Hey, I left a msg at the invoicing bureau's talk page. Here's our boilerplate welcome, as well...it has some useful links. Welcome!

Hello, Reswobslc/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kchase02 T 07:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to a redirect. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal for some things you could do (maintenance related and desired articles). Wordsearch the page for requests and stubs and go through those lists. See if there's anything that strikes your fancy. Cheers and happy editing! Sorry your page didn't work out.--Kchase02 T 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that Berkeley of the West may not be neutral. Please do not remove the template without addressing those concerns.Viridae^Talk 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The editor didn't give any reason why, other than suggesting that NPOV was somehow obvious. It's not obvious to me. Looking at the subjects of his previous edits, the only thing obvious to me is that he is Mormon, and my guess is that he was offended by the inclusion of the term. I suppose he will call it NPOV until if and whenever the article gets deleted. Understood it is a term Mormons may not like to hear, but that doesn't make it NPOV any more than the article on hell isn't NPOV for not talking about heaven. Perhaps you can assist me in understanding how this article is not NPOV. Reswobslc 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe sentances like The term's underlying suggestion is that if the folks at BYU who claim academic freedom is not an issue can't even properly reference the location of their own school on a map, that they must be too sheltered to be in a sufficiently well-informed position to make that sort of claim. are overly critical of the students. I also think the use of presumably in this sentence is designed to be derogatory: while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.. See WP:AWW. Viridae^Talk 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP:CRIT saying being critical is not allowed, otherwise we wouldn't have pages like Microsloth to criticize Microsoft, or a nigger page, or the terms described on this page and this page and this page and this page. All of these reference terms that are undoubtedly critical of the groups they refer to. When someone makes a big public mistake (and publishing a prominent obvious error in a newspaper is a textbook example), they're going to merit legitimate criticism, whether they're a BYU student, a Microsoft employee, a Presidential advisor, or whoever they might be. Just because a page about criticism (or a critical term) contains criticism, doesn't make it NPOV! If you look at BYU's entry, you'll see that academic freedom at BYU is an ongoing sore spot there, all the way up to the level of the AAUP, and not some little jab one guy took at the University writing a biased Wikipedia article to laugh at the mistakes of three of its students. Further, I am not sure I agree that the second statement you mention (the while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.) is intended as an attempt at WP:AWW, rather it is simply a logical one, like presumably your chair is not on fire because you're still sitting in it., but a word means something different to everyone and acknowledge that many will agree with you on that point and not me and that's reason enough to be concerned about it. Reswobslc 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My view on that second sentance was that it was a fairly disparraging way of putting it. I am considering editing it to say something along the lines of "However the university has many students enrolled, indicating that the freedom given is acceptable for those that attend.". I believe that imparts more neutrality than the current sentence. Viridae^Talk 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made have removed my misgivings over the neutrality of the article. The NPOV template has been removed. Thanks for being a worthwhile editor to work with. Viridae^Talk 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Please don't remove AfD notices from articles. This is to be done by the closing admin. If you wanted to recind the AfD nomination then this should have been mentioned in the discussion itself. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD nomination I removed was my own, done after the article was completely rewritten. In any case, I am unable to determine if you are asking me to heed this request as a personal favor, or per Wikipedia policy, or as an informal reflection of "the way things are done around here". WP:AFD does not mention that not removing one's own AfD nomination is policy or even a suggestion, and if this is the case, it ought to be changed to reflect that, as that page mentions many other things that are far less significant. Regarding your suggestion that I mention my desire to withdraw the nomination in the discussion, I note that I did (search for the text "Withdraw Nomination" in the discussion, signed by me). Thanks for your attention Reswobslc 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The notice is given in {{Drmafd}}. The closest guideline that I can find at short notice is in Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability: "Please realize that while you may personally dislike having an AFD tag on your favorite article, it is not actually doing any harm, and will be gone in less than a week.". The process was referred to by Arthur Rubin. The correct course of action for a non-admin participant in an AfD is given in WP:AfD#What_to_do_after_an_AfD_discussion_has_passed_with_a_confirmation.3F, i.e. nothing, as the process will continue.

