Archives:

2004  • 2005  • 2006 (1st half)  • 2006 (2nd half)  • 2007 (1st half)  • 2007 (2nd half)  • 2008 (1st half)  • 2008 (2nd half)  • 2009 (1st half)  • 2009 (2nd half)  • 2010 (1st half)  • 2010 (2nd half)  • 2011  • 2012  • 2013  • 2014  • 2015  • 2016  • 2017 (1st half)  • 2017 (2nd half)

I have opened a discussion at Talk:United States Census, 2000#Requested move about renaming all the year-specific US Census articles. I see that you are active on the Census 2000 article, so I am requesting your input. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out your edits. See all those red bars? Use edit summaries! Go to your "preferences" at the top of the page, click "editing" then check the bottom box "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". You need good experience in the areas where admins are active. I see you've contributed to WP:AN/WP:AN/I and WP:AIV. Experience in *fD is helpful, e.g. WP:AFD being the main one. Read through past applications, successful and unsuccessful, at WP:RFA to get an idea of what is expected and what is disapproved of. You might like to check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Ty 23:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. Please move Template:Arbiteroftruth/hk-fam2 and any other personal templates that you have created into your user pages. Template:Arbiteroftruth/hk-fam2 does not support encyclopedic content, so it is not really appropriate for the template namespace. You can still use the template as before once you move it, either directly by typing {{User:Arbiteroftruth/YourNewPagename}} along with any parameters when using it on your user pages, or by using {{subst}} with the appropriate syntax and parameters when using it in other namespaces. Thanks. --Thetrick (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent report to AIV. After investigating the situation, the edits in question strike me as being classic newbie mistakes, so I have declined your block request. Unfortunately for Ab3214 (talk · contribs), he or she received neither an assumption of good faith nor a friendly helping hand, but instead appears to have been bitten with {{uw-npa4im}} and {{uw-vandalism4}} warnings. Additionally you may wish to redact these comments as they appear to be extremely incivil and border on being an outright personal attack. I know how frustrating it can be to work around a new editor's lack of understanding as to the ways and methods of Wikipedia, but everyone starts out ignorant as to the rules and it is up to the rest of us to help educate them. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries ... we all have bad days and I absolutely agree with you about how exhausting socks can be. Regardless, thank you! for being so positive and pleasant to work with. Too many editors lack your level-head judgement and capacity for introspection, and instead go ballistic when someone has the audacity to tell them that they may have jumped the AGF gun. Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to cleave as closely as possible to authoritative sourcing on the IndyMac thing, given the hulabaloo and the fact that I was pretty darn sloppy when I first edited.

Just for future reference, where do you think I went past "fair use"???--Dlawbailey (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arbiteroftruth! I'm rather confused by your outside view on this RfC: "we have to show EVERYONE that sockpuppetry will only bring forward their end on Wikipedia." - Posturewriter hasn't been accused of sockpuppetry. He made an accusation that another user was using a sock puppet (which is one of the complaints against him at the RfC), was that what you were getting at? Apologies if I'm being dense here! Happy editing. Avnjay^Talk 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry still lost here! "He is accused of using a sock account, and we can't stand for that." Posturewriter (whose RfC it is) is not accused of using a sock account. The only mention of sock puppetry in this RfC is Posturewriter accusing WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, two of the editors bringing the RfC against Posturewriter, of being socks. This accusation with minimal proof is one of the things that Gordonofcartoon is complaining about with the RfC and, while totally out of order, I don't feel merits a block but an apology. Just to say again, nobody has accused Posturewriter of having a sock account. WP:SOCK doesn't even appear in the relevant policies and guidelines section. If I'm making a mistake here, just point me to it! Thanks, Avnjay^Talk 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: is there some confusion over terminology? Sockpuppetry is covertly using one or more extra Wikipedia identities (for instance, to avoid a block or to give the impression of consensus for a minority stance). There is no question whatever of Posturewriter having done this. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently signed up to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members.

If you have not yet added this template to your user page, please do: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

There is a whole list of articles which needed rescuing now:

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics

...can you please take the time and rescue one?

And please watch Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for ongoing new developments.

