Please let me reassure you that my statements are not intended to disparage any particular individual. Risker (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps the arbitration committee and the community should clarify expectations here; we have generally followed similar rules to those defining when an admin is too involved in an issue to use their admin tools, probably because it was Wikipedia's only existing similar rules/unwritten code of conduct. It may be the correct behavior, or it may not. My concern is that it is quite possible to go too far in that direction, and that the current de facto rule will be replaced by one in which any arbitrator who has had any kind of interaction with any of the parties to an arbitration will be considered 'tainted', or indeed any who have expressed views previously that might seem to prefer one side of the argument over another. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would it not be better to err on the side of caution for those like you and UC (and potentially others) who are very involved in IRC? Mr Which ??? 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It would possibly if I actually were 'very involved'. My usage of the admin IRC channel is occasional at best, as described above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: WP:PRIVATE / WP:COFF split

My split has been undone already, although I'm fairly certain there's no policy against such an obvious split of a protected page. -- Kendrick7^talk —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the impression I got which is why I thought splitting was a great solution to the problem. Cut the baby in half like Old King Solomon once suggested. But whatever, I'll continue on talk. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I had thought Random had reverted me. It redirects to the original page now though. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can revert it back if you'd like. Like you, I really don't care, and it's largely "much ado" since there's nothing against paraphrasing etc. I don't do the whole off-wiki thing anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MFD

No, I just kind of did it. Regardless of my personal thoughts on which proposal should win, _all_ the proposals are part of the greater problem of people talking past each other. Part of my reason for the MFD is to get everyone (literally, at least) on the same page. —Random832 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

Nicely said Tex 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page Matthew Manning

I was watching Lar's page... the article has been restored. Details are at Lar's talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Essjay controversy revert

Go ahead and remove the red link, I didn't realize a decision had been made about him -- just did a Google search. Dookama (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive April 12-October 12, 2007

Your question on RfAr

I'm not saw if you saw this in response to your question on the requests for arbitration page. In addition to the Meta page cited by Fred Bauder, see also, for example, Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Usernames#Real names versus pseudonyms. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kind thoughts of me with regard to a new editor with a similar screen name, and the unexpected and thoughtful comments about me you made at the Request for Comment on that editor's user name. Smee 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful actions and kind comments. Though I do not object to the editor's choice of user name, your actions and comments about me are most appreciated. Feel free to retain the barnstar here on your talk page or post to your user page as you see fit, except this last bit itself of course. Smee 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Kristen Henderson

I noticed you removed the myspace link from the article. I was just curious why. I included because the band has been making a lot of announcements via their myspace pages. kc12286 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)kc12286[reply]

Richard Gere Gerbil

Please pay attention to what the majority of users say on the RFC for this issue. The verifiability of the urban legend is not the issue. The rumor exists and is well-sourced and will remain included until you show it should definitely not be included. Sparkzilla 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the re-writing of the list of reasons for inclusion/non-inclusion - thanks for understanding it was a good faith edit. Sparkzilla 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA discussion

Thanks for crawling through the history. I'm a bit ashamed that I didn't go look at what existed before the edit war to base a solution on ... especially when I was involved with the last major rewrite to the point of authoring it. I've suggested a little tweaking of the wording, mostly for semantics, but also as a nod to the "some sites are problematic" side of the argument. I don't think this approach will run afoul of your very understandable concerns about site-based targeting. Let me know what you think, and thanks again! Serpent's Choice 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[14][reply]

Please stop Censoring and Whitespacing Talk Pages if you do not approve of the content=

Also you accused me of making comments about Richard Gere. I have never been to his page and have no desire to go. PLEASE do not accuse me of this! I encourage you to examine his history page and prove where Cr8tiv has EVER contributed to that article.

Your fear of including the medical/legal term Fellatio to Hugh Grant's article is not based on the reality that a quick Google search of '"Hugh Grant"..."Oral Sex"' will result in over 21,400 hits! Clearly this is not my personal bias that such act of FeLLatio for hire is a proven fact in Police Reports. Please stop defending this handsome Englishman who got his hand caught in the "Nookie Jar" or "Nookie Jaw".

