User talk:Wuhwuzdat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Marking pages as "patrolled"

If you are here to complain that I do not mark pages as "patrolled", please have someone add the ability to do so when searching through the edits on this page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=newbie, as that is where I do my "Patrolling" from. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hello, I noticed you have been patrolling/tagging a lot of new pages for speedy deletion. However, you are not marking these pages as "Patrolled" when you do so. Please do so, as it prevents the (minor, but still present) inconvenience of checking new articles that have already been checked. Thanks! Jamiebijania (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They should be marked, as I am using Twinkle, and my config for TW is set to "TwinkleConfig.markSpeedyPagesAsPatrolled = true;". Perhaps this is a slight bug in TW? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for explaning!Cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Hello. When you patrol new pages, acceptable articles or articles which have been tagged for deletion should be marked as "patrolled" using the link at the bottom right of the article. This is intended to save time. Thank you. MrShamrock (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response and explanation to another user, earlier today, in the section above titled New Page Patrolling. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry 'bout that, didn't see that MrShamrock (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD

I have noticed you widely applying the G3 tag to articles. Most of these aren't vandalism. Please assume good faith and refrain from labelling articles as vandalism, it drives contributers away, and is the wrong CSD criteria.--Patton^t/c 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Were these articles like Bloof, Flojipoj, Maksist, Klonijo, Raloy, etc, etc, etc? Pure gibberish, attempts at neologisms, all created by 2 accounts, who I suspect are the same user. 1 article is probably a test page or nocontent, a pattern like this is pure vandalism. Just finished a sock report on them/him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and they didn't come under G3, they aren't vandalism. I have rejected the speedy tagging and listed them at AfD.--Patton^t/c 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion, Seeing as both of the content authors,User:Flojipoj and User:Hax0rIII have just been blocked for an indefinite period of time for sockpuppetry, why dont we invoke WP:SNOW, and dispense with the debate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(break) Do you think this warrants a check user under Code B or E? There are also a handful of IPs who edited the Plamf article --DFS454 (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has already requested under Code F, it didn't quite qualify as B, due to only 6 known incidents, and also didnt't quite qualify as an E, due to the user changing names when he was close to being blocked, rather than after he was blocked. The sock investigation is here: [[1]]. I'd hope that, if the checkuser request is approved, it may turn up a few "sleepers" (such as those 3 suspicious IPs) that we may have missed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I expanded your report by adding the creator of the plamf article to the list. --DFS454 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

edit war

It's been resolved... Fangfiftyfive (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The edit warring, vandalism only, user who posted this was blocked for an indefinite period of time less than 20 minutes after they made this posting. Resolved? Yes, but not the way they expected. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Orin scrivello

The author re-established the page after it was turned into a redirect. Thought you might want to know.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, but it looks like the situation was resolved in my absence. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Netdania

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to clusterbomb the guy with warnings; one would have served. HalfShadow 09:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I went easy on that particular SPAMMER, I could have also issued;

• a copyvio/speedy warning for each of his 2 SPAM pages,
• 2 warnings not to use said same copyrighted material,
• a warning about his promotional username,
• a warning not to include promotional external links in his editing, (see edit history for Currency pair).

"Cluster Bomb"? perhaps....but the B-52 squadron was all warmed up to carpet bomb, and I held them back, as I thought a precision strike laser guided notification here [[2]] for promotional username was a more than adequate coup de grâce. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:NMS Publishing

I have a copy of one of the references that User:NMS Publishing added and that you deleted.

"NMS Publishing", based on the books added is an organisation, in this case The National Museums of Scotland, not an individual person self-promoting their work. I will restoring at least one of those deleted references as they are relevant to that article.Pyrotec (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with you, or any other 3rd party adding any appropriate work as a source. My issue was with what appeared to me to be self promotional edits by this user, for the apparent purpose of increasing sales of their own works. If you check their edit history, you may see the same pattern I perceived, the user was only inserting their own works as "further reading". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you. They are all added as "further reading" and are "self-promotional"; but the one that I have restored is relevant to the article (I suspect that they probably are all relevant to their respective articles) but in this case the article lacks adequate in-line citations and so this source is not called up, yet. If there is such a division between and "good" and "bad" self-promotion, then this is not "bad self-promotion".Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD on J. Ledbetter

That most certainly was not nonsense. Mistake perhaps? The Llama! (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mistake. It was late, I was tired, and somehow the absurd descriptions and titles struck me as being just a bit 'too absurd for reality. It was also time to stop patrolling for the day. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaendoo

Could you provide me with more information than what the boilerplate tag says about why Gaendoo was nominated for speedy deletion? I couldn't quite add up all the pieces to make a "go" for deletion, and I think that if you can go into more detail than a simple tagging allows, I can be better prepared to take proper action if necessary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the tag was a bit vague on that one, I think this is a neologistic Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article, and should be deleted, Per WP:NOT, and WP:NEO. I believe I misread between the lines of the 2 references, as I thought was in wikitionary already, hence the erroneous transwiki tag. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll nominate it for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

delete article

hello, following discussion with Dlohcierekim and DGG can you just go ahead and delete this? I'd rather have nothing about them then having it marked with COI. see their user talk pages for my info on the subject.

Thanks. Openschoolbc (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, can't delete anymore than you can. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I've trimmed it right down. Is without a doubt neutral now. Can you please let me know if this does not meet requirements before tagging it up again? Openschoolbc (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think you're up to?

What's going on, son? I'm here trying to contribute to the project and you start undoing all my edits. You stop that or I'll take my stick to you. Double Uncle Spit Roast Generator (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles

This is untoward treatment; I have my reasons for wanting to remove Charles just as he wanted to remove Diana. Double Uncle Spit Roast Generator (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Three minutes after his last comment (above) the vandal in question here was blocked from editing, for an indefinite period of time. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tom Kat Records

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tom Kat Records, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Claims notability without any relevant details or citations

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sorry for the template. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I notice that you tagged the page What Makes A Good EFL Teacher?, later moved to User:Brucehaxton/What Makes A Good EFL Teacher? for speedy deletion with the reason "advertising/spam". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it is not spam, but it is a how-to. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:MFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the version of the page that existed when I tagged it, not the later edited version. The version I tagged contained many external links to Mr Haxtons travel service, as did his other alleged article. The gentleman is a spammer, albeit a subtle one. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; the tagging was correct at the time but since the page was revised it seems OK now. Apologies for not making that clearer. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting for harrasment

