Welcome...

Hello, RS1900, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Abbott75 ☺ 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Abbott75! RS1900 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. A very good start. I have to say I was surprised we didn't have an article on him already. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RS1900 05:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say well done on the articles you have created! I have edited them a little, to make them a bit more Wikipedia friendly, but wow, you are doing well! Abbott75 ☺ 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RS1900 08:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, such a removal would conflict with our policy of WP:NPOV. We merely report on the fact that such interpretations have been made.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the big bang theory is a scientific theory and religious interpretations of the theory are false. RS1900 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only report the verifiable facts that are relevant and in this case. The fact is that interpretations have been made and they are relevant to the subject of the Big bang. Also, what is your metric for determining true or falsehood? People have very different views of what determines truth and that is why our standard is WP:V verifiability. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific methods are my metric for determining true or falsehood. The religious interpretations of the big bang theory conflict with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. Cronholm, I am a nonbeliever; however, I respect the religious views of theists. Many physicists, including several Nobel laureates, are against the religious interpretations of the big bang theory. Even religious scientists are against it. For example, Abdus Salam, the Nobel laureate in Physics in 1979 and a religious believer, was against the Islamic interpretations of the big bang theory. I am against the pseudoscientific interpretations of scientific theories. RS1900 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are preaching to the choir, but we are obligated to report on the facts, however misguided they may be.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RS. I thought you were leaving! Anyway, welcome back. Nick Graves 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I am not leaving. I became a part of the Wikipedia community on July 15, 2007. I may take wikibreak, but I will not leave Wikipedia permanently. RS1900 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you want to say something, you can e-mail me. RS1900 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok. Very strange. Nick Graves 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RS. I apologize that I cannot contact you by email. I like to keep my email address private. You are right that some people campaign against atheism in Wikipedia and try to paint it in a critical light. You mention a "witch hunt." What are you worried about? Nick Graves 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried. I was just trying to point out that you have to be careful when you say something on my talk page. I also like to keep my email address private. The above email address is my alternate email address. You can also create an alternate email address. RS1900 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally replied to your note on my user page. I'd have done it sooner, but I missed it somehow. ThAtSo 01:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, drop a note on my talk page if you need any help. Here are some quick links:

utcursch | talk 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, utcursch. I am interested in articles related to India and Indian subcontinent. RS1900 14:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your post on my talkpage. I have some thoughts and will answer here a bit later when I have some more time than I do right at the moment, so please consider this a "placeholder" response until then. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for your response. I want to know your views. RS1900 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below. I've copied your post here so I can have it in front of me while I type the response. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of ACBest, you mentioned that you people have elected at least two self-identified 12-year-old administrators who have been doing excellent jobs. However, I think the job of an administrator may not be suitable for little kids.

Let me give you an example. I created the biography of Conyers Herring on 09:42, 30 July 2007. And, ACBest nominated the article for deletion on 09:43, 30 July 2007. He just waited for one minute! After creating the article, I was looking for the information on Herring. Now, the article is fine. If ACBest were an administrator, he would have deleted the article. I didn't say anything bad to ACBest because he is a good kid.

Newyorkbrad, you an attorney in real life and a responsible person. But, we cannot expect kids to be that responsible. Here, we discuss serious stuff such as quantum field theory, international relations, global warming and other problems. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. RS1900 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding on your talk, as requested. I'm not going to address your comments about one specific person's qualifications, but want to reply to the general subject that you raise. As it happens, you've put your finger on a perennial topic of conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, among other places. I'm not going to try to summarize everything that's been said in a dozen or more threads there in the past year, but if you're really curious about this issue, a scan of the WT:RfA archives will give you lots more food for thought.

The short answer to your question is that there is a wide, though I suppose not unanimous, consensus in the Wikipedia community that candidates for adminship are judged on the basis of their individual qualifications without any sort of minimum age qualification. It is a statement of fact, and not "a joke" at all, that while many of our administrators are adults (the oldest self-identified admin I know of is 64; I myself am in my 40s), many others are teens and that during this calendar year, we have elected at least two candidates who were age 12 at the time (though at least one of them is 13 now) and who are doing fine jobs.

