User talk:Sjb72/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sjb72. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Sjb72/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stephen Thanks for adding the GAEL page. It corrects a nasty void about the origin of "Guader" who is a key historical figure

Rgds Gerry Coldham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geronimo5000 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

Saw your note over on Trudy Monk. I agree that there should be a spoiler marker on practically all such pages, but my advice from bad experiences is that if you care about not seeing spoilers, you have to exercise extreme care when you look at web pages associated with the show. (Whichever show, not just Monk.) It's just too hard to mark all the spoilers, and of course material that is a spoiler for one person is ancient history for another. I remember that just looking at the IMDB cast lists for 24 and Alias gave me some spoiler information. I started getting just fanatical about not looking at those pages at all.

Thanks for adding the spoiler tag. Jordan Brown 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV report

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. --Chaser - T 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Toora Loora Ref

Thanks for that Simpson's ref. I'm always happy to see an article grow. DDB 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries - glad to be of service!

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, StephenBuxton. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have been very inactive recently - your last one hundred edits have taken more than a month to make.

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel 07:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:MagicMons

Actually, editors are allowed to remove things from their talk pages; doing so is an acknowledgement that they've read the message. For example, you're welcome to delete this note, if you like. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edit to my edit, and I understand what you mean. Thanks! StephenBuxton 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit warning re Drug

At first I was puzzled because I've never given the test 3 warning to anyone recently - I think you are slightly mistaken. It was not "warning #3". It was {{template:blatantvandal}}, if you are talking about User:208.108.100.241. The template is for an initial warning, as it begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia". --BorgQueen 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was not aware of that template - at first glance it looked like vandal warning #3, that was all. StephenBuxton 12:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Thanks for the clean-up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries - now back to my edit war with that ****y anon user. StephenBuxton 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why i deleted

Fine I won't I only did this to show what happens to any of my submissions if I contrabuted to this website. Since they always seem to be deleted why must others do this? I'm doing something positive, only for someone to come along, then erase it for no clear reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about vandalism, it's about making a point

This is not about vandalism, it's about making a point, which is whenever I put something I found out to share with everyone else, it's unjustly removed just like that with no clear explanation! Plus this has been happening on such a regular occurence, that it seems as if my sources are being deliberately black listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'M dislexic... dyslexic (see i can't even spell that word well)

I have dyslexia...so sometimes I do missspell words or grammer, but I go out of my way to corrected it as best I can. Deeming it unsalvageably incoherent, isn't right; it is so easy when it comes to dismissing some article over this point. If given the chance I would certainly make it meaningful in content or history, but I never seem to be given the chance to correct my work coordinated, consistent, characterized and logically connected in such away that pleases others. Besides this point, what really upsets me is making some corrections to already existing articles or adding some useful information. Only to see it just scrapped right in front of my eyes with no regards as to who might be able to find this found out info appreciable! I only want to help out to share what i've learned with anyone else willing to listen to me, but it seems clear that this cannot be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried that

Sadly I've done that constantly, but I still get my work removed all the same --SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Small problem with page "Project Altered Beast"

I have just got a message from you, StephenBuxton, saying that the page may be deleted. I understand it is short and not very clear, but I started the page at school. "Project Altered Beast" is the name of a PS2 version of Altered Beast, often called Altered Beast for short, and looking it up, I noticed no-one had wrote a page about it, which is what I am doing now. I am sorry it is short but I didn't get enough time to add more. I am planning to go on my laptop at home and add more to this. I would also like help to create this page as it is one of my most favorite games and I'm a little annoyed that there is no page about this game. Sorry for any inconvenience and thanks. Sennyl (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)sennyl

Vandal on Fire Cupping

You made a good call and then reversed it. The citations were valid. One pointed people to information about Prophet Muhammad and then to the text where the exact quotewas pulled from. User, I do not exist, has a long history of destroying work I have placed on the pages. He has also ignored bad citations and refrences to negative information about cupping. This user has a clear bias. Please review all the history and reconsider blocking this user. Thank you.

More . . . Now he/she has changed the location of the original citation and then said it was irrelevant to the information it cited. The citation was for Prophet Muhammad, not cupping or the Prophetic refrence. This is really frustrating and needs your immediate attention. Thanks.

And still more . . . Now a link to hijama has been removed in the SEE ALSO section of the page. If thatdoes not constitute vandalism and warrent this user being blocked, I am not sure what does. This person has a clear bias towards any refrence associated with the rich history of hijama, cupping in the Islamic faith. Other post he/she has made on Voodoo and Homosexuality confirm this possibility. Please do something about this, he is destroying this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signpostmaker (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

63.215.28.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 63.215.28.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)keeps trying to add information of a fake move Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Piracy,Spike (MGM)‎ ,Barney Bear,Barney Bear,Mammy Two Shoes,Butch (Tom and Jerry),Screwball Squirrel,Jack Black,Wanda Sykes,Lil' JJ,John Goodman,Long John Silver,DreamWorks Animation and Nickelodeon Movies, please help these. 123.193.12.44 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I forgot to put the edit summary. DurinsBane87 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. Once I saw your talk page, I had a feeling that you were a genuine editor, but I couldn't undo my change, as I had no idea why you removed the text. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ballin35

Yeah it's too bad he got away with that many edits, but at least he's blocked. If you want the tools, I recommend being here for about four to six months with about 3000 edits. I think that's a good guideline for applying at WP:RFA :) Spellcast (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been here about a year now, but I have no idea bow many edits I have made. How can I find out? StephenBuxton (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can type your name in here. Spellcast (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: JzG

Re: User_talk:JzG#December_2007, if you knew the context, you'd know that JzG was removing provocative harrassment. --Simon D M (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire cupping

I do not exist has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry for the delay in response. I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with the dispute resolution process myself. :-/ - ∅ (∅), 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help!

Thanks for the help in explaining version control -- I appreciate the assistance. :) (I came across a bunch of vandalism this morning while I was looking something up, and I kind of just kept going from there.) Rahaeli (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. Will be in touch if I need help. Here's hoping the page is linked to! Mewburn (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello. In the future, your report regarding Neapolitan War belongs at WP:RPP and not wp:aiv. If you have any questions, just let me know. Thanks! Brianga (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neapolitan War

Hello. I went ahead and semi-protected the Neapolitan War for 48 hours. For future reference, requests for page protection should be made at WP:RFPP rather than WP:AIV. Thanks for helping keep vandalism in check! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Neopolitan war

Thanks! I did not know about that page - it is now going in my watchlist. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How come??

What's wrong with my aritcle about the cd DreamStreet, man?? FranK (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A HUGE THANX

Thank you for having the paciense and for doing constructive criticism. I love uspporitng wikipedia. becosue it's the gretest information source I've found. It's really cool. So a huge thanks for all the things you told me. Your're right. Thanks again. FranK (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs some explaining !

Maybe you would like to explain in further detail why you deleted my addition to Wikipedia. All I did was write a small bit about a local celeb and you labelled it as it was trash, I must say that very hurtful and it shows how people like yourself use your job to manipulate the rules and discriminate against others.

I am not here to cause a scene but you certainly have. I have serious doubts about this whole website now, How many other articles have you deleted because of your social influences ? You really are twisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorry-kinda-busy (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have not already seen it, I have responded on your talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

You wrote in your edit summary "added afd template" - that's a CSD not an afd. :-p -- Menti fisto 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Subtle difference, duly noted. One of these days, I'll get to grips with these TLAs.

