I must say I don't get your vote on Wackymacs' RFA. He uses edit summaries about 60% of the time, therefore... he'll abuse the tools? I understand not lending your support for those, but really, is opposing him necessary? I'm not sending this message to Xoloz as his opposition makes a lot more sense, but edit summary percentage seems to have absolutely no connection to being an admin, other than it may be understandable that you want admins to be of the highest quality, but then again, we really need as many as we can get, provided they don't abuse them, and as far as I know, sub-70 edit summaries doesn't indicate abuse. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you reconsider your vote at my RfA, based on concerns of the reason for your Oppose. WP:Point is in suspect, as one Supporter has noted. Another person has also voted Neutral with the same reason as yours. Please reconsider, and thanks! — Wackymacs 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I especially appreciate your asking me a question so that I could explain that past controversy, and your change of vote upon seeing the explanation. I look forward to working with you in the future when the opportunity presents. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice... instead of thumping your chest and reverting my edits to the 2005 Clichy-sous-Bois riots, how 'bout you provide the needed citation? If not, then the statement should simply not be there. 24.211.0.91 23:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from my talk page: No. That's not my job. You added the reference, therefore you provide the website. Otherwise one has no way of telling whether you simply made it up. freestylefrappe 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong... you seem to be quite confused. I removed a statement that had no source to back it up, and provided a proper source for the remaining text. Look again. 24.211.0.91 00:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from my talk page: You incorrectly removed a reference and an external link. The tense was also incorrectly changed to the past tense. Tense is always in the present, especially for current events, except when referring to actions that have specifically taken place in the past. If you want to re-add the link, do so without deleting content. freestylefrappe 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Does that include statements made on the page which lack any source? 24.211.0.91 00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from my talk page: I neither understand what you're asking me on my talkpage, nor the comment "follow up made to the original Talk:page". freestylefrappe 00:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My original edit *removed* a statement which lacked any source and tweeked an existing statement while adding a link to back it up with. Based on the article history and your responce above, it would seem you feel the only one allowed to remove content is yourself. 24.211.0.91 00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, I appreciate it! PRueda29 00:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting on my RfA. I realize that I have not been here long, however Celestianpower and Essjay said I would do just fine as an administrator, so I followed their advice. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

(P.S. I didn't want to annoy you but I had to say thank you to everyone)

The wolf picture on your user page is labeled as fair use, and therefore shouldn't be on your talk page. Ral315 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use means that the picture is copyrighted, but can be used by Wikipedia for educational purposes only. It being on your user page is not for educational purposes. It's annoying, but the problem is that someone else owns the rights to that pic...we're only allowed to use it by an education-only clause in copyright law. Ral315 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

you rewrote one sentence on this article to erad as follows: 'The word ummah is widely used in the conception of a "nation" as those who share a common heritage.' I'm not entirely sure what the meaning is - could you maybe elaborate on Talk:Ummah? Of course, I'm probably just being obtuse (it wouldn't be the first time). Palmiro | Talk 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I don't know anything about Slovakia's stand on terrorism. Though I am somewhat knowledgeable on European anti-terrorism policy. --Drdan 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks are there because the word is being mentioned not used; this is standard English usage, so I'm not sure why you called it "inappropriate". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please take a glance at the Talk:Avraam Benaroya before considering reverting my edits. Thanks. --Damac 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of that subject is a character from Persian Mythology and not one from the computer game. Feel free to create a separte subject for that particular character as well as a disambiguation page if you feel the need to have the topic discussed.

I did not delete the content but moved it to the talk page with the suggestion of someone crating a separate article on the FF character. This is the normal procedure for that kind of topic. See the following examples:

Revenant

Thor (disambiguation)

Zeus

Siva (disambiguation)

Tiamat (disambiguation)

I particularly suggest you check out Tiamat which is not only a mythical figure but also a Final Fantasy character.