Thank you, Article Rescue Squadron member, Inclusionist (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arbiteroftruth, You recently inserted "leftist" into the introductory sentence of Pui Kiu Middle School. Although I acknowledge that an educational institution may not always be neutral, a political phrase like that should be backed up with a source. Thanks. -Herenthere (Talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not know why you reverted the edits made to Dirty Harry film series and a video game named Bionic Commando: Elite Forces, but I reverted them back since I made valid edits. Period.Smart Guy Smarter Than You (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making that obvious for us, Smart Guy. Anyway, Arbiteroftruth, in the future, you may want to make these reports to WP:SSP so that you can provide detailed evidence, but after I looked at this one, it was pretty obvious. Thanks for the report. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Since Hersfold already dealt with the account, I don't think there is anything else that I can do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at my talk. –xeno (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you welcome User:Vct9224175193 and simultaneously post a request to block them on UAA? Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

There's no reason to block this user. If you don't like their name, consider asking them to change it with {{uw-username}}. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We're Wikipedia readers, and somebody's blocking us out without giving any reason why, accusing us falsely of sock puppeting and abusing multiple accounts. We sorority sisters would NEVER vandalize or make damage to ANYTHING that Wikipedia is about. It's unfair when whosoever editors are putting blocks on us without reason or incorrect reasons. Our edits are urgent, we would NEVER put what is damaging or false or nonsense while editing Wikipedia articles. Please help us. We do NOT wanna be blocked from making edits. So please show us. How can Wikipedia be so cruel?

Standingout (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Standingout is MY identity; my partners go under identity by Marthaerin1812, Amandajoan1872, Barbara1888, Tropicalstormshirley. Hurricane hink and Scarian, editors of Wikipedia, have the tendency to almost constantly censor us from editing on Wikipedia by using indefinite blocks without any reason whatsoever! How could identity blocks, the really indefinite ones, get removed? We are in dire straits! Please give us urgent help and guidance!

Standingout (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When an article is a clear candidate for speedy deletion—which Snooky was—you can just tag it with a speedy delete tag, such as {{db-nonsense}}. There's no need to create an AfD discussion page for those clear-cut situation. Happy editing --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

...for this. _Gb^T/c 07:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know there's already an AfD here for the article ;) - Sorf^ane 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought a discussion here might be useful as well to clarify some things (I dont want to fill up the case page).

1)Editing the same topic as a sock-user does not make a user a sock. 2)Accusing someone of being a sock after 5 edits is not useful, especially when all edits have been helpful so far and you may have scared off a useful contributor.

Ironholds 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it turns out he is a sock i'll still hold the same opinion; the case you've brought is ridiculous. Ironholds 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He's made 5 edits. Judging him on the strength of those is what's ridiculous. Also, how does "The only edits outside of these two edits are made in regards to Keith deligero, a page whose deletion I proposed." relate; do you think he's stalking you? Ironholds 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then i'd point out the hundreds of articles that this account hasn't followed you too. If you really feel that you're correct i'd advise turning this over to a checkuser request, but with the evidence you've shown I guarantee they'll throw it out. Ironholds 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The carriers haven't entered American waters yet. You're accusing them of being enemy carriers on the basis that they have engines, and so do german carriers, ignoring the number of allied ships with engines and ignoring all pointers that leaving dock at the same time as a german fleet does not automatically classify them as enemies. Does that analogy satisfy you? Ironholds 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to share my thoughts here as I was approach to do so earlier. I've checked the edits made by the suspect earlier, but strictly speaking, it doesn't display any strong & conclusive evidence to prove his acts of sockpuppetry yet. However, looking at Arbiteroftruth's long history in battling this recalcitrant vandal & in getting his sock accounts blocked successfully on numerous occassions previously, proved he's familiar with ColourWolf's behavourial profile & mode of attack, which to some, with a heavy dose of WP:AGF, may failed to notice or appreciate earlier. Unless CheckUser is used to prove (most unlikely), we can only let time or due diligence proved who was right or wrong later (aka 'Law of Karma') esp in trickier cases like sockpuppetry. Moving forward, I would like to suggest to Arbiteroftruth to update or expand with comprehensive chronological details i.e., likely sock accounts, list of past ANI cases, a specific mention of articles (not just categories) being attacked to date, other useful details etc, on your existing record on ColourWolf's history of attacks as per this example, which may be helpful in proving your case strongly in future (do quote this record page often in future), esp to the skeptics or clueless folks, but also serves as a quick & easy point of reference for yourself & fellow vandal-fighters too. Fyi, I've added him to one of my little bots' scan list after a gentle reminder was given to him earlier. On behalf of SGpedia, I would like to thank Arbiteroftruth for his on-going vigilance & concern shown in protecting our Singapore-related articles so far. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message Arbiteroftruth. I wonder if I change my name in ROMAN then it will appear in the Roman on Urdu wikipedia too ? is not so ? ............ Samarqandi. --سمرقندی (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent reports on UAA have been directly against the username policy, culminating in your request to block سمرقندی for having a foreign name. Wikipedia welcomes editors from all places in the world.

