User talk:SoWhy/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your help. Please added the article of Islam in Albania to your watchlist. I have reported the IP on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Please take a look. Thank you again and best wishes to you. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I will do so. I am sorry, but I have no experience with

WP:SSP, so I will let someone experienced handle it. Regards SoWhy

21:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard works. Let's fight vandals out of Wikipedia. :) Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Move request of

SCI FI

Is there enough consensus at

I completed the move. I hope you understand why I did not want to do it without discussion. Regards SoWhy 06:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I did :) It was interesting how many folks were like "whoa" because we'd all taken it off our watchlists for one reason or another LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you protect Enjoy Yourself Tonight again for a longer time? This IP vandal has been active for quite a while, and may last a long while. And there are several other pages that s/he frequents--just look at those IPs' contributions. HkCaGu (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is only once IP, blocking it is the way to go instead of protecting. Use

WP:RFPP to request protection again, rather than contacting me directly, as I cannot guarantee to always reply this fast. Regards SoWhy

13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. This vandal uses dynamic IP, so it changes every time. But it's been the same first 6 digits. HkCaGu (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what's up? Long time no see :)

I wanted to ask for your input on something. Lately I've been mainly reverting vandalism and fixing some disambiguation links (which I plan to do in more depth soon), basically gnome work and RC patrolling—and I have some plans to work on certain articles somewhere in the near future. But for now, I'd like a suggestion from you. What area of Wikipedia would you suggest for me to look into working on? Is there any particular task you'd recommend for a newbie like me?
I still want to keep on doing what I'm doing now, but I also want to find other ways to contribute to the project. Any ideas?

Thanks, hope you're doing well :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, I hope you do well too. Then, I cannot tell you what you what you should do, you have to know what you like doing and just dive into it. If you need suggestions what needs doing, take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog. There is enough work to do and most of it can be done by a newbie. You just have to read up on how to do the work but if you do, there should not be much you need to be "experienced" to do (well, barring things like closing AfDs and suchlike).

But, as I said, I do not know what you like. There are backlogs for menial, routine tasks like cleanup and for tedious tasks like searching the web for sources. All work you put in there is greatly appreciated and if you think you cannot do it without more experience, just choose something else. There are tons of things in that category that anyone can do, regardless of their wiki-knowledge. And if you need help once you found something, come back to me and I will try to provide it. Regards SoWhy 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Wendy Carlos. We'll see how it goes. K8 fan (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome. I suggest you handle the situation with the editor not affected as I laid out. Regards SoWhy 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm new to speedies (I usually stick to the safer AfD's) and wasn't aware of that. I've always believed that unsourced info should be removed from Wikipedia without hesitation, thus removing all the content was appropriate (since it was all unsourced). Then I decided to speedy it since it was blank. Regardless, I want you to know that I was acting in good faith and apologize if I was wasting your time. I won't do that again. Sorry. — Realist² 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know you were. But with songs and albums, information in infoboxes is usually not attributed to refs unless questioned, as you surely know. So I would advise against removing that information straight ahead if it is not questionable. After all, things like the song name are usually sourced (by the album's article) and the other things cna be sourced there or by a simple look at Amazon or suchlike. As for taggings, CSD#A3 is for articles created without content (or only links or suchlike). If not created this way, other criteria are to be used. For example, there is

A9 for musical recordings. And if A9 does not work, as here, PROD or AFD should be used instead. Regards SoWhy

21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SoWhy. Could you please withdraw this AFD because I'm not sure how.

Thanks a lot!;

cf38^talk 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I did it. You are welcome. SoWhy 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you trust French Wikipedia to be more effective at detecting and removing hoax articles than we are. Anyone can make mistakes! --Russ (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can. My point was only that if they haven't detected it, we have to

assume good faith regarding the person who translated it and thus cannot delete it as a hoax that is so obvious that it qualifies for G3 as vandalism. Regards SoWhy

09:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've semi-protected this page. I was actually the last person to edit it anonymously. I've had a look at recent contributions from other IPs, and I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you identify the vandalism you were talking about in your edit summary here? Thanks. 67.150.252.7 (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism is explained in the sentence after it: A group of IPs, probably

WP:3RR by using IPs as blocking the IPs was not an option. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Regards SoWhy

10:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've looked at the history of the page, and don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you point to specific edits of that page please? 67.150.252.26 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...you are right. I checked a bunch of protection requests for similar articles of that topic at random and must have missed it in this case. I unprotected it as such. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but the page still seems to be semi-protected.67.150.244.85 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You semied this page, stating that there was "vandalism - pov pushing ips. Could you decribe how I was pov pushing but the other editor was not? Thanks. 32.142.232.61 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake, I misclicked a previously used protection summary. It is now fully protected until the dispute is resolved. SoWhy 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to discussing the other editors views on the article over the next week.32.136.255.196 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, on your post at