Wikipedia is not an Elitist playground of self appointed "Page Nazis" who refuse to record "The GOOD, The BAD and The FELLATIO." Cr8tiv May 8 2007 11:16

List of Rugby League incidents

Hi Risker,

I noticed you have placed a tag on the List of Rugby league incidents page, proposing its deletion. The tag says the incidents are "non-notable". The misdemeanors of the League players often attract more media and news attention than the game itself. The incidents listed are not libelous. They are taken from articles in major newspapers. It is extremely extensively referenced. You will find more references for this page than just about any article on Wikipedia. The massive number of references shows the intense media interest in the subject (how can it be non-notable when there's so much media attention?).

I think the issue is that some Rugby League fans get very upset by the existence of a list showing bad things their heroes have done. The incidents threaten their game, as sponsors withdraw after each incident occurs. But that should not be a reason to censor it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a fan page. It should show both sides of any subject.

The List of Rugby League incidents is the only concise list of all the League incidents that have received news media attention. It is the only place to see them in one place Lester2 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that this article was just deleted with little discussion. Weeks of work gone in a puff of smoke. It was not throwing dirt on players. It was listing what the Australian media was reporting. Some sports (eg Tennis) don't have these incidents, so they cannot be reported. Wikipedia's coverage of rugby league is now nothing but a fan site. A sanitized version of events, with zero difference from the sporting clubs' own fan pages. Previously, administrators had asked for this article to be referenced (which is what took most of the work). When the weeks of work was complete, it got deleted. Lester2 23:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the comment that this will be now taken to "full AfD". I don't think this is a good idea. If the list gets deleted, then it shows the bias of the other NRL related pages. I would propose that the other existing NRL pages be reduced from their current state, because they are full of scores (too many, and non-encyclopaedic), minor players (non-notable and therefore must be deleted) and endless sentences which contain uncited opinion. I would also propose that the comments from prominent womens' groups against particular players and clubs be incorporated into the club pages, as this information can all be cited (unlike most of the existing comments). I think a better idea is to leave the list as it is, in point form, on its own page. Deutsche Frauen Feministen 212.202.176.51 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rugby league incidents

I just want to let you know that I restored the article List of Rugby league incidents which you had prodded and I deleted because someone objected to the deletion on my talk page. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

We insist you assume good faith and stop making a borderline personal attack or assumptions.[15] Thanks. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

I was speaking about the discussion I read here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ (In May, I think). I call it a mailing list...maybe that's not technically what it is, I don't know. I thought I saw you there making some good points in the conversation. I don't know what you got from it, but I learned a lot from the discussion there. daveh4h 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

If I ever ran my first act as admin would be to block everyone who participated in my RFA for at least a week or two, depending on how much wiki-chaos their voting rationales would have caused for the project. I am a strong supporter of the preemptive block in situations where you can't be sure of the good faith of the editors you are interacting with. Best,—AL ^FOCUS! 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm backing off on the subject. Still, he was the one coming in with the bad faith, not me. Besides, there is a bunch of on-topic WP commentary on that blog, some of it referencing admins, though i don't believe it qualifies as an "outing" site per se.—AL ^FOCUS! 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's bull. I was involved in a civil exchange with LessHeard and you came in with your gratuitous attack. As for "backing off," you just posted on my talk page feigning ignorance. [16]--Mantanmoreland 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mantanmoreland, for what it is worth, I sincerely apologize for offending you. I don't intend to post further on the topic unless you want to make a federal case out of it.—AL ^FOCUS! 06:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Risker, do you have any third-party references to use this suggestion you have made?[17] Thanx for your help. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