Enough is enough. Please find something else to do instead of trying to block new users for bad reasons. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. First of all, don't template the regulars. I'm not particularly hurt by it, it's just nonsensical to leave me a message saying "Welcome to Wikipedia".

I am not amused by your "violation of NPA" thing. It's not an attack for me to tell you to take responsibility for your actions on Wikipedia. When you flout a policy, it's not an attack for me to tell you what it is.

And I honestly mean my suggestion -- there are zillions of ways to be helpful on Wikipedia, and you could easily find one instead of perpetuating this issue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Insight about the misunderstanding

As I re-read the first version of your message, I realize that the misunderstanding might have been bigger than I thought.

I recognize that you've contributed to the encyclopedia, and I welcome you to keep contributing. I also believe that you wouldn't have any particular problem with Arabic people, and a possible explanation is that you may have misread "Contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet" as "Contributors are forbidden to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet" or something like that. That would be a small misunderstanding, and still wouldn't have led to the talking past each other that just happened.

The thing I've suddenly realized you may have misunderstood: were you not aware that UAA is for blocking people? That would explain why you think you're only "suggesting" they change their usernames, and why you think you haven't threatened any new users. It would be an understandable mistake, and if that's the case, please do tell me so. There has been some speculation that people on UAA don't understand that it's for block requests; it does say so on the page, but the vague title and the included "bot reports" section may give people the wrong impression. If this is what happened, it tells me that I should work with UAA to try to clarify the purpose of the page and prevent misunderstandings like this in the future.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we do about it? Nothing. Your transliteration is interesting, but I really think that one user's name being a transliteration of another's is a non-issue.

By the way, your assessment was basically right: I am often a cranky admin when it comes to usernames. I think the username policy is too often used to make newbies who are "inconvenient" go away. And if I don't take the newbies' side and firmly express my disapproval of cases where the username-blocking process is misused, then not only is a good-faith newbie likely to get blocked and get a terrible impression of Wikipedia, but others get the idea that that kind of block is okay (regardless of the text of WT:U and the pages of discussion that justify it).

When you reported the Arabic name, you stumbled into a hot button for me. I've noticed it's always the Arabic names that get reported. Newbies with, say, Japanese names are totally fine. People trust them. But Arabic names? They make people get uneasy and start asking for username blocks. I may have unfairly maligned your motives by lumping you in with the subtle racism of username reporters as a whole.

Finally, about the misunderstanding of the purpose of UAA. My hint is to think of it exactly like AIV. If you want to warn someone about their username, you don't need UAA (but you should be sure you're warning them about the right thing per WP:U). You only need UAA when it's so much of a problem that they need to be blocked.

I hope this has cleared something up. Happy editing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I think they are actually the same user. He used to have separate accounts that were سمرقندی on ur.wikipedia.org and Samarqandi on en.wikipedia.org, but now he's using his global account (a perfectly reasonable thing to do). Here's his Urdu userpage, loaded with barnstars: ur:صارف:سمرقندی. On his talk page you can see people addressing him as Samarqandi. So he's not actually a newbie and we're in less danger of scaring him off, but I still think this good editor should have a good experience with the English Wikipedia.