I think your experiment with unprotecting Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has proven itself to be a failure. Good intent, but there are a few celebrities that are vandalism magnets, and she's one.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try. I re-semi-ed it. Regards SoWhy 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lorin Enterprises Inc." ‎ was deleted for Blatant advertising even though I took Special precaution to avoid advertising them at all. I am a Computer Gamer and I would like other gamers such as myself to be able to read about Lorin Enterprises Inc. and how it was founded created and maintained. They are a business worth noting in Wikipedia. Would you please tell me how it was blatant Advertising so I can go back and adjust it. I have read all the rules and regulations to editing and followed them to the T. Will you please give me advice on what I should do so it is not deleted for advertising? I spent a lot of time creating this article and its upsetting to see it deleted so easily. I read what you have on your page about im probably here because you deleted my page and it wasn't you it was a patrol but I didn't use any "advertising words" or try to promote them in any way just information based on my resources. JohnTheJagger (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, and I am quoting quite random here, using of "Inc." or ® in sentences, referring to people with their first name and speech that suggests personal involvement of the creator.

Also, the other (and more obvious), reason here was

deletion discussion about it would certainly have resulted in the same result. Regards SoWhy

17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

JohnTheJagger (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I semi-protected the page after your decline of the request for semi-protection. We've got anons removing the advert/NPOV templates at the article top and inserting long lists of pro-UP links, so I figured I'd slap semi-protection on it and see if the problem stops. Let me know if you disagree with the call. Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point was that it's only 2 IPs within five days doing so, so it would be easier to warn and block the IPs than to protect. As always, I do not mind if someone else sees it differently, I am still learning the admin stuff after all ;-) SoWhy 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to protect a page rather than to block an IP in case it's an IP used by multiple people. Since these anons are just attacking this one article, there seemed to be more risk in blocking them than in protecting the page. Anyway, I guess we can just see how it goes the next few days and reassess as needed. Mr. Darcy talk 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hello SoWhy - i thought it would be fitting to let you know about

Thanks for the notice, I had already noticed it myself in this case, but I appreciate the thought nonetheless. I agree with your assumption and I think we will be right about it unless he starts edit-warring over it instead of discussing. If he does so, he knows (as I have wrote him) that he risks being blocked again and I am sure another admin (I am not impartial anymore) will take the necessary steps if needed. But as you said, let's assume that it was not in bad faith. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

cool - thanks for the response and for taking an interest.

Sssoul (talk

) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes I did, because I blocked one of the users and tried to get them to talk. But I fear I could be biased when assessing that consensus, so to prevent anyone from even claiming that the consensus was assessed incorrectly, I would suggest you ask someone uninvolved you trust to take give input on how to react to that discussion. If you do not know anyone you trust, you can check

WP:HAU to find someone active. Regards SoWhy

19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks SoWhy - i've asked someone from that

Sssoul (talk

) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the full thread on Companions.jpg which he linked, where I present my point of view. This particular image was considered

WP:NFCC

if argued to fulfill its criteria.

I stand by my opinion though that this particular upload, no matter what Hammersoft claims, was done to prove a point, by a user who argued for days (and still does) that such images should not be allowed. The IfD on Companion.jpg should be closed with a result soon, being open for 6 days now already. You should be able to argue based on that result, no matter what it is. If it is kept, Hammersoft's argument is

WP:OSE is void, as his own arguments from that debate can be transferred then. Regards SoWhy

18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your assertion where you state that every user involved felt the new image was a violation of
  WP:POINT. See User_talk:Hammersoft#You_are_right. I am making no effort in any respect to disrupt the project nor make any claim regarding other stuff existing. I have been and continue to attempt to focus discussion by asking appropriate questions to the debate. That is what these deletion discussions are for. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am only speaking for those who commented on the image, not everyone ever posting at the debate. That would not be a very logical interpretation of my statement, albeit one possible. And you do not expect me to check every user's talk page to find such concessions, do you? I can and will only judge what I can read at the debate if I am commenting on the debate itself. After all, noone can read minds.

You say you want to focus discussion by asking questions - that's fine. Uploading a (in your eyes) similar image which promptly causes another IfD (and where you argue on grounds of the main debate, which is not even closed yet), is imho not asking questions. It is causing more work for everyone around to illustrate a point because this discussion now is completely unnecessary, as is the upload and to be expected IfD of

WP:OSE, trying to justify another image based on keep's for a certain image (a so-called reductio ad absurdum

, which is not a valid argument).