I am done for now. I think that we are both interested in making the article OR-free.--75.36.170.208 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, one thing: If the OR has a link that does not support the assertion make, then please see if the linked-to page has anything unique to offer before deleting it. By that I mean, try to replace text with a relevant assertion in favor of just deleting. Also, you might want to look at what wikipedia-watch.org has to say about the Essjay controversy because Brandt is obviously a careful investigator and documenter.--75.36.170.208 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article is about the controversy, but don't you know that Essjay REDIRECTS to that page!? Furthermore, you can't expect newcomers to see his photo in the talk page. And the photo doesn't appear in his userpage nor his talk page. Since Essjay redirects there, then it is as seem that the article is also about him as well! There must be somewhere that newcomers can see his photo. You can't even expect them to go and see the photo in the Chinese article. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James Blunt

I'm sorry I didn't take the time to integrate the awards elsewhere in the paragraph; my reasoning was that someone else would add the appropriate material to the lead in an NPOV way sooner or later. But I'll keep your comment in mind when doing similar edits to other articles. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiker's Guide cultural references AfD

As per your request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references (2nd nomination), I have userfied the page to your userspace rather than deleting it. It can be found at User:Risker/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references; you can work on the article at your convenience, and move it back to the mainspace when you feel it's sufficiently developed. Walton^One 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1973 (song)

I have started and have been editing the page for James Blunt's song, 1973, and it seems you have been removing some content that I added. I am trying to give the single as much promotion as I possibly can, while informing other fans who are eagerly awaiting his new album, the b-side, and the 1973 video. I thought the promotional cover was neccesary if someone wanted to search for various James Blunt single covers, or just to inform others.

As for the behind the scenes photo of the 1973 video, it was taken by Frank Micelotta at Getty Images and was aquired by me from http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20046330,00.html . I think this photo would be a great addition to this page until screencaps from the video have surfaced.

Thank you. :)

re "Thanks for the laugh"!

Thems the rules that be presiding! ;~) LessHeard vanU 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blunt discography

Thanks! I actually hope to take it to FLC soon once I'm done with the Natasha Bedingfield discography. -- Underneath-it-All 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect

I have sprotected Body Nullification for you - if you need your userpage sprotected as well, just let me know. - Philippe | Talk 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This revert

I think his contributions speak for themselves. --MichaelLinnear 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sprotect

I have sprotected your userpage and talk page. Thanks for reverting the... graphic... vandalism to my userpage. Someone's imagination is a little too active for their own good. Protection will expire on your userpage in two weeks - if you still need it at that point, let me know. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal/stalker

Oh, that's the common thread. Thanks--I didn't see it until you pointed it out. Yes, the IPs are Verizon from Lynchburg, VA. This kind of thing happens surprisingly often; the best way is just to keep an eye on the articles, revert and block and ignore. They typically get bored and go away after a while if people stay disengaged. Let me know if he bothers you again. Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

With the exception of the presence of certain editors, whose every edit to the article is contentious, edit warring, or just stupid, the article is fine. It's comprehensive, well-referenced, and well written. You may not think it's the best, but go compare it to the articles on Random article. :) The article probably won't pass this time around, but we can certainly try to improve it enough so that we can get it up there some day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let them war, it doesn't matter whether the picture is there or not. We can go improve the article where it actually needs it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congrats

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky. dropout: Man resigns post after controversy

[1] Wikipedia editor who posed as professor is Ky. dropout: Man resigns post after controversy

[1]

v t e James Blunt
Discography
Studio albums	Back to Bedlam (2004) All the Lost Souls (2007) Some Kind of Trouble (2010) Moon Landing (2013) The Afterlove (2017) Once Upon a Mind (2019) Who We Used to Be (2023)
Live albums	Chasing Time: The Bedlam Sessions (2006) Les Sessions Lost Souls (2008)
Compilations	The Stars Beneath My Feet (2004–2021) (2021)
Extended plays	Monkey on My Shoulder (2006)
Tours	Moon Landing World Tour The Afterlove Tour Who We Used to Be Tour Back to Bedlam 20th Anniversary Tour
Related articles	James Blunt: Return to Kosovo