User talk:Samir/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Samir (The Scope)/Talk archive

BTW

BTW, is there any chance you could wipe out my user page's history? I've becomed a bit alarmed by the number of administrators recently being stalked, called at work, etc, and I'm afraid I've been vocal about seeing some problem users banned. I just removed some personal information from the page. I'll create a backup page, User:patstuart/userpage; please move it into User:Patstuart after you delete the original. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Society of Friends of Science DYK

I live to serve :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 08:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I'll do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam ?

Being an admin one expects a little more restraint in language on your side You can disagree with my POV but to call it ridiculous is not civil. Please see Spamming to check what defines as Spam. A comment left on one other user- who has been party to a dispute being debated is NOT spam. And there is no asking for or against votes either. Haphar 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm sorry I called your argument ridiculous. Let me rephrase: your rationale is flawed in its argument to the extent that I'm not too sure you understand what's involved in sockpuppetry cases. And yes, any vote-garnering for an ArbCom election is spamming. Your choice of words on User:Anwar saadat's talk page was meant to garner votes. Here's the link: WP:SPAM#Canvassing-- Samir धर्म 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the WP:SPAM#Canvassing "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." So I do beleive you are taking a very narrow view of the Canvassing, overall this case seems well within the definition quoted above. Haphar 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better quote: "However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable". Any canvassing of ArbCom votes, particularly with such statements as: "Pls click on link and check the candidates, some of the candidates in contention might surprise you." is inappropriate. -- Samir धर्म 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first quote is better , for what is "disruptive" is the moot point that qualifies your quote.

Why is my comment inappropriate ? If my beleif is that a candidate in the list is not ok and I am telling another (who has a past history with the candidate). I am letting the person make his own decisions and though my opinion is apparent (I have not hidden it and have discussed it openly) There is no hidden agenda. I am telling a person of arbcom votings and the presence of a candidate who I feel should not be there. While knowing Anwar's history against Blnguyen, I am letting him take his own decision, and hoping it would resonate with mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haphar (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This was quite funny

“

While knowing Anwar's history against Blnguyen, I am letting him take his own decision, and hoping it would resonate with mine.

”

.

Once you strip down the sentence to the gist of the matter, both you and Anwar saadat are regarded as POV pushers and both of you hate blnguyen. Its obvious you were unmasked by samir. As for me I feel that certain users should have been blocked long ago for "resonating".Baka man 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler picture

Why do you have a picture of Hitler on your userpage? I thought I clicked the wrong link and couldn't believe that you were an ArbCom candidate when I saw that on your userpage.

Because it's a funny picture, when taken in context with the comment below it. It's hardly glorifying Hitler. Proto::► 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess I don't find Hitler funny -- Samir धर्म 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. The caption is the funny part. Proto::► 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't get the joke. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Fadia

Can you take a look at this? Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I am feeling a little better. I still have almost no appetite and I'm a little tired all the time. I saw my doctor today though, said my blood pressure is fine and the white blood cell test looked pretty good. NIRVANA2764 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Decided - No Edit on Ankit Fadia

There is nothing wrong with others. It's all wrong with Indian Wikipedia Administrators who have been given rights to modify contents for well purpose of wikipedia. But so sad that though a lot of evidence appears about ankit fadia on internet as well as on this same wikipedia page, you peoples are doing arguements to find reasons. I saw various edits from all you three admins and sent a mail to HO Wikipedia with the contents that you reported to be wrong. You want to know who is using this IP? They are all the members of all kalpesh sharma group sharing single IP. Do what you can, do this protest will not stop ? Because peoples of country are being saved. nothing is being done wrong by saying the fact and truth about ankit fadia. You are all three discussing and finding about various reasons to anyway edit ankit fadia contents to what it was and don't want peoples to see the right thing. This is a challenge that if you find any content edited in ankit fadia wiki which is wrong, then come out and debate ?