So no matter how much you now say, it was not POINTy, the upload itself and the argument you based on it were clearly made to prove your point that the rule against covers for discography-lists should apply to Companion (Doctor Who). Regards SoWhy 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for another

behavioral guideline. I readily admit that it's easy to knee jerk assume I was trying to do something pointy. Hell, we all see it on Wikipedia enough to create that behavior in ourselves where we immediately presume guilt before pausing, even for a second, and thinking "maybe this is different". What I was doing was in no way any attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, it's operations, harm the project, harm content, or harm users. I vociferously, adamantly deny any claim in that vein. Whether you wish to be convinced of that is not my problem anymore and I wash my hands of it. My conscience is absolutely, 100% clear. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk

) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is nice and fine - but all you said and have done was not allowing people to assume it. You changed your statements after I made the comment I am referring to above. While AGF may be possible taking your new statements into account, I have not commented on your behavior after I made said comment. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm catching up on my neglected talk page mail. Thanks for your thanks. If you hadn't been a good candidate, you wouldn't have passed, regardless of my nom. Thanks to you for all your work here. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you please look at Talk:Gary Cooper. This edit from a banned user, which is about as incivil as you're likely to see, and which is using your invitation to participate as some kind of justification. He's a long-standing one-issue trouble maker, and I don't really understand why you suggested he comment on the talk page, but the result is highly undesirable. I'm not sure what is the right thing to do here, but comments like his are unacceptable. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If it really is a banned user, I suggest

WP:SSP to block this IP as a sockpuppet. My comment on the talk page was to any IPs who want to make constructive edits (as I wrote), not vandals. I warned the IP for it with {{uw-npa4im}}. If they do it again, report to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Regards SoWhy

15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Rossrs (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why you have deleted my page, Sous Chef, LLP. This is an actual company with a product that is attempting to gain capital to begin production. I am following guidelines on how to make an article. I think I should be given ample time to complete my article before it is deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymets1726 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted 5 times now, by different admins, so you should consider if the problem might be with you instead with the deleting admins. I stand by my deletion, the article did not indicate why the company should be considered important. You say yourself that it is currently in creation, seeking to gain capital to begin production. So we can rightly assume it's not important at the current moment and the article did not assert any notability. SoWhy 22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete
My Wikipedia thing
Can you put it back.

Please.
p.s. That was fun. I like Haikus.
I hope this works.
Missindi (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but not really working I am afraid. After I checked which page you are referring to (which you should tell me yourself usually), I am afraid there is no reason to restore it. "he is too cool for you" is not really a valid claim of importance. You should read up on

the notability guidelines for biographical articles. Regards SoWhy

13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In a few of your recent edits, ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) you changed soft redirects to plain redirects on the basis that we should not have "no soft redirects to commons in article space". I didn't see anything about that in

I discussed it with some admins on IRC and we agreed that soft redirects may be useful for Wiktionary links but not links to other projects. I think in such cases links to Commons can be compared to articles where the content is only images or external links (which are subject to deletion under A3). Those articles are only links to categories on commons, which is not really helpful for the casual reader. Instead, the {{Commons}}-template in Coin should provide the same links in context.

Also, those articles are not really likely search terms...so their benefit is really nil because they make only sense when linked by some other article...but then you can link to commons directly instead as well. So I'd more like to know why you think they are useful to anyone... Regards SoWhy 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

They are likely search terms because someone went to the trouble of creating articles about them, and several people voiced their support of keeping those articles at

T/C

) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have started a thread at

T/C

) 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the AfD also resulted in delete, so your articles are recreation against consensus. You should be careful invoking those discussions thus. I understand that "gallery of banknotes" or "gallery of coins" may be search terms, but that is surely not the case with "gallery of African coins" or suchlike. As I said, those few people (224 hits is nothing compared with 19000 for "coin") who search like that will find the same content with the use of {{Commons}}.

I doubt there is much discussion about it to be expected but I am happy to join in. Regards SoWhy 21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Recreation of an article would have been against consensus, no one had a problem with the soft redirect. Even the AfD nominator specifically stated he was OK with it.
• If you don't think a redirect is useful at all, then by all means feel free to nominate it for deletion at
  WP:RfD. I'm interested in maximizing the usefulness of the redirects we actually have. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't have one for Gallery of Africa coins
  , I don't have a major issue with deletion.
• If you think an article would also be useful to someone searching for a gallery, I would have no problem with adding {{main|Coin}} above the soft redirect template. That way the reader will know there is useful information on Wikipedia, and the actual gallery they searched for is on Commons.

--

T/C

) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you please help me protect the Larry Joe Doherty page. It is now being attacked by an anon user and likely campaign staffer. How can we protect this page through election day? Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...okay. I protected it for a day, expiring tomorrow at 11:12 UTC. Regards SoWhy 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering SP anyway. I'm not clear on

You may do so if it is obvious under the definition under

WP:RFC for example. Regards SoWhy

19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a message for you, why you keep deleting my home town history. i have posted 5 time. If you don't like Caribbean people let me know to get legal help. Please stop undoing my work. if you have any question. this is my personal message <E-Mail removed>. thanks. If i did something wrong posting let me know but i want my home town to have the right information from some the know the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.245.114 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You could tell me which page you are referring to because I have no idea which of my thousands of edits you are referring to. Regards SoWhy 07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanna you lift blocked on Miles & Smiles page, please. No longer I don't make same mistake.

