User talk:Singularity/Archive 3

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Punahou Article

Aloha! Pehea ʻoe? I reviewed the Punahou article per your request on my talk page. I looked at it and to me, it looks good. I am new to the whole Wikipedia thing though and I am not familiar with all the facets that compose a "good" wiki article. As far as the information contained with in the article, I do not know much about Punahou school. I take it that you are a Punahou student. Is this a correct assumption? Kanaka maoli i puuwai 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ua maikaʻi nui au! Mahalo ā nui. Kēia la i maikaʻi nui! Glad to hear back from you. No problem for the PR. If you ever need any kōkua in the future, please, noi!! Hilahila ʻole. That is what I am here for, to try and make the articles about Hawaiʻi Nei, nō ka oi! I mua! (Being a Kamehameha student, you should appreciate that!) -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Quail; Spencer Davis; Information sign; Hugh Kidder; Susan Estrich; Kohala, Hawaii; Tracy Kidder; Curb stomping; Waimea Bay, Hawaii; Pali, Rajasthan; Anna Boch; Kalaupapa, Hawaii; Census tract; Pali Hill; Crab canon; Airolo; Göschenen; Electric Flag; John H. Wilson Tunnels

Cleanup: Tommy Tucker; Strength of materials; Derivative work
Merge: Grey market; Coins of the Hutt River Province Principality; Third Colorado Cavalry
Add Sources: Kamehameha I; Wind tunnel
Wikify: Henry Weston Smith; Homiletics; Maui Ocean Center
Expand: Lunalilo; Zinedine Zidane; Surfboard

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA!

Just been to band mouthpiece test. Say hello to my instrument! Elfin341 20:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha kakahiaka!

Mahalo ā nui o kou manaʻo! I am in no way an expert in ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. Makemake nui! I only know and understand a little. I do know and understand more than most, however, I am in no way an expert. I will check it out though. As my User page states, I am a haole from da mainland that moved here 7 years ago. I fell in love with ke kānaka ʻo Hawaiʻi Nei, Nā ʻike a me nā hana ʻo Hawaiʻi Nei, ā ka ʻāina nani nui. But, Hawaiʻi au, ʻaʻole. Like my user name, kanaka_maoli_i_puuwai, states, I am only Native Hawaiian at heart. Mahalo ā nui hou for your manaʻo! I mua! -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi there, good luck with your RfA. I've copied your current edit count onto the talk page and changed your RfA to link to this instead of wannabe kate's tool. This is the norm for RfAs and it allows other editors to look back at a later date and see a snapshot of your editing at the point of your RfA. Regards. Adambro 09:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bloodpack

No, I meant to offer support. I'm neither neutral nor opposed to dedicated users being granted adminship. Some editors expect candidates to meet arbitrary criteria, I look for sincerity, commitment and reason. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, you had a reasonable concern ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@#$

The world is quiet here... Elfin341 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

I have responded. Sr13 (T|C) 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jhfireboy/Admin Opposer Thanks

Thanks!

Thank you Singularity, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADOPT input

Hello, Sr13. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Enid Blyton

Both Gillian Baverstock and Imogen Mary Smallwood are book authors, although most of the books are (at least in part) about Blyton. I think their writing makes them independently notable. --Eastmain 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been newspaper articles about them, so they pass the multiple independent sources criterion. --Eastmain 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Thank you

Thank you for helping me out. Without you i would never have even noticed i applied incorrectly, thanks for all your help, and hopefully i will become an administrator soon as well. Teniii 7:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I AM SO HAPPY

Wikipedia has just been unblocked at school ! the main wikipedia, not the secure one!!!

I AM GOING TO CELEBRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I have to do my homework first...

Elfin341 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

At school conner was being annoying during ping-pong, saying I can't do wikipedia because it's blocked. I said it was the secure version and I proved it by going on the real wikipedia, which was blocked 3 hours ago at last count. IT WORKED!!! Other blocked sites were still blocked, just wikipedia. in other words IT WORKS!!! OMG!!! Elfin341 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopee

AWWWW!

