User talk:Fvw

&#0xfeff;

and how should it be parsed? Thanks. Pkalmar (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How strange, my signature is one of the top google hits for &#0xfeff; yet I don't recall ever having had anything like that in my signature. Unicode character 0xfeff is the zero width space, often also used as a byte order mark. To get it to be a proper entity would require getting rid of the leading 0 of the number though. Perhaps it's an artifact of the conversion of en.wikipedia to utf-8? Not sure what made it choose to single out my sig for this treatment though. You could try asking at

the helpdesk if anyone knows anything about this. Good luck! --fvw* 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Allow me to kibitz. FEFF in hex is equivalent to 65279 in decimal;  is indeed the zero width space; but if you prefer to use hex it's  (with no zero or other character interrupting the opening sequence &#x). (See this page and other stuff on that man's site.) But I've a hunch that even if this is fixed and the result satisfies XML parsers, it may well confuse some HTML browsers. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your orientation, the matter has been at Wikipedia:Help desk#Invalid XML entities and is now at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Invalid XML/HTML Entity Fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Hey, Why did you delete my post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weliam.kc (talk • contribs)

Hi, I deleted the post because there was no context here, it was impossible to tell what the article was actually about (see

WP:Csd). Note that resubmitting the article in a fleshed out form with sufficient background information will not guarantee that it is kept, but it will at least give it a chance of being evaluated on whether the subject is worth including. Good luck! --fvw* 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The IP address pretty much had it right. Go to Google and enter "bugs bunny" coin 1987, and you'll see one for sale on eBay, for example. However, I would say it's just a souvenir of some kind, so I don't see where it warrants special mention in the article, as there have been countless Bugs icons through the years (and I should know, Doc). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I had the same feeling you did, I was hoping any sources on the subject that came back would include some information on significance or lack thereof. I was also a bit curious which constitution it referred to. For most national constitutions I'd say it would be a bit of an insult to commemorate them with a bugs bunny coin, love the wabbit though I may. Oh well... --fvw* 04:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The eBay thing only said something about it being a Christmas medalion: [1]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. Merry Christmas refers to this year. It actually does say something on the card about it being a constitutional commemorative. It still doesn't belong, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1987 was the 200th anniversary of the

United States Constitution. I'm sure there were many other commemoratives. Or maybe not. Now, the Bicentennial Quarter of 1976 would be another story. But that was an actual U.S. Coin that countless people put their hands on. Plus it actually pertained. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

it all my falut and i am really sorry!please don't block me,i begging you!iwanna be a admin1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzygs94 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JRH95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated himself for admin after 3 edits. Benzygs94 could have beaten that record, ironically, if he hadn't come here first to mention it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GCGC article was created as an inside joke between a friend and I several years ago. It has no usage anywhere in India, and was only spoken once in the movie. In initial versions of the article, we included our names in the joke article, only to stumble upon it again years later and realizing people actually took it seriously. It's a joke, you can delete it! azimsultan (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you deleted my article for The Black Doves band. Although I disagree with your opposition to the validity of the article, my purpose is to request a copy of the deleted article. thanks, Steve Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewilsononline (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you removed the speedy delete templates from both The Motorhomes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Refreshments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), neither of which have any references outside of their own sites, including after a google search. Is there any reason for maintaining non-notable bands, and not to be rude but are you an administrator? I didn't see it mentioned on your userpage, in which case you should have used holdon as opposed to removing the template. Of course I could have just missed it. Piuro (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are, my appologies about the removing the template comment, though I still think the articles warrant a speedy delete.Piuro (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I restored an AfD tag on Glint (band) after it was removed without comment, but it was removed again by 68.193.87.216, who believes the issue has been resolved, and the article will be kept. (I just thought I'd let you know, I don't need to be involved.) Piano non troppo (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did I vandalize!!?? Madirox2222 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By creating a whole bunch of nonsense pages. --fvw* 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain I only made 1 page and the others got deleted!!!! Madirox2222 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a brief question. On the

Hi, I'm not saying there isn't something that needs to be done about your complaint, but

WP:DR for dispute resolution. --fvw* 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But if they're vandalizing in a content dispute, such as this person saying their source is the website

HERE 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But thank you for trying to help me understand. --

HERE 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, see the "What is not vandalism" list on WP:Vandalism. --fvw* 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --

HERE 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In the first message you sent me, it said I vandalized, which I didn't, and it didn't say that you deleted my article. In the message on the article, you said it was deleted because of an unclear purpose, also wrong. I think you were being a jerk and just trying to find a reason to delete my article. Please send me a copy at least, you immature fool. Proudly, Madirox2222 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'll watch his edits for a little bit in case he continues. Rtyq2 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rustemsoft page, I just started making it. It hasn't even existed for 5 minutes and you go on and delete it. I was improving it. It wasn't finished. You can't just go on and deleted a page that has just been started because you have little it complain about. 9:11 December 9th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemental Fury (talk • contribs)

Articles about corporations without any assertion of notability are deleted under

WP:CORP for information about the notability requirements for articles about corporations on wikipedia. Thanks, --fvw* 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A bad faith effort has been made to disrupt the thread I started. As I have indicated here, I changed usernames due to real world harassment concerns and have requested that I not be referred to by my old username because I do not want my real world harassers showing up and putting things together and disrupting our project and causing additional problems for me and my family. I therefore cannot imagine any good faith or constructive reason why anyone would refer to me by my old username given that request. In fact, why would anyone respond to any editor who changed names by his/her old name? Doing so is deliberately aggressive and given the reasons why I and others have changed names is downright disgraceful. Editors can disagree with each other and even dislike each other without outing each other. If the real world issues were not a concern, I would have just continued going by my old username. Moreover, please note that the editor who initially reverted my edit is one who has actually even called me names when I had that old name (see [2] and [3]). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am trying to ad our page to the article I written. But you are deleting it.. Hove can we make a company page stick to the article.

Sincerely Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxoThomas (talk • contribs)

Hi, first of all you should make sure the company in question fulfils the criteria for inclusion listed at

WP:REF). Good luck! --fvw* 09:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for looking at this - an area where few stray! I'm happy to see these tagged as speedy personally. The advantage (to me) is I check my logs from time to time & so it stands out if they are recreated... Thanks anyway, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user page spam is the pleasant stuff as far as I'm concerned, far less obnoxious to handle than the incessant vanity pages. I'm actually an admin (though you'd be forgiven for not having noticed, I'm not around that much any more), but I blank user pages just in case someone wants to make the case they're actually working on the spam in question as an article. Happy editing! --fvw* 10:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops (on a number of levels!). I agree with you I guess, merely my methodology for keeping an eye differs from yours :). I tend not to be around either... Enjoy life, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is perceived as an advertisement. I am sorry if I have offended you with my post. Do you have any suggestions on how I can reword this so it fits Wikipedia standards? Dizengoff (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Dizengoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizengoff (talk • contribs) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the subject of the article meets the criteria for inclusion listed in

Wikipedia is not a free webhost, and this is not a place for promotional articles. --fvw* 10:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Jmeager (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD. If you want to start an article on the same subject again, you'll have to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review and give your reasons why the decision to delete should be reconsidered. Sorry if this is a bit kafkaesque, but we do get a huge number of new pages to sort through every day. Good luck! --fvw* 10:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please advise me about how to recover my page. The article name was "Partz Poetry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saibarspeis (talk • contribs) 11:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you specify an email address in your preferences or give me an email address I can send it to, though I have my doubts about the article's future on wikipedia. Please have a look at our policy on

Original Research. --fvw* 11:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I will reconsider the content of the page and change it to more suitable and comprehensible format. My address is [email protected] and it was in my account preferences all the time.

Why, does this thread consistently get edited and my posts removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AScouserinNewYork (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a

you deleted my trampsketball page which is a legitimate sport all sports are made up at some point and i cant find my old article so i can revise it more to the guidelines so can you help me out? Jradz3 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that all sports are made up at some point, but that does not mean we should have an article about every sport that ever gets made up. See WP:Notability. I have emailed you the content of the deleted article, but please do not recreate it until you have proper references. --fvw* 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When deleting (before restoring) this, you should really have noticed that it was originally a redirect to medal, which should have been left. Hatnote now added. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, must have been distracted by the is-it-or-isn't-it notability issues. I'll try to be more careful in future. --fvw* 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it removed? This guy is the future of Hip Hop. See:

http://www.xxlmag.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/cover1freshmen.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.83.120 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But if you want to dispute some speedy deletion, please give me an exact article name or the account you created it under, as I can't find anything under the deleted contributions of your IP. --fvw* 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

kindly explain why did you remove my changes. The added links were quite relevant and informational, also The Vanguard Group and Hi5, why do you revert my edits? Lysimachos (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about that. I removed those external links to the zolpidem article because one was broken and one duplicated what was already in the article (see