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem really. :-) -- Menti fisto 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my article i know it has no point, is just a joke for a friend of mine who is a member of the wikimedia foundation, if you allow me to keep the joke a couple of hours i will delete it myself when the joke is over.--Thedevil303 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedevil303 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

new article

I'm working on the wesabe.com article. I know it sucks at the moment, but I just started doing the research needed for citations and the like. It's one of many personal finance applications that I use (but am not affiliated with by any means). It's not even the best one, but figured it would be a good first page for me. Thanks -- --05runner (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:QU109999

Please stop unblanking User talk:QU109999. Logged in users can blank their Talk pages if they want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I realised that just after I did it - whilst you were typing your message here, I was adding a comment on the talk page to just that effect. I only did the unblanking once, and I won't do it again. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, in the process, QU109999 got indefinitely blocked. I've asked for a reconsideration at WP:ANI. Corvus cornix_talk 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New AN/I Thread

Beneath the resolved thread you posted earlier is a new thread I posted about the actions of a single editor, which upon further review I found to be problematic. I'm not a content expert, so maybe you can weigh in on the merits of some of the more objectionable edits? (Also, is 'fisherman' a serious insult or something?). I did notice that when he says some castes are 'backwards' that apparently is a reference to a bureaucratic classification of some kind. Avruchtalk 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I know nothing about this topic at all. I only happened upon it last year when I was hanging around the Recent Edits looking for vandalism to do (I need to get a life :-). I say the insulting edit summary, went to have a look, and saw the edit war in full swing. I then reported it, and have been checking in on it intermittently to see how they were resolving it (or not, as it happened). As soon as I saw the edit war resuming, I reported it again.

Looking on the Talk page, it looks like there may be an impartial editor who knows something about it User:Sundar. I'll see about getting their attention on your thread. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Hi,

Please see Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Gutting_the_page for why the page was gutted. Thanks. WLU (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! WLU (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Thank you for your advice. I did first assume good faith, but the edits of User:Polysynaptic have only the purpose to falsify facts. He not only deletes scholastic sources and ignores them (for example in the articles al-Farabi and Seljuq dynasty), he even creates alternative articles to already existing ones. That's what he did here. Although the article al-Biruni exists and has a very good shape, he created a second one only for the pupose of claiming him Turk. He also falsified the article Ulugh Beg, again claiming that he was a Turk (while Britannica 1911 says something different: [1]). Simply calling Ulugh Beg a "Timurid" (that was the name of his dynasty) is the best and most neutral solution. User:Polysynaptic registered on December 30th, but he is no new user. His edits are extremely biased toward and based Pan-Turkism, he is deleting sources, ignoring scholastic sources, and he falsifies sources. I believe that he is a sockpuppet of some other (banned) user. Maybe of User:Moorudd whose IP was blocked last week because of racist insults against Iranians: [2]. And he is again at it: [3]. Checkuser has confirmed that the IPs are those of User:Moorudd: [4]. The edits of Moorudd and Polysynaptic are very similar: Moorudd vs. Polysynaptic Some admin should help out.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, I will probably register. But I would appreciate it, if you report him this time so I can learn how to do it. I will be off Wikipedia for a few days, then I will (maybe) register. Thank you very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.130.148 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a great deal about sockpuppets, I'm afraid. However, rather than let things go unchecked, I have posted a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, hoping that someone will be able to sort things out. I'll be watching what they do, as I too want to know how to report sockpuppets! BTW, when you do register, please stop by here and say hi! StephenBuxton (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Popups

Hi,

I notice you say you can't use Twinkle because of IE on your user page. I'm in a similar boat, but I have installed WP:POPUPS and they work very nicely - a great improvement over no tools at all. I recommend it. I also recommend upgrading to Firefox - my other computer uses Firefox and it does allow Twinkle and other editing tools. WLU (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I'll have to check it out - however, I have a horrible feeling that (with this being a work PC), there will be something to prevent me from completing the set-up. Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Once I get reconnected back home though (dunno when that will be), I will be switching to a different browser. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe POPUPS works through the wikipedia software, though I could be wrong. The page says it's Java. Anyway, note that any tools you install work via your account, not computer, so using a tool that is compatible with one browser, but not another, can give you problems. WLU (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TNX

tnx for ur welcome. please introduce a subject to I contribute there. plz don't say work as you like!--Baaghlavaa (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi! What is the welcome template that you used on User talk:156.34.210.254? StephenBuxton (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey StephenBuxton talk and Happy New Year. The welcome message I use is actually part of a bot program called VandalProof . If you are interested, you can I apply for privileges at the link provided. Gook luck to you and if you have any questions feel free to leave a note here. Shoessss | Chat 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I will see if I can get it. Before I do, I suspect that (as a download is required) I will have to wait until I am up and running with internet access at home - there are blocks here at work that prevent me from downloading programs, mores the pity. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:Jack Merridew

Thanks for pointing out the amount of IP vandalism. I have User talk:Jack Merridew on my watchlist, so I saw your edit. Then I saw the page's history, so I protected it ... again, alas. I hate protecting talk pages for that, but I hate seeing IP vandals cause trouble even more. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think he will mind - I noticed afterwards a general comment at the top of his user page that thanks everyone that helps protect his talk page against vandals. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Goldquest

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at goldquest . Happy new year. ~~Ubraga608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubraga608 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jabba the Hiut

Hi Stephen, Sorry about getting in your way - we had some "fun" last night with an editor jumping between IPs and inserting inappropriate fair use images into that article (along with several others) last night, so I was watching it closely. Keep up the good work fighting the vandals. Best, Gwernol 12:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - probably best to have too many people trying to add warnings than no warnings at all! --StephenBuxton (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wii Shop Channel

I removed almost all the stuff in the Wii Shop Channel section of the Wii Menu article and transfered it to the Wii Shop Channel article. Please accept this... Versus22 —Preceding comment was added at 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry. How do I use the edit summary though? Versus22 —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Donna Ladd

Personally, I don't believe Donna Ladd passes muster for notability. Never have. felt that she was notable and would venture that they are hundreds of other writers with equal or greater CVs who don't have a wiki page. Have less of an issue with the wiki for her tabloid the Jackson Free Press. Won't tell you how I know but many of the IP addresses on the pages for Donna Ladd, Jackson Free Press and Todd Stauffer are addresses from either their own personal office or their place of residence. IMO they abuse wikipedia to self-promote ad nauseum. They (Donna Ladd primarily) also links back to her own website from any number of other locations on the web in order to manipulate search engines. But, I don't get too involved in these matter because, from my observation, the wiki democracy is more often than not like gang rule. I would defer to the judgment of AllstarEcho on this. If he wants to go to the mat, again, then I'll leave a vote. FWIW and thanks for the heads up.75.66.30.193 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Not sure why you restored this edit Have you read WP:BLP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. Right, I um... guess I didn't do what I normally do and read what was removed. Normally I do scan through it for content in relation to the rest of the article. I guess this time I just looked at the edit summary (non-existant), the fact that an entire section was removed, and the fact that the editor in question was a newbie. Sorry about that... Anyway, I've removed the warning on the user's talk page and replaced it with an apology. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

no problem, there where several similar edits. Jeepday (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit Warning

I'm sorry, I dont understand what your talking about....This user and I have been talking about some stuff, and to aviod spamming his page, I cleared past messages from myself. Dustihowe Talk 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey no problem, we need people like you here at Wikipedia. Thanks for your concern though. Just some wikilove going on. Oh, yea, I did call him a dork. lol Dustihowe Talk 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the revert by Dustihowe, however it is not vandalism, we are chatting, and sharing a bit of wikilove. Thank you again for the fast revert, in case it was vandalism Ctjf83^talk 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise that now - I've just posted an apology on Dustihowe's talk page. I meant well.... but my apologies for butting in. Note to self - must pay closer attention to Edit History.... (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and it is greatly appreciated. An apology to me is unnecessary, as I know how vandalism is, and you thought you were reverting some on my page. Keep up the recent patrols!! Ctjf83^talk 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have aquitted myself (heh heh heh - my face is still a bit red). Once more unto the RCP duties! Or maybe go home. It is getting late. Take care! StephenBuxton (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You said you do patrol recent changes manually...have u heard of Lupin anti-vandal tool? I use Firefox but I checked and it does work on IE. It is a great tool, if you want to try it out! :) Ctjf83^talk 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaws

Gee..Thanks..if you see the history you will see that something has gone wrong, since instead of reverting the prior edit by that anthony guy, it reverted cluebots edit to that guys edit, I'll complain to the owner of the script about this..thanks for fixing it :) ...--Comet styles 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

np :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've "done loads" using huggle, so it's just short of cheating. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My gratitude for yoru nice message.Thanks(Shonali2000 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Admin Coaching

Hey there Stephen, I was just checking you out as a possible coachee... I don't think you are quite ready yet, but you are definately headed in the right direction. The two things that you really need to do to help your chances are: 1) get more involved with XfD's 2) write articles/contribute to existing articles. If you do those two things it will help your case.Balloonman (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Stephen,

I've taken a closer look at your edits and would be willing to be your admin coach if you are interested. If you are interested, you need to create a coaching page. This is usually done off of your main page by using the /admin coaching convention. I do have some significant concerns:

If you can only edit from work, what kind of work do you do that lets you edit from work? Most companies do not allow people to surf the web like this.
You have a significant lack of mainspace edit history. While you have a solid record regarding vandalism, Vandal only nominations are a dime a dozen. Right now, if you were to run, you would probably fail due to lack of article creation/contribution.
There are number of areas where your expertise/understanding of basic policies and procedures. Before going for adminship, we would really need to tackle those gaps. Being an admin is not about knowing all of the policies and procedures out there---but you do need to be able to demonstrate that you know how to find the answers to questions. [Your question here] could kill a potential Rfa--it is related to one of wikipedia's core policy's. I know the original question was asked before you became a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but your follow-up question doesn't indicate that you knew the answer as of 2 weeks ago and since the original was not signed it looks like the original post was just made! Thus, my first homework assignment, find the answer to it! What might be the arguments allowing you to add it? What might be the arguments against it? What do you think you should do? Also, why did you remove the BBCProject banner from that page?
I don't see you being ready for an RfA for at least 2-3 months... you have to demonstrate an understanding of policies that I don't yet see in your posts (there were other cases than the one I cited above, but that was the most blatant one.)

If you accept my offer to be your coach, transclude this post onto the coaching page.Balloonman (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rude message

Dear Mr.Buxton

I found a message accusing me of sockpuppetry.I did not know what it was until I looked into that.I am most upset!That thsi rude message shoudl have come from an administrator is shocking!I discussed it with my colleagues at LSR College.Perhaps it may be wise to ask all teh new registrants not to contribute if thsi si going to result!

Regards

(Shonali2000 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

The basic evidence is I've never before seen a user with this particular pattern of misspellings, exclamation points, and lack of spaces after punctuation. Lo and behold, now we have two of them arguing on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_18 arguing for Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. On that page, you seem to be asking what advice to give. I think it's what's written in the second paragraph of this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re Jack Belton

Hi, I'm very sorry for deleting those backlinks; I'll try harder to ensure I uncheck that box in future! Thanks for restoring them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggers (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I thought that message looked familiar!! Cheers, Waggers (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NP! StephenBuxton (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding...

Hey there Stephen, Normally, I would respond where the conversation started, but since, it's been a few days, I figured I would come here in case you weren't watching my page anymore. Sock puppets is an area where I have *NO* experience, thus couldn't help you out too much... and right now, I'm in the final stages of my company's busy season... eg 60-90 hour work weeks! To answer your question, yes, I used to be a professional BalloonTwister, but haven't done that in a few years.Balloonman (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Viking discussion

You wrote: "Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors" and this is exactly what I did. 195.198.15.4 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I've responded in full on your talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradley D. Simon

Mr. Buxton - thank you for your suggestions to Brad Simon's wikipedia article. There were significant edits made since you reviewed it, and I was wondering if you might take another look? I want to do my best to ensure that it does not get deleted, so your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Again, thanks for your time. JG ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! I have changed my opinion to keep, and stated why on the deletion talk page. Should the article be kept, would you like a hand in improving the article? I will admit that I know nothing about this person, but I could at least help out with grammar consistancies, and all the other things that can help improve an article? StephenBuxton (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Stephen! I would welcome any help you are willing to offer to make the article better. If there is anything else you think I should do before an adminstrator makes the final decision, please let me know. I want to do everything I can to keep it from deletion. Again, you have been so helpful - thank you! 66.43.90.186 (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I started making some changes to the first paragraph as you suggested (especially since there is a user who feels quite strongly that the article should be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED). I am trying to prove Simon's notability without editorializing too much because then it would sound more advertorial than encyclopedic? Is it typical, by the way, that users critique so harshly? Lakpr (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They may sound hyper-critical, but I suspect they are just being fair. I would guess they have done so many critiques that they forget that the people reading them may take the criticism personally. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic (illusion)

Hi, thanks for the cleanup work on Magic (illusion).

I'd like to do more work on this general topic, but I'm faced with a quandary. As a person interested in magic, I'd like to remove text that reveals magical secrets (how it's done) while preserving the historical context and description of the effects. But I know if I would Be Bold and do that, I'd be accused of vandalizing the pages, not trying to improve them.

There seems to be a lack of consensus as to whether exposure of magical methods belongs in Wikipedia or not. Do you have an opinion on this?

Regards, BWatkins (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries - glad to help out in that article. If you know of any other magic related articles that need improving, please let me know. As for your question...

As a semi-pro magician, I do not think magical secrets have a place here. As a Wikipedian, I can understand why people want the articles to contain as much detail as possible. The way I have decided to get around it is by not going to the pages where there are likely to be secrets, and editing those pages. I also won't add any links to articles where secretes are revealed. As I understand it there have been edit wars about removal of the secrets. Unfortunately for magicians, the policy and guidelines on this site favour items being put in rather than taken out. Magical secrets, unless protected by copyright, do not look like they can be removed once added. If you know of any exposure that have broken copyright, then there would be a case for removal. Original research (i.e. unsourced) is another case where it could be deleted. However, as a lot of the magical principles have been around so that copyright no longer applies, and so many secrets have been revealed in other media that they are easily referenced, it is going to be very hard to get people to change their minds.

If you know of any policy debates on the topic going on, I'll gladly add my voice to it, but much as it pains me, I cannot start blindly removing the secrets. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks to the thanks. Thanks. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing well today

Indeed you are! You forgot to sign the Domenico Barra AFD entry. ;-) LittleOldMe (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced magical methods

When you removed the methods from the articles, it was because the material was unsourced, and – in most cases – had been that way for some time. While your approach was somewhat drastic, I agree that in general it's not necessary or appropriate to wait forever for someone to come along and add sourcing for material in Wikipedia articles.

Where unsourced material is removed from an article on Wikipedia, it's generally a reasonable and courteous practice to move the material to the article talk page and to encourage other editors to restore and/or correct the content when they find suitable supporting sources. Exceptions to this practice include cases where the material removed is defamatory, contains egregious ranting or soapboxing, is particularly lengthy, or is a copyright violation.

The first three from that list obviously don't apply here, but you've brought up the question of copyright issues. By all means, feel free to remove the text from talk pages where you can cite or link to the source of the text that was copied, or where the text was added to the article by any editor who has demonstrated any previous misconduct related to copyright violation. Note that simply describing the mechanics of a method does not constitute a violation of copyright; you would need to show significant copying of another person's description of a trick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the harm is in having the removed text on the talk page. It's not on the article page, so regular readers aren't going to be confronted with unsourced and potentially unreliable information. As far as I know, there's been no copyright issue raised. Having the text at hand makes it somewhat easier for editors who wish to source the info.

If it makes you feel any better, you should know that in general, Google doesn't index article talk pages; the only people likely to find the methods are Wikipedia editors who actually click through to the talk page.