It was removed from the article because it bears no relevance to the subject, which relates to the mythical figure Angra Mainyu and NOT the game character. Chelman 11:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to: User talk:Chelman#Stop:

24 hour ban? Based on what criteria? Your own? Somehow I cannot find anything relating to a ban in this case in this article: Wikipedia:Blocking policy. If you consider FF to be such an important piece of knowledge, make a page for it with the information that I preserved on the talk page. I can't do it since I have no knowledge whatsoever of children's toys and have no means of even remotely verifying the accuracy of the information. As to the relation with Zoroastrian belief I think that the categories the content of the main body of the article and the external references may have given it away..... Either way, I'm not too bothered about it, I would just like to point out that you have a most antagonistic style of communicating. Your unwillingness to comment on the article's discussion page seems to indicate that you somehow are only willing to stomp your feet and assert your position. Chelman 12:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the rollback in clear cases, not to revert my efforts in the intro of Islam in Korea. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA. I really appreciate it. They promoted me and I'll do all I can to ensure you know your choice was the right one. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. Thanks again!--MONGO 09:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed at length on the discussion page. Please consult discussion pages before making significant changes such as this. See the sections on "Naming and dating convention" [4] and on "Most commonly used name". And by the way, the nearest equivalent to "correct nomenclature" is not Zarathustra, it's Zarathushtra. See the first paragraph of the article. Paul B 07:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when you told me on my talk page that you'd support now that I have 1,000 edits? What made me a horrible travesty since then? (Not sarcasm, just wondering.) WikiFanatic 03:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems Wf beat me to the punch. Can I assist in burying the hatchet here? karmafist 04:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you reverted my last edit on Hungarian minority in Romania? I mean, I'm really not that keen on that piece of text remaining there, I just wonder what was the problem with it:

ethnic Hungarians who made up one-third of the population were not consulted: that's a fact, no-one would dispute it, and it is relevant for the topic of the article, isn't it?

"ethnic Romanians" instead of "Romanians": I thought it's better if we keep it clear throughout the article that we are talking about ethnic Hungarians and ethnic Romanians, that it, people of Hungarian or Romanian ethnicity, as opposed to Hungarians or Romanians, that is, citizens of Hungary or Romania--Tamas 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi freestyle. Just thought I should tell you that this user is back [5]. Same situation over again: check contribs. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