WP:EL, if there are pieces of information missing it's better to move them (without violating copyrights) into the article rather than just link it). I must have mixed you up with a link spammer (we get a mind-boggling number of those on the drug articles) and then reverted your other link additions too. Hardly a warm welcome to wikipedia, my apologies again, and happy editing! --fvw* 22:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the late welcome, please reconsider then and revert back some of my edits. Also maybe there is an efficient way to check if a link is already present in the article (there are sometimes too many of them to check manually) Lysimachos (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already reverted the changes to Vanguard and Hi5, I really don't think the links on zolpidem added anything, but feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. As for finding which links are already there, I'm afraid I don't know any better when than going to the edit view and doing a text search, which should get you any use in external links or references. --fvw* 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User:StopVandalsNow. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. StopVandalsNow 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC) David Arora[reply]

Hi Fvw. Was this edit really necesary? You stopped the entire HBC AIV helperbot series from editing by removing that line from the page. Also, the {{

Hi. I didn't realise the bot expected a nobacklog tag there, sorry about that. --fvw* 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of this article. I'd like to know why I am receiving a 'warning' message and why my article might be deleted. It surely not spam. Please let me know what I can do to remedy the problem. Thanks.Energyfreak (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article was actually listed for deletion by

WP:CORP for more information. Good luck! --fvw* 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Fvw! A user you have blocked, The Guy In Charge, has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests like that are such fun don't you think? Kind of a way to blow off steam for me. You think you'll be alright with your Uber-indefinite ban? Haha--Jac16888 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait, I'm already making plans for all the free time I'll have! --fvw* 06:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fvw! A user you have blocked, Qualexlex, has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this deletion was unnecessary and happened far too fast for anyone to have actually READ the page to make a decent decision. Regardless of the fact that it was previously created THREE YEARS AGO and deleted, the website has since received huge exposure and success and has ultimately closed, and I felt that a catalog of its ventures was something worth posting, especially to the tens of thousands of visitors and viewers of the website founders' new projects. Raptor3 (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to appeal the page's original deletion, you can do so at

deletion review. Recreations will be deleted without further review though. --fvw* 09:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL. You and I are on the same page, in more ways than one. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not a page in The Five Keys of the Sphinx, or we'll soon be running short of reading material... --fvw* 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fvw! A user you have blocked,

Sorry, I was concerned that someone might miss what was going on. The user just copied the article Danny_O'Donoghue and replaced the name Danny O'Donoghue with James Toe Mee. I hope this clears up my reasoning. Rnb (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, nice catch. Will delete it. --fvw* 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would make it easyer on the hundreds of email we get asking who Chinny Bini is - since there was no imput here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagesamurai (talk • contribs)

Fame is a harsh mistress.. But I'm sure you'll manage to cope somehow. --fvw* 16:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I am not intending to blatantly advertise. I am new to this. I would like to create an informatinal page about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunt0311 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the company meets the criteria for having an article on wikipedia, see

WP:NPOV for information on how to formulate an article in a neutral way. --fvw* 19:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A chain letter, how festive . Hope you have a wonderful Yule as well! --fvw* 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do i need to prove for my article? I read the guidelines, i am missing nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaTN (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Your article doesn't list any secondary sources establishing your notability. --fvw* 20:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fvw! Good to see you around. :) Evercat (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, just popped in for a few edits, going on an extended AFK soon so I figured I'd grab a last chance. How's things? --fvw* 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK I suppose. Not here that much myself, but I still do 500 edits a year or such... Evercat (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fvw, my I question your judgement you expressed in this edit? Don't you consider edits like this as vandalisms? The user in question has so far not made one useful edit. Not a single one. Unfortunately, he isn't the only vandal acting in Fermoy, 193.1.96.36 being the other one. That what you assessed as "edit dispute" is simply the desperate attempt to undo the vandalisms. Cheers, --AFBorchert (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) (guest at en-wp, admin at Commons and active at de-wp)[reply]

Granted, that one seems to be going into bad-faith territory, but other edits are just reorderings of the content. Either way, the edits aren't happening now so it's not

WP:AIV material. --fvw* 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Clearly, I am new here. After seeing why you put this article up for deletion, I have gone back and added several non-Harvard sources for the article. The references section still looks overrun with Harvard sources, however, many of them are secondary citations to one another (in other words, two citations on the same fact). I could cut down the citations so that the article looks less Harvard-y, but I thought it was always better to have a few more citations than not.