I see that you asked a question about deleting the AfD tag but that no answer was forthcoming in the AfD debate. A good place to ask questions about policy and procedures is the village pump, where advice will be offered at short notice. You make a good point about the removal of tags before the five day limit not being explicit, so I will see to it that this is made clear in the process.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have touched on a good point that's highly relevant to the AfD debate you're referring to, though I am not sure if you're talking about the specific case of one removing his own AfD tag. That is because the notice you've quoted is talking about if someone else AfD's an article you wrote, not if you're the person who AfD'd someone else's article and then said whoops and changed your mind, and appears to be of low relevance to the mistake I made. The AfD template clearly says on it, "please don't remove this until the discussion is over". But a little bit of selective interpretation applies when one considers removing the AfD tag shortly after he placed it there himself. Just like we all know a red light means stop, but if the light is broken and never turns green, it doesn't mean sit there and run out of gas hoping it eventually does. Certainly I will think harder and review more carefully before nominating an AfD thus eliminating the need to quickly rescind one, and this should never happen again to me now that I know, but I respond simply to draw attention to the fact that the rule is unclear or undefined in the first place and is likely to trip up other newbies as long as it stays that way. Reswobslc 23:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one of your speedy deletion tags as advertising is not one of our speedy deletion criteria. I changed it to a {{prod}}, which means proposed deletion. You can read more about our policies on that here - it's essentially a mechanism for pages that unanimously should be deleted, but don't fit one of the speedy rules. Thanks for your help in new page patrol, and let me know if you have any questions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

G'day Reswobslc,

I see you've been doing a lot of good work helping us get rid of nonsense articles and so on. Well done! If I could just make a point ... there's enthusiasm, and then there's enthusiasm.

Among your list of excellent actions, you also tagged The Pavilion, Westville as a speedy candidate when it was only a couple of minutes old. I've deleted it because its author, who had expressed a desire to improve on the article before it was tagged, decided he'd rather revert you than do any improving, and so he can probably just as easily start from scratch at this point. However, as a general rule it's a good idea to be a bit more laid-back about articles that've just been created which the author obviously intends to improve. Killing it before they even start can be very discouraging to new editors. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it empty (or nearly empty) in the first place? (As noted, it's gone, so I can't doublecheck). Where did I miss his expression that he was going to improve it? (no talk page, none was deleted either). If it were really empty, am I really setting him back by tagging it? If I were him, and I saw "this page is tagged because it was empty", would I really feel criticized, or would the encyclopedic non-value of a blank page be obvious, along with the conclusion that if I were to put an article there, it would no longer be empty? As you noted, I did tag a lot of pages (enthusiasm is one way of putting it, or it could simply be that I chose to select pages off the new pages log and that's why new pages were targeted). If I tagged it for some other reason than empty, would you remind me so I know what not to do? Reswobslc 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

G'day again Reswobslc,

I apologise for my late reply here — I was rather absent for a while, and upon my return, of course, instantly forgot about anything I was supposed to reply to. Anyway ... the reason I left you a message wasn't that you'd done anything wrong. You found an article with insufficient context, you tagged it, it got deleted. So, I wasn't saying "Reswobslc is doing the Wrong Thing", but rather, "Reswobslc is doing well ... maybe he's ready for Advanced Newpage Patrolling!" (Sorry, I'm in a whimsical mood).