Wikipedia is a reputed name for reputed peoples. Not for Ankit Fadia. If one or two or three articles were wrongly edited, we all might have not edited so many pages. but you are trying to specify that all the content edited about ankit fadia is wrong. Only you peoples are right ? All others are wrong is that what you mean. Then accept our challenge.

one more thing utcarsch, if you think what you mentioned above is right then you are wrong. Mr. Kalpesh always goes with evidence and proofs and that too right in front of eyes instead of barking on wikipedia like ankit fadia's article. As concerns to reputation how can you claim that this editing on wikipedia is because of media publicity. The pages on wikipedia have been edited by our group only from last 15 20 days, whereas ankit fadia's reputation is on net in the first thirty searches of google. First clear your concept and then speak. Go and view the logs of all the pages and urls that are posted in the article written on gather.com by kalpesh sharma itself.

I'd take you seriously if you stopped vandalising my page, the Ankit Fadia article, and dismissing the role of the AfD in judging content -- Samir धर्म 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i still do not know why my article got deleted? any chance of clarification?

:Fine Samir ! Lets come down to point. I recently discussed my matter in last two or three days with Sam on and on Wikipedia Founder Jimmy_wales too.

Please go through the following URL where our below debate exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samuel_Blanning

Please go through the debate between us where he has specified that "Several reliable secondary sources have written about Ankit Fadia, which means we can write an article about him using those sources."

Then further he specified that "So long as the source is reliable in all other ways, then yes, print sources are just as valid as electronic ones."

He has asked me to resolve the matter for WP:DRV (Review). I posted the matter there but that too was deleted without any specific reason.

Please let me know after going through the communication between me and sam.

One more request. I am an Expert in Security not in wiki shortcut codes. So I am sorry if due to understanding problem i might have done some mistakes unknowingly. I have started posting my article that too three or four times only. Because I was thinking that as wikipedia is a free to edit website, someone might be playing.

Any way please help me to get started. with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpesh_Sharma [4]

. Here is the URL of my website where I have scanned and attached all my achievments, print and electronic media articles, radio news certifcate, certificate of work with minister, government stamped certificate of work with india army intelligence, etc.

My website URL is

http://www.esnips.com/web/shriganesh33sbusinessfiles [5]

Kindly please do needfull as wikipedia does for all the notable peoples across globe. Nice talk.

Thanks !

Kalpesh Sharma

What you have to do is go to deletion review and state your case for keeping your article. If it is removed again, let me know and I will repost it. And kindly do not insult my intelligence by claiming that you were making sure someone was not fooling around; you put your article on my user page, on a number of other pages, and on the Ankit Fadia page. That tomfoolery (and your sophomoric commentary above on "Indian Wikipedia Administrators") does not give any credence whatsoever to your argument -- Samir धर्म 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored, so here are the diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This on top of some 30 deleted edits. This is why people aren't taking you seriously. Maybe you should consider apologizing for your actions? -- Samir धर्म 08:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Samir. Looks like we got bored at the same time!!! Check out User:Aksi_great/Sandbox. I've been compiling this for the past hour. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please get back on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ankit_Fadia#Kalpesh_on_Wikipedia And let me know that Why? can you give details. Utcursch has edited limca book of record on my request from following source: http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/02aug30/national.htm#9 Give me an explanation that on what basis the associated content mentioned above is not reliable source and how daily excelsior is reliable ? Thnx From: Kalpesh Sharma

OOPS I MESSED UP

so why did my page get deleted again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.210.17.10 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Who are you? -- Samir धर्म 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i forgot my username but i had an article titled britain sux and it was deleted within hours...

Oh right. Cause you shouldn't write rant-pieces about countries you hate and why you hate them. Post it on your own website or somewhere else if you have to. Doesn't belong here cause it's not encyclopedic. Understand now? -- Samir धर्म 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gee, i was just asking n yea i understand.....can i write an article that shows historicla blunders of britain?

Yeah, sure, if you can find sources for what you write -- Samir धर्म 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k thx next time ill show u the article to make sure it wont get deleted for same reasons...