Also, while I totally understand that new articles are held to a pretty high standard to prevent ads or vandals or whatnot, there are a number of articles on Wikipedia about collegiate improv troupes that have no citations at all, or are very poorly written (like On thin ice or Farce Side). Honestly, I would like to go through and take care of them all so they are respectable wiki articles, but it'll be a bit disheartening if the citations now provided aren't enough. Improv comedy troupes aren't covered very well in media, and, honestly, no college troupe is going to have more media citations than this one. Given this, many of them are still notable breeding grounds for new crops of comedians.

Anyway, thoughts, etc. SMSpivey (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all welcome to wikipedia. Sorry if nominating your article was a bit of a harsh welcome, we get inundated with new pages which means we do have to be selective. Please don't remove any references from the article, there's no need for a certain proportion of them to be third party or anything, it's just that when there aren't any third party information at all, it's impossible to to tell whether a subject is really important or whether it is just self-promotion.

Anyway, don't sweat it, though the AfD will probably end up getting relisted for more opinions, it looks like there's a good chance it'll survive that. --fvw* 07:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review policy before you go making assumptions, this editor has been POV pushing and has been deleting and changing sourced content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism. --fvw* 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, have you? POV pushing, and removing of sourced content without gaining consensus on the talk page is vandalism. Pushing a POV, along with removing sourced content, has long been considered vandalism, please let the admins handle the AIV pages, and lastly do not assume bad faith, and actually look into what is going on before commenting, other wise it's rude, and wastes everyone's time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so sure that this person is not a Vandal? Generally our description of vandals here are those who disrupt wikipedia. This person has an obvious point of view, has edited in that light, has attacked others, which is against rules, as I'm sure you must know, and has deleted sourced information with no reason given.

Users who disrupt are reported to AIV, because creating an AN/I report about every disruptive user would make things impossible.

If you're threatening to block me because I'm adding a disruptive user to a list that blocks disruptive users, well, according to

WP:BLOCK, this would be a bad block, I'm not disrupting anything, as this user is. Please respond.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes, and I really do suggest you read this, as it applies to this massive removal of sourced information, and POV slanted change without discussion on the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I just honestly wish you could have said what MoP said, (re: AIV only for blantant vandalism). Besides that, there needs to be a blatant disruption board.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I posted on the talk section for guidance on how to improve it and asking to hold off on deletion. Not particularly helpful. Jo.mclean (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to change the block settings on

Yeah, I did actually see that coming, but you never know. Thanks for the heads up. --fvw* 11:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fvw,

I am not so pleased with the fact that two of my Wiki-entries were deleted faster than I could finish my lunch. I would really appreciate some feedback on what was wrong, missing, or lacking on/in my entry, before it was deleted permanently. If A7 applies to these biographies (Johan Schot & Harry Lintsen), a lot of other biographies and entries could be deleted from the Wiki as well.

Best, Vincent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentlag (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please have a look at

WP:BIO for more information on our notability requirement. You are welcome to recreate the articles in question as long as you show how the articles' subjects meet these requirements by providing references. Thanks, --fvw* 12:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Fvw! A user you have blocked, DonaldDuck, has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, your notification didn't show up with the usual orange banner, is that because of the bot flag it's got? That makes it somewhat less useful, shame. --fvw* 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fvw. Any additional information you can provide about this block on User talk:DonaldDuck would be appreciated. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user in question AfDed an article about a clearly notable book (Lubyanka Criminal Group) with a reasoning which he doesn't agree with himself. Normally I'd assume good faith, but if you check his talk page history he's already got a whole history of fights, warnings and blocks. --fvw* 17:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is outright lie, I've got only one block for 3RR violation, just like you.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Per the comments on his talk page, it looks like it may have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. I'm tempted to extend a bit of good faith and see what happens (i.e. reduce the block). Any objections? - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I sort of do, actually, but judging by his talk page concensus says otherwise, so if you've read up on everything on his talk page and still have good faith left, do go ahead. --fvw* 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little mistake I made, I'll fix it in a few minutes...

^WS _(contribs) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks --Matt (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw your edit summary and agree... I would have no problem defending an early close, but decided that since he is an admin on two other projects, that we should at least get some input first. I was closing it at (0,0,0) which is OK in the case of a true noob, but for somebody with his experience, I wanted to let others chime in.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well that and the fact that people seemed intent on making comments in the closed RfA anyway, this is probably the path of least drama. --fvw* 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea he was the creator. Something seemed wrong since he was blanking the page(s).