Basically, I see a lot of newbies create articles that meet the speedy deletion criteria, because they're adherents to good old "save early, save often". Then some enthusiastic fellow tags it for speedy deletion. So they say, "To hell with it!", and walk off. What I'm asking is, if you see a page that you think might be added to at some point within the next 12 hours or so, then rather than tag it for speedy deletion, make a note of it, and come back and check later ... if it hasn't been improved, then go for broke, otherwise, well, congratulate its author, I guess. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Reswobsic, if you don't want to be blocked, please refrain from posting things about an editor having "nothing better to do and nothing of significant size in his pants to do it with."[1] I suggest you go back and either remove or modify that post. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hypothetical. I don't even know the guy, never interacted with him. It's an attempt to characterize his apparent behavior. But I can see how that doesn't belong. Fixed. Reswobslc 06:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AnnH ♫ 06:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why I needed to be warned twice about the same comment. I assume that the previous warning directly above the one you left was overlooked (regardless of the included acknowledgment that the comment in question was edited 18 hours earlier in response to the first warning - you included a link to the revision before that edit was made). Secondly, in this case, as the discussion at hand is the implementation of policy and the persistent actions of an administrator which drove an editor with 6000+ edits completely away from Wikipedia as a result, the behavior of the individual I "attacked" is in fact the content and not the contributor. I referred to the actions of an administrator as that of a jerk, which is a person whose qualities and behavior are unlikable. I have no problem understanding how avoiding ad hominem remarks about other editors is a policy that's essential to peace and collaboration, but when the ad hominem argument is used to justify silencing criticism of an administrator's disagreeable actions, it's hardly the same thing anymore. As previously stated, said administrator behaved like a jerk and I stand by it. If I need to be blocked for expressing such an opinion (especially regarding a conflict that I had absolutely no involvement in, whose parties are individuals I have never interacted with, and therefore, I make a claim to a neutral point of view regarding it), then so be it. Such a block only reinforces the argument I made in the first place on the page in question. I am not a troll and have plenty to contribute as my edit history attests. Meanwhile, I have other ways to enjoy my life while being blocked besides adding value to Wikipedia in a voluntary and uncompensated manner. If I need to be blocked, let's get the block rolling. Reswobslc 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not really care for explanations and rationale for personal attacks. Neither are valid. I refactored you calling another editor a "jerk". See Diff and that was the warning for. Read the policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.

You have your warning and I am sure that you are clear on the consequences of engaging on personal attacks: Don't. If you have an unresolved issue with an admin, place a user conduct RfC, or ask for help from other experienced editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this article redirects to Rearview_mirror#Augmentations_and_alternatives as the matter is discussed in the appropriate section. More details can be added there, if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines you can refer me to? I don't disagree with your suggestion, but it appears to me that whether something merits its own article is highly subjective and I feel somewhat lost on the topic, whether it's regarding this article or others. I feel there's enough interesting information about the subject to merit its own article, if for no other reason than that such information would be largely off-topic for an article about a rear view mirror. Reswobslc 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F: "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text." The articles discuss two methods of achieving the same objective, so to avoid replicating information in both or sending researchers to two pages to look at essentially the same article, one can redirect towards the other and all pertinent facts can be discussed without a researcher unknowingly missing something.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

May I solicit your opinion as to whether the article still ought to be merged in light of the following?

• • Although I'm sure your car probably has a usable rear-view mirror, big trucks and motorhomes (who are the biggest users of these) don't. The size of such vehicles and the cargo they carry moots the usefulness of a rear-view mirror, and in such a context, the idea of a backup camera being a "rear-view-mirror augmentation" starts to become nonsensical.
  • I've added significantly more to the article since the proposed merge that is of low relevance to rear-view mirrors.

Keep in mind I agree with the merge if that's the way it ought to be - my objective here is not to attempt to argue against one, but to better understand when a separate article is appropriate and when one is not. If you still feel it should be merged, let's merge it. Reswobslc 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On 16 July 2006 (UTC) at 16:42, I was given a second warning regarding WP:NPA from User:Jossi. The appropriateness of the warning was disputed, the dialogue got long, I agreed to accept it anyway. I removed the dialogue from my talk page, but it is available here and here. Reswobslc 19:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good idea for you to remove your own requests from WP:PAIN. Let an admin do it. Is it a hard policy? No. But letting someone else do it helps you to avoid revert wars like the one you got into with jossi. In other words, it keeps you out of trouble. And if you ever have problems with something an admin does, take it up on the administrator's noticeboard. WP:PAIN is to be used for alerting admins that there are personal attacks going on, not to object to personal attack notices. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for peace. The issue Jossi complained of (diff) wasn't that I removed my own request. I removed someone else's request - two other people bickering anonymously from IP-addresses about a subject I have never participated in and have no interest in, and after I (hopefully) resolved it (since it hadn't reached admin seriousness yet). Perhaps Jossi wasn't clear on the policy, as he originally formulated a complaint against me, and then changed his mind and reverted the complaint out of existence five minutes later. Probably just a genuine misunderstanding that corrected itself. Reswobslc 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. Yeah no problem. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the request made by User:Anon 64 at WP:PAIN to look into NPA violations on your behalf... I'm not sure if it's whether you don't understand why your behavior is problematic, or if it's that you just don't care. The interactions between you and some other users on LDS-related articles (which I've watched without much interaction for some time now) have long been disruptive — and to be fair, it's often come from both sides.

