User talk:Soms/Archive 1

Hello, I am Somitho also known as Soms, on IRC. Discussion below will be archived as needed.

867-5309 edit

Thats ok. I had seen the section you had deleted not whacked off in several other edits on the page, so I assumed that it was some kind of vandalism going on. PYLrulz 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPWatcher

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! M a rtinp23 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on an IRC conversation, I'm happy to approve you M a rtinp23 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AOL Netblocks

Aha. Curiosity fulfilled, for now. Many thanks. :) Luna Santin 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Information

Thank you for the links to help me with my problem. I am still a little unclear as to how my contributions sound like advertising, but there were a lot of good things on those links. Thanks.

Nico2001 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Piotrus-ghirla medcab case

Thank you very much for responding. I would love your help, as this case is extremely touchy. I'm actually afraid to get too involved because these guys obviously despise each other (and one of them is an admin). It may be a frustrating case to mediate, and I'm actually not expecting to accomplish much, the best we can hope for is that these two agree to stop flaming each other. But maybe just a little time will cure their ills too. In any case, my strategy is going to be to try to stay out of sight but offer them some perspective. I would advise caution as well, and don't let on that you're in the cabal. It seems that some generous wikipedians have already said most of what I would have said on the dispute page. I've added my name to the most moderate of the viewpoints, you may want to throw in your two cents as well. Thanks again for your help. Antimatter---talk--- 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

I reiterate that (1) we don't in general fix hypothetical problems until they actually occur; (2) while the danger of account compromise is real, inactive accounts are far less likely to be compromised (leading to false positives); (3) a compromised account would likely not stay inactive (leading to false negatives) and (4) we already have a better method of dealing with compromised accounts. (Radiant) 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something u may find useful

mathbot Xiner (talk, email) 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler case

I don't think any of my opponents will post anything; they will probably just ignore the mediation. Is there any way to get their attention? Xanon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.64.6 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Mediation Sahaja Yoga

Hi Somitho, thanks for mediating for us, I'm glad we can finally get all this settled for once :)

I've added articles I want you each to work on, and let us know why you feel they should be this way. Please do not edit each others articles or have outside assistance. The purpose of this is to find out exactly what originality you wish to contribute, along with handle the dispute at hand in a civil fashion. Hopefully the compromise we come to will include a piece of the old, and the new; by rewriting portions of the article. Please follow all current guidelines and policy when doing this, remembering WP:NPOV and WP:REF when doing so

I'm not sure where you added the articles you mentioned...

Thanks again, Sfacets 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga Issue

I am also deeply concerned about the Sahaja Yoga issue, which also relates to the coverage of same in the articles on yoga and self realization. The article simply restates claims made by the organization and critical information is deleted. I had intended to get around to editing it and requesting mediation when reverted. but I see this is already active. I find Will Bebacks comments quite relevant. This is an example of how I had to respond to an unwarranted reversion by Sfacets to simply putting Sahaja Yoga in the proper yoga article category:

Sahaja Yoga as Unorthodox and Contemporary, not Orthodox.

An editor with a suspected COI regarding Sahaja Yoga advocacy throughout Wikipedia simply reverts the inclusion of Sahaja Yoga in the Unorthodox and Contemporary Category. My easily demonstrated point, as stated, was simply that "Shri Mataji's controversial Sahaja Yoga is a NRM founded in 1970, hardly orthodox or mainstream yoga, definition of self realization as cool breeze or second baptism not mainstream". This editor replies: "RVT - Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions, where Cool breeze is described (as well as in other litterary sources))". Really?

This revert without discussion simply restates that NRM's controversial claims as gospel, and part of a contribution pattern of a pattern of deletion of any thing deemed crticical, even if the claim is only the easily demonstrated fact that Sahaja Yoga is Modern, Unorthodox Yoga, and not Orthodox. This is another example why Wikipedia clearly states that the materials of religious groups are to be treated with caution, that editors with COI need to be cautious in their editing, and that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies on those making the claim.

That Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement founded in 1970, and widely considered an NRM, can be demonstrated simply by referring to the Sahaja Yoga article and talk page. And even if the claim that Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions were true, the Nath article not only does not support this claim, but does acknowledge that Nath is a heterodox tradition, refuting the editor's contention that Sahaja Yoga is orthodox, even if the suspect Nath claim were valid. In fact, Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement, the founder has no formally recognition from the claimed lineage, and instead, there are pictures of the founder meditating with the late Rajneesh just prior to founding the NRM, see [3], along with comments about her by Rajneesh himself. Reviewing Sahaja Yoga material shows that the NRM clearly claims to be original in many of its doctrines and interpretations, even down to the functions of the classic seven chakras, and its leader makes extraordinary, unique Avataric claims: "I am the Adi Shakti. I am the One who has come on this Earth for the first time in this form to do this tremendous task. The more you understand this the better it would be. You will change tremendously. I knew I’ll have to say that openly one day and we have said it. But now it is you people who have to prove it that I am that!" (Shri Adi-Shakti Devi, Sydney, Australia, March 21, 1983). Hardly Orthodox!

Regarding the claim that experiencing a cool breeze above the head and at the palms is a sign of self-realization, that is hardly orthodox, certainly not confirmed in the Upanishads or Pantajili, and not even among kundalini yoga based sects. This editor restates the claim Sahaja Yoga makes: ("One can actually feel the all pervading divine power as a cool breeze, as described in all religions and spiritual traditions of the world"), but fails to provide the evidence in context to support this extraordinary claim that it is so described in all religions and spiritual traditions. And with Sahaja as with a lot of other NRMs that consistently redefine traditional terms, one does not look at just the words, but at whether what Sahaja Yoga defines as self-realization is similar or completly distinct from orthodox definitions. While it is true that many sects consider enlightenment to occur when the kundalini has risen up to and stablized in the sahasrara, which is considered the seat of Self and enlightenment in some Upanishads, that does not imply support for the "cool breeze" as meaning this has rise has occured nor for the "self realization and second baptism" claim, and the editor has provided no documentation other than restate the claims of the NRM to support this claim.

In fact, when you examine the Sahaja Yoga "self-realization" claim, Sahaja defines it merely as "A connection with the Self", where as more mainstream Upanishadic and Vendantic based traditions define Self-Realization as the permanent Union or Identification of the jiva with Self/Atman/Brahman/Parabrahman, or God Realization, not just some energetic baptism or "connection" with the Self. Also, note that there is a sigificant, also ancient Unpanishadic tradition that the seat of the Self and self-realization is found not in the sahasrara, but beyond that, in the Cave of the Heart, see for example Ramana Maharshi.

In summary, without making definitive judgements on the claims of that NRM, which is not the function of Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga is properly where I put it, along with other, contemporary modern and unorthodox Yogas, and the burden of proof for the extraordinary religious based claims based on dogma and materials from that NRM is not on me, but on that editor suspected of COI regarding Sahaja Yoga to show why I am incorrect.

This demonstrates the fundamental error the Sahajists make in all sincerity in applying an unconscious double standard due to their COI, that the information from their NRM is reliable and verifiable because the group affirms it, or a known sympathizer with some expertise reports it, while critics are unreliable. This issue occurs on a number of articles about NRMs, and what NRM advocates fail to understand is that as a religious group making exceptional claims about the special divine role of their leader, in this case AKA "Adi Shakti", as quoted above, all their publications and sources, however crafted, must be viewed with caution according to Wikipedia guidelines, and the more exceptional the claims, the more they require exceptional sources, and this does not just apply to sources with any critical information.

I have summarized a previously outlined position similar to that accepted in similar article issues with Wikipedia references as follows:

I've been reviewing a number of articles on controversial NRMS, where the edititors are not able to handle their conflict of interest, where pro and con disputes often require mediation and even arbitration. I have reviewed Sahaja article and the talk history. The article reads like it was written by the group, with only a proforma mention that there is criticism. I agree with you, there is clear evidence that several editors have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that they are exhibiting Wikipedia:ownership, that they are not following the principles described in Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, and that they are not editing in good faith WP:Faith. Furthermore, I submit there is evidence of unconscious Wikilawyering, WP:LAWYER, the technical exploitaton of selected guidelines for purposes not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Usually, as is the case in this article, the primary issue is imbalanced suppression of information, which can be by those either pro or con, by advocates, sympathizers, or in some cases, simply zealous deletionists who do not acknowledge the impact on NPOV. The fact remains that Wikeipedia clearly states that in partisan and religious disputes, the statements of both sides are subject to caution regarding reliability and verifiability, there can be no a priori assumption that one side is more reliable than another. Because this same dynamic is found in lots of articles, Wikipedia should really have a guiding essay. However, until then, the following logic has been recognized as relevant (see for example Ken Wilber talk):

As an inclusionist, I am particularly interested in maximizing NPOV, and the idea that websites and blogs can be appropriate depending on what is available, and in particular that when the subject of an article opens the door by using self-published materials like a website or blog to communicate ideas and respond to critics, critical websites or blogs, if they are the best available sources and the person who wrote them is noteworthy relative to the subject and can be identified, can be considered.