freestylefrappe -- I don't understand why you aren't willing to engage in dialogue with Bitola. I understand that deleting copyvio material is of course something you can do without comment. However, some courtesy and a longer explanation are generally in order before a threat of banning. Additionally, deleting hir comments from your talk page is somewhat of a violation of ettiquette, and makes readers wonder why you are avoiding discussion. Is there some reason (is the user a known troll, or something) that you would revert a talk page comment without reply? See the last bullet here: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes Glenn Willen (Talk) 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I dont bother responding to comments on my own talkpage, but since you, Bitola, are engaging in an amazing level of BS and sockpuppetry, I'll leave a message here for other users. Bitola, any user who types in a single sentence of your version on Kumanovo will see that you are the one posting the copyvio from Popov. Any user is allowed to delete comments from his talkpage without justification. All information related to a page is stated no matter how much it may offend that city's honor. Your nationalism and nonsense are putting a strain on my patience. Unless you want me to lengthen your block I suggest your reform your activities on Wikipedia. freestylefrappe 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't offend me terribly to be conflated with Bitola, as a point of fact you should read our respective edit histories before jumping to conclusions. (I don't edit much around here, but I've been around much longer.) You might also compare our grasp of English grammar. :-P Additionally, I didn't say that you were inserting copyvio, nor that Bitola wasn't. (Check my comments on hir talk page, where I am doing my best to explain why hir edits are not acceptable.) I'm merely suggesting that you be slightly more civil. I'm also trying to figure out why you banned hir, since I can't see any edits on the page in question after you gave hir the warning. Glenn Willen (Talk) 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, what's going on there? karmafist 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i've found talking helps avoid those situations. If his edits truly are BS, the consensus will get rid of them, but apparently that didn't happen at first glance since you broke 3RR so you'll have a bit more time away from it. karmafist 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask that you stop reverting Kumanovo without explaining yourself on the talk page. You have now reverted the page four times in twelve hours, and ignored several requests to explain why your preferred version is preferred. Neither User:Glenn Willen nor I understand why your version is better than Bitola's version, because you have not explained this. If you move the content you don't like to the talk page, and discuss why you don't like it, we can try to make the article better. Thank you, -- Creidieki 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freestylefrappe — you've been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Kumanovo (reported here). As an admin you ought to know better. If you are worried about sockpuppets, you can always get a developer to confirm your suspicions, though note that even if 62.162.225.230, Glenn Willen and Macedon5 are all User:Bitola, he hasn't broken 3RR (in the last edit war). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looks like Karmafist had already blocked you without noting it. I re-set my timer to comply with the original block. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel little tired about all this confrontations here. I hope that FreestyleFrappe will accept that other people have different opinion about how the Kumanovo page should look like and will accept my good-faith adds to the page. I’m not going to remove his adds to the page and I hope he will leave my adds as well. The worst he can do is to start revenge actions after his blocking expiration. However, I respect other people opinion and I will accept the overwhelming decision what should stay, and what shouldn’t in the article. I would like to stress several things. First of all, my last adds to the page are NOT copyvios. Also, I’m not representing myself as a Glen Willen, Macedon5 or somebody else. I just want to have the best article about Kumanovo without any offensive material that can irritate the ordinary Wikipedia users. Also, I would like to thank Glenn Willen, Creidieki, Bunchograpes, karmafist and Asbestos. They all expressed good will in order to resolve this unpleasant situation. User:Bitola (Talk) 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the dispute on WP:AN/I. I have no idea what's going on, but you do seem to be in a rather thick edit war there with several other users. If they're really vandalizing the page, you should get help from other admins. If they're not vandalizing it, you should probably work more on seeking consensus—and you should definitely remember not to use your rollback button for anything except simple vandalism. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. -- SCZenz 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fill me in on the cause for your 24-hour block on Stephenj (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)? I assume there's some history there, but I wasn't able to tell from your block comment or his contribs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I've begun a Request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe. karmafist 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you. So please check. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same email sent again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Freestylefrappe, its SWD316. I was wondering if you could leave an explanation, or tell me if you prefer, why you voted oppose on my RFA. Thanks! SWD316 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not mind my asking, why did you vote in opposition to my RFA? The main reason I'm asking is that you didn't specify in your vote, and seeing as I am fairly open to constructive critism, I'm intrested in seeing what I can improve upon. Sincerely, Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. Since there was no block message on that user's page, I had no reason to suspect they had already been blocked ;] I'd check ipblock every time, but when you're nuking vandalisms at a high rate, it gets cumbersome. Glad to hear you guys are on top of it tho ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 23:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe, thanks for supporting my adminship bid - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BDAbramson T 03:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - noticed the "no thank you's" rule after I posted - would be rather disingenuous for me to remove it now, but feel free. BDAbramson T 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this violates the organizational scheme of your refactoring, but it seems to me this is not directly related to the article dispute above. I saw your statement on Bunchofgrapes talk page, looked into it, and I believe you've made an error. In fact, Stephenj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made two initial contributions, which were to upload an image and place it in the relevant article. I do not think he was subject to a block, especially without at least one warning on his talk page.

There is also a larger issue here. Information on Wikipedia is openly-available for a reason, and all of us are accountable to others for our decisions. This is doubly true of administrator actions, which should have a clear trail so they can be checked in case of errors. (I usually intive others to review my decisions when I'm not clear about them.) Bunchofgrapes is a civil and clear-headed user, and he is not out to get you, but he does have every right to ask questions. Your dismissive and accusatory response was inappropriate.

At this point, all you have to do is respond politely to those who have asked you questions, and promise to be more careful with the issues raised in the future. If you assume, on the other hand, that everyone who intervenes in all this is harassing you, things are likely to get worse. I hope you'll take some friendly advice. -- SCZenz 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed all of the diffs for Stephenj's contributions. He exhibits a misunderstanding of fair use and of the degree of control that a member of an organization has over Wikipedia content on that organization. Only his second-last edit could be considered vandalism, and he deserved {{test2a}} for it, not a banning. I urge you rescind the ban, and talk to Stephenj and explain his errors to him, which could very well be honest mistakes. It is your obligation to be clear about the rules with new users, if you are going to use your powers as an admin to hold them accountable.