Your being reported for harrasment of a user. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary does not indicate any such report, but it does indicate your "vandalism only status". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You can not get me for sockpuppetry. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

11 minutes later, the troll above was ...history. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Toto Cup Al 2008–09 declined speedy

as it is not nonsense. Merely in need of redirect. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

as noted to someone else earlier today (2 sections up), please check the article, as it existed at the time I tagged it [3], this article consisted mainly of unintelligible abbreviations, interspersed with very few words. I stand by my tagging of that article, and would defy almost anyone to make sense of it as it stood when I tagged it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I almost deleted it. One must remember that deletion is the last resort. Sometimes, new editors do not know how to create an article. One must endeavor to seek improvement if possible. I've been convinced more than once of the deletability of an article, only to find that I needed only to add a few words and a source or two to make a decent stub. I generally try a Google search first, then decide. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edwards Rail Car Company COI

Stokermatic and Billstoker are definitely the same person, per the creation log. I'll have to look more into the edits before filing a sock report. It's going to be hard to get checkuser evidence, though--neither account has edited since December 2008. Blueboy96 00:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember

Whenever tagging an article for G10 (attack), always blank the page. Cheers.--Giants27 TC 01:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Joalvarez

In regard to tagging this page for speedy deletion, the content might have been promotional, but in any event, speedily deleting the user talk page would not solve the problem effectively. If the page were speedily deleted before the user saw the warning, they wouldn't even have known what the problem was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete?

Hmm....are you sure that posting a Speedy delete wasn't a bit...hasty? Feel free to discuss here. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jayne Snyder

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jayne Snyder, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Snyder. Thank you. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi there my page has been deleted by you and I dont agree with that please advise why that happened ? --Feria 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFeria (talk • contribs)

I tagged your page as blatant advertising, and user:Jclemens, the admin who actually did the deletion, deleted it for the same reason. By the way, if you had bother to read anything on this page before you posted, you would have read "New posts go at the bottom of this page" right up near the top, in bold type. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reston , Virginia

Kevla corp is a company in Reston,VA. There are alot of IT companies in Reston that make it one of the fastest growing cites in Virginia. Reston Virginia is a fast growing city in Northern Virginia. It is home to many IT companies. The area was the heart of the Dot Com bobble. I was trying to create a list of IT companiese in Reston, this was a focus point to show the dependent of Reston on IT. I started with Kevla Corporation, I companey that I was a client at a time. But it got deleted, although I think everyone belives a company in Reston Town Center is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. The article is neutral, it is not commercial in any means. could you review the speedy deletion. I think the second time there was no consideration about the article or its value. (Linkaland (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Consider it reviewed. My nomination for speedy deletion stands. Per the notice on the page: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

where do you want me to put the significance of the company, or companies? What makes Lockheed Martin so great for Bethesda MD, makes these small IT companies significant for Reston. I mean I was thinking about putting all these articles together, attaching them to Reston, so any person from Reston can see the companies in the area, and a brief description about them. What you are doing is like labeling Scilicon Vally as insignificant. (Linkaland (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest the following location: "In the article". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I like wikipedia as much as you do. I read the guidelines, I fixed the article. And I dont know how to point at the significance of a fast growing IT company. Can you tell me what is the significance of an artilce about Google, without making it turn into an ad? the answer is no. So the wiki guidlines tell me to not say stuff about it that makes it look like an AD. so then i make it facts, then you say what is the significance. I see why you would delete the first one, but not the second one. Maybe you can help by giving some clear advice. (this is not about this one article, this is general advice about what makes you decide what is significant to others).(Linkaland (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

You like Wiki as much as I do? Tell me that again, 7200 edits from now. As for your article, it tells me nothing except the business type, location, and number of divisions the company has, none of which speaks to its significance.

A similar article for a business I'm quite familiar with would read:

• Joe's place is a restaurant in Marengo, Illinois. It has 3 Divisions: Counter Service, Fry Cook, & Delivery

Now, tell me what is significant about Joe's place? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC) _{When in Marengo, EAT AT JOE'S PLACE!!}

First of all, this is just a start of an article, it will build up as times goes, and other companies move into the city, I used to work for CA Inc. tell me why is there a thread about them, there was no significant thing going on in that company. No significance whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CA,_Inc.

But no one objects. You see its not about small or big, its about network. I was trying to enhance wikipedia by writing about companies weather small or big that are located in Northern Virignia. And then I connect all of these together. Where it can be a list, and then it can be chosen, categorized. But it looks like Wikipedia is no longer edited by people, but rather by a group of people who like to decide what is significant for others. by the way, about Joe's place which serves food. People who go there decide what is important. Maybe Joe starts making a super sandwich, then the users will add more information. What is the significance of Wikipedia if you want to take the question to a higher level.

You edited 7300 pages? wow. Maybe if you give the same opportunity to others like me, there will be more people editing. maybe you want to just be the only one doing this thing. Then go ahead. (Linkaland (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

First of all, this is just a start of an article....do you always post rough drafts of everything you write in a public place?

Comparing it to the CA article, your article is roughly 1,000 characters long and very few details(lets call that 2 burnt french fries and a sip of warm, flat, coke), compared to the CA articles roughly 22,000 characters with a lengthy corporate history, a (non spammy) list of product lines, and may other DETAILS. (Full Prime rib dinner with all trimmings, and dessert). Which is "More Filling"? Which "Taste's Great!"?? In my opinion, the answer to both questions sure isn't your Kevla article. In the immortal words of Clara Peller...."Where's the BEEF?"

You are correct, it's NOT about big or small, but what it is about is SIGNIFICANCE, and your article gives ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Kevla is SIGNIFICANT. Joe's Place makes a damn fine pizza, burger, and quite a variety of other food, but you wouldn't know that from the 1 liner in my previous reply, would you? YOU have to put it in the article. If you had spent 10% of the effort you put into your complaints here, into expressing the significance of Kevla in a non-advertising manner, the problem would most likely have been solved.

Wikipedia's significance is it is the worlds largest online encyclopedia, and largest encyclopedia ever assembled.