Thanks

212.175.83.252 (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please contact the administrator who protected the page, RHaworth (talk · contribs). Regards SoWhy 09:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For the input regarding the SSP, I hadn't known about account creation dates. It has been re-arranged and fixed.—

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There already are userboxes for Northern Sami, which is why I requested a speedy (but obviously I should have stated that). They’re at User sme-X. I was going to move them once the others were deleted; I’ve changed every occurence of User se-X to User sv-X now, so there’s no conflict. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes you should have. I suggest you use {{db-move}} (using {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}) to request those deletions again, while specifying what to move there, so the handling admin is provided with a quick link to delete-and-move to the new name. Regards SoWhy 22:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I’m not very familiar with the template jungle here. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's why I am here after all, to help. Regards SoWhy 22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SoWhy for deleting "Request for Deletion" Page. Really Appreciate it.--Elite Rhodes (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome. Just ask if you need further help :-) SoWhy 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok will do --Elite Rhodes (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider un-protecting this page now that he has been named to the position? Thanks. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Regards SoWhy 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For carefully reading complex AfD discussions, intelligent closures thereof, and following through with WP:WikiGnome actions. VG ☎ 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(Feel free to move this to your user page as appropriate. I don't usually edit other editor's user pages.)

Thank you, I feel truly honored! Regards SoWhy 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey SoWhy. Thank you for accepting my RFPP on Saints Row 2, its about time protection came for that page, people are constantly messing around with it. If you have it, I'd be glad to have a game on SR2 (X360) with ya as a Thank you. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (The one and only!)

Sure, no problem. It's what I do around here ;-)

Ah, too bad, I am a PC user for my games, so I fear that won't happen. But enjoy it! :-) SoWhy 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I though after you became an admin you are focusing less on gaming article. Are you still on?. I need help with some articles. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I never was much of an article writer, neither as an user nor as an admin. I prefer my admin-y duties to that, I just have Red Alert 3 on my watchlist as the game interests me. But you should keep up the good work! :-) SoWhy 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Me two iam not all an article writer. Thanks. I having 12,000 entries on my watchlist is tough. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SoWhy, thanks for speedily deleting the "speedy delete" tag on Lisa Lutz. I was a little worried, as it was my first article. Is there anything else I need to do in the near future? I requested assistance on the talk page of the person who originally added the tag, and they simply deleted my comments! Oh well. cojoco (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome. It just was not correct in this case, although the article may still be

WikiProject Literature

.

And well, as for the deleted comments, that's life. Noone is forced to help you and if they think it's the right thing to ignore you, don't feel bad. There are plenty of people who are willing to help you :-) Regards SoWhy 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello i was just wondering if i could have a copy of my deleted article about Roughton Reynolds to <E-Mail removed>. I was planning on finnishing the article today and didnt realise it would have been deleted so quickly. Also, why exactly was the article deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazrose8 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

E-Mail sent. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thought I forgot, huh? =) Well, it took longer than "a few days", but I finally found the time to look into your request. I've got a very bleary eyed alpha version available at User:Gogo Dodo/CloseXfD.js. I believe it works for AfD, MfD, and IfD. It doesn't do the correct thing when it comes to marking a closed XfD on a talk page (hence the alpha code), so don't use those buttons yet on a Talk page. I'll fix that when I'm a little more coherent. Anyways, can you check it out to see if I'm headed in the direction that you were expecting? If you add:

importScript('User:Gogo_Dodo/CloseXfD.js');

to your monobook.js, it should load it in. The MfD and IfD closure works like the previous script in that it does not actually save closure or delete the article/image. You still need to click Save page and do the deletion yourself. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I haven't, I just thought you were fed up with it ;-)

Great job you did there, it does most of what I thought it should, so thanks for that.

Some simple requests though, if I may:

1. AfD Helper adds a "vote!" link to each section's "edit"-link - I wonder if you could add a "close"-link in the same manner?
2. Same script, AfD helper, has simple abbreviation for common !votes, i.e. you enter "d" and it writes "delete". It would be cool to have something like this.
3. It also allows to enter comments, which might be useful sometimes, so I wonder if you could add another JS-input-window after the one asking for the outcome that allows entering a comment (optionally of course)? So it will produce '''result'''. Comment (if provided) ~~~~.
4. Would it be possible to change it to save the page automatically? And if so, could it load the delete page for the page in question automatically in a new window and fill in the summary? Or would that be too complicated to code?