I do hope you'll be careful about being "done playing nice". In a real sense, we are never done playing nice here. By all means defend yourself vigorously, but do be civil. Allegations of lying against Bunchofgrapes are probably not civil unless the situation is clear; if he made a mistake by all means note that at the RFC on the issue and get comments, since that's what the page is for. If you would like to explain to me what exactly happened that leads you to believe he lied, and gives him motivation to follow you, I would be happy to investigate in some detail if you so request. -- SCZenz 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (and I haven't made many edits in the last couple days, so by all means go through them) - Freestylefrappe and I differ in our interpretation of WP:3RR, which refers to "simple vandalism", and Wikipedia:Vandalism, which does not seem to indicate copyright violations are simple vandalism. The language currently in those policies fully supports Karmafist's 3RR block. At AN/I, it's been pointed out that the policies as they stand are in tension with copyright law and some other policies regarding the handling of copyright violations, and that may well be the case. Still, my interpretation of "simple vandalism" as bad-faith vandalism manifestly apparent without a detailed investigation continues to ring true to me. If you get involved with a more complicated circumstance and find yourself in a revert war, go talk to people about it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've explained the situation at the RFC. I shall review it. Right of the bat, though, I think you are have been overreacting. In particular, the notion that contributions should be thrown out simply because they're not well-written is entirely contrary to how Wikipedia works; I'd like you reconsider your remarks about Bitola's language skills and whether he should be editing, which I think are inappropriate. Past that, I will comment at the RFC. -- SCZenz 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the contributions of stephenj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by clicking on the "contributions" button of the same template as used this paragraph. I see, again by clicking the "block log" link on the same template, that it's the same user you blocked, so there's no mistake. His contributions are not all vandalism. You are also quite simply mistaken about the appropriate handling of vandalism; users should be warned except in extreme cases, and deleting content isn't one of those. Please review Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Vandalism carefully. (Oh, I do apologize for using "ban" instead of "block" above by mistake.) -- SCZenz 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've only given part of that quote. The full quote reads: "casual vandals should be warned twice before being blocked, though warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia or serve an activist agenda" (emphasis mine). There is no evidence whatsoever that that clause applied to Stephenj. Stephenj is a new user, who has no talk page because you didn't welcome him or explain the rules to him when you met him. Furthermore, anons get warnings too; it is decidedly contrary to Wikipedia policy to dismiss new users—see WP:BITE. I judge everyone on the merits of their edits, and that is what you seem not to have done in blocking Stephenj. -- SCZenz 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is you are not following Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Vandalism or Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing_with_vandalism. You have every right to disagree with those policy pages, or to try to change them through appropriate channels. You do not have the authority to act contrary to them. Stephenj made non-vandal edits, and it is far from clear he intended to be a vandal; your decision that warning templates or other communication before blocking was therefore incorrect. Your remarks indicate a lack of understanding of the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith as well as Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, and your belief that you have discretion to ignore blocking policies indicate you don't fully understand the role of administrators on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Administrators. I urge you to review all of these pages before you use your admin powers further. I am sorry to be harsh, because you have not made any big mistakes; however, your continued efforts to justify actions in the face of arguments that they were mistakes, and in the face of policy itself, has me deeply concerned. -- SCZenz 20:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to SCZenz's list of policies Wikipedia:Vandalism - although it isn't a policy or guideline, it still has some good advice. Specifically, "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." I am disturbed by how much you justify by referring to "vandalism" or "vandal", and concerned that you may abuse your admin powers as a result. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe, I recently noticed you and SCZenz's conversation and thought I could help out here. I understand your reasoning, but some of your views regarding blocks aren't correct. Blocking should be taken as the very last step in stopping vandalism. In fact, my rule of thumb is to go through all four {{test}} templates before blocking for a new vandal. Returning vandals get less tolerance, and I have no tolerance for those who deliberately vandalise to discredit Wikipedia - that is, the vandals that slap obscene images on high-profile articles linked to from the main page. People that also make useful contributions should not automatically be considered vandals; most of the time, these people are well-meaning and simply don't know our policies. I know I was like that at first, and I'm sure many of our best editors were also like that at first. We shouldn't scare these potential contributors away. Instead, talk to them, or get someone else to talk to them - Wikipedia:Clueless newbies is an ideal place. In any case, blocking should not be the first thing that you should do. You also write to SCZenz, "I don't understand your point. I also dont see a need to warn such users. Do you really think he was unaware that what he was doing was wrong? Because of the new ban on anon editors creating articles theres an incentive for them to register before vandalizing. I doubt he'll ever edit under that account again." That's not the spirit to take - you should always assume good faith. Just because someone is new does not mean that s/he is a vandal. These are often well-meaning people who are trying to help and are future and potential contributors. A block should be the last thing in your mind for such new users. Freestylefrappe, I'm here to help you - I know you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, so I urge you to listen to me with an open mind. I know you're frustrated, and I understand that. All I ask is that you please reconsider your views on blocking. Thanks a lot for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! However, just be careful about your blocking; remember that you should always assume good faith, even with anonymous contributors. Also keep in mind that copying text from other websites isn't exactly vandalism; this is a common newbie mistake. Only iff the person keeps only copying the text after you have warned him/her explicitly not to and explained why should the additions be considered vandalism and warrant a block. Users with other good contributions usually are people who want to help us, and blocks shouldn't be used. In addition, I also urge you to give more warnings - use the {{test}} templates, from 1 to 5. I've seen countless vandals, both registered users and IP addresses, stop after {{test2}}, {{test3}}, or even {{test4}}. Thanks a lot for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not referring to any specific incident(s) or your RfC. I just stumbled upon your conversation with SCZenz and thought I'd try and help you out here. I agree that people who continue to add copied text after being explitly told not to do so warrants a block, but in general, I'm urging you to be more lenient, warn more, and attempt to understand where they're coming from and attempt to rectify their errors before blocking. There's nothing to be lost in assuming good faith and trying to help them out before blocking. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked Evilphoenix about diffs, as I think this is fairly important I'll provide my definition of what they are here.