As for my (current count of) 7274 edits, imagine what Wiki would be like if no one ever deleted an article....the result would be a mass of autobiographical or insult pages about teenagers; bad jokes; porn, used car, & vacation timeshare ads; articles written in total gibberish; how to articles on subjects like how to fillet a panda; lonely hearts ads; 10 year old valentines day cards; and articles that are deliberate, malicious mis-information. Somebody's got to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Enough typing for now. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

if Phat People is to be deleted or not

dude did u read my other stuff on the talk page?... could u answerPhat Boy's Production (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, read it. Did YOU? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

are u just sitting there watching my profile?.... that wast an attack, that was an opinion that i hoped would make it to the editors of Wikipedia, thay got to get on sometime.Phat Boy's Production (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

...watching FAR more than just your profile, see here [[4]] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh, what fun u must be having...Phat Boy's Production (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

one last question... from what i understand we have to make the cartoon popular before ever putit on here?Phat Boy's Production (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It has to be famous enough for someone BESIDES YOU to think it merits an encyclopedia article. See WP:COI Wuhwuzdat (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh well screw it then, will have to wait a few years, hope u still remimber it when u see it.....Phat Boy's Production (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kakkmaddafakka?

Hi there, why is this page tagged for speedy deletion? Are you sure you're the best person to be editing articles on the Norwegian music scene?(Bergenblogger (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

By the time you had posted this complaint, your article had been un-tagged for several hours already. As for your question....I answer "Are you sure you're the best person to be editing articles on the Norwegian music scene?". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice. Please don't bite. Rettetast (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't think that was anywhere near being a bite. I simply asked Bergenblogger to do the same self evaluation they asked me to do. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Television Radio

Putting together my info for the sockpuppetry case right now. I have reason to believe that that our "friend" may also be 69.209.202.165. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!, will add that IP in. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bunt bread

I wasn't sure which way to go on this one. A quick Google search reveals that bunt bread does exist, but everything else in this article appears to be made up. I actually got in an edit conflict with you because I was trying to add a prod at the same time you added the speed, so if the speedy is declined we can go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have brought attention to you contribution log

I hope it does not appear that I feel you have done anything but commendable work but it is only fair to inform you that in a discussion here I have discussed an article which you nominated for deletion and listed your contribution as an example of just how many articles some editors list. It is a discussion about policy. Hopefully you are not very offended. I have not seen your work before and do not intend to pursue or suggest that anyone else pursue you. I should have left a note here before I posted it for the sake of manners so please accept an apology for that. All best ~ R.T.G 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WaltBren

Thank you for your warm welcome Wuhwuzdat! I look forward to adding my extreme knowledge of the (horrible, stinky, and late) American rail system! WaltBren (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilesgate

Every time I make a change to the out of date Gilesgate page, (I know this because I live there) I get a warning for vandalism. Why?

I can't say for sure why any earlier attempts to edit that page were considered to be vandalism, but, your latest attempt removed ALL content from the page, and replaced it with an infantile rant. This fits squarely into the definition of

vandalism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the page and put the rant on because I am sick of my edits being reverted when it is accurate information and the information currently on the page is off several years ago. I mean I went on it a few weeks ago and it still had The "DLI" pub listed, which has been closed for about 2 years and had trouble changing that particular part of the page.Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Try leaving a reason or explanation for the edit, in the "edit summary" box (just below the data you are editing, and above the "save page" button) this will tell the other editors why you added or removed content. Removal of content without explanation is a common form of vandalism, and WILL draw unwanted attention. If you are changing several different areas of an article, try making small, individual edits, with explanations for each. The bigger the changes you make, the better the chances someone will misunderstand your intentions. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you for your help.Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kakkmaddafakka

Hi there, I think I started a discussion with you the other day about your tagging of the kakkmaddafakka page, but I didn't get a chance to read you response. Bergenblogger (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Aqd'

Hello. I noticed that you had placed a PROD tag on Aqd', with the reasoning that it was just a dictionary definition. I have contested it, and you can see my full reasoning on its Talk page.--Unscented (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the authors recent addition of a spam external link just earned his article a {{db-spam}}. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Grohowich

Hey, please read the CSD criteria; "nonsense" pages are covered at WP:NONSENSE, and I think you'll find that Grohowich doesn't fall into that category. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly me, I assumed good faith, my first impulse was to flush it as vandalism. Perhaps I will do that, the next time he posts it...(this was the second time today) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well even assuming good faith it isn't a nonsense article. In future I'd advise either a PROD based on WP:MADEUP or tagging it as an attack page (as I have done). Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike a few, extremely vocal, people around here, I consider almost all neologisms to be nonsense. A word that was invented yesterday is nonsense and/or gibberish to the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world that have never heard it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A word that was invented yesterday is WP:MADEUP; a random string of characters made up yesterday is WP:NONSENSE. Whatever your personal feelings on the subject incorrectly tagging articles based on your belief of what constitutes nonsense rather than what the policies say constitutes nonsense doesn't do anyone any favours. Ironholds (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I happen to feel that these 2 categories are not mutually exclusive. An example:

"The North American Bullfrog Spider (Kneedeepicus Octopodiea Yagottabeshittenme), a small creature about 2 inches long, found in the Arizona rainforest, is known for feeding on Blue Whales, often swallowing them whole".

Now, despite being a clear understandable English sentence, this is also clearly nonsense, due to the many impossibilities and incongruities it contains. Its also clearly something I just made up one day. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't follow the WP definition of "patent nonsense". It could fall under vandalism, WP:MADEUP, test pages and so on and so forth but hoaxes and "Incompetent and/or immature material" are specifically excluded from our definition of nonsense.

(outdent) if we look at the two types the policy gives:

# Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all, such as a passage of lorem ipsum text. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdyhkflmaololol;;'dsfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed. obviously it isn't this. # Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. A person can make sense of it. It might be vandalism, it might be made up, it might be completely wrong but a person can "make sense" of it. Ironholds (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Try, as hard as you can, to make sense of the concept of a 2 inch spider swallowing a blue whale, whole. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But the point is you can understand that the page is about a 2 inch spider swallowing a blue whale, whole. WP:Nonsense is divided into two types; literal nonsense where it is impossible to understand because the typed material makes no sense and (lets call it objective) nonsense, where the words individually may make sense but no reasonable person can understand what on earth the page is about. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the point wher I suggest that neither of us is being moved from our current point of view, and that further discussion will only lead to a state of animosity that neither of us desire. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was expecting one of us to bring it up in a few posts. It has been nice discussing this (lets call it "wikiprudence") with you, but you seem a rational and reasonable person, and therefore I see no reason to get into a conflict with you if it can possibly be avoided. Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I just want to give a side note as I have come across this while working on something unrelated. Too many people get their underwear all in a bunch over correct tagging of CSD'd articles. Most administrators are fairly intelligent people who are able to identify when something is deletable under CSD regardless of how it's tagged. Personally, if I see something that is obviously a fraudulent article such as the whale eating spider above, I'm going to delete it regardless of what it has been tagged as. Trusilver 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have had very few comments on my tagging from admins, and quite a few from fellow editors who thought articles should have been tagged differently. As I stated above, I don't feel that the speedy categories are mutually exclusive, as I have seen quite a few articles that could be combinations of "spam, copyvio, & non-notable company", or "nonsense, vandalism, attack, & non-notable person". If a particular editor has launched several pages that are borderline vandalism, he may find that the more he launches, the more likely each new page is to be tagged as vandalism. It's an application of the old "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" saying. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tweeter (Internet)

