This user may have left Wikipedia. RxS has not edited Wikipedia since 17 November 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Archive 1 (March 5 to Nov 21)
:
Archive 2 (Nov 21-April 17th)
:
Archive 3 (April 30-June 2007)
:
Archive 4 (June 2007-June 2008)
:
DYK for Suzanne Goin
On
23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suzanne Goin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
The other day the stress got to me, I lost it, I ranted publicly on the 9/11ct arbitration evidence page. I ranted, among other things, about you. There's no excuse for that. While I find some of the things you do hard to understand, I don't know what you are really like as a person because I have never met you. Therefore I fully accept that I should, as I have been strictly instructed to do, stick to the facts and not make inferences about people's motives. I am very sorry for being so uncivil towards you. ireneshusband(talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extraneous hoopla
I noticed you referring to this on Wikback as your new favourite phrase. If you're curious, I've done a bit of research on the expression and have posted it on my user page as a modified "Did you know." It's been around longer than I thought. Risker (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, that's great! There's something about that phrase that just kills me.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
Hi. I'm responding here as I have brought this point a few times on the page already, and there is no point bringing it there again, it is getting long enough already :). There is case precedent for running two months post a prior RfB (successfully, and for the THIRD time I might add) IF the issue involved was not one of trust, but of the community wanting to see more RfA involvement. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles at ED are simply satire but some of them exist solely for the purpose of offending people. For example, there is an article called "Offended" (which I do NOT recommend that ANYONE view by the way) that I had the displeasure of seeing which is essentially just a collection of gross shock images. You mention that there are many sites which feature disturbing content which are not shock sites. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that a site which hosts shocking content becomes exempt from "shock site status" simply because it also contains satire.--
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the slight modification I did to the 9/11 article, can you explain to me how it is nonsense? It is a legitimate hypothesis that some members of government one way or another carried out the attacks for different legitimate reasons. I think that the constant blaming of Al-Queda for the attacks is nonsense. -
Magicman710 —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Your redirect of "research program" to "research"
Imre Lakatos is a philosopher of science famous for his discussion of "research programs". There are probably many people who will have trouble remembering that name and search for research program, hoping to find something about it. If it is going to be redirected to "research" it may as well not even be a redirect. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
Cheers for your support! I'm obviously disappointed, but there was lots of good constructive criticism from the process which I'm going to take on board. And who knows, after a few months after I may very well be successful. Cheers! Mark t young (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
terrorists
I have replied on the articles talk page, and reverted your revert..no offence meant.
On a personal note, yes they were terrorists, but the same could/should be said of the IRA, and maybe even Nelson Mandela..
what made a lot of sense in the link i gave in the articles talk page were words along the lines of " don't try to lead people, put the facts, and let people make their own minds up, based on the facts." and I think the vast majority already know they were terrorists, and the article will just confirm that Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles I comment on are vandalism on wikipedia. Crapscience has no place in public discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatdoesntmakesense (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bullshit
I really wanted this to remain civil, that is why I put a message on your talk page initially, after checking the edit summaries, I was a little suprised to find your comment regarding my use of the word bullshit. What makes you think I was talking about your edits, when using the term bullshit, I think you will find quite a few edits between your comment and my use of the word bullshit. I honestly find the use of the term bullshit to be acceptable, and if you look at the order of the edits, it seems obvious that it was not directed towards you.
Tonight's episode "Instant Reverting, Internet Style"
Hi, Mrs. Love (or Mr. Love). See the talk page of the September 11 article. There are comments there. You just reverted without discussion. Presumptive (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked to learn you are an admin. I though an admin would act like a great representative, pillar of society, open to discussion, etc.
Why not let us think of 12 different introductory sentences and pick the best one? I am sure we can improve WP! Presumptive (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're demanding a change under false assertions. If you came a long and said, yuck that first sentence is awkward let's fix it that'd be one thing. But you're demanding a change because of a claim that it's original research which is just flat out wrong.
It is very subtle OR, not overt OR. It is also bad prose. Either way, it can be improved. I am not suggesting we change it to "those filthy terrorist" or "those freedom fighters". I am just seeking better prose.
But you are an admin, so "yes, sir!". I will endeavor to listen to you now that I know you are an admin. Presumptive (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me being an admin has exactly zero to do with it. I never used nor threatened to use any admin powers here. I never mentioned the fact that I'm an admin, in fact it seems you just found out that I was one so I couldn't have been lording it over you too awfully much.