At this point, I don't intend to focus on the question of whether you're carrying out "personal attacks", a term which is sometimes thrown around too casually. If you're not aware of the policy by now, I doubt you ever will be. What concerns me more is your willingness to assume an overly-aggressive attitude towards editing here, without much of an interest in reaching a consensus that all editors can agree on. That's not how it works here — and if you're not able to tone down your comments to focus on issues in a fair and balanced way, without making personal accusations, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. In any case, you can regard this as a warning that continuing on in such a manner that it makes editing difficult for others can result in a block.

I'd strongly suggest taking a glance over the following four guidelines. It'd do you a world of good:

• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Etiquette

I'm looking forward to seeing future interactions with others here that are more positive and fruitful. I see you as a potentially valuable contributor to help maintain a balance at LDS-related articles — if you can do so in the proper manner. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept your advice. I replied at User:Reswobslc/Tijuana Brass. Reswobslc 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you'd prefer a response there or here, so forgive me if this is misplaced — but I can sympathize entirely with what you've said. There's almost always constant fighting on the religious articles, and it's the same reason that I'm not contributing to the LDS ones as frequently as I once did (in an ironic twist, I'm often accused of pushing the Mormon POV, even though I left the LDS Church and am in the ministry in a Protestant denomination).

I'm also grateful for your patience and understanding; I agree entirely that this is by no means "all your fault" or anything of the sort. Always good to interact with somebody who's got a cool head. Thanks for that. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's cool. And the revisions took some of the arrogant tone out of it... hmm... maybe I should've AGFed a little better myself, eh? At any rate, thanks for passing the link on to me. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits at User:Jossi/NPA advice ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reswolbslc, although you said that your initial feeling is to support the delete vote, from the way your wrote your response I can see that you are fair and open minded. I kindly request you to read my last comments in details at this article's entry and help in resolving the dispute. If you still advice against keeping it, then I will let it go. If you think it deserves a chance or requires more information then I will keep trying. Miro.gal

I am pretty much powerless there. The most I can do is put a "Keep" vote, which won't mean much in the face of countless mounting Deletes. I am only one person. Basically, the page you've created meets most people's criteria for deletion, whether or not it's fair. Since I was new recently enough myself (you can look at the very beginning of my edit history to see how I created articles only to have them kindly deleted, as well as argued for the keep of pages I couldn't understand why they were being deleted), I thought I'd write you so that you'll be less inclined to feel that Wikipedia is a bunch of raving snobby wolves that seek to delete anything they haven't heard of. I personally would welcome you to recreate the page after a month or two of editing other articles, and while I'm only one person who can't dictate its success or failure, I can express confidence that you'll be able to create a page that people won't object to. Reswobslc 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• 'Request: Every Keep Vote counts, please help, I have added comments that supports the keep vote and I got strong keep vote from Ephilei you can read it and make your decision Miro.gal