I declined the {{db-nonsense}} on this article; "incoherent" "gibberish" is IMO bitey for a coherent, first-time contribution. However, I think it would be appropriate to AfD it; per the article talk page, it's not going to pass WP:NOR. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Cary Kazemi

i can't figure out the refernce versus external link... it is quite a dilemma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer911 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot figure out what your dilemma has to do with my tagging of this article for speedy deletion. Try consulting WP:HELP. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Polymorphic or morphic Media

Hi,

I've noticed that you were responsible for taking my article out. I had not finished it, in fact I had only started it and wondered if you could give me some indication as to how this article showed any advertising attempts.

The article has one fundamental scientific aim, to show the existance, teqniques and use of new polymorphic media. I only managed to get to some historical background. Was the page deleted because it was unfinished?

Any elucidation would be greatly appreciated as I intend to contribute this article in view of technological advances that are being made in this regard.

Many thanks for your help in advance. Onomatopeic (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Responsible for taking your article out? No, I simply tagged it for further attention from an admin.

I no longer have any access to the article, and would suggest you contact the deleting admin for further info. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks.Onomatopeic —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

stimulating gel CSD

Sorry, I just blanked your speedy deletion tag - I've redir'ed the page to Personal lubricant.

Cheers,

--Carbon Rodney

Not a problem, just as long as that spam external link for the 'adult products' is gone...I reported the user for promotional username as well. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I AGF'ed and asked them to help out on personal lubricant but I'm watching that one now, just in case they try to advertise there. Happy editing :) --Carbon Rodney 19:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all you do.

I am so mad I can't see straight. I've left word on the AN regarding this little Pee Wee jackass. I am going to see this fool shut down and thrown out of school before I'm through. Thanks for watching my back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. We watch each others backs on here, you have already done the same for me. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BS for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I might as well just go play with my Matchbox cars whenever you're on new page patrol. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my first barnstar! ...and keep up the good work yourself!(barnstar copied to my user page)Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark pages as patrolled

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. BigDunc^Talk 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I saw a message like this in your archive. Are you still having trouble getting Twinkle to mark as patrolled? It works ok for me. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, looks like its still doing the same thing, the issue is probably due to the page I do my patrolling from, which is [[5]]. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. That's the problem. I wonder if that can be fixed. Do you want to post a bug? I can if you don't. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that TW was supposed to mark the pages as patrolled as it has never done it for me I usually mark them as patrolled and then go back to tag them. Looks like we have a bug, for the record I use Opera as my browser and patrol from here. BigDunc^Talk 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

incorrect speedy

Your speedy for vandalism on Cilla Snowball was not justified. Her bio is absolutely real -- here's her company's official site [6]. You were probably influenced by 4 things: first, the name, which sounds as if it might be cute. second, that two of the three references are dead links -- but this is common in old newspaper references third, that the ed. kept removing tags, which of course she should not have done, but beginners do that. forth, the name of the editor who entered it is a little on the suspicious side--he may well have COI, but that doesn't make the work wrong. It is permissible to edit with COI. The moral is to check for yourself.

We could have lost a good contributor by an incorrect accusation of vandalism. Fortunately I was the reviewing admin, rather than some of my colleagues who delete if it feels wrong without proper checking.

This article failed The "Duck Test" in my opinion, with a name that was in my opinion, well beyond being "cute", and well into to the range of "Patently Ridiculous" (Sorry, but "Snowball" is a name more suitable for a hamster than a human, in my opinion). At this point I issued a "Nonsense" tag. The tag was removed, and an assertion of truth was placed on the talk page. I then checked 2 of the 3 external links, which were absolute dead ends (PAGE NOT FOUND). I can understand a link becoming outdated over a period of weeks, months or years, but the links had been added to the article LESS THAN 13 MINUTES before I checked them. The article looked like a Duck (silly name), quacked like a Duck (original article [7] was a badly edited cut and paste job from another bio Matt Cutts with some instances of the old name still remaining), swam like a Duck (removal of speedy tags), and flew like a Duck (Bogus links). Having found no evidence of truth, and having seen Ducks like this before, I tagged it as Vandalism, for being "deliberate misinformation" and a Duck. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What you did is usually enough, it's just that this time you were wrong. Using the duck test only works if you turn out to be right. One of the best admins we ever had to resign her bit once, when she trusted her intuition and--for once in her life--was wrong in a sockpuppet block. (It was taken that seriously.) The name awakened my suspicions as well. In this particular case your suspicions and mine were both wrong. As for links--what frequently happens is people add the links they have that once worked, without checking that they still do. It is not usual that if someone adds several articles a time they do it that way, buy adding one and then reusing it with modifications to save redoing the formatting. I've started articles that way myself. But I'll go check that other article. DGG (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

no title given

Her last name is not mojir shirazi. You have the wrong info. How can we make the correct info added to this article, otherwise her agents will sue wiki. THey are very strikt with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep changed the article to the wrong version. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefcostello (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The info i posted first time is not correct. How can we send the correct info if this is not possible to remove and delete this article???* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefcostello (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But who can remove it? And why is it not possible to make any changes to it? If you view other articles like :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijan_(designer) you see that they have the same info as I posted, but you removed my article and edited it so much. We would like to make other corrections to this if its going to be up on wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefcostello (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The agents and publicis of this person wants to have the article removed asap. Can you please remove the article asap? They dont like the info created and edited . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefcostello (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot remove the article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I WANT TO REMOVE THE ARTICLE I HAVE MADE. HOW DO I DO THIS.? ASAP.... PLEASE STOP EDITING IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefcostello (talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We would like to remove the page from wiwi, because of all the wrong editing from wiki. How is this possible? We would like to remove it. Please do it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Hello. Thanks for your email. But other people have external links added to their articile, very similar to my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

...sorry, but "HUH"? what article? what email? please be more specific....