Knock it off, Presumptive. RxS has not even come close to threatening you with admin action. This attack on his character and his administratorship is completely unwarranted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, Rx StrangeLove!
I am grateful for your kind words and confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Thanks again! Okiefromoklaquestions? 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
I wouldn't take controversial admin actions, so you don't need to worry about that. See my answer to question 18, also my user page for my views on that. Controversial admin actions represent everything I think is wrong with the state of adminship on the project. Everyking (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those attitudes are one reason why I supported in the first place. So, I changed back to support because I believe you. My concern is that although WR is a pretty silly place, you have a enough supporters there that would show up in support of any admin action you might take. Instant blood bath. I've considered posting there but I don't trust their privacy protection further than I could throw my Jeep. Anyway, try and keep it down to a dull roar and we'll be good.
If you oppose a ban, please say so clearly, or else the poor chap is going to get shown the door for good, or at least for a while. JehochmanTalk 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabet soup
That is a really funny expression that cracks me up. :) --Caspian blue 23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--
I was doing an edit on Jimmy's page and when I went back to my watch list i saw you posted just before me but i can't see your edit, did mine cancel yours out ??
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Civility warnings
What a civil civility warning. Very nicely done. The whole incident was so boring I simply can't stand it. Next time threaten to, well, I don't know, threaten to slap someone if they're not civil. --KP Botany (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Old Log Theater
On
Old Log Theater, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
I wanted to clarify my views without sidetracking the discussion. My problem with the term "member" is that there's no real standard of membership. No uniform, no initiation process, nothing like what members of Abu Nidal went through. Not everyone who went through an AQ training camp can be considered a member, and there are a lot of groups that claim inspiration by al-Qaeda but have no formal contacts with anyone in the group. I'm just uncomfortable with applying the label of member to anyone who isn't either top leadership, or in the 055 Brigade. And by referring to AQ as nebulous, I'm just referring to their strategy of ideological infection/inspiration, rather than the outright attacks of the 1990s. I'm certainly not in the "AQ is a CIA/Cheney/Mossad/Reptilian invention!!!" crowd. I'm pretty sure you and I see eye-to-eye on most other issues in this article. Cheers! // Chris(complaints)•(contribs) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the word member, but I don't want to water down the fact that they were acting as a direct hand of al-Qaeda and by their direction. I suppose we could drop the whole thing and just say the attacks were conducted al-Qaeda. But I do want to see a pretty tight/direct linking between the hijackers and al-Qaeda because in the real world there was. If these articles weren't under constant attack by certain quarters things like this wouldn't matter so much...but there it is I guess. RxS (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boehner
I created the page and I am moving it, OK? The page was barely complete and many of the references are wrong in the Wikipedia version. The version in MyWikiBiz is copyright (well I think so, I will check). Peter Damian (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can copy it over there but you can't move it (in the sense that it's yours to delete here). When you edit a page you: irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL.. I'm sure you know this....but edit warring isn't going to fix anything. RxS (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind unarchiving the section or me adding some comments to it? I understand that the editor is banned, but I think he raised a valid question that deserves a direct answer (mentioning
I think if there are issues like this you should bring them to
WP:COI, that conversation was going no where and keeps reoccurring. If you really want to add that just add it below the archived section I guess. But I don't see a need to reopen it...`RxS (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Happy RxS's Day!
User:RxS has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as RxS's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear RxS!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see
User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! I'm not sure I'm worthy but cool! RxS (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your anniversary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping over Logic at AETruth
At the AE page, an editor says:
You're leaping from "there is no academic or professional debate about what caused the collapse" to "it is widely rejected"
I concur that this seems an enthusiastically hasty rejection of common sense on your part. Did you have an opportunity to deal with this problem?
--Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is settled and there is no longer an ongoing debate about these issues. It has been widely rejected. RxS (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could have been longer, probably not shorter. RxS (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All edits are vandalism, continues to vandalize, and he only gets one week? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ITN credits
Hi, thanks for the latest updates at ITN but I just noticed that you didn't give credit notices to the articles and contributors/nominators. Could you fix it? The instruction is at
Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Recognition. Thanks again. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep....thanks for the nudge. Haven't been doing this long. RxS (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't placed the {{
ITNtalk}} template on the articles' talk pages yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Always something....and we wonder why there's so many admin backlogs. RxS (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to find this deleted. Did I miss a discussion of its notability. I know it had been discussed before for deletion and rejected. Could you tell me the justification? I would have thought the book about her and the mention in the DNB would have established notability. Even assuming it was deleted I would have merged and redirected... ?? Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed to me that she was the daughter of a politition and had a book written by the request of her family was the only basis of any notability. It looks pretty thin to me, but if you want it restored I'll do that...I'm not married to anything. RxS (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - please restore it. I agree its not a watertight case in either direction, but someone has spent weeks making it and there should be a debate before significant work gets deleted. Thanks for your co-operation Victuallers (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and previously discussed Rjanag's conduct with him.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political parties, embarrassing members, and the law
I don't know about other countries, but in the United States, political parties are required by law and, arguably, the US and state constitutions, to let any registered voter who isn't supporting a candidate of another party or a member of another party become a member of that party and participate in the political activities of the party, including running for office. They don't have to invite you to social functions but they can't kick you out of the political party. KKK and other racist candidates have embarrassed political parties several times since the end of
Jim Crow, and the only thing the party could do was withhold financial and other support, they couldn't kick the person out. In most states, those with no felony record are allowed to run for office, and in most states felons whose parole or probation is over are allowed to vote and be members of political parties. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: December 2009
I forgot about the sandbox. i just used the first page i found to test what i was doing. i intended to revert the page when i had finished but you beat me to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.219.113 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:In Combo.jpg
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author
Hi, RxS. Can you please assert authorship on File:Orch hall.jpg? This came up in remarks to delistMusic of Minnesota. Elcobbola wrote, "Needs a verifiable source. As per above, an explicit assertion of authorship is needed. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not sufficient." -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...yep, that's one of mine. I went on a photo taking binge during that period and that was one. Let me know if I need to assert authorship somewhere other than here and the delist page for Music Of Minnesota. RxS (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably missing something, but my username and a link to my user page is on the page already along with a release into the public domain. En-wiki was the original wiki the image was uploaded to...I don't have a commons account but surely the image page here asserts authorship by the licensing I applied to it. RxS (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tell you what, if anything else happens on this image I will ping your talk page again. (This is the strictest image review I have ever witnessed.) Thank you again for the photo and for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all means and if you don't hear from me here shoot me an e-mail. As I look over all the images I took and uploaded it's fun to see how they've propagated. Makes me want to go out again and do some more (when the snow melts)...I thought there was a requested photo page around somewhere...do you know of one? RxS (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elcobbola replied on the delist page. I guess that I could edit the commons page and so I will. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.
A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.
After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68.237.91.70
I'd suggest a longer block; he just came off a week block. HalfShadow 03:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I increased it to two right after the original block. I'll do a month if you prefer. RxS (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two might do, though given he's continued after two blocks, I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being blocked yearly like a school IP. HalfShadow 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your RfA Support
RxS - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q
Hey, can I ask you why you protected User talk:Kitarora? I was going to blank the page with its invitation to the creation of nonsense articles--BTW, what weird vandalism! Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I indef'd the user, he was putting nonsense on his talk page. I might go back and delete it but there's no point in putting too much time into it...RxS (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's just that looking at the page gave me a headache, and if DGG is right, that redlinks invite the creation of articles, then you'll be deleting a bunch of them... Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of, I see. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harrit, Niels H. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe".
If you permit Bazant's study (a conjecture without experiment) you should allow Harrit's study (based on direct chemical identification in a laboratory, and reproducable).
Bazant, Zdenek P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf. Retrieved May 20, 2008.
This study is directly relevant to the September 11 Attack subject.