I looked at the page history and looks like a couple of edits from IP's, which really screwed things up. I usually view the most recent diff on

talk) 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There have been lots of pages blanked a whole lot of content today, which is of course vandalism (without proper explanation). I've just ended up appearing to have done a lot of restores, and just warning the user(s). Most of those have been from IP's.

talk) 01:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

im trying to make a wiki page for an upcoming band with an album out and 2 competitions under their belt, why did you delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuphPlayer0809 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fvw, I am wondering whether user:167.206.48.220 was vandalizing with this series of edits [4], or merely updating information about the most recent addition to Obama's cabinet. If so, the vandalism warnings and block might merit a review. Thanks and cheers, JNW (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree it was probably good faith, and the first time it came up on WP:AIV I didn't block. When it kept up some sort of shot across the bow was necessary to get the guys attention. Thus far the part where I was reasonable. Then I got to the block page and must have automatically given a week because I saw he'd already been blocked for vandalism. I've fixed the block (12 hours now, is that still too long?), and I'd already put something sensible on his talk page. Thanks, --fvw* 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call. Several of the edits appear to have been either testing or trying to update the photo gallery for cabinet positions, but I do think the deletion of content under 'speculation' showed intent to update Lahood's appointment. I'm dubious as to whether the motive was vandalism. Problem is the contributor doesn't engage in discussion or explain their motives. JNW (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the announcement isn't official until Friday, so the edits, and my support of them, are probably premature. Time for me to take a break. JNW (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block wasn't for the content of the edits, it was for not communicating. If he'd just said that the matter would have been done, and we wouldn't have valued wikipedians taking breaks and getting lured back into the outside world. --fvw* 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just broke me up. Thanks and cheers again, JNW (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that blocked users may always edit their own talk pages and when a blocked user abuses that privilege, the talk page is locked. This update that prevents editing of their own talk page is newer, and I guess I'm not used to it . Thanks for reminding me. In this case, as it is an indef block, the difference is moot anyway. -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate an article for deletion, don't try to rewrite all the technical markup involved all by yourself. Just let the substing of templates do the job for you, as suggested on the AfD template you first insert. It will be much easier for you, and I will not have to clean up after you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a bit of a pain imho, too much cursor movement and copy and pasting. I realise the templated version is a bit more convenient for viewers, but for the two people who are going to chime in on the average AfD it's not really worth it in my opinion. --fvw* 07:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you deleted the page for INOCA? Thanks.

Officiale.

Hi, the article in question didn't fulfil the criteria for inclusion at

WP:WEB and because it didn't contain any assertion of notability it was a candidate for speedy deletion. You're welcome to recreate the article, but make sure it contains secondary references that show the notability of the subject. Good luck! --fvw* 07:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your speedy reverting here [5] would have been more than welcome five days ago, when

Okay... I believe I have pushed Bill Ewing from obscurity to notability. I would appreciate any input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To set your mind at ease that I am NOT violating Wiki Policy
  original research in that it IS NOT original thought, IS attributable to reliable published sources, and IS NOT not a new analysis or synthesis that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. That I have sent a request for corection/combination of these 4 names to IMDB editors is also not original research, as I have provided them with even greater proofs than I have Wikipedia. I am gretly offended at your statement. Please either strike or retract your accusation that I have violated policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think I'd still go for delete on the blatant stuff but maybe some might be better with a more gentle approach (& I'm not sure how many would find "history"). Thoughts welcome if you have time, if not no matter. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine too, though I don't have any strong objections to deleting it either. I'm not entirely against biting the newbies if they're newbie spammers to be honest. --fvw* 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at

Thank you so much!--Just-2-Kool (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Deletion tags should generally say whether you can remove them from the article yourself or not. All the deletion tags are gone now, if any more appear that aren't clear to you, please ask again. --fvw* 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fvw! I have a message on my talk page from a user who helped fix up my article. He had some suggestions, but I had some concerns about how to implement the changes suggested. If you get a chance, I'd really appreciate it it you could take a look at my talk page and let me know your thoughts. Thanx so much - once more! --J2K (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - thanks for keeping an eye out and stopping by. File:Icon beer.gif--VS ^talk 11:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why the fuk is my page deletion it is mad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.0.227 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our

Deletion Policy. --fvw* 12:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Pr D Phillip (talk · contribs)
• Owl Night (talk · contribs)
• Traceylovell (talk · contribs)
• 84.92.92.218 (talk · contribs)

Notice the spelling, lengthy bodies of text and the immediate agreement these accounts have with each other. Another administrator is also in agreement with me [9].