I assume you may be referring to Sanaz Shirazi which has been reverted back to how it was before your edits.

If this is the article you are refering to, it appears to be about a notable subject. The reversions of your recent removals of contents and additions of spam links do not call for the deletion of this article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mannie Garcia

Please be more careful about tagging new articles for deletion immediately after they are created. Many times, the creators will expand them gradually, so rather than immediately blasting them into oblivion, waiting a little bit and contacting the creator to explain what it takes for articles to meet the threshold of notability is the better way to go. Fortunately, Mannie Garcia got recreated and expanded after it was speedily deleted, but many new users would simply get discouraged and leave if the article they started was deleted out from under them as they worked.--ragesoss (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as WP:CRYSTAL states that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", I am not a crystal ball either. I saw an article that simply stated "Mannie Garcia is a photographer". I cannot predict the future actions, if any of the editor. The article clearly fell within speedy deletion criteria A7, and I tagged it as such. The deleting admin deleted it under the same criteria. 18 minutes after I tagged it, I noticed an edit on the same article, and noticed 2 things, the speedy notice was gone, and the article no longer fell under the speedy delete criteria. I tagged few article issues, and then issued a level 1 warning about removing speedy delete tags.

As for "blasting articles into oblivion", building on your metaphor, I don't blast em, I simply add "fuses" (tags) where applicable. It takes an Admin to make the decision to do the actual blasting, or not. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment you tagged it, it clearly met the speedy deletion criterion. Nevertheless, if it's not obviously an illegitimate topic, it's better to wait a bit and/or explain to the creator what is expected of articles to avoid deletion. Of course, you're not solely responsible for this instance of newbie biting. I just encourage you to hold off on tagging new articles immediately if it's unclear that they are bad topics, and not just weak starts to good topics.--ragesoss (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

it's useful to realize that we admins are not perfect, and all of us have been occasionally guilty of having deleted an article without ourselves doing the necessary checking. (It's for this reason that we don;'t generally delete articles single-handed, but tag them ourselves and wait for some other admin to delete them.) Therefore we need your help also in tagging, to check, in case we slip up. it's worth a quick look to check on notability--remember the point of patrolling is not just to get rid of bad articles but to help instruct new editors. We need to work on this, all of us, because it's so much easier to delete. We rely on you also. DGG (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD G1

Regarding this I would have personally gone for a G3 (vandalism). I know you have your own interpretation of patent non-sense but I thought I would give my two cents. Cheers! (no need to use talkback I'll be watching this page) --DFS454 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I "Assumed good faith", vandalism would have been an accusation of bad faith, and it was the newbies 1st edit. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not alone in my opinion, as the page was deleted as A7, recreated, retagged by another editor as G1, and deleted again, as G1. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

3rd incarnation earned a G3 from me. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes so I see. Probably worth salting that one. --DFS454 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is a sock puppet and has been reported. --DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ainand

Hi. I have taken your speedy tag off this article: copyright violation doesn't apply to things taken from Wikipedia, because under the GFDL anyone is allowed to copy content. I started to replace it with {{db-g3}} and {{comment|cut and pasted from existing article}}, which is the way to deal with one kind of vandal; but it occurred to me that, as the article has only just been posted, the author may be making a good-faith attempt to create an article by using an existing one as a template. (We had one recently whose article when eventually AfD'ed still carried a claim of having sold 100 million copies, because he had started by coying "J.K.Rowling" and modifying that). So I think the thing to do is watch it for a time and see what develops. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up: looking further, it's clear the author is writing about his/her own unpublished books. I will issue appropriate warnings; until the article develops a bit it's not clear to me that {{db-spam}} will stick, it may have to be PRODded under WP:BK#Not yet published books. I'll keep an eye. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • PPS - it has gone as "patent nonsense." I'll still warn the author, or it will just come back. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • PPPS - I did, and it has still come back, been PRODded and dePRODed, and gone to Afd. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Shafan123

While I agree with he's just playing with nonsense, I don't think the repeated speedy deletion notices helped out. Beyond the chaos of trying to figure out exactly what's going on, he seemed to just went into automatic revert mode. I've deleted the article and I hope that'll stop it. I've warned him that one more will be an indefinite block and if he does so, just put a note on my talk page and I'll take care of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment, if the user had not removed the speedy tag EIGHT TIMES, he would not have received 9 notices. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been better to revert the removal of speedy tag and warn the editor instead of using twinkle to add it back this would have reduced the amount of speedy notifications added to the editors user page. BigDunc^Talk 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the editor was also editing the contents of the alleged article during some of these edits, so a simple revert would have undone his improvements as well. In retrospect, I could have unchecked the Warn if possible checkbox on the twinkle CSD dialog box. As for warning the user, he WAS warned, after each of his first 4 removals of the speedy tags. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case manually add the speedy tag or as you said uncheck the Warn button. Keep up the good work. BigDunc^Talk 11:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alahan Monastery

You accuse me of failing to provide evidence and not assuming good faith. Why don't you look at this person's other contributions, before they get deleted as copyright violations? Hurry. RenegadeMonster (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the name of the editor you are referring to. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Maria naneva RenegadeMonster (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

4 out of 8 articles is not "Everything the user contributed", and I don't believe we delete articles for "guilt by association". Until you can provide proof of copyvio, there is no reason to prod or speedy the article as such. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the first, which ones don't you think are copyright violations? RenegadeMonster (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Any that you cannot provide PROOF of copyvio for. Suspicion of copyvio is not a reason to PROD. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So where did "4 out of 8" come from? RenegadeMonster (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

4 out of 8 had copyvio tags. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1 has been rewritten, and I just haven't tagged the other two yet. DUH!!! RenegadeMonster (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

On Jimmy Goodwin, the {{db-spam}} template you added was not appropriate. This is not an advertisement; it is, however, within the {{db-bio}} criteria. Please take more care to be sure you are using the correct template when nominating an article for speedy deletion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Russ, please check the article as it existed at the time I tagged it[[8]] It's written like a promotional press release. (I agree, as the article currently exists {{db-bio}} would be the way to go) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus (economics)

Hi, this concept is as relevant as the Differentiation (economics) - that already has a page. I would like to develop both of them. Same case for Cost leadership. Please let me know if any objections. Thanks Aleodor (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

misapplied no context teg to The Outdatedness of Human Beings

I have removed your no context tag from The Outdatedness of Human Beings and sent the article to AfD. The article had context, and it doens't meet A7 either.--Patton^t/c 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Friedman Place

FYI - I removed your SD copyright tag from the article. The material was removed from the article. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Brett summers

Just a friendly note on Brett summers. A national wrestling title is a claim of importance, so I declined the speedy deletion request.