Thank you for defending Wikipedia!--MONGO 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking up on photographership
Hey there, RxS, I'm working to get
Good article status and to do this, I have to make sure all pictures in the article are 100% A-okay to use. To that end, I just want to confirm with you that you took this picture of the Ford plant in St. Paul:
Yes, that was me....why, is there a question of ownership? RxS (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. It just wasn't explicitly listed (as it has to be for GA) that you yourself took it. Thanks for the prompt response! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 00:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry for posting in this section, as I don't know how to create a new one. Anyway, I don't know why you repeated your message of "null edits" to me on my talk page, as I hadn't added any of the spaces to any page since your first message. Boi O Death (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was this then? I know you reverted, but I'm just curious, about why it might've looked dodgy? Chzz ► 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic ozone
Thanks for adding the interesting "in the news" item about depletion of ozone above the Arctic. Unfortunately the wording was a bit ambiguous, as the lower temperatures involved are at an altitude of 20 km (12.4 miles) and came at the same time as record warmer temperatures at surface level generally in the Northern Hemisphere. With a bit of tweaking I think the item has now been made a bit clearer. Nonetheless, interesting news well worth reading. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation
Hi, RxS. You asked me to comment further at AN. I've been on and off the computer as time allowed and ended up posting after the entire section had been archived. Oops! So I removed my post. You can read it here, restore it, move it—whatever you think best. (It's long but not tedious, I hope.) I think the archiving may have been a bit premature, but I don't frequent AN and am blissfully unaware of the norms. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks in Syria on ITN
Could you move it to the top or second to the top? This happened yesterday. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN for Death of Seve Ballesteros
Why didn't you post it? You didn't !vote and consensus was really clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, I can only duck in and out at times. Plus I wanted feedback on the blurb...RxS (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive and helpful contributions there. --John (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Association football item
Hi! The wording "Manchester City/Stoke City win the FA Cup" referred to the two teams participating in the final (which had not yet been played). Only the former team actually won. :) —
Thanks for putting the news about the WTO findings on the main page. Instead of my talk page, I can also be found at [4]. Sp33dyphilReady • to • Rumble 01:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a new message at Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Reducing_the_yellow_on_the_timer_to_12_hours's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
removing comment on Main Page talk
You removed my comment on Main Page talk because you said it is not for the main page. I beg to differ, sections like that pop up all the time. One Recent one was Talk:Main Page/Archive 158#Bias on the main page. I am reinstating my comment.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Hi, I just wanted to apologize. it appears every time we run into each other there is a conflict. I also wanted to say sorry for kind of blowing up on you on the news candidate page. It was uncalled for. I was just very exasperated from trying to keep the article with something in it. If you ever need help on wiki please feel free to ask. --Found5dollar (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Fuzhou bombings
You note on ITN talk that an edit by the user Respecteveryone is vandalism. You may be interested to know that the same user is one of the principals in the contributions related to this ANI. I cannot accesss the diffs of deleted articles, but perhaps action is warranted? μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Yemeni uprising pages? Im a bit busy with work and the 2011 Egyptian revolution (Im one of the organizer of the Second Revolutionary Wave in Egypt). I need all the help I can get so if you know anyone who can help please ask them too. thanks. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
Did I create these sections with Sarah's name in them? Why not crow to those who did the nonsense you just wrote me?
You CAN'T be serious. What?? Your comment right here was so incredibly non-sensical, it's like not funny.
First...I did NOT create those sections with Sarah Palin's name on it, and whining about supposed "flubs" and "re-writing of history" etc. That's everyone else. So if that's the case, why didn't you write your weird comment to THEM? Since they're the ones who are on about this nonsense? Number two: in case you're not paying attention, this article "Paul Revere" is what's under discussion, as to Sarah's supposed "flub"... And since others have been bringing this up FIRST...I merely commented trying to balance things out a tad or two. And it's related to the article (as I made clear) about "Paul warned the British too, after he was captured." What part of any of this is unclear to you? That you would be possessed to snarl at me the junk you just did, while ignoring the other editors who have been groaning against "Sarah supporters" and whatever else? Watercolor Merger 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It was your wall of text that I saw first, the fact that other people wrote things is off topic. You are responsible for your own edits. Talk page aren't there to balance things out. Please confine comments about Sarah Palin to the Sarah Palin talk page, and even then only when they are directly pointed at improving the article. RxS (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely modify items' order (and usually see no problem when the pictured subject's blurb isn't at the top), but I've noticed that terrorism-related items tend to evoke strong feelings in this area. —
Just so you know, what's actually going on is a bit of an edit war; User:Dolovis has been arbitrarily moving the hockey player articles from their existing titles to unaccented "English spelling" titles, citing the "Use English" guideline; User:HandsomeFella has been following close behind him, tagging the resulting accented redirects for deletion not because they're "misspellings", but so that the articles can then be moved back to their original titles according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey's existing naming convention. I've asked them both to cool it, but I just thought I should let you know that what you're seeing is a rather contentious edit war over conflicting of naming conventions, not just somebody trying to delete some "misspelled" redirects. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Sprott