Please don't remove or alter my signed comments on talk pages unless there is a copyright or other serious issue raised. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, individuals who edit war can be blocked. At Wikipedia, we're writers and editors first, magicians second—removing the 'tricks' from the articles until the methods can be verified is as good a compromise as you're likely to get. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, I'm not interested in wasting a tremendous amount of my time attempting to recruit people to argue with you. As an aspiring administrator, you ought to be familiar with the provisions of WP:CANVASS. Members of the magic Wikiproject who are interested in the goings-on there will already have the page watchlisted; they don't need you to spam them with requests to participate. (Moreover, you really are wasting your time in many cases—of the first seven notifications you sent, six were to editors who haven't contributed to Wikipedia for at least three months.)

If you feel that there is insufficient interest or input from members of the Wikiproject after putting your arguments forth on the talk page, then you can post a brief notice to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) linking back to your proposed guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I took a quick look at Stephen's posts. If he had indeed Canvassed, then that would have killed any chance at passing an RfA in the near future. But looking at his posts, he did not violate Canvass. His posts fulfilled all of the requirements for a friendly note. Stephen sought the opinion of others in the open (Eg he notified the pertinent parties that he was seeking outside opinion.) Notifying people who might be interested in a discussion is not considered Canvassing, if the scope is limited and the message is neutral in tone. It was not soliciting people who shared similar stance, but rather fellow members of the project. Thus it was limited and the target was not seeking "like minded individuals." Finally, his posts expressed the issue that was being discussed, but did not advocate one stance over the other, but rather that consensus needed to be reached. This is perfectly acceptable as it is similar to seeking a 3O or RfC.Balloonman (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your evaluation of Stephen's posts, there may be some points you have not considered. It was his stated intent to solicit comment from every member of the Magic Wikiproject (that would be 29 notices); he just hadn't gotten around to it yet. That borders on an excessive amount of cross-posting, even for a 'friendly note'.

Soliciting comment from all the members of the Magic Wikiproject – which at first blush may appear not to be seeking 'like-minded individuals' – is likely to return a rather biased and distorted assessment of Wikipedia process and consensus. Many of the individuals participating in the project have identified themselves as practicing magicians (amateur or professional), a group which have in the past shown a tendency to try to delete magic-related information and methods from articles and talk pages regardless of Wikipedia policy. Many magicians have (and continue to) engage in edit wars and issue legal threats against editors and administrators who restore the article content they have deleted. While I by no means intend to suggest that the magician members of the Magic Wikiproject engage in such tactics, there is certainly a bias among this group to avoid revealing the 'secrets' of magic tricks on Wikipedia. As well, many nominal members of the Magic Wikiproject are infrequent contributors, have few contributions to Wikipedia, or have made no contributions at all in recent months (or even years). Such a group may not be the best-advised or acculturated to make judgements on what would be a major departure from standard Wikipedia practice (deleting non-defamatory, non-copyright-infringing, non-soapboxing, non-spam content from a talk page).

As well, I do have to contest that the notice was entirely neutral. He – perhaps inadvertently – misstated the position that I advocate. His note asks what should be done once an unsourced method is removed from an article—" Should the secret be placed on the talk page? Or is just a comment as to why the secret was removed sufficient?" To my mind, the answer to both questions is "yes". Putting a brief comment or explanation on the talk page is certainly sufficient, but adding a copy of the full removed text to the talk page is a useful courtesy. As I understand it, what Stephen actually seeks consensus for is permission to remove or censor the material from any other editor's comments on the talk page: a major departure from Wikipedia practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC) expanded 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, I appreciate that you understand my concerns here, and that you will go through proper channels with future proposals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Shanethe13

When you warned me about editing other peoples work (namely, shanethe13's profile), he was the one who told me to log on and check out something that he had written. i had actually forgotten that i was logged on at that time. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimate Wombat (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Conflict of Interest

Hi Stephen! Thanks so much for your help. I had no idea. I'm very new to wikipedia. I added a few references to Glass Houses (2008 film) and Scorpio Rising Films....i hope this adds the notability that was missing?? :) if there's anything else we can do to better our contributions, we look forward to your advice! Mbernier1959 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

adminship

User_talk:Mqduck#Request_for_admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqduck (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"The reach around"?

I got a message from you asking for "the reach around"? Please stop messaging me, I'm trying to do research for a paper and I keep getting messages from you about "the reach around" ShakespearesZombie (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, Stephen never edited this user's talk page and the user was indef blocked as a sock. Balloonman (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bimini Bay AfD

Thanks for taking the time to leave me a note on my talk page about this. You really go the extra mile! I appreciate it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw... shucks! *blushes* Glad to be of service! StephenBuxton (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Message Feature for Talk Page

That blue box you have at the top of this talk page, with a special link leading to a new message form—what a great idea. How do you do it? --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Ha! I was expecting something much more complicated. :) Thank you very much. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - glad to be of service. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NP - good luck with the mop!

Heh. I might need it, but I'll be careful! Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Article for Deletion - please help out

Hallo Steve, the Article is only a joke. His doctoral advisor, Wanna Marchi, is a very famous italian trickster, who now sits in jail for the next ten years. Under 'Known for', there is 'Bella ciao', which is a notable song of the Partisans against the Nazi in WW II. Under 'notable Awards', there is the "Parma d'argento" (pun with 'Palma d'argento') and the "Scalfaro" (former President of Republic) prize. Both of them don't exist. The method to detect neutrinos and his first theorem are also obviously two jokes. On Google no hit refers to this guy. And so on... So please, delete this article a.s.a.p. Kind regards, Alex2006 (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Vic Harris (snooker)

Hi, I added new information to the article after you made your recommendation in the deletion discussion. Thought you might want to take another look. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done - thanks for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Nom

Balloonman would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Balloonman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sjb72 . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Stephen don't feel rushed to transclude this. Do so when you are ready---and I understand that you want to wait until a final resolution has occurred on the "secret" issue. When you do decide to transclude this, make sure that you do so when you will have 2-4 hours to respond to questions/concerns. There is a general expectation at RfA's that candidates are available to answer questions immediately after transcluding their nom. If they don't, then people start to get ancy. Once the RfA has been live for a few hours, people accept delays in responding to questions. When you answer questions, treat it like an interview. Give complete, well thought out answers.Balloonman (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence! I suspect that it probably wont be for at least a week before we can run this. Would I be right in thinking that the time starts when I sign my acceptance? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quickie commenton your nomination, now the after effects of reading your praise has worn off and my head is starting to deflate back to the normal size (my ego has never been massaged better :-)... I think it would be wrong to mention that I exposed myself to Peer Review. Yes, I did look at it, but after that, I did nothing more on it - other areas of Wikipedia (such as AFDs) took my interest, and so as a result nothing happened there. If someone were to ask me what I did wrt PR, I won't be able to show anything (unless you count my unofficial review of Bradley D. Simon and the To Do list?), and people might start questioning the validity of your other comments.

Whilst I am always happy to receive praise (who isn't?), I don't like taking credit for things that I haven't done. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So modified.Balloonman (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! StephenBuxton (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

when r u going live????Balloonman (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a comment on the coaching page last night; guess this would have been a more logical place to post it. Ah, the joys of holding conversations in half a dozen different places... Anyway, this is what I writted on the coaching page: "If the RFC can be closed this week, then I should be able to transclude this on Friday. I finish work at lunch time and should be able to spend a good few hours responding to comments. My access at the weekend though will be limited. However, I have ordered broadband, and should have that in about 2-3 weeks. If you think it best, I can hold off until then. If it ends up that the RFC isn't ready for closing by Friday, it's no big deal. I'd much rather have a satisfactory close-out and a delay in starting the RFA than rushing the closure and end up with loose ends. Getting the mop isn't the be-all and end-all, getting consensus is."