Ehm, I wasn't so much implying as saying. You're an editor involved with the leeds article and blocking users that edit there. That's not kosher. --fvw* 12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Jewish. But since when is that part of codified policy? So because I've passed a couple of comments and cited a few examples of other practice, if I spot a sockpuppet sharing the same space I can't block them? I think you think too low of me: if the puppet had happened to share a different point of view, say aligned with mine, they too would be blocked on sight. It's not a coi, it's commonsense.

Assume good faith perhaps? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_administrative_tools: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. --fvw* 13:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, and while I'm citing anyway:

Kosher#Broader_meaning: By extension, the broader sense of the word kosher has the meanings legitimate, acceptable, permissible, genuine, or authentic. --fvw* 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:WHEEL. Otherwise, I'm a content builder, not the type of user that wants to discuss motives and politics for eons whilst WP crumbles away. I look at the evidence and use the tools in good faith. I don't mind being challenged, but would prefer it in more contentious cases, not schoolboy sockpuppetry. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've unblocked the user in question, if you feel they should be blocked please report them on the appropriate sockpuppet/edit warrior/vandal page. --fvw* 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards. Total breach of

WP:WHEEL. I will block the master then, the rule is one user, one account. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."

WP:AGF. The account could be unblocked after a check user request, as I said. I am very displeased. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• A thread has been opened on the Administrators' noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Fvw (2) regarding this. Davewild (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot justify your actions, I will reblock the sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. There was no consensus to unblock these accounts and you're also in the minority by way of two other administrators agreeing they were single-purpose accounts. No consensus = no change and the onus was/is on you to provide reasonable opposition. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you come to the

WP:AC please. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

AN you mean? I think I'd rather not, I've said my bit on conflicts of interests, and I'll leave it to the community from here on. Thanks for your support though. --fvw* 15:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road Island Diner

User:Somno added some references to the article. Since the fact this was exhibited on the World Fair is now referenced, I'd like to ask you to consider withdrawing your nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, my bad. Give me five minutes to figure out how to close AfDs and I'll get rid of it. --fvw* 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I already closed it. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What happened? Did you forget to look for sources to see if this was salvagable or did you somehow fail to find them yourself? (I totally understand if it was a mistake, in the heat of patrolling, I've made them myself) The user who wrote the article appears to be a newbie and if a newbie manages to put together a coherent text that includes a notability claim like the one about the
  World Fair, my first move would be to ask them to reference it, rather than going straight to Afd. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I missed the entire world's fair claim, I came to the article cleaning up some ext link spam from other articles ("one of only three art deco diners in the U.S." was the claim made there, which somehow isn't quite as impressive). Musts read more carefully in future. --fvw* 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to be mean, but I think Rod Machado is a similar article. You did properly search Google, but I think you forgot Google Books. If you take out his own books, there's quite a few unrelated books there that can back up claims that I believe to make him notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but as it stands the article doesn't make any claims to notability, or cite any secondary sources. --fvw* 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly reconsider your !vote

Hello, Fvw. While I agree with your assessment and recommendation of this article at the time you !voted, I'd like to point out that the article has changed significantly since then, and I think it would impact your opinion. Please review the improved article, and consider changing your !vote. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XMsuite Improvement

Could you please give me suggestions on how to improve the XMsuite page so it will not be deleted in the future? I am a new Wikipedia user and I read the link you provided, but I am still unclear about the guidelines. Is there anything missing on the page that must be added so it fits the inclusion guidelines? Thanks--Jackdragon17 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyADSL Topic

I understand your reasons for stating that my sources for my edit need to be in line with standards. No problem. I didn't think it necessary at the time.

I am involved in the controversy I wrote about in the edit, the trouble is if I reveal my real name as a source I can expect a lawsuit and possibly ruin the ongoing investigation on behalf of the victims of the MyADSL community.