Ok, no probs -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

Thanks. It seems like that page goes through long periods of inactivity and then as soon as I go on to something else, it gets overwhelmed. Academic Challenger 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Wtstoffs stuff. —Chowbok ☠ 06:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerykewlstuffz123

Well, (s)he created a bunch of crappy articles that were deleted and went all over the place defending them. (S)he then added to the Sailor Starlights page that all three characters were the mother of Kakyuu Princess and they changed into men when they were rejected (which only happened in the anime); (s)he tried to say it was stated by one of the Starlights in the manga. I pasted all the lines the character said, none of them remotely match. In any case, most of the edits seem to just be troublemaking. Danny Lilithborne 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words, they are much appreciated. TimVickers 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Request for comment

As someone who has commented or worked on articles affected by this, you may be interested to know that there is a Request for Comment on Starwood links and a Starwood_Festival/mediation page. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Samir/Archive 11, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA :-) David Ruben 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll appreciate, mid-RfA suddenly seemed the wrong moment to be commenting on that RfC Jance (what with having had past involvement both as unofficial mediator and also editor to article) and I heeded advice to "Don't make any noise" during the RfA. So i'll have a look at that RfC in the next couple of days and try and distill down some thoughts :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpesh Sharma on ANI

Please take a look at this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your removal of a thread

Regarding this removal [11]. This editor is actually User:Jake b. After he made an off-topic post on an article talk page, I reminded him to keep the discussion about the improvement of the article, not on general commentary using template mess1. He responded with numerous personal attacks. I'm still waiting for someone to look in to it Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Jake_b_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.--Crossmr 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Samir. Appreciate the time.--Crossmr 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Samir. Still regarding this user, Jake b, I would appreciate if you could comment on the statement on his talk page. He keeps removing messages left there and asks users not to use his talk page. It's the first time I see such behavior, but I believe it inherently disrupts the good functioning of Wikipedia and therefore I ask your opinion. Also, in order to prevent this in the future I'd like to know if you would support amending Wikipedia:User page so that it may state that "users have the right to contact other users on their talk pages". Best regards,--Húsönd 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What action on G. Patrick Maxwell

Could you tell me what WP:Office action was ever taken on this? Anywhere? I do not believe this ever occurred. IN fact, I have since looked at WP:Bio and elsewhere and a court case as a primary refernce, that is well documented, and a published opinion, is very acceptable. Why is it only n ot acceptable in the case of a doctor? I am curious.Jance 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius was directly involved. I suggest you ask him -- Samir धर्म 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius also told me that back in August, but I can't find any evidence that it ever actually came under OFFICE protection. Sarah Ewart 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be evidence of the OFFICE template and edits by the Dannyisme account if it was under OFFICE. Sarah Ewart 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Samir. I'm not defending any of her edits, I was just responding to the question re whether it ever came under WP:OFFICE. Sarah Ewart 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that was what I was responding to, as well. It did not come under WP:OFFICE, for good reason. It was not defamatory and it meets WP:Bio requirements. This court case is a well-documented source and the ruling was not reversed. In fact, there was no appeal from the issue in that case. The case was remanded back to the trial court, and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case, evidently on an unrelated issue. What was written was not defamatory. It would have been allowed under Wiki bio guidelines as a relevant, well-documented

source. The trial court was, in fact, bound by that appellate decision. I don't intend adding the comment back, but this was wrong from the beginning. Now, would you mind asking DrOliver to be civil to other editors, since he is personally attacking Dr. Zuckerman and has at least twice in just the last day? Jance 19:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the issue, I don't know the details of what was discussed, but I do know that your edit to the talk page was inappropriate. It was not wrong to remove it. Do not re-add it. -- Samir धर्म 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help on breast implant article

Samir, I am hoping you can help on the implant page.

After droliver said in the discussion page that it would be OK to include common complications on the implant page, and given the suggestions of several health professionals on the discussion page, I included the language everyone agree to. Then droliver deleted it all without any explanation except to say that info is not necessary.