You lucky ADMINISTRATOR!!! Elfin341 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Review Thanks

Dear Singularity,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously, whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Real96

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Michaelas10, hereby award you the original barnstar for amassing over 4000 edits and overall demonstrating a lot of dedication to the project. Keep up the good work! Michaelas¹⁰ 12:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of 81.106.8.208

I see you unblocked 81.106.8.208. My gut instinct was to do that as it seemed like an overreaction or misunderstanding, but I asked Mel Etitis first. As I'm a fairly new admin I was going "by the book" in WP:BLOCK but I'm wondering if in general it's sometimes just best to trust your instincts and unblock, and leave the blocking admin a message explaining. Your thoughts? —dgies^t_c 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're even newer than me! Well at least we can say two administrators agreed unblocking was correct. —dgies^t_c 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that people who use anonymous IP addresses don't have their own User/Talk pages, and blanking those pages is treated as vandalism. It would at least have been courteous to have waited for a response from me before unblocking. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Apologies for the lack of promptness of this congratulations, but nevertheless good luck! We're both in the signpost, by the way, as we gained Adminship within two days of one another and thus made the latest issue ;) again, congrat's ~ Anthony 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congratulations

You're now an admin, with a shiny new set of tools and everything. Don't let the new powers go to your head! Be conservative with the tools, especially at first, but as you get comfortable, dig in and help clear out the backlogs. There's a lot of work to get done, so get crackin' and don't hesitate to ask for help. :) - Taxman ^Talk 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Enjoy the backlogs. :-) —Anas ^talk? 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo!!! Welcome to the chaos :) - Alison ☺ 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already seen a little glimpse of that already... Sr13 (T|C) 07:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congrats on your successful adminship! Real96 05:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! Sr 13 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed VfD?

Please explain your decision to revert my AfD vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayyoc (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 May 2007

I believe they're referring to this one - Alison ☺ 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess this happened because the link to the discussion was added to today's page before the discussion page was created. So Sr13 saw a redlinked AfD and removed it a little hastily. I will restore it... WjBscribe 04:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly what appears to have occurred. There's a thread on my talk page. There's also an incorrect AfD which should be deleted after User:Sr13 sees it - Alison ☺ 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also deleted the incorrectly named AfD :-)... WjBscribe 04:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops! *embarassed* WJBscribe is correct on his assumption. I apologise for the deletion, Bayyoc, and I thank Alison and WJBscribe for aiding with the restoration. Sr13 (T|C) 05:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Happens to us all :) Mystery solved - Alison ☺ 05:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOPH deletion

Please explain why you delated that article. Slugonice 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books

I don't think closing the discussion like that was a good idea.I agree that the article seemed like orginial research and the idea of "value" was a bad term.But no one objected to moving it to moving it to most expensive comic books and changing the list, and the other comments agreed with the idea, and with the way other people objected to the article that seemed like a good solution.I'm just telling you that I'm appealing your decision to close it. Rodrigue 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most valuable comic book

Well anyway, the person who upheld the AFD said it would be alright to create an article on Most Expensive Comic Books anyway, so I guess I didn't even need to appeal. Rodrigue 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting userpages and user talkpages

Please delete my user page and talk page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IWM (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Sr 13 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IWM 03:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust Software Universe

Would you mind deleting all the redirects to article you've just deleted? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Redirects deleted. Thanks for the reminder. Sr 13 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I figured it would be quicker this way than me tagging all of them individually. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Um, can you please explain this protection? There was just a single vandal in the past week or so, and a total of two vandals in the entire month. Semi-protection should only be used when blocking users individually is no longer a feasible option. Michaelas¹⁰ 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Don't worry about that. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rather late RfA thanks!

Good evening (GMT time) Sr13; I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship. As a result of the discussion, I'm pleased to inform you that I'm now a Administrator! I've already been making use of my new tools, so if there's anything I can do, give me a shout!

Kindest regards,
Anthony 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique A Pollack \ Henry Pollack

Could you please review my new article on this subject and support its inclusion.. I have re-written it and added additional sources. Thanks Callelinea 03:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a link to that, please? Sr 13 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misslabeling of semi-protection request by me

I need to appologise. The header to recent page protection request by me refers to Genetic Engineering page but the analysis I did was on the Genetically_Modified_Food page. So the result of this request probably should be to protect Genetic Modifed Food and not Genetic Engineering. I intially requested both of these pages to be protected which is why I made this mistake when re-requesting the page protection. Ttguy 05:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV listing

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Paulus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 06:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Sr 13 09:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French wars of religion

Smacks head
Smacks your head
Wishes Emile was here so I could smack his head.

You're right, but you're wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elfin341 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, I'm wrong. I forgot to sign my name yet again :( Elfin341 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY!