You may have a slight misperception of the role of a Wikipedia administrator. The most important role in this project, in my mind, is and always will be creating the intellectual content of the encyclopedia. Administrators do not have a privileged role in writing the content. Any editor, of any age, has the right to do that. Of course, contributions from experts in particular subject areas, who in certain subjects will typically be older editors, are particularly useful in creating and improving articles on those subjects, and are valued very highly. But the role of administrators, as such, is much more along the lines of maintenance responsibilities: yes, making deletion decisions, as you point out, but also blocking vandals and users who violate our policies after warnings and dealing with all sorts of day-to-day chores and disputes that come up. A username block does not require a graduate education.

To my thinking, a person's chronological age has very little to do with performing most categories of administrator tasks. It is sometimes said that age is irrelevant to 100% of all possible admin functions. That is a bit of an overstatement, as I can imagine a few types of situations that should be addressed primarily by the chronological adults. But for the most part, what adminship requires most is good judgment. Part of showing good administrator judgment, and this may be especially relevant for the younger admins, is for an admin to recognize when he or she might not be the right person to deal with a specific task. Despite the varying standards on RfA from week to week, no administrator is going to be skilled at handling every possible admin responsibility. (I like to think of myself as a reasonably well-rounded administrator, but there are some areas I never touch, and that goes for everybody.)

In this regard, the important factor is whether an admin is comfortable handling and qualified to handle an individual task, rather than the particular reason that a particular task should be left to someone else. Suppose there is a deletion decision to be made concerning an article relating to, to pick an example completely at random, a topic in vector calculus. If Admin A reads the article and finds that he does not understand the subject being discussed, then Admin A should allow another admin to close that debate. It matters little whether the reason Admin A is unfamiliar with vector calculus is that he is a student who has not yet reached the stage of studying vector calculus, is a humanities major without any interest in vector calculus, or is an older person who once knew but has long since forgotten any of the details of vector calculus. In any of these circumstances, Admin A will be well-advised to leave that particular AfD closing to Administrator B. But Administrator A, scanning the list of deletion debates requiring closing, will come to the next one, which concerns a topic with which he or she is more familiar, or one where the debate makes clear the correct result, and close it appropriately.

This is a project to create and improve a world-class encyclopedia. We require both content contributions and maintenance contributions from any good-faith user who wants to help; both philosophically and pragmatically, we can affort to exclude no one who has value to add, much less some of the best and the brightest of our young people, the types who would be drawn to a project like this one. That goes for editors and it goes for administrators and in a perfect world it would go for every role we have, though I understand why some specific functions have recently been limited to over-18s for quasi-legal reasons. I have told some of the under-18s who edit here that frankly, sometimes I envy the work they get to do on Wikipedia. It feels like only yesterday, though it was in actuality far longer, that I as a child and a teen was the stereotypical nerdy kid with the glasses, sitting in my bedroom reading through the encyclopedia to while away the time on a rainy day. I can only imagine how much sheer joy I would have had if I'd had the privilege as a boy, not only of reading the encyclopedia, but of writing it.

So, yes, we have some very impressive self-identified younger editors, true polymaths every one, who have sought and received adminship. Some sparkle with youthful enthusiasm and would never be mistaken for an oldster like myself, while the demeanor of others is such that one would never in a million years have guessed at their ages if they hadn't chosen to reveal them. They are among the best and the brightest of the rising generation, and very much a part of the future of this project, and for us to turn them away from whatever work they want and are qualified to perform would be both our loss and theirs. Yes, the younger admins make mistakes sometimes, as do their elders (certainly including myself), but like virtually all of us they get far more right than they get wrong. Please judge them, and their would-be successors on RfA, by their individual qualifications and actions rather than by their years. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the read.--PericlesofAthens 09:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric

Thanks! I've been into too many disputes to be an admin. A lot of people will oppose me but then I could be an admin if I wanted to, you know. We all can. But then it takes a lot of time and commitment to be one and I dont have that right now, but thanks for your suggestion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jreferee. How are you? I am RS1900. I am a new Wikipedian. I became a part of the Wikipedia community on July 15, 2007. I have a problem. I looked at Elonka's request for adminship. Can I comment? How many votes are needed for adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. RS1900 08:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Request for Adminship (RfA) Support, Oppose and Neutral sections, usually with a short explanation of their reasoning and sometimes with supporting evidence. At the end of the RfA, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Usually, less than 70% !vote means an unsuccessful effort and more than 85% !vote means a successful effort, but consensus is the basis for promotion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for your follow-up question on my talkpage, generally the community expects an editor to have been contributing for at least a few months, with at least a couple of thousand edits, and to have experience with at least some of the processes that administrators help with (AfD discussions, reporting vandals, etc.). More information is at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and if you continue to follow RfA's as I know you have been doing, you will quickly gain a better sense of how administrator candidates are evaluated and whether the role would suit you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Both of you are helpful administrators. RS1900 05:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in my application for adminship. Have you seen my nomination page? There are answers to several questions there. If there's something more you'd like to know about my work on Wikipedia, feel free to add a question to the page. Please could you expand a little on how I can use admin tools to help new editors? I already help to point new editors in the right direction if they're struggling with something, but if you were thinking of something new I'd be able to do as an admin, let me know! - Papa November 1 07:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I will support you. RS1900 10:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it :) - Papa November 1 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you read the reasons that some of the other people opposed my nomination. I feel that some people said things about me that were not true. As you become more familiar with Wikipedia, I think you will get better at being able to tell when people are telling the truth or not. It is very important that when one person says something bad about another editor, that they should provide proof. Otherwise it is very easy to say things that are wrong. Anyway, I am glad that you are here on Wikipedia, and that you are working hard to learn how things are done here. If you ever have any questions, please come to me and ask.  :) --Elonka 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definition of region, I don't believe any of the countries you tagged with this category constitute a "region". They should, however, already be placed within the Middle Eastern countries category. -- tariqabjotu 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error. RS1900 07:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to layout says that see also sections should not link to articles that are linked in the body of an article. There is a navigation box at the end of the autism article (click show to see its contents), which covers almost every article related to pervasive developmental disorders. There's been a strong effort to get rid of the see also section on the autism article. Graham87 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can request unprotection at WP:RfPP#Current_requests_for_unprotection. utcursch | talk 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RS1900 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Whether I am made an admin or not, I'm happy to help you out if I can. Just ask. --Bduke 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have caught me out on a topic that I have little experience. Believe it or not, I do not have a digital camera. Well, we bought one a while back but my wife immediately took it with her on a trip to UK and I have not had a chance to use it. She gets back this coming week. Anyway, on images, the main point is that the image must be released under an open source license. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you took the photograph, you can choose which license but it must be open source. We do use photographs that are not open source, if they can be used under the US law on "fair use". This means you can use such a photograph in a few limited places only. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. However, you must not use a fair-use image if a free image is possible and Wikipedia is tightening up and deleting lots of supposedly fair-use images. I hope this helps and the links will lead you to other useful pages. --Bduke 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RS1900 09:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RS. I just wanted to bring your attention to this policy concerning editing of others' comments on talk pages. The most pertinent section reads: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others... The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to... change the meaning of the comment." Your recent edit of one of my comments did change its meaning. Feel free to delete any of my comments in their entirety, but please do not edit them. Thanks, and cheers. Nick Graves 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I made an error. I didn't know the rule. Now, I have read the talk page guidelines. And, I will not delete your comments in their entirety. RS1900 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wasn't a Christian, but Mao was an atheist. A.J.A. 04:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.A, you are a Christian and you would like to believe that Hitler wasn't a Christian. Hitler was a Christian. And, Mao was not an atheist. Mao was against religion because he saw religion as a rival power. RS1900 05:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would make counter-arguments, but you clearly have no respect for the common usage of words and dialogue would be lost on you. A.J.A. 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want any arguments. And, I respect your religious views. RS1900 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch is actually "Utkarsh" :)