Ever since droliver's page was protected he has acted as if the article is his. You have been helpful re the links, so I hope you can help with the content. The article is very long, with considerable technical information, but doesn't een mention many of the most common local complications. Droliver's justification is that if complications are not specific to breast implants, they needn't be mentioned, but necrosis etc are important complications that are mentioned in virtually every other article on implants except this one in wiki. In addition, the "complications" section of the article is currently a misnomer because it includes a lengthy section on systemic diseases, which are not local complications and should be in a separate section.

The bottom line is that despite the consensus of several health professionals that the article is too biased rather than balanced, droliver has reverted even small changes that everyone else agrees to.

I am patiently trying to make small changes, based on peer-reviewed research, when others agree, but droliver just reverts when he disagrees. As an epidemiologist who works closely with physicians, I have never been in this situation before. When I write books or articles, if there is disagreement we discuss it -- one person with a different point of view doesn't just get to delete whatever he doesn't like. I'd be grateful for your help.Drzuckerman 03:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dr. Zuckerman, we need to work on an NPOV version of that section. Myself and Dr. Ruben have put some suggestions on the talk page. -- Samir धर्म 08:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can I help too? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

..for the message. Guess my penchant for doing some of the most boring work a wiki can offer is finally official.... yay :P --Srikeit 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVV

It was no problem. It is a part of my everyday work here at wikipedia. God bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 11:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

PCD userbox

FYI. There is a new userbox on The Pussycat Dolls. Click on User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes to access. Please pass this around. Merry Christmas! Chris 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Hi Samir! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. If you don't observe this event then I hope you don't mind this greeting. :) - Darwinek 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Merry Christmas Samir, and thanks for your very friendly and much-appreciated comment on my talk page :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Thanks for finding and deleting that, Samir. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deletion

What was the last edit to my sandbox? Because I know I didn't do that. ♥ Fr ed il 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, I didn't do it. Can you restore it please? ♥ Fr ed il 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. What the hell? I was nowhere near a computer at 10:11 UTC. I was at school, working on math. ♥ Fr ed il 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I get what happened. I put the db notice on User:Fredil Yupigo/Christmas, and that template was transcluded in the sandbox. But I don't see how "has left Wikipedia" got in there. What the hell... And that still doesn't explain the time. ♥ Fr ed il 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That diff explains everything. The timestamp was from ages ago, sometime in June. Someone reverted it... but not me. So it explains almost everything. Funny. ♥ Fr ed il 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Thank you

I haven't even thought about it yet. I suppose I should. You know that there are a number of users who are angry with me don't you? Also, I dread the second question on the nomination form. Redvers was so nice to refer to my editting as gnomic. That is a very kind and generous way to describe the truth I've never written a featured article, or anything close. :-(. Only a semi-sad face though, because my writing is what it is. Yes, you may go ahead and conominate. That way I will feel guilty about your efforts if I don't submit the nom. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that comment was not very gracious of me. You expressed you appreciation of me, and I failed to acknowledge it. I greatly respect you, and I am very much honored that you wish co-nominate me. Please do so and forgive my unmindfulness. Sincerely, BostonMA ^talk 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine

Thanks for the apology Samir, no offence was taken. Have a happy holidays (although I know what healthcare is like, and I imagine you will probably be very busy!). Proto::► 11:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade RfA

I caught your comment on the page, I thought I should let you know that I had posted an response. Seraphimblade and I are not really associated. I noticed his editor review was going well when I went to his talk page for advice. The advice he gave and continues to give has helped my progress as an editor. It would be unfortunate for his RfA to fail due to a dispute related to me. Alan.ca 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)

Dear Samir/Archive 11,

I wish you a very, very merry Winterval!

And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate!:) —Rand fan !!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Girl

Hello!

Could you help to move Singapore Girl (Singapore Airlines) back to Singapore Girl?

You might also be interested to know that User:YuRiPa has been confirmed as a sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YuRiPa and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YuRiPa).