Not yet been over to check on the RFC progress this morning - will do so now. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see you transclude on Friday either way... I think the RfC issue is more or less resolved. If there are any outstanding issues, they are in the nuiances. I'd like to see you do it on Friday because I'm going to be going on vacation a week after that and would like to be here during the length of your RfA.Balloonman (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I have more concerns about the RfA process now that I've been on vacation than I did before... the process is so flawed that it isn't even funny. I'll be happy to be your nom, but it may be one of the last things that I do here... I'm seriously contemplating a retirement because of my personal disillusionment with the whole thing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Allan Bonner

Hi Stephen:

I have been speaking to another facilitator who told me to make a new profile because I am not Allan Bonner.

It is not a resume or any form of advertising. His page allows people to learn the importance of risk and crisis management in a communications capacity. Communications is a rapidly growing field and it is important that people learn about the growth of the field and the people contributing to it. Is there a number I can call or another avenue to explore. There are other people such as journalists, artists and authors who have pages. Why are we getting kicked off. I have followed all the same guidelines which they have. I would like the speedy deletion removed.

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanbonner (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, if you are Sarah, please do not use Allan Bonner's user account, as there are strict guidelines about not having multiple people using the same account. As far as the article is concerned, it is about someone who does not appear to be notable. Please have a read of WP:NOTABLE and WP:PEOPLE to see what criteria is looked for in leaving articles. If he is notable, then fantastic! However, if he isn't, then you should prepare yourself for it being deleted. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Allan Bonner

Hi Stephen:

I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and trying to resolve this issue.

I am not sure what "weak keep" means. The reason his book as multiple citations is due to information from other industry experts or quoting people such as Marx etc... Many reputable media outlets have used him as a pundit in fact he is on BNN tonight speaking about a current controversial matter. I am not sure what NPOV inhection means. And he has been referenced by many media outlets and notable people so I am not sure what "too badly infected with spin" refers to. Is there information that should be removed for this to get approved?

Thanks again you are very helpful. Sarah Sarahanders1712 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've explained the meanings on the AFD page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Bonner. Hope that helps - if not, just ask. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining my slang on the AfD page. My bad. 9Nak (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Allan Bonner

Can you please look at it now. I formulated it like many other authors do. I think it should be fine. Thanks again for your help. I will continue to try posting until it is worthy because I find his information extremely valuable and I know others will feel the same way.

Sarahanders1712 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - I've been out for a day or two with limited access. All the highly biased parts of the article have been removed, but there is very little content left. What you need to do now is include factual information that describes his notability. The fact that he is a published author and is also used as a pundit should help - you need to cite independant secondary sources to help establish his notability. Please have a read of WP:notability, WP:BIO and WP:CITE. The original article read as a combination of an advert and a curriculum vitae for the person. If you can avoid using peacock words, then it stands a much better chance of survival. By peacock words, I mean things like this: "John Doe is a highly respected author of The Biography". The words in itallics are peacock words - unsubstantiated words used to dress up the sentence and make him seem more notable. A sentence like this: "John Doe is the author of The Biography, and has influenced other writers such as Jane Doe(ref), John X Doe(ref) and A Nonnymouse(ref)". The references would be for things like interviews that the other authors have given where they speak of John Doe's influence. Have a read of WP:PEACOCK. Hope this helps. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Nope. You don't need even one nominator, so my imprimatur would be redundant. A word to the wise, though—I don't know how much things have changed at RfA, but I didn't think it was traditional to go looking for conominators. In general, multiple co-noms are spontaneous expressions of support. Submit your RfA, answer questions, take lumps as necessary; don't worry about the nominators. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dani Güiza

Thanks, I think the version you reverted to last is clean. I have also requested for page protection... this was the worst vandalized page I've seen today. Gail (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I was going to do the same and saw that you beat me to it! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There's just one contradiction left... does he currently play for RCD Mallorca (as in the opening paragraph), or for Fenerbahce SK (as in the infobox)? I'm trying to find an external source. Gail (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's the former (per [5]). I'll correct the article. Gail (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jamflips

Hi Stephen Thanks for the welcome and comments. I love wikipedia! Who invented it? How do I change my username (from Jamflips to Flamingogirl)? Regards Anne Marie Cumberland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamflips (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. As to your questions... Wikipedia was created by Jimbo Wales. If you want to change your username, there are two methods. For long established editors, this should be done at the WP:CHU page. For newer users with very few edits to their name, like yourself, it is recommended to just register a new name. Looking at this page (Special:ListUsers), it appears that User:Flamingogirl has already been taken. Unless that was you who registered it, you will need to think of a different name. Once you have done that, let me know what your new name is, and I'll see about setting up a redirect from your old username to your new one. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, That was me who took the username Flamingogirl Jamflips-Flip flop sandals for fun people (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

refraction of lite

would u like 2 say some thing more about the current affair regarding metamaterials .which are recently prepared for for negative index of total refraction and something more abt those dvd's i mean where can i get those —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.66.195 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pollard Page

Thanx 4 taking the time to write such a nice narrative on my talk page. you have a great bedside manner. perhaps you should train your patrollers how to charm contributors rather than alienate them!

here is my final commentary from the pollard talk page: There is no conflict of interest when witnesses submit their "testimony" in the form of first hand knowledge, so that's what i suggest. The Pollard Page as it presently exists is pathetic. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry I disappointed you, but you should by now know why most your edits were reverted. As for this particular issue: Pollard's website cannot be considered a reliable independent source for, what appears to me, obvious reasons. Also, if you are trying to compare Franklin's sentence to Pollard's you need a reliable source explicitly comparing the two, otherwise this will be original research by means of synthesis. Rami R 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Rami, the jonathan pollard website was referenced with a sourced document proving Pollard was not fined,(Franklin was) NOT to compare sentences.

so, i am finished here. i sent you a note on your talk page. if you are interested in Pollard's history and want to make it your "cause celebre" to create a credible Pollard's Page with only the evidence the US Government has released through the Freedom of Information Act AND first-hand witnessess, such as Carol Pollard <email deleted>, Dr. Morris Pollard <email deleted>, and Alan Dershowitz <email deleted>, I suggest you contact them and request their contributions. then you won't have to threaten those benefactors who merely want to get the facts straight. And for the opposing view, you can contact Joseph DiGenova, ("Pollard will never see the light of day!") via Victoria Toensing, who has a page here. They are married and law partners as well. Judge Robinson is dead and he would not comment even if he wasn't, and Caspar Weinberger is deceased also. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands, and I assure you this is a very productive project for you, or in the alternative you can just remove the page completely until it is sourced to your satisfaction. You'll learn quite a bit in the process. As it appears now, like much of the opinion reflected before me on this page, it is simply JUNK!! Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UT ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Furtive admirer (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

Hiya. I've granted your request for rollback. Please see WP:RBK for help or feel free to ask me. Pedro : Chat 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just perusing your talk page (what a stalker I am!) regarding multiple nominatins at RFA you may find Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2 interesting - six noms did not go down well with the community.... :) Pedro : Chat 11:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. I promise to behave myself with the new tool, and not to start saying Bwahahaha!!!! The POWER!!!!. Honest ;-)

As for the RFA multi-noms, I will just be sticking with Balloonman. It was he who suggested I might want to get a second nominator for reasons which are far too lengthy to go into here. There was only one person who I would have considered for co-nom, but he (for probably lengthier reasons) doesn't want to do so. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck with the RFA. Pedro : Chat 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I always as candidates if they want other noms. 1 or 2 other noms is fine... and IMHO can be helpful... some insecure people like pedro (ducks) feel insecure without an army ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, coach... play nicely with the other admins ;-) StephenBuxton (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pollard Page

There is a note FYI on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion page. Thanx 4 your interest on Pollard's behalf.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make (it isn't exactly made clear what that is for). Hopefully no-one will notice :P RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Q3, you've got some link to "mysterynet" i think you meant to link a WP diff instead. Not sure. –xenocidic (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. When I was writing up Q3, I also happened to be updating links on MysteryNet too (I'm a moderator on that site). Guess I was not quite as good at multi-tasking as I thought... StephenBuxton (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re UAA comments

Stephen (my name too btw : )), I appreciate you bringing your comments to my talk page. I wouldn't have minded had you brought any of this up at RfA, although, some editors might have seen it as obtrusive seeing as though it was detailed. Your point is understood regarding the confusing username bit. Yes, it was changed (or at least the overall consensus seemed to shift somewhat) a few months ago, so you are not liable for those reports. In fact, I used to do it all the time way back in the day, and, to be fair, there are still many users who do not share my view about such usernames. I also see your point about the vandalism. More often than not silly/borderline inappropriate names go hand-in-hand with vandalism. However, I am usually irked when I see a truly borderline case (if that) and a comment about vandalism, especially when there has only been a single edit - just as a for instance. Since you explained yourself and I now understand your position better, I am going to strike the weak part of my support. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that means a lot. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: User:kmweber

Hi there, sorry if you were expecting a reply from Balloonman or if you think I'm butting in but I was leaving a message on his page and felt I had to reply to your message.