Help add references to Suit (clothing).

Found it while looking for dress code for tomorrow's speech. ^_^

I hope Harry returns my book.--Elfin341 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

SR13, thank you for your kind words in praise of my article work on my my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about my signature

Thanks for the info. Honestly, I had no idea, but after checking the link you provided it make sense. I'll be spreading the word to other people as I see it! --Cyrus Andiron 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Alves Arbuthnot. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of the writings of William Monahan

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius  talk 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandal

This IP is being misused (again) for vandalism: User:142.227.252.4 -- Fyslee/talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your edit here it looks like you don't consider repeated vandalism to be a problem. I apologize for bothering you and will find someone who is more interested in protecting Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I believe you have misinterpreted what Sr13 wrote. I believe he was reminding the good-faith users at that school that they would be well-advised to register accounts, so that when that school IP is blocked or its edits are deemed questionable because of their fellow students' engaging in vandalism, they wouldn't be tarred with the same brush.

Sr13 is one of our newest administrators and is doing an excellent job. It is demoralizing to admins who do a lot of the scutwork in "protecting Wikipedia" when experienced users such as yourself make these sorts of comments. As indicated, I assume that in this case there was an inadvertent miscommunication between the two of you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my exact assumption. There were (and are) some good-faithed editors from that school, and I suggested those editors to create an account as to not be accused wrongly and blocked for vandalism. Sr 13 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection policy discussion

Sr13 you might be interested in putting in your two cents worth on this discussion. Someone else feels the semi-protection policy could do with clarification to make it less arbitrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied there. Sr 13 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help for the googoleth time

Help add references to these

Xylem
Phloem

pages.

Mostly because I don't know how to myself.

Elfin341 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Because you just LOVE to add references and delete pages, I award you the editor's barnstar! Now get back to editing! Elfin341 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the time you read this...

You will probably have realized how much time you have "wasted" playing for your concert to an uninterested audience. And how much time you spent off Wikipedia. I should have changed my decidion to be in band. If all people were that bad at music...--Elfin341 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for stepping on my glasses today. It gave me an idea! And no, it's not kill E****. Thankfully. Elfin341 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:76.97.208.123

Hi there. I noticed you blocked User:76.97.208.123 indefinitely as as "vandalism only account". However, this is an IP address, not an account, and we rarely if ever indefinitely block IP addresses, let alone for something as petty as this. Furthermore, Both of the "final warnings" on this user's page were given after their most recent edit, so I elected to not even block them (see my edit on AIV before your block resulted in its removal) I don't particularly mind a block, but a time of indefinite seems inappropriate. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your block log, I see you have blocked several other IP addresses indefinitely as well. You may want to go back and change those too. I can't think of a case when blocking an IP indefinitely should be done without at least a consensus on WP:ANI to do so first. VegaDark (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying! I have tweaked the IP indefs, except for the ones I thought were legitimate. Sr 13 02:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Venues In The United States

I'm curious as to why you would delete "Music Venues In The United States". While not technically an article, it provided information that is difficult to obtain, making Wikipedia the go-to place for information. While I understand that updating this information may seem daunting, I think the decision to delete said article was hasty and without thought. It is not logical to delete an incomplete article, as it stops the progress of the collection of in depth information regarding a particular subject. As in, an encyclopedia. When Pliny the Elder wrote Naturalis Historia, I wonder what would have happened if he would have thrown away volumes of work due to it being incomplete. It just seems to me that the decision to remove an article would be based on dozens of opinions. Not the opinions of 6 or 8. A hasty and unnecessary use of power? I think so.209.247.22.78 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opinion? RichieRichtous@aol.com

Jay

Mafia 3000

I would like to know why you deleted the article about the show mafia 3000. i am a big fan of this show and as such i was happy to see it was finally posted. SlappyFan421 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your truly speedy keep of "Duquesne spy ring".

I was stunned that you applied a "Speedy keep" to my AfD nomination Duquesne spy ring, thereby cutting off all pro/contra discussion before anyone in the Wikipedia AfD community was given the opportunity to discuss and decide on my nomination. Your speedy keep was truly speedy — 4 hours 39 minutes after I posted my nomination in the delete-discussion log for May 17th!

I believe your decision to keep a plagiarized article in Wikipedia, an article that by definition is excludable as a primary source document, was not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Nor in my judgement was your decision in the best interests of the general public, a public which is only now coming around to consider Wikipedia as a scholarly, informative, and authoritative reference source.