Sincerely, --Oden 12:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Thanks for letting me know -- Samir धर्म 12:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Apologies, I believed the article was appropraite for speedy deletion but I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Regards......Tellyaddict^Talk 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teesside Futsal Club Page

Why was it deleted?

Merry Christmas

Saw you're online, so I wish you a merry Christmas. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!!!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may your wishes be fulfilled in 2007! Fvasconcellos 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fvasconcellos 16:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Yay Hooray?

Why did you delete the page about Yay Hooray? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.79.79 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 December 2006.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yay Hooray and the deletion log for Yay Hooray. --Oden 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/NAME - Kuntan

Samir, as best I understand it, the general idea on closing RFCs is that one waits until either (a) consensus has been achieved, or (b) commenting has ceased for some time. In the case of article RFCs, they might stay open for a month. Also, I gather that it is generally not considered good form for an admin personally involved in debating or opposing an RFC to simply delete it while the RFC is still new, has not reached consensus, and is still gathering comments.

The Kuntan RFC was opened at 21:56, 25 December 2006, and comments (including yours, mine, and others') were posted up to 12:19, 26 December 2006. You deleted this RFC at 13:10, 26 December 2006, a bare 51 minutes after the last comment, and less than 16 hours after the RFC was opened. This was also before I had even read the latest comment, and I strongly suspect it was before a number of other people might have read and written comments — though, of course, now I'll never know. No consensus had been reached. There hadn't even been time to try. This RFC was not ripe for deletion.

I gather from your deletion comment that you feel your changing the reason on the block made this RFC moot. Possibly you missed my repeated statements in the RFC that my concern was the precedent set by the original block, a precedent which goes untouched by your change. At this point, any admin could still cite that original block as a precedent, to justify blocking any other user on a charge of "offensive username" if only one bad meaning can be found for it — and, as I demonstrated, such bad meanings could be construed for your own username and even that of Jimmy Wales. How many other users might be targeted on such grounds?

Kindly restore that RFC to its previous location, as soon as possible, so that this precedent may be discussed (and possibly repudiated), and the proper application of WP:USERNAME may be clarified. I would appreciate having the shortest possible interruption in that RFC's availability. Thank you.

(Please note, once again, that the user conduct of this individual is not the topic of the RFC, nor something I have any interest in debating.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 15:44, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The RfC is closed. The issue is over as the user has been blocked for trolling and not for username. If you have an issue with it, I suggest WP:ANI or filing a user conduct RfC against myself. -- Samir धर्म 10:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale Pacific

Hey, I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, and don't see how my article meets the criteria. Please explain! -gert

Good luck with your band, sorry it doesn't meet inclusion criteria for the encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my band, I'm just a fan. You claim that my article meets A7. I'm supposed to tell why an article about a band is important? There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are nice to have, but don't express their importance. Why not delete all of them? I don't mean to sound mean, but i'm a bit unhappy that you've deleted my article despite its harmlessness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gert2 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 December 2006.

Harmless yes, encyclopedic no. Read WP:NMG, if the Pale Pacific meet the criteria, come back to me with citations and I'll undelete -- Samir धर्म 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale Pacific has released 4 full length albums, 1 EP, and 1 EP split with Copeland. I imagine there are newspaper articles on them, as they're fairly popular in the northwest, but I live in Indiana, and they live in Washington, so I don't have any. http://www.nowontour.com/reviews/record/01000.php is a review of them. They've played on the 2nd biggest stage in the Cornerstone Festival. They're played on many radio stations in that area. They've been on a few national tours. Is that enough?