The term "diff" is short for "difference". There's an article on diffs in general at diff. But basically they are a method of showing the differences (or changes) between two versions of an article. Here's an example "diff link"–

12:25, December 15, 2005

That diff link shows when I added my comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe asking about your 3RR violation. The actual link looks like this–

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FFreestylefrappe&diff=31512601&oldid=31509780 12:25, December 15, 2005]

I got the link by going to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe and clicking on "History" which took me here. I then selected the entry before my comment with the left set of buttons, and the entry where my comment was made with the right set of buttons. (The buttons being between "(cur) (last)" and the time stamp). I then clicked "Compare selected versions". I verified that the information presented was correct (in case I accidentally selected the wrong entries), and copied the URL from the address bar in my web browser.

Hopefully that explains what a diff is; the reason they're valuable is because they may prove certain claims you make. As it is, merely asserting something as true without evidence (diffs) makes it difficult for people to independently verify what you claim.

Let me know if you have any problems; I'd be happy to help you to the best of my abilities. —Locke Cole 22:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are links to pages that show the difference between revisions, you would want to find the edit where you created the page, for example, and find the corresponding diff, and post the link to that diff. See Help:diff. Lemme know if you have any questions on how to do that. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I go through all that trouble explaining it, and it turns out it's documented someplace. :P Oh well, here's the link to meta's version now that I know about it: m:Help:diff. —Locke Cole 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You seem to be a responsible Wikipedian, so I'll assume that your insertion of "news" from the National Alliance website on the Current events page was a mistake or an attempt to see how long it would last on there. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'll assume you're familiar with the fact that the National Alliance is a racist group. Of course, that does not mean that they should not be mentioned. If there was a legitimate news story about them — say, if a leader of the organization were to be arrested — there would be nothing wrong with including a link to the organization's website at the end of an article on the subject so people could judge for themselves. But the group should not be linked to as a legitimate news source, because it isn't. And in this case, the "news" you added was just something concocted by the group itself, not a legitimate story. -- Mwalcoff 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But only for people who are at a certain level of importance, like the president of Iran, who is the leader of a big country with a nuclear program. The pronouncement of the National Alliance guy is hardly unexpected or newsworthy. If the president of Belarus were to allege a Jewish plot against that country, that would be news. But the fact that the head of a racist organization said a racist thing is hardly noteworthy. -- Mwalcoff 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for assuming less than good faith. -- Mwalcoff 23:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see. The Fox Man Of Fire 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comments at the RfC following a request for info about my views on the 'Stephenj' situation. You may want to review these comments and see if they alter your endorsement. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to see the comment under the "comments" section I left at My RFA. It partially involves you. SWD316 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks! --Striver 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]