Hopefully in time there will be enough people using their global accounts that users like سمرقندی will be commonplace and people won't worry. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I've removed SimonGlover Inc. (talk · contribs) - it's not a breach of policy to have a company name as your username per se - generally speaking we wait until the account edits to see if their edits are going to be promotional in nature. In this instance, the account has no edits, deleted or otherwise, so it's a bit harsh to block them at this stage. Thanks! _Gb^T/c 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about Gluciani (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Is he back? (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbiter, it saddens me that you would report someone's real name as a username violation after all that discussion we had. Yes, you misunderstood the username policy and I accept your explanation, but now it's your job to stop misunderstanding the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And he did all that because he was named G. Luciani, or what? You are treating UAA as your one-stop blocking shop. Please, please, please use UAA for username problems only, and read WP:U carefully if you don't know what a username problem is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to put some mileage between you and these errant UAA reports before you stand for RFA. Let me know of your thoughts on my talk page. Also, seeking a co-nom would probably be a good idea as well. –xeno (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you on this, but could you re-read your Outside View at the Posturewriter RFC, with an eye to revision/retraction? I think you've misread the edit history; as others have said, there's no question of Posturewriter having been involved in sockpuppetry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope the exams are going well. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from JP Turner & Company, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• You put it back, hence you got the Template Of Doom (TM). Honestly, I hate these things.  :( --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you just turned down the Richard Steel protection request. I opened a 3RR report on this IP user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for his behavior (removing sourced material) from the article. They have also been making similar edits at Morningwood. I'm a fairly new editor and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and let me know if I've done the right thing (if you have time). User:SignOfTheTimes has been trying to keep the article factual and I stumbled into the whole thing. Movingboxes (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! Movingboxes (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have been helping movingboxes in the Richard Steel/Morningwood debacle. I have been trying to add the fact that Richard Steel was infact in Morningwood, with numerable sources, I can provide more if you need them. And someone claiming to be Richard Steel's "representative" has been consistently removing it for months from both the Richard Steel and the Morningwood page. Even if this is indeed Richard Steel's "representative" that does not detract from the fact that he was a member of morningwood and that is a part of his biography. Perhaps you can help in the process, as I am just trying to make it right.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, you need to review WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, specifically the parts that discusses blocks vs. bans. Here's the relevant text, anyways: "Banning should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. Blocks are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, disable a user's ability to edit any page." Tan ǀ 39 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother warning them. This is a series of block evasions that occured today. It's alwas the same pattern on a user talk page. Just report it from scratch. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ATV Old Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry but we are unable to act upon your report about this vandal because they are not active (as vandals) at this time. Please note the directions on the top of the AIV reporting page for further information. That said, thank you for your interest - keep editing, keep up the good work.--VS ^talk 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to give you a heads up on the some of the speedy deletion tagging you've been doing. Be sure to use the appropriate speedy category. G1 (nonsense) only applies to articles whose content is gibberish (something like "alkhdsfuahuwiuht"). Brock Jones falls under A7 - non-notable bio, instead of G1. That being said, keep up the good work! Cheers. TN‑X-Man 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than delete the incorrect "hangon" tag on this page, I believe it would have been better to correct the newbie's incorrect usage. This user appears to be making a good faith effort to correct the article in question.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the author with some suggestions for improvement of the article (citations from external sources for the most part). I would suggest you do the same -- encourage the newbies! I agree that his name MIGHT suggest a vested interest in the organization. On the other hand, he might just be a Pharmacist who knows about this organization.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try and assume good faith with new users - You've reported two in a row which aren't quite vandalism. It might be an idea if you forbade yourself from using warning templates, and instead left a helpful note to the users on their pages. Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Take for example this edit - It could well be a 12 year old boy playing around. Perhaps {{uw-humour}} would work better? Have a look at the tdifferent templates available and what you can use. That said, I see you've stopped a fair few vandals in the past - keep up the good work! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was coming here to say much the same thing as Chase me ladies, as both of your AIV reports show not enough assumed good faith. We really appreciate your help in keeping the project clear of vandalism, but please be careful not to bite new editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You've asked that Damaged Goods (usage in society) be speedily deleted as re-creation of a deleted AfD article. Could you please point me to the AfD in question? Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to reconsider your removal of the deletion discussion. As the article stands it clearly does not meet the notability or referenceability guidelines for this project.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the non admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan, see why in there. Equendil Talk 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered your second-to-last comment on my talk page, furthermore I would like to apologize if you felt that I personally attacked you, a fact I must contest. I know that you are passionate about the Xidan article and wish you good luck in finding the proper sources, however your removal of the AfD and comment stating that "[sic] You'll take care of it from now on" came of as standoffish and as a WP:OWN issue, that's all I was trying to say. Good day.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would appreciate it if you would provide the diff to the alleged personal attack so that I may be sure of what you're speaking of. Thank you.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have the passion of someone who has a personal stake in the article. AfDs are not personal, and your immediate response was to assume bad faith and violate procedure by trying to close the AfD yourself then hurl a few personal attacks. You repeatedly tried to include sources which fail WP:RS and WP:V (wikis), and some other questionable behaviour. Other editors don't look upon that behaviour favorably at all. Due to your obvious passionate investment in the article, a neutral editor who can verify the sources would be preferential here.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you can first provide 2 solid sources which give the subject significant coverage (more than a name drop, more than a couple lines) then you can include of all xi dang in this article.--Crossmr (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The government article is not independent of the subject. Xi Dan is a municipal area and its in their interest to promote it for tourism. These types of sources while reliable can't be used to establish notability. I raised this point on the AfD. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Travel guides are okay (As long as they're not written by the chinese tourism board), but they need to be significant e.g. more than any other random place gets. A special article about the place, a longer than 30 second spot on a travel TV show, etc, or any other article from a reliable source that is about this area (and doesn't have to be travel related, it could be examining another aspect of the area). None of the english links shown on the afd to this point had remotely shown notability.--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You only need to provide 2 sources of significant coverage. The other 18 trivial and non-independent sources don't do anything to establish notability. As for the soho article see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every article has to stand on its own. If the soho article isn't properly sourced and you honestly don't believe it belongs here and you couldn't find sources for it you could nominate it for deletion, but given your behaviour surrounding this afd, it would likely be viewed as disruptive by other editors at this time. As for it receiving the same coverage as other notable places, the places probably aren't notable for having appeared in that guide. If you can't find any source (and I don't care about the language) that gives something more than cursory and trivial coverage of this place, do you honestly believe that its notable?--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked why I was being so picky about sources since the soho article didn't have any. That is precisely what otherstuffexists is about. Calling attention to another article to get the attention of this article shouldn't be done. The state of another article is completely immaterial to this article. As for your sources, the government source is not independent. You've been told this numerous times and cannot be used to satisfy notability. I've also told you why the travel guide isn't acceptable as a standard mention. You haven't provided anything.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks, keep it to the content not the user. I have made a complain at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attacks by User:Arbiteroftruth (AoT). Please direct any further comments regarding our dispute there and be polite in the future.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the future please refrain from deleting other users talk page comments as you did here [1] without their permission. Even if you've corrected the issue you shouldn't remove my comment.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You should always err on the side of caution and never delete another users comments unless there is a good reason (e.g. it contains a very obvious and blatant personal attack or BLP violation). Even then you should only strike/remove the personal attack if there is other text contained in the comment.--Crossmr (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that if you are right you can browbeat, accuse, and insult whoever you like. When you've apologized to everyone else you insulted, you might be in a better position to lambast others. Until then, I'm busy editing articles and improving them rather than accusing other editors of being biased liars, so if you'll excuse me I'm done with this issue and you. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you that if you aren't going to work with people politely, and that if your useful contributions are leavened with treating everyone else around you like crap because they disagree, yeah, it means nothing at all. That's called my opinion. Nothing else to discuss, sir or ma'am. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