In this case, the subject is a controversial religious guru, which triggers some caveats in the Wikipedia guidelines. Because of dispute between inclusionists and deletionists which occurs on this and related sites, a few of us have developed a frameework regarding the inclusionist response in these matters as follows:

WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, in this case, a religous claim, that of the groups founder being an Avatar, and claims about other religious figures and movements, are being made. This advocacy, and the dearth of independent, objective consideration, makes the essentially self-published sources from Sahaja advocates themselves of limited verifiable reliability. The Sahaja material is contentious, arguably self-serving, makes claims about events not related to the subject, and makes unverified claims about third parties. Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." The Sahaja organization makes subjective and even exclusive religious claims about its leader and serves a religious function, supporting the mission of its guru founder, and deserves the same initial caution as critical material. Therefore, under Wikipedia principles and guidelines, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to this subject must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind, meaning there is no excessive burden of proof on critics vis a vis proponents regarding religious groups. The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional the sources requred. (Note: there are even many suspect medical claims being made that also require exceptional sourcing). Because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". Relying only on published material or websites of dubious reliablity, while excluding based on reliability and verifiability issues all critical material from known, noteworthy critics familiar with the subject (to whom the organization has responded and criticized in websites and blogs and thus opened the door), when that is the best available source, impacts NPOV. In these cases, selected critical material, including sites and blogs of former associates/followers and those notable within the NRM for analysis of NRMs, may meet the "particularly eminent" criteria relative to this subject alone (NRMs alone do not determine who is particularly eminent among their critics) for inclusion where other sources are not available and where the material is not libelous. The alternative view, which assumes that there is a ready economically justifiable market for published and academically reviewed books critical of Sahaja Yoga, and that everything else, simply isn't realistic, and erroneously assumes the Sahaja material is presumed more reliable because they have the resources to polish the presentation. It is particularly interesting that Sahaj advocates find the even University of Virginia site unacceptable, since the site is considered by NRM critics to be apologetic. Again, the lack of formally published, academically reviewed material is an unavoidable by product of the relative lack of mainstream academic interest in Sahaj. The article needs an appropriate balance. That is why I continue to urge that we need to balance WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR here, both in letter and in spirit. The article as it stands is so suspect, so far from NPOV, and so below Wikipedia standards as to be unacceptable.

What the article clearly needs is the proper balance of criticism, including responsible critics of aspects of the unorthodox dogma itself. This requires more NPOV editors and experts in the field not associate with the NRM to develop a balance that is clearly lacking. The acceptable resolution IMO should be an understanding that the burden of proof should be on those with a COI regarding their supression of material they consider critical, and that if they open the door by making an claim, paarticularly an extraoridary claim, appropriate critical response is warranted. --Dseer 11:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Mediation Requested on Sahaja Yoga Issue

While Will Beback may have brought the original mediation request, Sfacets has been confronted about apparent COI editing on the Sahaja Yoga page recently by not just Will Beback, but in good faith by other responsible editors, including NovaSTL, Will Beback, Milo, among others I can see. I agree, and I am getting the same result, being accused of COI editing myself, and falsely accused of deleting Sahaja Yoga, claims I have no interest in resolving the situation, etc. This behavior is clearly in direct contradiction to what Wikipedia expects, to wit: "As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability —when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article...If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."