As to your note on the top of this page, we all do know that we can just remove your speedy requests without saying a thing. The whole point of leaving the note is so that you can improve your tagging. Bad tags violate WP:BITE and waste admin time. If you're getting enough notes that it's bothering you, it might be a sign to spend some time studying WP:SPEEDY.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So far I'm accepting about 9 out of 10 of Wuhwuzdat's speedy tags, which makes him one of the better taggers (or me one of the worser deleters :). Sorry if the notices were annoying, Jeff, I'll stop. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dale Abenojar

• Hi Jeff, I am Dale Abenojar. I was learning to be an editor and it is true that i made some mistakes at first on wikipedia procedures and i admit it was my fault. I am writing you because there has been new and additional info on my article that is correct info and i have linked it with wikimedia commons after reading my mistakes on the "not allowed links". i have actually uploaded that scanned image work myself onto wikimedia to make amends on the mistakes. The picture is my own work as well and i have uploaded the same picture on wikimedia to follow wiki rules. The additional infos on me is appropriate because many people in my country can corroborate on this because that is how i am described in broadsheets here (mountaineer and adventure sportsman) Kindly read and see the latest and properly placed links. thanks.--Dale Abenojar (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dale, the only issue I had with your article was the fact that it was an autobiography, I tagged it as such and issued you the appropriate warning (currently the last warning on your userpage). The previous warnings were from XLinkBot, which is an automated program that checks on external links inserted into articles. I try not to judge external links suitability for wikipedia, except in cases of obvious advertising (I don't believe the links you inserted were advertising). Good luck in your further adventures, and happy editing! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Chicago 'L' rolling stock edit war

I've protected Chicago 'L' rolling stock for a week because of a persistent edit war, regarding a very minor dispute about wording. There seems to be a persistent accusation of vandalism; if you could give me evidence that this is a case of pure vandalism as opposed to a content dispute, I'd be happy to unlock the page. In the meantime, I've locked the page and would suggest talking this issue out (as minor as it may be) on the talk page. —BorgHunter (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually asked for page (semi-)protection here, on the morning (CDT) of the 10th (denied, not enough disruptive activity), and again, in the late evening of the 12th (No reply to this request (until your protection), but several other CTA articles were semi-protected), as well as asking for semi-protection of several other CTA pages on each occasion. I am hoping that with the articles protected, perhaps the youngster/newbie/sockpuppeteer[9][10][11][12][13][14] will have time to resume his long neglected studies of grammar, and proper use of the English language. Thank you for protecting the page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it might be something along those lines, but the strident nature of the mini-war, and the rather banal nature of the dispute, absolutely puzzled me. Which is why I locked the page completely until I could sort things out in my mind. Now that I've looked at it further: You're right, and semi-protection seems to be all that's necessary here. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason this turned into the "mini-war" was the obscure nature of his edits (not clearly noticeable as vandalism by an anti-vandal bot, or person unfamiliar with this case), and the facts that his edits tended to turn up on my watchlist (...and I am on the Wiki WAAAAAY too much...sigh...)'. I can clearly see how this would look like the most insane demented edit war in recent history, unless the history behind it is known.

The following CTA articles are still unprotected, and among his past targets:

• Belmont (CTA Brown, Red, and Purple Lines)
• Fullerton (CTA)
• Garfield (CTA Red Line)
• Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
• Pink Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
• Orange Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
• Yellow Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
• Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority)

I'd appreciate it if you could keep your Admin's eye on these articles. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rage quit

Hey, this article doesn't fall under WP:NONSENSE. I would advise you to take it slowly in future; the article does make sense, and although it is worthy of deletion that particular method and rationale does not apply. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Hello, I noticed that the articles you tagged with Twinkle are not being marked as patrolled. Perhaps you need to wait a few seconds for the script to finish executing before you close the page. LetsdrinkTea 20:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wuhwuzdat. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wuhwuzdat. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is a link to a separate section. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RentLaw.com. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This is not reverting vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The user involved is an obvious troll, and I have replaced him on the AIV list. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful there. The user appears to be a sock. I don't see evidence of trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont feel the two categories are mutually exclusive. He was trolling for vandalism patrollers to catch his edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

and if he's a sock, why no block? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (comment readded after being deleted by other party Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

He or she is free to deline speedy deletion for any article that he or she did not create. Re-adding such tags is considered disruption (take heed). Further deletion movements should be WP:AFD or {{prod}} if uncontroversial. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

dogs

A speedy criterion for animals has been proposed several times, and rejected, as not being worth the trouble/ One or two admins have said they would speedy them anyway, but most hardly think its worth invoking IAR for something that minor. 5 days will do to get rid of it. DGG (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have marked articles for pet snakes, dogs, cats, parakeets, and many species of assorted pet rodent with that same tag in the past, and this is the 1st one that I ever recall being declined due to not being a "person". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

take it to the talk page, WT:AFD. But search its archives first. DGG (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message

It seems to be admitted that this was a probable sock gaming the system. The only sensible action is to go to WP:AFD, since the prod tag can be removed without discussion, like the speedy one. :( William Avery (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see User:Forward planning failure has now been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. William Avery (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Justice is served, and more proof that "Time does wound all heels". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:H-16-66 early.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:H-16-66 early.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mutual "Friend"

Seems you've noticed that he's returned. Think anything can be done about it before he starts hitting up the rest of his old pages? Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the apparent extreme density of our mutual "friend's" skull, I'm afraid that nothing short of breaking a white oak 4x4 over his head will get his attention. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Succinct. Nice Wording. Trainmastercrc (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

KOOP (FM)

What is the proper method of requesting a page deletion? Koopfm917 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

take it to wp:afd Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you get the feeling this new user might be an incarnation of Joeyv1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2 SPA's editing the same article, could very well be the same person. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have moved Diesel locomotive/Diesel Electric to User:Wuhwuzdat/sandbox. Probably a better place to work on a re-write. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This was intended to be a Community sandbox, not my personal sandbox. I was simply using the same tactic used previously at Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine train, Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Gas turbine-electric locomotive and Gas turbine-electric locomotive/Russian Revision, all of which were allowed to remain as subpages of the articles, rather than being unilaterally moved to a users sandbox without discussion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Diesel electric