I've been active on WP since shortly after you (late 2006) and in that time have watched many RfAs but only ever contributed in one. In all that time Kurt has never supported anyone with one exception (when one user made clear that they also supported the same sports team as he did). I'm not saying this person did or did not deserve to be an admin only noting it for posterity.

As I mentioned I only ever participated in one AfD when I had finally had enough of Kurt and decided to make a comment about it. In tivedsambo's RfA I made a somewhat lighthearted comment on Kurt's behaviour and noted every single reason why I thought what he was doing was unhelpful, obstructive and against the spirit of WP. Normally I'm not prone to essay writing but given his comments and the way rather than the reasons why, someone tried to stick up for him [I felt like one then].

For whatever reason Kurt does this all the time, I'm surprised he ever makes any other edits. There's a number of reasons why he might be doing this.

He's a troll and is being fed by people responding to it (as I am doing indirectly now; so I apologise for feeding him if so)
He's a straw man, for what reason I can't tell, maybe he's trying to make a point, about flaws in the system
As mentioned by other users he's bitter

You've probably already seen mention of Kurt's failed RfA, which was essentially SNOWed out. It's entirely possible that he's all three or that he's none of them. If the latter then that casts the worst light on him as he's just doing it for the sake of it, not even for any reason, hoever bad.

Kurt bever has and never will explain why he votes like he does, so I'd advise you to simply ignore him. As [I explained here] he contributes nothing to consensus, he appears to be disrupting the process, maybe or maybe not to make a point, almost certainly on purpose, and if one or neither of those is getting some kind of buzz from what I see as potentially stopping good admins who need the mop from self nomming. As I said not everyone has loads of Wikifriends who will nominate them and at times we need some people to be brave enough to put there hand up as you did. You look like you're almost certain to pass and I hope sincerely you do. Kurt is the only oppopse I suggest you discount him and his reasoning from the process.

Sorry for another essay and if I'm telling you stuff that you already know. BigHairRef | Talk 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd put my 2c in. In the past I've tried to put an end to this prima facie stuff and get him to phrase things a little more civilly, but the other day I realized something... kurt's boilerplate oppose rarely has any effect. candidates who are qualified pass, candidates who are unqualified don't pass. his oppose is a rain drop in an ocean. in fact, at the risk of being beansy, were kurt to put a little more effort into digging up some dirt on the candidate, he could do a lot more damage to their candidacy. as such, i've stopped bothering trying to engage him in dialog. WP:DFTT. P.S. I've also been meaning to address the Filll thing. P.P.S. I think Kurt has supported two candidates: one because they tried to MFD ArbCom and the other one because of the sports team and he's a "bad ass" (or some such). –xenocidic (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments - greatly appreciated. You have reinforced that my non-response is probably the right thing to do. Besides, if I were to retaliate, I would be failing my own criteria for admin ;-) StephenBuxton (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I raised that issue at User talk:Filll. –xenocidic (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

minimum waiting period

As an FYI, the minimum waiting period between failed and successful RfA's is generally considered to be 3 months, not six. Some candidates are advised to wait six, but that is generally more a commentary on their previous edits/history, not the norm.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday. Pretty much all the ones I've seen (and I admit that I haven't been around RFAs that much) have been talking about 6 months. Fingers crossed it won't come to that... StephenBuxton (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rudget

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. Always comes in handy. :) Rudget (logs) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries... just watching that user like a hawk for you. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rudget (logs) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... it passes the time. That user looks like they've stopped for now. Probably thinking about creating a new username with an offensive undertone to it. *sigh*. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA... -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 09:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Beat the 'crat congrats!

Congratz, unless the 'crats apply a heck of a lot of weight to those three opposes, it looks like you're joining our ranks. {{admin dashboard}} should help you to settle into things, and of course, let me know if you have any questions on how us FNG's should behave. =) –xenocidic (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not going to count my chickens and all that, but I must admit that I have been checking the page every 10 minutes or so and I do feel hopeful.... StephenBuxton (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, there's still the possibility of some of the people who asked me questions and not yet !voted opposing me with valid weight-inducing comments. ;-) StephenBuxton (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

nah, my prediction was accurate =) –xenocidic (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations on your promotion of adminship. Don't go crazy with the tools! —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I promise to play nice, and not to use them for evil. Not even against those on my.... list. (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate the AGF questions. I really wouldn't mind if you'd completely boycotted them - I would have. Good luck with the tools! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, mate! StephenBuxton (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yabba Dabba Doo, indeed!

Congrats on your becoming an administrator! Thanks for sharing the good news! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and no problem! StephenBuxton (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

my userpage

Thanks for catching that. Weird indeed. I wouldn't even call it vandalism (not on my largely empty page), but it's strange as it's the account's only edit... Anyway, thanks again, and have a nice one. user:Everyme 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. And apologies for accidentally rolling back your message; not the sort of thing I would normally ever do. I'd just been replying to a few emails, and somehow got into the mindset of hitting "reply" to reply. My eye saw a word beginning with "R" and got my mouse finger to click it before my brain had a chance to read it. Just the sort of thing I need towards the end of an RFA... not just rolling back incorrectly, but rolling back a post of an editor who switched to supporting me! All I need now to really make this moment even less perfect is to openly admit to having a... list, and that's why I *really* want the sysop buttons.

No, wait - you didn't read that last bit! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously I had to switch to strong oppose over this inexcusable faux pas, but you saw that coming. :D user:Everyme 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you're on my list now. And when my buttons come.... Bwahahahaha!!!!! StephenBuxton (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, actually, you can do me a favour tomorrow, and get a chance at trying your tools for the first time. As you may know (see notice on my user and talk pages) I've recently switched to a new account. I'd appreciate it if you could block me for a second, putting into the summary a notice about my older block log at [6]; something along the lines of East718's 1-second-block at the top of the old account's log (block logs are also not moved during renaming). user:Everyme 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just to check - before I block the wrong one - do you wish me to block the old you (Dorftrottel) or the new you (Everyme)? This is of course assuming that I am granted tools; there is still time for valid objections (not that I think I've done anything to warrant such objections...) StephenBuxton (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the new Everyme account, of course ... to point to the old block log of User:Dorftrottel; so as to prevent the impression that I switched accounts to hide my block history. user:Everyme 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That answers my next question then. OK, I'll do that for you, when/if I get the tools. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to call for an emergency desysopping... obviously abusing his priviledge in blocking this user without procation... I mean, it has to be personal... Stephen already has a history of rolling back Everyme's edits incorrectly... anyway... congrats!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! And thank you! I'll be stopping by your talk page soon - got a few more thanks to do first. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just adding on to the spree of congratulations that are flying around on everywhere. Also though, I also wanted to see if you had heard about MiszaBot's automatic archiving. I figure that now you are an admin and will need this, because you'll get a lot of complaints ;) NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for reminding me about the archiving - I had decided a while back that I would leave my talk page as is at least until after my RFA; I wanted there to be no hidden secrets, and it would be a testament (or otherwise) as to how I have matured (or otherwise) over time at WP. That is on my list of things to do. First off.. thank all participants. Secondly, big thanks to Balloonman. Thirdly, go to admin school. Fourthly, block Everyme (he was one of the people who didn't support me initially, but I promise you the block is not revenge - honest!). Then archive. Then get on with being an admin....