Regards and thanks again! SoWhy 11:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I released a new version that adds in RfD support and fixed up the location of the top closure notice on IfDs. Somewhere along the line, somebody decided to put the {{ifd top}} and {{rfd top}} below the section header while MfD and AfD go above. Talk page closure notification is still not working.

I do like the AfD Helper interface, but it would take some major reworking of the code in order to merge the functionality of the current script with the interface of AfD Helper. I'll think it over though (mainly by going to read the code of AfD Helper to figure out how it works). Same thing for having the page save automatically. Give me "a few days". =D -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag in the article Onur Pasha, maybe I could not place the most suitable tag for its deletion, but I know that the person claimed in the article did not exist, if you read the article you can see that it is a kind of joke. So, what sort of tag could be suitable for the article to replace? Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know that. G3 can only be used in cases of obvious hoaxes; here there are some Google hits, so it may still be a hoax, but not an obvious one. I suggest

WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy

18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I found some google links. Generally blogger nicknames and Wikipedia articles that the same user has created or modified. But I cannot really be sure how to prove that it is a hoax. Anyway, I will try to utilize the links you have given. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I needed that surremail article for a project for my social studies class on our study of clinically insane. It would be nice if you just didn't go around deleting things for no apparent reason. Thanks a lot for ruining my project. This website is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.242.93.10 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a reason. Wikipedia is not a place for social studies classes to run around and create articles with no further use to the rest of the world. I doubt that calling it stupid helps. SoWhy 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let you know I didn't put the db-nonsense on this page for the heck of it. The language is Somali, not Malay and while it doesn't quite make it as an attack page, it's got nothing redeemable in it. Someone's also taken it upon themselves to transwiki it to the Somali wikipedia. -Yupik (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I deleted it as

A2 then. Regards SoWhy

07:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To see a complete range of jobxavier, pl refer to this & this too. Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you should include a link to the case you are referring to, like this. Then, I stand by my decision, although another admin apparently decided to protect it anyway. Those IPs can easily be trapped with range-soft-blocks, so protection should be the last venue to go according to the

protection policy. Also, we cannot protect pages preemptively on the notion that the sockpuppetteer might use different methods to continue vandalizing; we can only judge the correct level of protection by the previous vandalism that actually happened... So I wonder what you are trying to tell me here...please elaborate what you think I should do. Regards SoWhy

07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to close the Smart lighting RfD. Already done to tidy up. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry. Thanks for cleaning up behind me. That IP tagged everything as CSD what he posted there... :-/ Regards SoWhy 12:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

did you actually check how many

That is not important for

WP:PROTECT. If there is SPAs editing, we just let them and then judge consensus including this information. As long as they are not vandalizing or causing disruption (apart from !voting in a certain way), protection is not the correct way to handle it. AfDs need to be accessible for everyone as much as possible to allow IP editors to !vote as well and it does not matter if they abuse this right and !vote multiple times because we do not judge by numbers but by arguments. Regards SoWhy

17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, I just left you a message, when you left me one. Ahh, who am I kidding, you are correct of course. I checked a few of them but most were speculations against the source. I should not be so hasty I guess, so forgive me please. You live and learn after all (At any rate, you live... ;-)). Regards SoWhy 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks, not a big deal. We (admins) are a team, after all.

vecia

18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it's just the question - what kind of team? The League of Extraordinary WikiUsers? Or maybe the A(dmin)-Team? Or just people with certain abilities that form no common alliance? Note to self: We need a cool team name, outfits and of course, capes! ;-) SoWhy 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting here? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I did so. Regards SoWhy 09:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment regarding

Comment to RFPP

Kind of pointless then? The article has proven that it will get consistently vandalized, and it is not related to something like a current event, etc.

talk

) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

/Comment to RFPP

I hope you don't mind me replying here: You are correct. I only took into account the last protection to base my prediction on, not seeing that the article has already received more than 3 months durations. I decided to increase the duration drastically now, seeing that more than 3 months have not worked in the past. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards SoWhy 07:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another request

Looks like Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is still getting vandalised a lot. Maybe it needs to be semi-protected again? Last one expired 10nov. Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I protected it for another month. In future I suggest you take it to

WP:RFPP though. Regards SoWhy

23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know about

WP:RFPP; I'll use that in the future. Webbbbbbber (talk

) 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you pop by Talk:Atlanta Gay Men's Chorus to see why I think that article qualifies for db-spam? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I provided a detailed rationale for why I declined it there. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to check in with

WP:LGBT and see if anyone else thinks it can be salvaged. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs

) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would say thank you for semi-protecting John Deere. Hopefully the IPs will stay away with a week to think about their actions, or maybe they'll just forget about it. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You are welcome :-) SoWhy 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

you wrote that it was protected and deleted because it was changed alot but several grad students are working to get this up. of course it was done alot becaues it was taken down alot. How can we work on this so if you take it down again we can put it up again and it wont bedeleted protected again, please. Semmasemma7 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was protected because it was repeatedly recreated with

WP:RFPP to get the page unprotected so the new article can be moved there. Regards SoWhy

18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, a few days ago I made an article named "Illutia". I worked very hard on it, I wrote it in the most encyclopedic way that I can, I didn't advertise/spam or anything at all - yet it was deleted. The official website of Illutia(which is a free MMORPG) was my source for all the information that I wrote in that article, and not a complete copy. I would appreciate it if you could tell me the main reason why the article was deleted, and if there's something I can do to bring it back. Thanks, Sinjid40 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not delete it. Furthermore, I declined to delete it, based on the fact that this article was about software and not web content (and thus not eliglible for delete as

criterion A7 for speedy deletion). It was re-tagged for deletion despite my decision and deleted by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) so I suggest you ask him to explain why he deleted it. Regards SoWhy

10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reinstating semi protection on Che Guevara. It is essential I believe to maintaining a quality article on such a notable & polarizing figure.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It was needed :-) SoWhy 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re this decline. If you look at the articles created by Rex57, you can see that he created an enormous series of acronyms as redirects (some up to around 20 characters). When I speedied the entire list, this was one of them. Is it one of the worst? Clearly not. Is it good to have around? No. Since no one is going to look for this game under this initialism, it doesn't serve any benefit as a search term. If something comes along that really could use this initialism, editing the redirect is just one more step that novice editors have trouble with.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I have seen many acronyms used for videogames in the past, so I think it might be useful for someone. You cannot say that noone will look at it under this name, because you cannot predict how people behave. My reasoning was simply on this fact and that this acronym is not used at the moment. I am more than confident that anyone who wants to use this for a better article will be able to create it despite the redirect. But as long as noone does, why delete it if there is a chance it could be useful? Regards SoWhy 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocking script. Do you have any more scripts that might be useful for a new admin?--

I suggest you take a look at my

WP:JS (especially the admin section). Regards SoWhy

12:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved (the correct spelling was located on an official web page). Please remove the full protection. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 01:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Has already been unprotected by

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Regards SoWhy

07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I should suggest to zman that his closing script check to see if the article has already been closed before closing it :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you should ;-) But hey, that's why there is an undo-button after all, no harm done^^ SoWhy 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my error. And thanks for your visit and putting the template upon my User Page. Previously, I did not commit this adopter template mistake, but due to hurry, I copy pasted the template in the adopters talk pages. Thanks so much. And can you please adopt me? Hoping so. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey. First off, no problem with that. I was checking the cat and noticed some users there that should not belong so I decided to correct it. No harm done. Then, since I saw you already got an adopter and since I noticed you already had an RfC and are currently blocked indef, I am not sure I can help you. While I believe you may be a good editor with adoption help, I have not the time to provide the adoption you need. Regards SoWhy 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the guideline stating that this should be done? If I recall correctly, AIV can be used as a supplement to ANI if immediate blocking is required; the user has violated their final warning. —

There isn't. But the user has not received a level 4 warning yet, just a level 3. Also, the user is a

WP:SSP would be correct. I was just looking through it actually... Regards SoWhy

12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

{{

neuro^(talk)

12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It does. Point is, it was added very shortly before the last edit by the user, so I could not be sure they noticed it. They stopped for 15 minutes afterwards (while I was looking through the SSP report). I have blocked them now after they re-started. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Heya! Anyway, you said you didn't know how to make the in-edit text show up, so I figured I'd tell you; just create the magical edit banner at User talk:SoWhy/Editnotice. Basically design it like any other page (or just put in text, your call). :D Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for helping the newbie :-D SoWhy 14:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you've been here for a year more than me, no problem! ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted or put on hold the article that I wrote about my friend Tribble Reese...He is a bachelor of the year and also a quarterback and people are always searching/asking about him. He is a very prominent name in the college football world as he is receiving NFL looks while also being declared bachelor of the year by Cosmopolitan Magazine... I saw that his page was once deleted so I tried to write a legitimate article about him but it was put on hold for not being CLEAR enough...Please help me decide what I should do for him? Tribble11 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on

neutral article that meets those guidelines, feel free to do so. But if the article you write does not even indicate why the person in question is notable, it will be deleted. Regards SoWhy