Sorry about not following proceedure, yes I will do what you suggest - leave it to me.FengRail (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You move the page please.213.249.232.187 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

Please don't make edits like [15]; see WP:R2D. Thank you. --NE2 02:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Diesel-electric transmission

I noticed you'd added Diesel-electric transmission to a lot of submarine pages. However - apart from the US Navy, which pioneered true diesel-electric transmission for submarines, all other submarines prior to 1945 used separately coupled diesel and electric engines, the diesel being used to directly drive the propeller(s) for surface propulsion and to charge the batteries. This is what "diesel-electric" is usually taken to mean in submarines, though probably it should be changed to "diesel/electric" to avoid confusion. Salmanazar (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits were a result of a misguided effort of mine to bypass a redirect created as a result of a page move (see the 2 threads above this one). The target article is the same as before the page move, and my edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The following redirects to Diesel-electric transmission all have a number of ship/submarine articles linking to them;

• Diesel-electric engine
• Diesel-Electric
• Diesel Electric
• Diesel-electric (quite a few on this one)

I leave it to you to determine which are "diesel-electric" and which are "diesel/electric". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. I had no idea it was such an old problem. Thanks! Salmanazar (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, speedy delete query I'm afraid...

Hello Wuhwuzdat. I would love to get some info as to what I can do to the page I created to make it qualify for publishing. I have deliberately tried to make it informative and absent of any marketing hyperbole. Please let me know what it is exactly about the page that makes it differ from many others like it.

Thanks very much and sorry for the inconvenience. Chapelchapel (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wuhwuzdat. You have new messages at CanadianNine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CanadianNine 15:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moroccan footballers

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I've declined your speedies on those three Moroccan footballers Samir Zekroumi etc as they may well meet wp:athlete ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also there's a thread at WT:RFA#CSD tagging which would really benefit from the views of CSD taggers such as yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasra Hooshmand Engineering Co., P.J.S. (KDI)

Since your DB-CORP got declined you might want to give your opinion at the AfD entry. Regards, Yintaɳ  18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm following the AfD and SPI developments with amazement. The guy is unbelievable. Yintaɳ  22:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is......I wish there were 10 more like him, unfortunately there are probably 10,000. And I'm afraid my attempts at humor may fall outside his cultural frame of reference. The best way I can describe this gentleman is a phrase I used to describe a persistent vandal a few weeks ago..."Due to the apparent extreme density of our mutual "friend's" skull, I'm afraid that nothing short of breaking a white oak 4x4 over his head will get his attention.".... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I tried to figure out your Time Bandits reference but I failed miserably. And I've even seen the film. Twice. Yintaɳ  22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's (mis)quoted on the top of my userpage now. Only TWICE? shame on you! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where I am that's actually an achievement :-) Yintaɳ  23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wasn't vandalism

I edited Kennedy assassination, there were the words "John F My Life Kennedy", which I presume to mean "fk my life", when I started the edit, all I did was take it out. Looks like someone did it at the same time as me, but I clearly left a message saying I had edited out swear words. I am actually quite upset that you deemed my clean up as vandalism, since I went to the trouble of creating a user name to do this.
I see you ask us to "view the version of the page as it existed AT THE TIME I TAGGED IT, before leaving your comment." - but you don't take in to consideration how the page looked when we found it, I had to find out how to create a user name and edit it before I could make it right after I saw it. Can you please remove the words vandalism from the notes you made on me. I'm a 39 year old mommy for goodness sake, not someone who runs around the net messing up articles for fun.SueGD (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the words "my life" were removed from that article 18 minutes before your edit (17 minutes before your account was created).

My criteria for labeling your edit as vandalism, concerned the removal of the square brackets from around President Kennedys name, and your labeling of this edit as "removed swear words from text".

I have no way to know which edit was current when you started editing the page, but with the 18 minute time differential between edits, I could only assume that your edit did not overlap any others.

As for the removal of "vandalism" from my edit summary, I am afraid that is beyond my ability here.

As for your age, sex, and parental status, congratulations, but things like that do not, and will not, affect my opinions in any way shape or form. If you say your edit was in good faith, I will take your word on it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversight requests

Hi. In future, please tell me if I've not done the oversight quite right. Us oversighters are prone to mistakes of this kind, since we just nuke the diffs we're given, so we're always happy to fix it. I've fixed your one too, now. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite alright, we're here to help. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Buncrana GAA speedy tags

Is Buncrana GAA actually not that notable (along with the other GAA teams)? I got some good results off of Google, but really don't know anything about the league to make a good delete decision one way or the other. Any guidance is appreciated. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the Speedy delete notice (emphasis added): "an article about a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

This group of articles does nothing more than state the existence, and location of the clubs, with No assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, and does seem like the league would have developed articles by now if it was significant. Thanks for the clarification. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Curtis Needs a Ride

(As a note, I did read your disclaimer at the top of the page) Just a heads up that this is article (which you tagged as a non-notable musical group) was about a comedy troupe. I deleted it as a copyright infringement of the troupe's website. TNXMan 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Copyright Violation

I WAS TOLD THAT YOU RETURNED MY PHOTOS TO SEVERAL PAGES AFTER THEY WERE REMOVED. I HAVE REASSERTED MY COPYRIGHT OVER MY IMAGES AND THEREFORE TO HAVE THEM UP VIOLATES MY COPYRIGHT. I HAVE REMOVED THEM AGAIN PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THEM! Jsp3970 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential revert war (User 293.xx.xxx.xx) where I have questioned your actions in allegedly reasserting your copyright, after releasing the images for free use.