What a lot to do.... StephenBuxton (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel like blocking someone, I blocked this user for dividing by zero, and while he hasn't done that since, he has entering large numbers and then repeatedly pressing the "square root" button until the calculator reads zero. –xenocidic (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Oh, that's made my day. The adminship made yesterday, this made today (just gone midnight, and still loads more to write...) StephenBuxton (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What's even funnier is that I'm not joking =) –xenocidic (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I saw :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had to save that: User:Athaenara/Comedy#Blocko. — Athaenara ✉ 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In re your question: it's {{administrator}}. — Athaenara ✉ 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉ 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, and take your time, and LOL: Many say that the greatest thing about becoming an admin is not having to behave like a fairy anymore. Speak your mind freely, like I always do (unless I'm manipulating someone). user:Everyme 00:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. America69 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

'Congratulations! Have fun with the mop a.k.a power buttons :) -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 04:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for your message, I hope being an admin won't become too stressful for you! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind words. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! :) Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and thanks for the laugh you game me for the link to the main page deletion. I haven't laughed so much since I read about xeno's blocking because of user's division by zero.

Re:RfA Thanks

You're very welcome, and I am glad to see you succeeded. I know, many people see admin coaching as a negative, and I can see why, but Balloonman explained clearly in his introduction that this was not a "quest for power", as it were, but a constructive and thought-out process. You have come out of coaching as a highly capable Wikipedian, and you fully deserve these extra tools. Very best wishes, and happy editing, Lra drama 16:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Otters

No, the otters' votes don't count. That would be vote stacking. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So it would be pointless me trying to ferret around for something that ultimately would be a stoatal waste of time, as it wouldn't be added to the poll(cat) results. Yes, I know - otterly awful puns. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations on your successful RfA! I'm honoured to have been a part of it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

like Cosmic Latte, answer. have fun and best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate...

...the message you left for me regarding your RfA. I hope you realize that there was nothing at all personal in my vote, I would simply like to see more admins who understand the problems and concerns of those who work to improve the encyclopedia by actually editing articles. In any case, congratulations on your new status, and best of luck to you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't worry, I realise that your vote wasn't personal. In fact, I prefered the votes (support, oppose or neutral) that addressed issues in my edits or whatever, rather than the blanket support statements, as it showed me two things: firstly that they definitely had looked at me as an editor, and secondly, that I found out where I needed to improve. Once again, thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: My RFA Thanks

Please do not take my comments personally, i think you would be an execellent admin! You've shown that already, i was just slightly concerned that your admin approah seemed like it was very well planned. There is nothing wrong with giving the right answers however, and you are an execellent editor so regardless of your answers i would have supported you. Good luck being an admin, and i hope you can keep contributing to the project with your new tools! Good luck, Metagraph comment 21:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And no, I didn't take your comments personally, but (like all the comments made) as something to think about when I start using the mop buttons. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I didn't know you until this RfA, I just wanted to say "congratulations" and I know you'll do well with the tools. S. Dean Jameson 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Now, off to have a bite to eat, then on with the hand-typed thank-you's... StephenBuxton (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me. :) Acalamari 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And thank you from me :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking User:Everyme

This was quite interesting... I just cant stop laughing ! :) You guys have lots of humour.... Have fun ! Btw the way thanks for the personalized rfa thanks message. I know you will be a very good admin...Best of luck !-- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 09:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Certainly one of the oddest requests I have ever had... StephenBuxton (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwynand

Hi Stephen - I see you closed this. I've untranscluded it from the main page - are you going to add it to the relevent lists? Pedro : Chat 11:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The order I normally do it is 1) Untransclude (then people are aware action is being taken) 2) Close 3) Add to the two lists Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies and User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). I'm sure there are instructions somewhere but when you've done it a few times it just becomes second nature I guess. Sorry I was inactive during your RFA by the way and didn't support - congratulations! Pedro : Chat 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah - yep, there's normally a list of instructions for everything somewhere! The skill is finding them! Pedro : Chat 11:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

heh heh heh. Oh, and the edit conflict that occured a moment or two ago: Re my RFA - no worries. Re this RFA - thanks for the help! StephenBuxton (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

London City Airport

Can you stop removing people edits for something that you know nothing about!!!

You can listen to all the spin from the London City Aiport, but it would be nice to get a little help instead of trying to destroy peoples work. People like suffer noise to the airport and I suffer in the summer, if I open the windows I suffer the noise, if the windows are closed it is hot.

Instead of helping me to improve you are just spoiling people works.

You claim unbiased. Please see these links www.stopcityairport.org

I am trying to improve the entry.....

Also, the local councillors are under the influence of the the London City Airport....

So thanks for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.218.175 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Every thing in the Wiki Entry for the London City Airport is a cut and paste from their web site. So don't you consider this a bias?

Residents have a tough job trying to spread the word about what is going on. This is a serious matter and you are messing with *real* people's lives.

If you claim it is bias, then re-write it objectively. But I WANT THE MESSAGE TO GO OUT.

Also, have photos of building 1000, which has been empty for years.

Not mentioning a legitimate campaign such as http://www.stopcityairport.org is bias too on your part.

Everything that I have state can be backed up and I can email you the documents if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.218.175 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

if you want to state a controversial claim, please cite your statements with reliable sources NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding; you posted your question shortly after I disappeared for the evening, and this is the first opportunity I have had to respond.

Firstly, can I please ask you to calm down? I'm not sure whether you have come across this policy we have on Wikipedia, but it is to assume good faith. What it comes down to is this: assume that the other editors are all trying to write a decent encycolpedia, and that no one is out to get you. If you have a go at people, accusing them of messing with *real* people's lives, you are not going to win any friends at all. In fact, you run the risk of being blocked through incivility. So please, take a deep breath, and read what I have to say here before you make any more accusations.

Right, let's have a look at your complaints towards Wikipedia and editors like myself in general. Yes, we are removing bias and original research. Why? Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Wikipedia doesn't report the news directly, or act as a soap box for opinions, but it reports what newspapers and people are saying in an unbiased manner.

Here's an example. If an article were to say "Catwoman was a rubbish film", that would be removed because it is that editor's opinion. However, the film was widely regarded as being a terrible film, so to omit mention from the article of how badly it was received would be bias through omission. So, the article lists a selection of critics, and posts their opinion... not as fact, but as a description of the films reception. The article is factual, it is not presenting one opinion over another, but is stating more accurately what issues people had with the film. See Catwoman (film)#Response to see what I mean. An article on Saddam Hussein does not need lines like "he was an evil man", better to list his atrocities (properly cited), and let the facts speak for themselves.

Right, back to your airport campaign. You want it included? I see no harm in that. HOWEVER (and this is a very big however), you can't add it just like that. For one thing, what you wrote about London City was libellous. You used the line "However, as they years have gone, the London City has broken its promise to residents". That sentence alone could land you in a lot of trouble if a libel lawyer were to get their hands on it. You make allegations, but offer no proof - you are presenting your opinion as fact, and that is not good. Not for you, not for the article, and not for Wikipedia.

I should make it clear at this point that I am not threatening you with legal action. I have no opinion one way or the other about London City Airport. I am just warning you about the consequences of posting allegations on public sites such as Wikipedia.