My decision to nominate the article was neither hasty nor vindictive. As a published author, long time technical writer, magazine publisher, computer programmer/webmaster, and Wikipedia article contributor (a technical article on the "Tip Wage Credit" in draft on my User page, a bio (stub, still in process) on the founder of W.A.N.T., a bio on Dave Guard (in progress), an article on Guard's folk music group "The Whiskeyhill Singers" (another stub, in process), a reformat/edit of "The Limeliters"), and a number of edits and corrections (my last in the DE Wikipedia correcting a U-Boot identification error in the German language "Operation Pastorius" article, as well as registered to write easy-to-understand articles for the reading impaired in the Simple English Wikipedia), I am fully aware (as are my professional collegues worldwide) that plagiarism of any kind — especially the kind of deliberate plagiarism evidenced in the author's article — is an absolute violation of the ethics of writing for publication.

I believe you really should take a moment to review the nominated article's discussion page so you can familarize yourself with my concerns, the author's replys to my concerns, and his Wikipedia forum extracts. I think you should also take a look at my note at the top of the page re my deletion nomination, where I added informative links to pertainent Wikipedia: deletion procedure articles. And meaning no offense, I think you should also take the time to read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Five pillars in re Wikipedia not being being a collection of source documents, and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. And you might find it helpful if you would also take a moment to thoroughly review the article "Plagiarism, and its inclusion (documented) of Wikipedia as a source of plagiarized articles.

I took the time (eight days) and went to great lengths to use four forums (article discussion page, Village Pump/Policy, Wikiproject Cryptography, and Wikisource:Scriptorium) to obtain beforehand the views of others about my concerns on allowing plagiarized articles to be inserted in Wikipedia. I had intended to rely on the fifth forum, the Articles for Deletion delete-discussion page where my nomination appeared, as the locus where Wikipedia administrators could become aware of the article, review it, and (a) abide by the principles stated in Wikipedia's Five Pillars, (b) allow input from a larger number of members of the Wikipedia community, and (c) render a reasonably informed "Keep or Delete" judgement. Unfortunately, with your IMJ hasty application of "Speedy Keep" to my short-lived (four and a half hour) nomination, that process was, again in my judgement, radically subverted.

Please keep in mind that plagiarism is an ethics and integrity violation, a view that is evident in the Wikipedia Foundation's "Five Pillars". Plagiarism is totally unrelated to the right to copy documents that are in the public domain, a confusion that clearly exists in the minds of several responders to my queries in the other forums copied in the author's response to my Delete nomination — a confusion that perhaps you might possibly have as well?

Being selected as a Wikipedia administrator is a great honor, but carries with it an even greater responsibility. I don't think hasty judgements on an issue as important to the heart of Wikipedia is in keeping with that responsibility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium — at least up until now. K. Kellogg-Smith 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Kellogg's talk page. Sr 13 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of "Duquesne spy ring" felt it absolutely necessary to insert the following reply to the remarks I directed to administrator "Sr13" about its 'Speed Keep" decision:

The basis of your argument - plagiarism - was simply not valid. The sources were attributed in the article, and all transcluded text was taken from the public domain. After a lengthy discussion of this topic on Village Pump (Policy), I think it is disingenuous of you to claim that you were stunned by the speed keep decision. I'm pleased this administrator did not needlessly drag all of us through the same discussion yet again. Ctatkinson 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PTgui

The only Keep votes where from members of the group that promotes the software. (Carl, Thomas and Luca) This page only benefits the comercial vendor and is covered on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page along with the other like panorama stitchers. I would like to reopen this page for deletion until comments from outside the "circle" are heard. Your thoughts? John Spikowski 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Sr 13 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to keep this about cleaning up the mess of panorama vendors posting promo pages on the Wikipedia. I created the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page to try and bring some notability to the topic and make it easier for readers to find info about panorama software. The PanoToolsNG management group acts like a bunch of wiki bullies and dominate the pages with thier personal reasons for keeping seperate pages for panorama products. This discussion should be from non-associated editors that can look at the pages for face value and determine what's best for the Wikipedia as a whole. John Spikowski 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you should also mention the sponsors of John Spikowski are Kekus, RealVis, Easypano, Nodal Ninja,.... [1] that all are listed in your page Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities with very shiny words and promo talk. Why should PTgui not have its own page? --Wuz 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]