You can simply call me "ut" (you-tea) -- that's what friends call me. utcursch | talk 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Wiki refers to http://meta.wikimedia.org/ -- a website devoted to the coordination of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and the MediaWiki software on which it runs. It contains metadata about Wikipedia -- such as meta:Board elections, meta:Wikimedians by favorite numbers etc. utcursch | talk 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. As for your info, I am not from South India. I am from Singapore! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. As for your question, I am not an administrator yet. However, I tried to run for admin for four times and each of them was a failure. My last nomination was about one month ago. Anyway, thanks for your kind words of encouragement and I am waiting for someone to nominate me again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your renaming okay now? Sometimes the database takes a few hours to catch up. Please let me know. Secretlondon 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage deleted as requested. Secretlondon 09:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RS1900 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I have redirected it to my user page. RS1900 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect to your userpage anyway, wasn't it? Secretlondon 10:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens normally they end up being allocated to the old name, and the database sorts itself out in a few hours. You have no edits allocated to your old username so I hope you have them all. If not - it's a bug. Secretlondon 10:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I wanted to add something...then I decided to redirect it again! Thanks for the reply. RS1900 10:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship is where you apply but you won't have a hope yet - you don't have enough edits and you've only been here since July. If you want to be an admin get more involved in vandal fighting and other bits of admin that don't need admin powers. Get involved in things like the 'non-voting' that takes place. Basically see how stuff works, read lots and join in when you see stuff you can do. If you apply now you will just embarass youself tbh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to apply now. I have only been here since July 15, 2007! Thank you for the reply. RS1900 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (in most cases). Let me know what you need. -- John Reaves 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed it to you. -- John Reaves 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John! RS1900 07:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll need to go to deletion review if you want it undeleted. -- John Reaves 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will think about it later. RS1900 04:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blnguyen. Why did you delete List of critics of Islam? The article could have been improved. There are people who wants to know about the critics of Islam and why certain people criticize Islam. The list can be very useful to someone who is doing research on Islam. And, I respect Islam.

And, by the way, I am a big fan of cricket. I hope Sachin will score hundred today. Thank you. RS1900 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, he made 90 something and got out.... Anyway, the deletion debate is here at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_critics_of_Islam and feel free to ask questions about it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, Sachin is great. India won the three games because of him. And..........I will create a more accurate list of critics of Islam. RS1900 10:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, go right ahead! I was merely tagging it for certain things, as I saw that it was lacking at the moment. Good luck! If you have any questions, drop me another line on my talk page. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing Crews and Webster, but Eysenck was a notable psychologist. You're going to have to have much more substance to this allegation of racism, especially how it relates to his opinions about Freud. It's a serious accusation, and you're saying it doesn't make it true. As soon as I find a source I'm restoring information on Eysenck. Ward3001 03:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, Eysenck was a notable psychologist. However, he was a supporter of astrology, a pseudoscience. In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". I don't respect Eysenck. RS1900 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)"

Again, give me a credible source that he supported astrology, and tell me how that minimizes the importance of his opinions on Freud. As for the Mainstream Science on Intelligence, he is one of several respected psychologists who signed it. You may or may not agree with the opinions in the document, but that document does not invalidate Eysenck's views on Freud. Ward3001 03:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eysenck was a respected psychologists. Eysenck published the book Astrology: Science or Superstition?. He supported astrology, however; that doesn't minimizes the importance of his opinions on Freud. I think we should include his views on Freud. RS1900 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Sigmund Freud: discussion MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RS1900. Now please don't take this the wrong way. This is in no way intended to be a personal attack, or even a mild rebuke. I just don't get why you seem fixated on this Freud and Webster thing. Why don't you think Webster's comments are valid? All you keep saying is that he is not a psychologist. Are you seriously suggesting that only people in the field can have a valid point on a subject? Only plumbers can critique other plumbers? Only artists can critique artists? Only psychoanylists can critique psychoanylists? Only priests can critique priests? Only scientologists can critique scientologists? Can't we get over this and get some consensus here? What are your real objections? MarkAnthonyBoyle 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the comments of Webster because his criticisms are not balanced. Look at the criticism of Freud by somelike Peter D. Kramer. His criticism of Freud are balanced and valid. I know that Freud's theories cannot be considered a hard science. In fact, they are not hard science. I understand the scientific methods and Freud's speculations are based on minimal evidence. In most cases they cannot be disproved by experiment, so they cannot be considered a 'hard science'. However, Freud's contributions to psychology cannot be dismissed. It is as simple as that!

One has to present a balanced criticism. For example, in his book, Freud: Inventor of the modern mind, Peter D. Kramer was both critical and sympathetic towards Freud. Hooligans like Webster simply fail to do that! RS1900 03:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. I guess the problem I have is that in order to do justice to an argument like Tallis' or Eysenk's or Miller's (see talk page) you are going to get involved in a long, probably controversial, involved , detailed analysis. This doesn't seem appropriate in a page about someone (bio). Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that Webster, and Crewes have provided a punchy, pithy quote, which sums up a lot of more detailed work. I agree that Freud's contributions to psychology cannot be dismissed, and certainly his impact on culture in general is profound, but I also think that given the very widespread opinion in the scientific community that there are serious problems with his ideas, that we need to say something about that "up front". Have you got any suggestions about how that can be done?