14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Closing statements of debates are nothing more than stating the facts. I wanted to leave it to someone with experience in the area to determine what needs to be merged and what not. Also, I am at work at the moment and lack time to do so myself. You are free to perform the

merge yourself :-) Regards SoWhy

14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I see the Talk notes to that effect now. -

talk

) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The {{helpme}} was not for getting the issue resolved. I placed it for the reason stated in the last sentence of my rather lengthy plea for help: "I don't know where to start to resolve this." Thanks for the suggestions. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to state the obvious. I hope you find the help needed with those resources. Regards SoWhy 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the RFPP on physical therapy. Do you think it was right to submit for a temporary protection over full-protection, despite it being vandalised consistently over months? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. There is no reason for anything more than a short term semi-protection for now because the article was not protected before. We don't know if it is not enough, so let's try it this way. Regards SoWhy 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the additional unwanted input. I had no idea about Skier Dudes status and wonder therefore who deleted the nearly 100 other no content redirects I had added earlier. No intention of being involved in an edit war or wasting any further time on a fruitless exercise where I thought I was doing a good thing removing no content nonsense. Life is just too short. Off to do something Wiki useful.Ardfern (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should NEVER revert someone elses edits without making sure why they did so, especially not three times in a row. Yes, your mistaken CSD taggings where partially deleted, but most of them are restored now again. Please do not take it personally, it was just that we cannot break the rules set for speedy deletions by using criteria where they are not allowed to be used. It defies the point of having a strict set of criteria. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider, that was a re-listing. Within 24 hours of introduction of materials that her partisans do not like it is deleted by anonymous users. Also please note that I am just an editor who came across an article and have nothing to do with the demonstrations et. al. which are actually occurring in a different country from which I currently reside. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understood. The point was the "recent" part. The controversial edits were done on Nov 18, nothing happened by the time you requested it. So we

have to assume that it stopped. Protection can only be granted if there is a justified assumption that it will continue and there was none here. Also, the disruptive editors seem to be few and can be identified and blocked (after being warned). Last but not least semi-protection would effectively also bar those anon users who cleaned up and we should try to avoid that. Regards SoWhy

09:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK. This is the first article I had asked protection on so I'm not entirely clear how it all works. I just came across the article and saw it needed formatting and then was startled when it kept being deleted. Further investigation revealed the subject was a self-described deliberately provocative newspaper columnist with a core following of rabid 'true-believers'. It's my guess from what is being deleted and the comments left that it is some of that group who object to anything that might suggest their heroine writes anything that is not gospel. If the article is disrupted again I leave a note for you here and you can decide what should be done. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to explain, we all have to begin some day. I suggest you take a look at the

WP:RFPP again instead of asking me, because then it needs a swift response (and I might be offline). Regards SoWhy

16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you closed

Because

WP:RELIST states that it should not be used as a substitution for a "no consensus"-close but it often is anyway). It has had some people participating, not only 1 or 2. And I think the main arguments were said - the !delete voters based their reasoning on the fact that the software is not notable, the !keep voters based theirs on the fact that there are enough reviews to make it notable. Point is, there was no consensus whether those sources really establish enough notability or not, so I closed it accordingly. As for the other reasons: that it is has some advertisement-language (not really much) is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. That the creator may be in a COI is for itself never a reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy

08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thanks.

DARTH PANDA^duel

14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

SoWhy, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems it's been

Ah, well, I got 5 of 7 points. Thanks for the link, I'll add it to my handy links section, great thing. Thanks again :-) SoWhy 13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And now I find out I can't alphabetize properly. Sheesh. ;-)

Alphabetizing is overrated anyway ;-) SoWhy 13:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A note to let you know that I blocked Hemike2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely. You had previously blocked them, but unblocked after they assured you they would stop adding the links. The user has been adding the same links again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I told them that this will happen if they continue the same way, so it was just logical. Thanks for informing me though! Regards SoWhy 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

I am public relations of "Thealosophers" - a non-profit performing arts group registered in Hong Kong.

On 19 November 2008, I've tried my best to set up the page for Thealosphers to offer a detailed pictures for the public to get know to Thealosphers. Those information like the Founding Principle, Mission & Origin are all recorded in an interview with the Executive Director, Creative Director & Artistic Director of us at a TV programme named as 時事全方位 at nowTV News(Hong Kong broadband TV channel) which broadcasted on 2 September 10:00 Hong Kong.

I am writing here strongly request the page of Thealosphers could be back, if there's anything missing or mismatch the standard of wikipedia, we could fine-tune it but please do not delete it without any consent to us.

If you need, we could provide you the non-fit performing arts group registration documents for approval. Please kindly advise and bring us back the page of "Thealosophers".

I do want those who would like to explore more about "Thealosphers" could get it through wikipedia. Look forwards to your reply.

Best Regards, Thealosophers (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it did not assert notability for the group. Merely existing is not a reason for a group to have a page in Wikipedia; the group must display

reliable sources. If such exist for your group, then it would be appropriate to re-create the page - including those references.  Frank  |  talk 

17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Best Regards, Thealosophers (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is not our responsibility to google for sources, if there is no reason to even think that there could be any sources, especially when the article sounds like it is about an amateur group that looks for some free advertisement.