Anyway, back to seeing about getting the protests mentioned in the article. If you want something included, you do need to make sure it is referenced properly. See WP:CITE for more information. But what to reference? Unfortunately, no matter how much you think your opinions matter, you cannot reference your own web site. You need to reference a news article. Has there been reporting in national press? Local press is not good enough on it's own, I'm afraid. Has there been coverage on something like the BBC news website? If so, that's great! You can quote that.

But how you write it up will make a difference. A hypothetical example, taken to the extreme: If you write something like "The lying bureaucrats at Acme Airport have deliberately with-held information about future expansion to allow for Space Shuttle launches, causing much anger amongst the downtrodden residents of nearby Village-On-River", and give references, this will not be enough... if the reference says something like "Acme Airport reveals future expansion plans for space travel; local residents raise concerns".

What I have shown you is an example of weasel words (see WP:WEASEL for more information) and putting forward a particular point of view (see WP:BIAS). If you can write a neutral paragraph or two that describes the situation, but does not put forward one side over the other, then you have written something that can be kept in the article.

There was another issue you raised. You claim "Every thing in the Wiki Entry for the London City Airport is a cut and paste from their web site. So don't you consider this a bias?". Copyright violation is taken extremely seriously at Wikipedia. I've had a look at the website, but I cannot find what sections have been copied directly into the article. Could you let me know what bits have been copied, and where exactly they were copied from? I'll then check out to see if there has been any violation, and take the appropriate steps.

If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to ask.StephenBuxton (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An article no longer exists and isn't in any deletion logs that I can find.

The article "Alternative Times" has been deleted sometime in the last couple months. I can't find any record of it ever existing except for external sites linking to it.

I would like to understand why it was deleted but I can't find any discussion on it, do you have any suggestions, or maybe you can find something that I can't.

Thanks, HwyXingFrog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HwyXingFrog (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the deletion logs, and I have found the reason given for the removal: Article is apparently about a series of mix discs or mix tapes distributed as illegal MP3 collections. I have also found the deletion discussion that took place prior to removal. This you can view here.

In short, there was nothing in the article to indicate why it was notable enough to warrant an article. WP:NOTABILITY gives general indication of notability requirements, and WP:WEB covers web site notability. Had there been something there that made the site notable (like, for example news reports about the illegal copyright activity on the site, or maybe it winning a major web award), then the article could have been kept.

If you know of anything that makes the article noteworthy enough for an article, then let me know, and I'll see about helping you recreate it. However, if there is nothing new, then it will have to remain deleted until such time in the future when it is notable enough.

I hope that answers your question - if not, then please ask more questions, and I'll do what I can to elaborate further. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen, what you found explains it, I couldn't even manage to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HwyXingFrog (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be of service. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

CSD for BMX.

I accept your decision to remove the speedy deletion request, but it seems to me that a sentence like "people in the industry are really starting to recognise the little known BMX", accepting it as true, is an indication of non-notability. Thanks for your time, Goochelaar (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to be of service. I happen to think that this band is unlikely to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, and so almost certainly will be deleted. However, CSD in notability cases is only to be applied where there is no evidence of notability in the article. There was an indication of notability, and so could not be deleted in this manner. Having had a look through the article history, it looks like someone else tried to have it speedied, and were also turned down for the same reason. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan XH558

Hi Stephen I have been asked by my CEO [Dr Robert Pleming] at Vulcan to the Sky Trust, to monitor this page to see it is totally correct, as it refers to our aircraft.

Any queiries you may get can be directed to me on (personal information deleted)

regards Denis Parker VTST Access Manager

VTST (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Monaco Motion

Hi Stephen,

You deleted Monaco Motion recently, stating that it is spam. I am a member of Monaco Motion, but am in no way advertising on behalf of them. I feel that it is extremely relevant information for any modern encyclopedia, based on their relative growth in such a short time. I was wondering why you chose to delete it, and if there is any way for me to re-create without certain references that perhsps were seen as objectable.

Best Regards,

RedskinsFan1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redskinsfan1 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it was because there was no notability indicated within the article as to why there should be an article about it - see WP:WEB for more information about that. In the deletion summary, I indicated that it was also bordering on spam - see WP:SPAM for more information . The whole article read like an advert - the sort of things that copywriters would produce. It was dressed up with words that indicated significance without giving the substance behind it (see WP:PEACOCK). Looking at the deletion log, I can see that you recreated the article and someone else deleted it for exactly the same reasons I gave. As you are a member of this group I would caution against you writing it as there will be a conflict if interest (see WP:COI). However, if you honestly believe that it is a notable enough topic, and can back it up with secondary sources to prove notability and you can write it so it reads as an article not an advert, then let me know, and I'll see what I can do. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tenth Stage

Hi there. I didn't think The Tenth Stage passed WP:MUSIC (or WP:RS). WP:MUSIC requires that:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
I don't see this in the article.
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
I don't believe this to be the case
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
The article makes no mention of this.
Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
No reliable source is indicated in the article to assert this.
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
No label information is mentioned in the article, so this point is failed too.
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable
Nope!
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Another "nope"!
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
If they have, the article makes no mention of this.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Again, if they have, the article makes no mention of this.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.
Another no!
Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
If this is the case, there's no mention of it in the article.
Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
Again, no mention is made of this in the article.

I shall post the article on AfD now. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and I see what you mean now about lack of notability. For future reference though, if an article is stating notability (whether referenced or not), no matter how minor, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and PROD/AFD should be used. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall try to remember that in future. Thanks for your speedy reply. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal reporting

Thank you for the notice. I know about the staged warning process and usually I like to follow that system. But when I saw User:75.37.6.108's history of contributions, I was convinced that they were gradually slicing the article into pieces, i.e. secretely trying to delete the entire page. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Car & Bike Show

In reply to the message you posted to my talk page, the article is entirely unreferenced (not a single reference), very little/no notability, partially sounds like advertising (This is the show to watch on a weekly basis if anything on wheels fascinates you.). The article claims that this is "India's most watched auto show", but does not back it up with a single reference or link. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; and if it were to go to AFD, it probably would get deleted. However, as there is some form of notability stated (even though it is unreferenced), it cannot be deleted under CSD#A7. The part of the criteria for A7 states: This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. This is why I suggested in the edit summary (when I removed the CSD) that PROD/AFD be used instead. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AIV for 65.88.88.153

You removed my AIV for 65.88.88.153 based on "insufficient warnings". As I pointed out in my explanation, this is the same person as another IP address who has already had multiple warnings for committing the same infraction eight or ten times now in the last couple of days, and who has been warned multiple times, after having already been blocked twice, and this morning was blocked again. It seems a bit surreal to say that this person hasn't been warned enough. Moreover, this IP address already had a sockpuppetry template attached, and he's doing that now, getting around one block by connecting from a different location. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the edits you were decribing weren't what I'd call vandalism either. Asking questions on a talk page isn't vandalism; if there were civility issues (e.g. if it were borderline trolling), a warning about being civil/no personal attacks would have been appropriate. Correct (and sufficient) warnings should be given before a block can be used. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you didn't look at the nature of his changes. ;-P He wasn't asking questions, he was raving--which is also OK, in a way, but he was consistently placing his messages right at the top of the page, without a heading. And, as I mentioned earlier, he has already been blocked under another IP address based on the number of warnings he'd received and the fact that he was already blocked twice earlier this month for the same behavior. A block doesn't do much good if the warning count is seen as being reset to 0 when someone comes in through another IP address and starts right off with the behavior that triggered the block. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds almost like you need to do a sockpuppet report, apart from the fact that SP reports are on registered users, not IP addresses. I suggest that you keep an eye on that user, and give appropriate warnings, and the appropriate number. WP:AGF is something that has to be followed at all times. I would also suggest reporting the talk pages to WP:RFPP - sounds like you have a case. I'd protect them myself, but I have to shoot off out now. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye open, and I just put a couple of specific warnings on his page. Granted, the worst thing he'd been doing was deleting the section of the article itself that had offended him, but he may have stopped doing that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No Problem StephenBuxton (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)