Yesterday, I followed a link from the William Norris pages, to service bureaus from Payroll Service Bureau. I didn't see how to find out where that change was made (I'm relatively new here), but asked the help desk and was told that you had put it in. I was surprised because the redirection misses the fact that there are multiple types of service bureaus out there, of which payroll is only one. In this case, it was even more surprising because one of William Norris' big things was the acquisition of the Service Bureau Company in the mid 70's from IBM (I worked there shortly after the acquisition) and at the time, the bigger part of the company was "Timesharing" and the part that included Payroll was considered "Batch Services". They even had an ad campaign (which didn't impress most people within the company that I knew) with the tag line,"We gave our name to the entire industry." Other classic types of activity at service bureaus include AP, GL, and various other accounting functions. During the time I was there, ADP was the biggest competitor. So, I'm not sure I agree that the redirection is really a valid change. Perhaps a pointer to Payroll Service Bureau would make more sense. I could probably come up with some basic information, but probably wouldn't be the best for the overall article. I'd be most interested in the "why" before consideration of writing anything. Bschmitt 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I don't know who William Norris is, and I'm most likely not the person you were looking to write. I started payroll service bureau as a stub since Wikipedia had absolutely nothing on it. However, the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that if you see something wrong or missing, and can cite your sources, then anyone is welcome to be WP:BOLD and change it. As I wasn't even born yet in the mid-70's, my perspective of anything that happened then is going to be faint, and someone more familiar with notable things that happened then is better positioned to update. Good luck Reswobslc 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Salvage title, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.carfax.com/Definitions/Glossary.cfm. As a copyright violation, Salvage title appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Salvage title has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Salvage title. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Salvage title, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, even if it was just three sentences out of a rather long page. Reswobslc 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Curious of your thoughts about the fundamental quesion I ask on the talk page of the Mormonism temples page. Curious to know what the addition helps convey from your standpoint. I'm undecided if it should be there or not, but am curious why it is of value and significance to you, when similar wikipedia articles don't include that type of "sensitive" information? I'd like this dialogue to continue, but want to understand where you are coming from before having my own opinion on the matter. -Visorstuff 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working with the editors on the page - I truly believe that the article is better because of your efforts, which are appreciated. I'm still not sure I understood your root concern, nor other items I asked, but for what it's worth, thanks for sticking in there and good work. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pooh smoking pot.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is solved now. View these comments on my talk page. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted my erroneous 'Compleat Works of Shakespeare' edits, and see that you've already corrected the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article for me, so thanks. I don't have a bot account, but use tools to semi-automate editing where all my edits are checked by me (or at least should be). I started correcting 'fulness' before I realised that it was in fact an acceptable variation of fullness, but forgot to check over what I had already changed. The 'descendents' > 'descendants' correction is one of the automatic ones suggested by the User:Wmahan/Spelling tool, so I'll ask User:Wmahan to remove it. In general, I'm aware that I'm likely to make some mistakes while editing spelling in articles, but I think I make about five errors per thousand corrections so my work is a net benefit to wikipedia. I'm always happy to correct my mistakes and will update scripts / procedures to make sure I don't repeat errors. Rjwilmsi 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pooh smoking pot.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving that note regarding the editing on this article. I figured from the tone of the article that it was quite possibly the subject or a friend of the subject doing the writing, but the fact remained that the insertions were quite obviously unencyclopedic and unsourced. The editor's been warned (along with another registered editor who popped up today), the article's been semiprotected by an admin at this point, so we'll see how it goes from there. The things you stumble into on RC patrol. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that britishinsurance.com is definitely something that should be deleted: it is only three sentences long. I know that length (or shortness) is not a thing alone for deletion; but I honestly think that the text of this article should just be moved into the Virgin Birth page due to the fact that it is the only page that links to britishinsurance.com. After looking at the criterea again, I'll agree that it should not have been 'speedy deletion,' but I'm going to put a 'regular 'deletion tag on there now. Scoutersig 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, that's what AfD is for as you know... now go get 'em dog. Reswobslc 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also program bankcard machines. The only place in the western hemisphere that uses track 3 are a couple of countries in the caribbean. They switch track one for track 3. anyways, i thought that you were right in that regard! User:Tiger1616 13:00, 26 December 2006 (utc)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ben tesner. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This was a nomination for a speedy deletion. The content of the article clearly fit the criteria. I'm sure this warning was an honest mistake. Reswobslc 03:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my mistake edit! Your right, I should slow down a little :-). Thanks for letting me know. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(Inclusion of Template:Civil0 by reference instead of substitution for brevity)