Then, as Frank thankfully already said, if you can provide

guideline about conflicts of interest. Regards SoWhy

18:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of this discussion at WP:ANI, it may be appropriate to unprotect the page. However, it looks like we are repeating the discussion anew with another new editors who seems to be arguing the same thing. Would you suggest unprotecting and see what happens, or leave protection on until we have some resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Imho the discussion on ANI that you linked does not provide a resolution, it just lead to blocks of several users. The problem itself is not resolved, as you point out, with new editors pushing for the same thing. I would leave protection for now, trying RfC or similar to reach any sort of consensus that can be enforced - even if consensus is only "include if and when reliable sources can be found that it is public domain". If there is no further talk about it for a few days, with noone trying to push the lyrics unsourced (and they can only do so via Talk pages or RFPP), we can unprotect it then. But at the moment the problem is not dealt with I am afraid.

On a side note, as I am quite a newbie admin still, I have requested another admin to give his input to this question, as I think the more eyes on this, the better. Regards SoWhy 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am that other admin, so I am giving input as requested. It is clear the page has a history of edit warring, so it is fair to say that there is a good chance edit warring will resume if the page is unprotected. The full protection has not yet been left on weeks on end so I think it is worth leaving it on a bit longer to see how the RfC goes and have the benifit of consensus when unprotection happens.

(talk)

12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that a customised info box appears when you open the edit window of this talk page. I have not worked out how you do that, could you tell me as it could be helpful? Thanks.

Sure, no problem. Funny enough, I actually just got it from Master of Puppets (see this section above). You just need to create a page at Special:Mytalk/Editnotice with whatever you want to have displayed (like I got User talk:SoWhy/Editnotice) and it displays there :-)

Oh and thanks for the input above, I appreciate it :-) Regards SoWhy 13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, thanks for that info.

(talk)

22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to protect first, and then update the RFPP page. This seems to lead to protection conflicts, although it makes sense to me, since I'm already at the page checking out the request... (grin)

That was the first time that I've had my protection run over, though. Didn't you get a warning that the page was already protected? Horologium (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I opened the protection page, probably seconds before you hit the "confirm"-button. Then I took a minute to write a reason and within this minute you already protected it. I didn't get any warning though that someone protected the page while I was on it, I don't think that's the software does that. First time I had a "protection conflict" as well though. Ah well, unlike with edit conflicts, no harm can be done anyway ;-) SoWhy 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale was better than mine anyway. :P Horologium (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, hearing this makes me feel all warm and squishy inside ;-) SoWhy 21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Warm and squishy inside? I'll refrain from any snarky comments, but the possibilities are endless... (evil grin) Horologium (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are. But we are all adults here and do not have to make such comments anymore ;-) SoWhy 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I obviously have no problem with this being deleted, seeing as how I nominated it for deletion, but you do realize it wasn't eligible for G4, as the current version wasn't remotely similar to the version deleted in the previous AfD, don't you? Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My mistake, I should have gone with G10 as tagged. Sorry. SoWhy 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave some protection requests for me, will ya? I know you said it was you hobby, but my goodness! :P —

Ah, don't fear, I often check in and I see that they have not been handled for hours, so there is enough slack for you to help ;-) SoWhy 15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted tags that were left by

My opinion would have been to send it to

WP:ANEW, but otherwise you'll have to deal with him. Sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it if consensus thinks nothing should be done. Regards SoWhy

07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to remove the MfD tag from the usertalk page. I've done so. Not sure if you want to leave a personal message for the close as is normal for a userspace close or whether you prefer the long version of {{

Ah, of course. Sorry, I was in a hurry. I forgot that the XfD Closing script does not work like closeAFD and does not do all that automatically^^ Thanks for the reminder :-) SoWhy 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably something we should look at fixing. I wouldn't have a clue how though. I have only closed a couple of AfDs so I'm not really sure how they work, I have to look it up everytime.--

talk • contribs

) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to fix there, the XfD closer is a new script Gogo Dodo made for easily adding outcome and the templates to archive a section, but it does unfortunately not do anything else yet. So thanks for the notice and for removing that tag :-) SoWhy 07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your block of 83.254.21.226 appears to be ineffective. He continues his rant on User Talk:83.254.21.226. What is the solution to this? Plantsurfer (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because blocked users are allowed to edit their talk page, e.g. to requestion unprotection. I think, you should just let him rant, there is nowhere else he can edit for now.

On a side note, you might want to take it to

WP:SSP if he starts with another user/IP or the same IP after the block expires. Regards SoWhy

12:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take your advice an dignore him. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)