Sfacets took it upon themselves and assumed the authority on their own to reverted my comments to you, including an extensive analysis of the situation which I finally posted to the mediation page, by claiming because I was "not involved" I should comment on the talk page, even though it is Will Beback who initially identified who was involved without realizing my concern. The fact is, I am a Wikipedian and I am involved, I had already requested Will Beback's support to ask to mediate this before I found out this was active, as you can see I posted my comments on your talk page, and I am quite familiar with these types of issues, had run the essence of my logic by a mediator in the Ken Wilber dispute, and I have the same issues as Will Beback and others regarding these editors, and I intend to make the same types of changes to the article to include more skeptical/critical information, and I am currently in a similar dispute with the same editor on the Yoga page regarding Sahaja Yoga, and will be on others where it is mentioned. I hope you take the time to read my comments even though they were deleted, because they are sourced, consistent with how other articles on NRMs are handled, and to the point. Particularly since Sfacets wants the mediation delayed for a number of weeks, there is precedent for interested parties not originally listed in the mediation case who have similar issues to the same parties on the same subject to request consideration, and Sfacets has clearly involved me with the similar conduct I've seen since I started editing Sahaja material. It is safe to assume that Sfacets simply feels more comfortable in a two Sahajists on one more skeptical editor situation, but that is not what Wikipedia is all about. I do not take instruction from Sfacets as gospel. Now if YOU want me to only comment on the talk page, I can post the same thing there but that seems a waste of time since nothing has been resolved by prior editors making the same basic point and my concerns are what is being discussed in the mediation. I read the mediation heading, it said: "While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible". Clearly it isn't possible, both logistically and because the record of failure is clear, nor does it make sense when in fact more editors on talk are closer to Will Beback's position than the Sfacets and the resolution would affect them too. I do not want to disrupt your efforts, so I await your guidance on the next step. One way or another, my concerns need to be addressed. --Dseer 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menudo

I added the Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo as a internal link from the Menudo web site can you look it over and let me know its ok. I am new and seeking adoption. The Menudo site at the bottom have numerous internal links to there CD's and DVD's and just a few without them and I provided this one and hope its ok.--Blue5864 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One mediation in 2 places

You can join as a second mediator to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Religious_Democracy.

It is about the exact same issue. User:Farhoudk created this one for no good reason.--Patchouli 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged them at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12 Religious Democracy--Patchouli 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having 2 or even more people as part of a mediation panel.--Patchouli 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on RfA!

With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments.

Of those, there's about a dozen editors I hadn't come across before, whom I particularly want to write a comment to. RfA is a good chance to see how others see you. It also shows a light on others, and those who judge sometimes show themselves in a flattering or unflattering light too. An inevitable aspect of any giving of opinion, so to speak. I don't think our paths have crossed, and yet you showed a high degree of confidence that I would use the access honestly and well. I'd like to live up to that, as being the best and most relevant "thank you" I can think of for your support and help. That, and to catch you around some time and see some of the areas you edit in, as well.

As a new user of admin access, I might well benefit from guidance for a while to come. I trust my existing approach overall, but its an area one doesn't really want to make even a single mistake, and where the judge is the eyes of ones peers. So advice would be a Good Thing.

To start that off, I've already asked for advance guidance from other long-standing admins in a couple of areas that I'm likely to be involved in long term. As time goes on, I might want to come back to you for advice on these and other issues too. If you feel up to watchlisting User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd appreciate it :) it's my initial step to ensuring this new access is taken as responsibly as possible, during the next while, and to get advice as needed from others.

Otherwise, do keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –mysid ☎ 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm..

C'mon Soms, there's like 10 peoplke on this range, like thousands of users will ever see that IP let alone use it :( 172.205.175.80 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks!

I was kinda getting the thing cooled down at the RFA talk page. Why the grenade? --Kim Bruning 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja Yoga mediation active

The major Sahaja Yoga editors are active again. Are you still available for mediation? -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

I am boycotting that case. I have a headache. You can close it. Thanks.--Patchouli 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2:00PM-3:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 2:00PM-3:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 3:00PM-4:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 3:00PM-4:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 5:00PM-6:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 5:00PM-6:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6)

An editor has nominated 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would ask that you review this thread and notice when it is appropriate for a non-Bureaucrat to close RfAs. There is only a limited number of situations in which this can happen. Other than that, please contact the Bureaucrats on the noticeboard or directly, via user talk pages. We thank you for your interest in the RfA process. Cheers, Redux 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Act for the community, but don't impersonate

Please do not impersonate an administrator as you did on User_talk:PopeofPeru when you posted a block message. It is against wikipedia rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.224.155 (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]