There are various blogs and news sites that carry details about this- would they be sufficient as sources? Otherwise the best I can do at this stage is wait until this thing goes to court and becomes public record, and then cite those sources and the media reports that will undoubtebly result. Miyukisan782 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The vals

Just a note to let you know that while I closed this as delete, Paul Erik, one of the article editors has found some more sources. As this seemed to be a sticking point at the AFD and is now resolved, I have restored the article. I have asked Paul Erik to add those sources to the article. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, please renominate it at AFD.

talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse Me,

I don't know what you are talking about, esp. the privacy violations?

And also, spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons - can you please elaborate?

Thanks.

--211.30.129.123 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.129.123 (talk)

Happy Holidays

Hi, and thanks for all your help and support this year. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday season. Best regards for the new year. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 01:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baconian theory

I always worry about people who revert an article they haven't studied. I HAVE studied it and the Anderson book is Oxfordian propaganda inserted by Smatprt, a propagandist. This is what you should know. Smatprt is an agenda pusher who bullies his Oxfordian POV into as many articles as he can. Please check the testimony of other editors: “his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop”,[10] “he will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means”[11], “his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome”[12]. JudgeJulianZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Baconian theory

I always worry about people who revert an article they haven't studied. I HAVE studied it and the Anderson book is Oxfordian propaganda inserted by Smatprt, a propagandist. This is what you should know. Smatprt is an agenda pusher who bullies his Oxfordian POV into as many articles as he can. Please check the testimony of other editors: “his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop”,[13] “he will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means”[14], “his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome”[15]. JudgeJulianZ (talk)

Creating lots of

sockpuppets will not help you in making your point, and is quite likely to get you blocked. Please stop. --fvw* 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Syncsta

Understood. ^^ -

talk) 02:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No problems, the nice thing about wikipedia is there's always someone looking over your shoulder. It's also the annoying thing about wikipedia once in a while, but on the whole it means

being bold as you were is the right thing to do. Happy editing! --fvw* 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Gabriel Ugliano

restored

actually, not an attack page. Actually a fictional character. Dlohcierekim 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, in that case I'm going to hide behind A1, not enough context to figure out the subject. Thanks for the undelete and fixup anyway. --fvw* 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Mwah-ha-ha-ha. Not sure this merits its own article, maybe a redirect. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griblet

An article about fictional characters does not fit CSD criteria. Also, the creator contested my prod so it needed to be send to AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between this and "the griblet is an animal that john jackson thought up", it's there to talk about something the person did, not about the story (we don't have anything on the author or the story, and nor does google for that matter). If you feel like AfDing it I'd be happy to undelete it, but I don't think this needs to clog AfD, to be honest. --fvw* 03:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Schuym1 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Butting in> What we need is a category for speediable in-universe subjects from nn stories. I get no Ghits for this, or for Max. Did not Worldcat for the author. No World cat for the story. If it's not in any library, it does not meet threshold requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). At least with Ugliano, I got ghits. Dlohcierekim 03:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72.11.83.22

You denied the block request for 72.11.83.22 , the last vandalization by user may have been five days ago. However, I feel the anti-semetic and racist nature of this anon user's vandalism warrants a block. Also, the only edits(out of many) have been vandal attempts. How can I get a second opinion on this?WacoJacko (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such as this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew%27s_harp&diff=prev&oldid=256302558

WacoJacko (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not saying he shouldn't be blocked, just that WP:AIV isn't the place to report it (see the three points in the banner at the top of the page).

WP:ANI is probably the best place to request blocks in other cases. --fvw* 04:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I guess I will put in a request there. It seemed like some of his/her vandal attempts were particularly virulent. ThanksWacoJacko (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pooja Article

Hi,

It seems that you have just deleted Miss Pooja article that was unprotected as per discussion with another admin User:Nancy, as per discussion here. Please see if you want to participate in the discussion.

Punjabi music lover (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the reply to my question over at the math project. I apreciate your assistance in resolving the matter. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're quite welcome, I'm just happy to see any problems on the math project I can solve…--fvw* 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo

Can you please tell me why you removed my insert on tattoos? I did not violate any of the guidelines - or did I? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Morello (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The product in question is hardly notable enough to be discussed on the main tattoo page, which is a general high level article about tattoos. It may be appropriate for a mention on the

temporary tattoo page, but even then you'd have to provide some secondary sources (newspaper articles and such) that show to significance of the product. Also, please keep in mind that accounts created purely to promote a product are generally not viewed favourably. --fvw* 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: user:Cockermouthcumbria

There is a big message on his user talk page that says that he's unblocked because of the username. But it says nothing about his vandalism. Could you send him a vandalblocked message as well? --w^{L<speak·check>} 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm odd, I had put a "and your blocked again" (non-template) text below the granted unblock request, but it wasn't rendering, and the quad-twiddlies of my sig weren't even getting expanded. Some template oddness perhaps? Anyway, I've moved it to the top of the page, thanks. --fvw* 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artisan PC

Could you briefly fill me in on where the article violates the guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaisanceman (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern is the one under primary criteria at

WP:CORP: You're going to need to show significant coverage in secondary sources, so that's (independent) newspaper articles, documentaries, that sort of thing. --fvw* 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the elaboration. Renaisanceman (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ewing news....