... and in hindsight, I would like to apologize if you thought I was being too hard on you. It's not that you are wrong. It's that the nature of this blasted place is that we get too caught up in what we do, and in knowing that it's right. A long time ago I used to be a deletionist until I realized all too often the problem is that people get emotional and then don't look at the facts. Could the other people in this debate acted better, hell yes. But I'm not going to waste my goddamned time on them, because a lot of them aren't bothering to create, or add, or build. When we are at least civil to one another then the merits have to be judged solely on the facts -- and that will make a better encyclopedia. As far as the AfD and AN/I, I've commented on them both favorably.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I never expected it but thank you for the apologyCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Bernardino Esteves (character), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardino Esteves (character). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I've just removed some unsourced bio info from KTVK a small bit of which was originally from you, but in the complex series of edits there it seems to have got detached from its citation. If you still have access to your source would you mind putting it back? ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mervynscalifornia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:RTEsix-one2006.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You've uploaded Image:SDTV.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You latest edit here is a clear personal attack. Please retract as soon as possible. -- how do you turn this on 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

THe latest message I posted should cover that; if you want to know more don't hesitate to ask. SteelersFan94 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you tagged the page Corrida (álbum de Dschinghis Khan) for speedy deletion with the reason "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that a hangon template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template, as you did here [2]. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