Cheers MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of Webster and Crewes are too strong and unfair. Yes, there are widespread opinion in the scientific community that there are serious problems with Freud's ideas. His theories cannot be considered a 'hard science'. Thus, criticism of Freud by psychologists and other scientists are valid and those criticism should be included. RS1900 08:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload images by clicking on the "Upload file" link on the left, or go to Special:Upload. The Missing Encyclopedia Articles project is a project to figure out what important topics are missing from Wikipedia, and create articles for those topics. Find out more at WP:MEA. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-14 13:25Z

Yes I saw your tag, no problems. Hope you can get a good article on him then. Best of luck. Phgao 13:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I am looking for information on Roger Y. Tsien. I want to create a good article. Thank you. RS1900 13:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already explained when you created it, it was nothing, therefore I tagged it. However once you explained to me what you wanted to do, it was ok. Phgao 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because like I said at the start it was less than a stub, and because I patrol the new pages, of course I tagged it straight away, as it comes up as soon as you create an article. Furthermore, I do not like it when others demand apologies, if you had commented nicely, then I would have. In addition, I have been agreeable and have been encouraging, which is in my opinion enough. If you wanted an apology, next time ask nicely. Phgao 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your article is fine! I'll even remove all the warning. You don't need me to say your article is fine, it's a great job, as anyone would say. Phgao 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no one likes to see a hand sign or a warning sign on their user talk. Have fun, and sorry for any confusion. See you around. I'm sure you will be a great wikipedian! Phgao 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cool. All the best! RS1900 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Category:Regions of the Middle East, which you created, for deletion. Picaroon (t) 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only few names can be included in the category. I think it should be deleted. RS1900 09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very kind comments, they really mean a lot to me. Regards, Espresso Addict 14:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! RS1900 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged a few "List of [religion]" articles. No doubt so people will disagree, and it may end up in a large discussion somewhere. violet/riga (t) 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate articles for deletion go to WP:AFD and follow the instructions there. Basically you have to put {{afd}} on top of the article you wish to delete and then create a discussion page for the deletion debate. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What may I help you with? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for solving the problem. RS1900 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alansohn. How are you? I am RS1900. Thank you for improving the biography of Roger Y. Tsien. You added some relevant information. Thank you. RS1900 10:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and I hope all is well with you. The New Jersey connection is what sparked my interest, but it's an interesting article that benefited from some cleanup, expansion and sources. Keep up the great work! Alansohn 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, RS. I noticed you nominated List of nontheists for deletion. The edit summary "I added relevant information" is inadequate to alert editors to the major nature of your change to the article, and could be perceived as misleading. If you decide to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please use a more descriptive edit summary, such as "I nominated this article for deletion." Also, it is recommended that you notify the creator(s) of and major contributors to an article directly on their talk pages if you nominate it for deletion. Thank you. Nick Graves 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. RS1900 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are engaged in Canvassing for the two AfD. Advising only some users that may compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive is not allowed. --Statsone 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I don't want to engage in Canvassing. I just want to know about the views of the Wikipedia community. I don't want anybody to compromise the consensus building process. And, if you want to support the article, you can. I just want to know what other people have to say. That's it. RS1900 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just telling some, especially with the reason another article List of Christians with a different view, was deleted can be viewed as canvassing. --Statsone 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christain was deleted because it was uncyclopedic. And, I also believe that List of nontheists is also uncyclopedic. That's it. And, I am against canvassing. RS1900 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RS. Why have you added a comment under another account name to this discussion? If you changed your mind about deletion, why didn't you just say so under this account? And please don't say that you aren't Jai Raj K/Devraj5000. I know better than that. I am working on a sockpuppet report, but you can save us both the trouble by admitting that Jai Raj K is another of your accounts and removing the comment from the AfD page. Nick Graves 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Nick Graves 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Graves, you are a blackmailer. You are a lier. I will expose you. Your days are numbered. RS1900 06:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Christians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (3rd nomination). Thank you. Jreferee t/c 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]