• Gun Powder [2].

• The Troubles [3]

[4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3dHKWVP7Y

Jude! What are you doing up there?

Nothing!

• The Care Bears article has a criticism section. [5].

[6].

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?ref=todayspaper

Leave messages starting here:

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at CMBJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U. Casprings (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say something at the ANI? I'm certain you did not mention anything at ArbCom except recently on the talk page. Why this now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck for non neutral working.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at PKT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New-adult fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New-adult fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the "hangon" template you placed on this article - those are only used where speedy deletion has been proposed, which is not the case here. The deletion discussion will run, normally, for seven days. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help for an article being considered for deletion. How do I contact the 'rescue squad?' and is there a template I can use for that? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, it depends on exactly why it's being considered for deleletion. What article is it? Revent (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New-adult fiction and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason. And someone essentially blanked the page after the nom. I restored the content. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. There are some links at the top of that page. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not WP:CANVASSING. Revent (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.

• I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page ... I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
• I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Arthur could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
• This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Arthur's page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that sounds like a reasonable path to follow. And let's add that any removal of a topic ban will require he edit with a mentor. He appears to need the perspective a mentor can provide. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it takes two people to certify an RFC/U. I suggest you coordinate this with Arthur. Move forward, it'll be over in about a week, you can copy evidence from ArbCom and discuss it calmly, and then proceed to ANI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you get it started, does it still take two more people? I thought it took only one, but then I don't get involved in these things. I spoke up for Arzel because it was totally unfair the way it was done. Thankfully the editor listened to the community and closed it. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this before, the other person bailed out on me after a day, and I was left looking stupid. That isn't happening this time. I'm going in with three people certifying. I was hoping you and Arthur would start it since the two of you seemed motivated in the Moderated Discussion, and I'd step in if one of you bails out. But that's fine, I'll start it. I will be back with a link once it's started and you can certify it. Find a diff of one of your Talk page edits where you tried to reason with Xeno. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will do. Send the link as soon as. Go round to Arthur and let him know. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the RfC/U: [7] Please certify it and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic. I think you'll be ablke to find some on the Moderated Discussion page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize your schedule is difficult this week. All I'm asking for here immediately is certification of the RfC/U, which is just your four-tilde signature in the appropriate spot, plus a few diffs showing your attempts to resolve the issue with Xeno, which should be easy to find on the Moderated Discussion page. The deadline is roughly tomorrow night at midnight, West Coast time. Any evidence you present at a future date could just be a copy of whatever you're going to present at ArbCom. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it right now. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page, and I'd add we should vote on whether to topic ban him from Tea Party movement. It's obvious he is not here to edit in a collegial way, nor he is interested in neutral POV. His personal attacks, battles, and disruption are directly opposing the work here and hence, the work on the article", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I left a suggestion on the discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are not there to mark socks/meatpuppets - they give context to anyone wishing to add to/close the discussion. Please do not remove them again. I'm leaving on a trip, so I won't really be able to respond for the next few weeks, but remember that the more you cite WP:AGF, the less you are actually following WP:AGF (see Carbonite's law). Cheers, Ansh666 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem oblivious to the fact that tagging these editors like that comes across as offensive and appears to be an attempt to add bias. It makes you look like you're standing in front of the article and waving off the admins from considering their contributions. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that says readers can't sign in and make a comment, nor is there a policy against what appears to be a single purpose account. We have lots of editors on Wikipedia who are revert only accounts and have been for years. I don't see anyone tagging all their edits. IMHO, tagging the editors like that adds bias. Their comments should have the same weight as any other editor's. Any editor can click on the contribs and make a judgement for themselves. But tagging them like that might well put off someone from reading their contribution and certainly it might cause them to discount it entirely. I find it offensive and akin to 'stacking the deck,' and certainly a failure to assume good faith. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between a SPA with 1000 edits and one with 3. Of course, from your perspective, I'm doing all of these things, but I honestly don't give a damn about the content of that page: I base all of my AfD commentary off policy ONLY, as do most ordinary participants. I'm sparing others the work of viewing the contribs of 3-4 IPs/accounts separately. It doesn't make their contributions any less valid to anyone without a previous bias. Also, there you go again with AGF. Anyhow, I'm actually going to go now, so later. Ansh666 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come back to my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request in the Article Rescue Squadron talk page for people to examine this article. I did and decided to register a 'keep' vote. I did so, because I examined the article and many of the sources and I agree the subject should have its own page. Decided not to say anything on the Squadron talk page after someone made a comment about what I had said in another discussion. I always look at the subject's merits, or lack thereof, presented in each AfD discussion and vote my views. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news. Well done you for taking the time to look it over. I've been working on rewriting the article with new sources. So much has happened with the subject since I started the article way back when that it really needs a good rewrite. Thanks for the support. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== Administrators' noticeboard discussion on WP:RFC/U on Xenophrenic

Xeno- from Greek: xenos; xeno
1. (Noun) stranger; foreigner; guest
2. (Adjective) different; foreign; alien; strange

-phrenic from New Latin, Greek: phrenicus
1. (Adjective) of or relating to the mind or mental activity

Welcome to the complaints department! Please click the word [show] on the bar below that most closely represents your complaint:

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For Xenophrenic. This is in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done, my friend. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? Sloggerbum (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there. Notice that it isn't tea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		The Original Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... And brownies. Don't make us grovel. †TE†Talk 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all of the good and hard work putting that version together. I supported it and think it will directly or indirectly help move us forward. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your dedication to Wikipedia. DMGUSA (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki and stumbled across your user page. Just reading the allegations against you and your responses provided for a few hours of solid entertainment. Cheers! Lol Tommyv7326 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here.

Sorry, messed up the original notification. Casprings (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had to deliberately go to Xenophrenic's User page, copy that content and then dump it here. That is vandalism. This is likely related to your failed RfC/U on Arzel, which you also "messed up." I don't know what axe you have to grind with Arzel and I don't care. And I don't know what you think you're accomplishing at ANI right now, but I don't want you dumping it here. Do not come back to my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]