About your post to WP:AIV for Sk8trkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just to let you know I decided not to block at the moment since the editor has not vandalised after they were warned.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with your particular style of formatting the casts section on TVB series here on English Wikipedia. You used the Chinese Wikipedia's formatting here on English Wikipedia, which, I believe, it not suited to the specific environment here. Let us discuss this as soon as we can. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are the correct pronunciation of the character names in the series and what they are referred to in the series. It provides clear details to readers of Wikipedia, since their "English" name isn't always used in the series, hence that's why it's in brackets. I don't see it having any formatting problems with English Wikipedia as it organizes the information for readers to comprehend better. ~DARK_PRINZE~ (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please get my name off the list. I want to get back to editing. Thanks. --SickManBay (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to explain :) I saw the report while Huggling and restored the content. I also left the user a friendly note. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I noticed that you tagged Timbral Listening for speedy deletion, but am wondering since it has a lead and references how you can seriously say that it doesn't have "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article", per WP:CSD#A1? Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Similarily, what is Assessment computer-supported collaborative learning blatantly promoting? I honestly don't see it, even if ignoring the twelve references to independant papers and publications. The page was obviously created by a new and clueless newbie, as indicated by all the redirects in the article wherever he wanted to create a link, but that doesn't warrant an only-warning or an AIV-report. If it's not really blatant, tell him what he's done wrong, please, instead of plastering his talk page with templates.
And again, if an article is not a clear cut CSD case per the criteria, please don't tag it as such. We can spare the five or ten days in borderline cases. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a notable organisation and has already passed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Living Ontario. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I suggest a tag for clean-up if you think it's warranted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth, please do not repeatedly add speedy tags once they have been declined (sorry, I just noticed you used a different tag the second time) please check the history of articles you are tagging with speedys. A previous version of this one was not spam, and as DoubleBlue noted, the article was already discussed at an AfD (noted on the Talk page, which I would also urge you to check when tagging articles for speedy). Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the db-repost tag because I can see no evidence it was deleted following AfD before. If this is not so then please do replace it.

I am also a little concerned about this edit and reporting the editor for vandalism - what is it they are supposed to have done?

Ros0709 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you are reporting a number of editors for vandalism when they have done little other than create a page or two that will likely be speedily deleted. No proper escalation of warnings - just nomination for sanctions. IMO this is in itself vandalism. Ros0709 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, four warning messages on the user's talk page is rather excessive without waiting for the user to explain themselves. Sometimes new users don't really understand all of our systems right away. Please give them some time. Things don't need to get worked out immediately even if they are borderline problem cases. As to the specific content I don't yet see how it is a problem, why don't we discuss it on the article's talk page? Sorry after edit conflicts I pasted this into the wrong section. This is the topic I was referring to. - Taxman ^Talk 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am posting comments and templates to you - something you are not doing to others when you should be - because I am giving you fair warning that I consider your actions at best over-zealous and at worst vandalism. If it continues I will report you on WP:AIV Ros0709 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call; likewise I am also taking a break (if for no other reason it is bedtime in my timezone). Let's consider this exchange done and mutually constructive. Ros0709 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you know if the sockblock template adds the page to a cat for eventual deletion? This is the reason for the indefblocked template I added... Also, hello from a fellow Phoenician. Tempe-ian? :-) Tan | 39 05:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this an accurate statement on the impersonator's page - "This account is proven to be the sockpuppet account of the vandal ColourWolf"? Was there a checkuser run to confirm the socks? Tan | 39 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Just FYI, I mentioned you user talk page at WP:AN#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages since it's one of a great number of indef semi protected user talk pages. I'm explicitly not complaining or reporting, yours just happened to be one that I used as an example, since it's in principle against WP:SEMI.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no, it says at WP:SEMI about indef semi protection: "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user after vandalism".
Amalthea^Talk 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I wasn't talking about your user page, protection is perfectly fine there. Your user talk page has indefinite semi-protection and that's what per policy should only be done after persistent and heavy vandalism. --Amalthea^Talk 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColourWolf (4th nomination), can you provide commentary as to the edit(s) of ScornerOfEvilAndGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at the SSP page? Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pornsak Prajakwit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of blantly and commented at the talk page. Hope you don't mind. Cheers --Tom 19:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)