Okay. Should have put it in the article in the first place. I'll undelete and send for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pale Pacific -- Samir धर्म 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was planning on adding more info over time.
-gert

Accepted Nomination

Hi Samir, I have accepted your co-nomination for a mop. I have notified Redvers and requested that he list the nomination. If it turns out that he is busy with real life, I would be honored to have you list the nomination. I did notice that there is a date on the top that will need to be reset. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help

Samir, it seems that while several of us have been working with you to negotiate some changes to the systemic disease section, droliver has reverted back ALL the changes to complications that were agreed to by you, Dr Ruben, and others. It took me a while but I finally figured out how to get that info back in the article. But as long as droliver believes he can unilaterally make decisions that delete information that everyone else agrees to, this article will be biased. We can't have a NPOV article if Droliver keeps deleting information about complications. You're the one person he might listen to, so I hope you will talk to him about it. Thanks. Drzuckerman 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Marie Ellard

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Marie Ellard, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Argyriou (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I think community consensus would be best to decide what to do with this one as there certainly is precedent of other murderers being mentioned only in articles on their victims. Would prefer if you took it to AfD if you so wish; I've removed the PROD -- Samir धर्म 11:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jerseycardiologist

Thanks for your comment Samir. Looking forward to helping with some cardiac stuff.

BW

Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitcharj (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Kelly Ellard

Excuse me, but who gave you unilateral control of this article ? Ellard's co-defendant Warren Glowatski were convicted of killing the same person yet his article does not contain Reena's ethnicity. In Reena's article there is plenty about her ethnicity and rightfully so because it is about her. If it warrants mentioning it in the Ellard article cite your sources. It's not enough to just say go to the talk page. There's no self-referencing allowed here. You are being very unfair in suggesting I should be blocked for my opinion. All of us editors have an opinion. The article is already one-sided and you want to continue that. Did you even read this section WP:Undue weight ? I'm taking this to the Biographies of living Persons/Noticeboard. Fighting for Justice 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Sources are on the talk page. Instead of discussing, you responded with personal attacks and ludicrous commentary in October. Should you continue with the same, you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 05:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was then this is now. The sources should be in the article, instead of the talk page. Fighting for Justice 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words in question are "of South Asian descent". You wanted evidence that it's relevant to the Kelly Marie Ellard article and I provided it on the talk page. You retorted with sophomoric commentary and personal attacks. If you want a source in the article to verify that Reena Virk is of South Asian descent, there's plenty in the literature. Frankly, I think everyone ceased taking you seriously when you made edits like:

You were admonished about your actions before. You even admitted that race belonged in the article: [12]. -- Samir धर्म 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to speak for "everyone"? Yeah, I can read about her ethnicity in the literature but then again I know lots about the case. I live in the very community the crime happened in. I'm talking about people who don't know ANYTHING about the crime. People well OUTSIDE of Canada. Direct them to the literature so they know the ethnicity is relevant. How about doing that? Let go of the grudge you have against me and source the ethnicity within the article. Fighting for Justice 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? We've discussed this, had an RfC on this, you admitted that Virk's ethnicity was relevant, and yet you still persist on the issue. Indeed, I think your racially inappropriate remarks have made your editing biases ring true. -- Samir धर्म 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but since then I've done a lot of research and reading on wikipedia and it's policies. And the ethnicity reference in the Ellard article violates WP:V. The only thing that could correct it would be to verify it and cite a source. It's very simple. Fighting for Justice 05:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that it is not verifiable that Reena Virk is South Asian? It is easily verifiable. -- Samir धर्म 05:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we deal with a bigger point: should the article be redirected to Reena Virk? -- Samir धर्म 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea. A lot is not known about Ellard's personal life, except that she liked violence. A lot more is known about Warren Glowatski. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't we merge the pertinent information on Kelly Marie Ellard into Reena Virk, leave a redirect, and the issue of ethnicity will become moot. Sound fair? -- Samir धर्म 05:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. It would be good, because Ellard's life is still a big mystery with exception of those who knew her. Fighting for Justice 06:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've merged the references mainly. Most of the text is found in the timeline in the Reena Virk article. Does it look okay to you? -- Samir धर्म 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Thank You Samir. I originally wrote the Ellard article in the hopes of adding more about her life. But now that I think of it that filthy woman shouldn't have a wikipedia article. What she did is horrible. I hope she is never released. Fighting for Justice 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy we were able to sort through this :) -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]