Hi! Your deletion of Eric Sprott is a very sad decision. I may also say that it's pretty discouraging, even though I'm an experienced editor. It should not be a surprise that Wikipedia loses editors, both young and mature. Cheers, Lamro (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I stated in my last reply to you here, unless you're of the opinion that both there's no consensus there and at the article talk page for retention or deletion of the see also link, I'm concerned that a continuation of our theory vs. consensus discussion there is only further complicating the larger discussion which is already far beyond the scope of what that dispute deserves. If, of course, you are of the opinion that there is no consensus, then our discussion is entirely apropos, but even then I think that we've both probably already said everything that needs to be said about it there. Either way, would you consider agreeing to silently terminate our discussion on the theory vs. consensus point at DRN and to, if either of us desires to do so, either continue it here or somewhere else other than DRN? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barelinks
A compromise There certainly is a consensus that my actions due not warrant admin intervention and they are in line with Wikipedia policies and procedures. The only objection is aesthetic, so to that end, this should keep everyone from complaining on my user talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No As I pointed out at AN/I, these templates are supposed to go at the top of the article, so there is nothing to fix as there is nothing broken. In the past, when I have manually added {{
Barelinks}}, I put it in the references section because it was convenient, but that was strictly speaking against the guideline. I'm only doing it now to keep other editors from prolonging this discussion. I'm glad that your interests and mine could intersect, but I am not going to be going back to all of these other pages to amend them purely out of the aesthetic concerns of others users. If that sounds harsh, I hope you understand that I don't mean it to be combative, merely realistic--that is a huge undertaking for no payoff. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Why? The consensus is that these templates and the maintenance categories are useful and necessary. A minority of users wanted them moved somewhere else. Removing the template altogether would not be helpful and would be a huge hinderance in fixing linkrot in these articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus There were a handful of editors who didn't like the template where it was and they mentioned that in the context of a different discussion. If you want to build a consensus on the placement of the template, you will have to do it somewhere relevant to the discussion of maintenance templates. I would be happy to give my input in that discussion, but interested or involved editors may not see this unrelated post at AN/I, so there cannot be a consensus regarding the use of this template as such--only my actions. If you revert several thousand edits based on the aesthetic concerns of three or four editors when it has been established that those original edits are within the guidelines of the encyclopedia and they are useful for its maintenance, that would be a
It seems counterproductive to revert the edits which add the article to a category where the bare links can be acted on. There are many users who patrol this category, correct the deficiencies, and then remove the tag. My76Strat (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the first thing our readers see when they click on an article shouldn't be a maint tag, especially that tag. If I thought that significant progress could be made clearing them I'd stop but generally there isn't. Or if there was a plan to move them, but he's said no to that. RxS (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I tend to agree that this tag is better situated within the references section. Perhaps some software modification would be a great improvement to prevent them from dominating articles while adding them to an appropriate category for cleanup. I should also like to add that fixing the problem takes barely more time than simply adding the tag, and I am a fan of
I don't mind the smaller tag above the ref section. The Webreflinks tool doesn't seem to work and I don't know of any other way to quickly fix the issue. If there's some other way to add them to the cat I'm fine with that. It's the appearance that's the issue. We're already worried about a drop in editors, incomprehensible wiki tags dominating articles doesn't help. RxS (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should post an image of Anna Hazare rather than the Google headquarters...What say? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN credit
On 25 August 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Article name, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
In the spirit of acting as colleagues on this work, and as administrators are generally expeced to uphold levels of civiliy and open communication wih all participants, I though I'd call you a complete and total utter <redacted> with <redacted> directly on your talk page, rather than just making snide remarks elsewhere. Try not to <redacted> as it makes you look even more <redacted> than many of the community already think you are. <redacted>. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To no surprise, the edit warring resumed once the semi was lifted. Could you maybe put it back for a week and see if they go away? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.
There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.
Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor) When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012
To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!
Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.
Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor) Dates: Saturday, June 1
Saturday, July 6 Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.
This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:CityofHoldingford.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a
WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xenotalk 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Old Log Theater
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.triposo.com/poi/Old_Log_Theater. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing
.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RolandR (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists.
Hello RxS! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.
We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo+c 23:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Jordan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 01:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Following a 