IMDB finally accepted the sourced merge of the different Bill Ewing listings in their database that I submitted to them. I have now returned the IMDB external link as it now includes ALL his projects. Thanks for your input at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toner

From Fvw "much better wrt company names and such, but the patent doesn't actually say a lot has been happening, it's just a method of doing it. And that it's possible is already established in the paragraph abo"

Actually this is a new process, thus the patent that claims a new toner business of recovering waste toner for reuse. There is no new remanufacturing. The previous paragraph actually implies this not possible. I cannot reference my print shop or other print shops as proof, thus the patent reference. Maybe the following without the patent citation?

Recently large quantities of waste toners have been recovered for direct reuse without remanufacturing

Printshopusa

If you can give a decent secondary reference (newspaper article, documentary, that sort of thing) for it, that'd be fine. --fvw* 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No "public" articles available today... but that will change soon. This can wait till then. Thanks for your advice. I will delete my current addition. Printshopusa

CMX Virtual Airlines

Please stop deleting our page this is for a Virtual Airline. It's not nonsence! thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelmontreuil (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silva vs ERP5 etc on Zope page

Hi,

If I follow your reasoning for deleting my addition of Silva on the Zope page what is the logic for keeping ERP5 in that list?

Would look that Silva has more of a following in the Zope community.

Schnaxel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnaxel (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that troll from yesterday? i think hes blocked. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? This comment makes -- no sense. How does this relate to Zope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnaxel (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who are you?

who are you that you try to always delete info I post?

Please read

WP:NOT. --fvw* 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

all I do is include important info that was left out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desty123 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you think you can write it better then I send you the info : Eric and Tom helped HURT to get signed to capitol records. Eric Greedy also helped them with ideas for promo/design of albums. and also include Eric's link www.ericgreedy.com and please mention that he produced vol 1 and 2 whenever those album names appear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desty123 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about

let me tell you the info and you include it then? Eric Greedy is a major label credited producer people like Rick Rubin know him,so he is important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desty123 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⅓ Day

I'm no carr, I'm No xor.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Original Recipe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion project

I am responding to your request (diff) for a third opinion:

# Comparison of reference management software‎: Leeron (talk · contribs) (also editing as 61.51.70.20 (talk · contribs)) keeps putting a reference management tool on this list that doesn't have an article on wikipedia, despite consensus on talk only to include products that have an article. It's a borderline spam issue I suppose, but I might as well get someone else to sort it out. --fvw* 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this, which is also in compliance with WP:3O guidelines, is to open a discussion of the issue on Talk:Comparison of reference management software. — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO VERIFY PERSONAL LIFE!?!?!

"She's currently in a long distance relationship with Andy Train Man Chan. Andy Chan is currently studying Information Technology in the United Kingdom. The couple has been together for a year yet they have managed to conceal themselves from the public eye. Despite enduring much scrutiny from the public, the couple has managed to stay strong. However, rumors have leaked which indicate that the couple may be splitting up. Although there is much support for this by the public, the PR's from both sides have denied such allegations."

This is entirely true...but how do you expect me to verify it? She is my friend and I know this is true and so does she. HOW CAN I PUT A REFERENCE TO THIS?

YOu are violating my rights to make a proper wiki page for my friend!

Please read

WP:BIO and all will become clear. --fvw* 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

help

how do i report an administrator of administrator abuse?

CMJMEM (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct sir; as far as I know it's alright to migrate open source data from one place to another, as long as the same restrictions apply. How ya doing anyway? See ya! Aidan Biltner (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a

WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

(delivered by mabdul 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is For You

	Soviet Socialisem
	Soviet's Socialism Award For You! National Names 2000 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

MfD nomination of Draft:Paul Drye

sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Paul Drye during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

LI xianting listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LI xianting. Since you had some involvement with the LI xianting redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]