Future additions to this page in "ALL CAPS" will be deleted on sight. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, can't you guys understand I want to leave Wikipedia and not have my photos used anymore. I want nothing more to do with Wikipedia. It is so bureaucratic that it makes me sick. Trying to navigate for any complaints is worse than figuring out income tax! I don't see why everything must be so hard regarding this site! I have reclaimed the copyright on the images I have created, which I can do as I never received any monetary restitution for their use. Which if I had I could not reclaim said copyright. Jsp3970 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wanna leave, then leave, but your contributions are not yours to take with you. Please notice the text under the edit box when you reply. It states that: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL". You have agreed to that license with EVERY edit you have made. 02:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Twin-boom category

I note you have already commented but I was just going to let you know I have brought it up at related project for discussion. It is standard practice for configuration categories to be hidden on aircraft article but I will await futher comment from project. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bryan ferrier

Hi, just letting you know that I changed the speedy tag you put on this page as it wasn't an attack. Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

...and I have changed it back, per the edit summary of the articles creation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... 'fraid I've missed that. Anyways, thanks for your patrolling :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I present you with this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Thanks for your help. (C/PVT)G2sai 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. We ALL have to watch each others backs around here. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi, I changed your speedy deletion template on the article Steven armagh. The vandalism template is for articles with information that is clearly wrong whereas I believe that the {{db-person}} template is more appropriate. Keep up the new page patrolling. Cheers! L07ChLeo3 ^(T|C|A) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...if "This has been confirmed by scientists measuring his bestness using a bestometer which blew up due to the overwhelming fact that he truely is the best person ever", isn't BLATANT misinformation, I don't know what is. I stand by my vandalism tagging. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see your point and agree with it, perhaps we could add both speedy deletion tags to settle this, as it is a bit of a mix of both. But whatever it is, it must be deleted as it is not encyclopediac content. Cheers! L07ChLeo3 ^(T|C|A) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see your point I was mistaken sorry, it has been rectified now. Keep up the new page patrolling. Cheers! L07ChLeo3 ^(T|C|A) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerned Edits

Yes I want to let you know that everyone I Edit on Wikipedia you deleted and I think I know why because is My IP Adress was used by block user Television Radio even though that user is block I can still edit pages on Wikipedia without it being deleted that is all I want you to know. §

• No, it's because YOU ARE Television Radio. If you wish to deny this fact please go to the sockpuppet investigation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the kind words...I'm sure you'd do the same for me (you may have and I missed it). Since I've seen your name on many deserved reverts that I've been too slow to act upon, here goes:

		The Original Barnstar
		Your TW work has been great...keep it up Tiderolls 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blobbo lite

Hi, I decided to change your speedy deletion tag from G3 to G4. The article seems factually accurate and does not look like vandalism (which also implies bad faith). decltype (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oy

Thanks for that. I ought to figure out how to do that myself sometime (er, not delete things--I'll probably never be able to do that, but request speedy deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Vandalism Patrol

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated; for some odd reason, vandals don't like to have their edits reverted :) --I80and (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

NPP again

Hi, just to let you know that I removed your speedy from Ann Arbor Open School because the article doesn't meet A1 which is only for very short articles, and it seems to have sufficient context to identify the subject. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Thanks for a good laugh! I loved your comment on User talk:!Gangsta G home dogg. Thanks, Ono (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but don't feed the WP:TROLL. Zaian (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have been observing his user talk page since I posted that last standard warning, I can foresee no reason for any further commentary on that page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. I appreciate the recognition. Have a great day.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fatty McButterpants

Why not delete it? How many people have ever searched it! Just making a mockery of The Wikipedia

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

762 page views since 1/1/2009, and the ridiculous name is a fact, and should not reflect badly on the wiki. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(post NO Smileys on this page)

---

How are you able to read visit counts?

(and DON'T worry, My read confirmation smiley's are solely intended for my talk page!)
I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Go to the pages history, and under external tools, click "page view statistics". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip!
I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy on What is the probability that a 9-digit phone number contains at least one 8?

Just to let you know, i removed the speedy you placed on What is the probability that a 9-digit phone number contains at least one 8?. While it is indeed a page that will eventually be removed, it does NOT fit into the category of test pages. I tagged it with a prod to be more accurate.

The effect will be the same, just taking a bureaucratic roundabout - if not for correctness sake, then avoid confusing / insulting a good faith editor of making test pages :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging by his user talk page full of prod and speedy notices, all from today, I should have tagged it as vandalism. The user is obviously gaming the system with his barrage of questionable garbage articles. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit more cautiousness with this particular editor. I have been around most of the day and in fact i have read the bulk of the pages he produced. The pages themselves weren't that bad, they were just not something we would include. As for gaming the system, it is of course possible and i don't deny that in retrospect we conclude he was doing that. Yet for now it is probally better to assume good faith and not Bite the newbies (I know, these are the most annoying guidelines to get quoted on your talk page).

Still, it is probably better that way. I am certain i scared away some good meaning editors in the past when i went on a vandalism fighting rampage. Cleaning up those pages only takes a minute in case we find out he is indeed a bad faith editor. But if he is a good faith one it might take a lot longer to get him back after telling him hes a vandal :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)To keep the discussion at one place, I'll post my message here: Looking at the user's talk page, he seems to have made a hobby out of copy-pasting stuff from the 'net into WP, to the point that it is becoming disruptive, and I agree that Wuhwuzdat's warning is warranted. I have retagged the article as a copyright violation. decltype (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And a note: the last page he created with: "this page is of my own research and contains no sentences from any other website", which is provably false. Seeing that, I am unfortunately no longer able to AGF. decltype (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i didn't disagree with the warning - it is disruptive editing. My main point was that this might be a good faith editor, but that last edit indeed makes it unlikely. I left a standard need help message on his talk page in the hopes he might turn into something more productive; Likely false hope of course, as the bulk of the people who get up to level 3 or 4 warnings are just plain ducks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm

I appreciate your tagging work, Wuhwuzdat, and it's generally very good work, but it doesn't work for me for you to give a false impression that you're gone; that just means that people that have a question about your tagging will come to the deleting admin instead, and that seems like an unfair shifting of responsibility to me. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my fault, neglected to remove the notice (done on this page now, will remove from my user page shortly)...been bored recently, and had returned to patrolling. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, apparently boredom suits you, your work is good :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Close connections

Writing about an artist and artistic style that I admire does not give a connection of any kind with the artist - who has been quite dead for decades. Just about everyone on Wikipedia writes about topics that interest them. Why shouldn't I.Z.Raban (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because you username indicates a probable conflict of interest. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not my name, it's my handle for Wikipedia purposes. I know I've seen other people editing under the names of literary characters, historical figures they admire. I picked the name of a long-dead artist I admire. I have no idea is he has descendants. I'm certainly not among them.Z.Raban (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I had, and have, no idea if he has any descendants either, my COI warning was based on the similarity between your username and the article you were editing. If you are no relation, then there is no COI. Please note the words "If", and "may" in the warning message. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I also edited pages about the Bialik, the poet, and Jacob Eisenberg, the painter. I am not related to either of them, either. I'll probably write about other artists going forward, are you always this unimaginative?Z.Raban (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As the likelihood of your username matching up with any other article titles is very slim, I can not imagine any further issue arising. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been strange, there is clearly a lot about this web site that I do not understand.Z.Raban (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly of Initiative

I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)