I am not taking any sides here, but just follwing Lucky's request for his talk page concerning abusive comments. Your post was removed the first time, due to the personal attacks. (Your concerns could have been easily stated without telling Lucky how you feel he should do his job.) However, with regards to respecting your concerns and WP:3RR I've struck out the needlessly harsh statements, but have otherwise left your comment untouched. Peace. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucky is blatantly violating Wikipedia policy - specifically WP:DP and WP:CSD. The "harsh" statements where I tell him "how I feel he should do his job" are no different than any warning anyone ever leaves anyone who "feels" people should follow other rules. Unless his name is Jimbo, he may not disregard policy just because he feels like it. Nor should warnings be deleted from talk pages. Reswobslc 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Reswobslc! I've asked WarthogDemon about his reversion, but don't worry: you didn't make any personal attacks. However, it was a bit critical, and people tend to get defensive when you question their integrity. People can be fragile like that; as is life. Anyways, sometimes, articles on Wikipedia can be immediately deleted under our criteria for speedy deletion. While Lucky did not explain it appropriately, the article did not explain how the term "hershey squirt" is notable enough to deserve an entry on Wikipedia. An example of asserting notability is "This term became notable after it was used 73 times in an episode of South Park," or "Stephen Colbert popularized the term in 2006 while ranting about bears." Since the Hershey Squirt article did not seem to explain notability, it qualified for speedy deletion (which has been approved by the community via consensus). If you can assert notability (don't forget to cite sources where appropriate!), then feel free to re-create it. In any case, I have a feeling I'm going to be keeping abreast of this situation for a looooong time. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Along with what Messedrocker has said, I do apologize for the removal of your comment. Seems I did a poor job of explaining, and ultimately removed the comment on wrong pretenses. So do accept my apology. :) Peace. -WarthogDemon 22:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reswobslc, you cited acetone is the most selective solvent for salvinorin when to date acetonitrile has been found to be the most "selective", although at a lower solubility for salvinorin, far lower than acetone. If having refined the extract to a fairly high purity then acetonitrile can be used to more selectively isolate salvinorin but as an extraction solvent itself will pull over plenty of other things from Salvia leaf, the same as acetone will.

I've put the things into the section on solvents used to extract and refine salvinorin that you took out today. Respectfully, just because you haven't run across a listing of solubilities etc. does not mean that they are incorrect. The individual who sited that pdf document was not "siting their own .pdf work" as you said. I produced that document, not him but he is a friend of mine which I extend to you also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskasally (talk • contribs)

If you are indeed the author of these documents, then you are not to use them as references in Wikipedia, as that would be in violation of the original research rule. Having them hosted on http://www.imageevent.com (to which anyone may upload files) is not sufficient for third-party publication in order to be considered a reliable source. If I have left a factual error in the article regarding solubility or selectivity of solvents, feel free to fix it... as long as you can cite a reliable third-party source... or simply remove it. Reswobslc 05:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not post that to wiki, you make many assumptions. But, if someone is going to reference my work, I reserve the right to edit it. If not me, I know many others who want this information made available who would be happy to put it back up, if you take it down. If WIKI decides to take it down I am sure references they will accept can be easily produced. Not anybody can upload to imageevent.com, try to do so and you will find out otherwise. I can reference the same information from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskasally (talk • contribs)

You can read my reply to you at User_talk:SebastianHelm#Now_I.27m_really_angry. I share your sentiments, Reswobslc. However, I strongly disagree with something you say here on this page -- "Unless his name is Jimbo, he may not disregard policy just because he feels like it..."

You know what? I think the one person who should MOST STRONGLY NOT act against standards and policy is Jimbo Wales. He, more than any other person that I can tell, is personally profiting from Wikipedia (through Foundation travel budgets that include personal visits; through external links to Wikia.com that are somehow not regarded as spam; through speaker fees that he pockets personally even though we all know the reason he is speaking is Wikipedia, not Jimbo Wales). So, the more he runs the place like it's his own personal fiefdom, the more likely I think it is that the IRS is going to crash his little $826,938.11 donation party. --JossBuckle Swami 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I realise you've already given a third opinion on Kriss Donald, but I feel the issues in the dispute have been clarified by further discussion and am requesting that you comment further on this matter in light of recent developments. While the alleged OR or non-NPOV phrasing of certain passages may be an issue, I feel discussion is more crucially needed on interpretations of NPOV, particularly regarding the terms "prominent" and "tiny minority", and whether NPOV equates to mainstream point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriss_Donald#The_causes_of_the_dispute.3B_fresh_call_for_third_opinions

-82.19.3.186 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you must be mistaken - I have never edited that article or anything related to it, and have no opinion regarding it (third or otherwise). Reswobslc 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I have lightened the warning. Yuser31415 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You are a coward hiding behind a computer keyboard who got bent all out of shape because I deleted your literal diarrhea. Grow up and find a life outside of this site. I have. If not for Zoe, I wouldn't even have popped on the few times I have since the first of the month. You want to comment? E-mail me, you gutless wonder. - Lucky 6.9 06:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Screw your link. Like I said, I quit. It gives me no small measure of satisfaction as my last task before retiring to tell you what a pathetic loser you are. Get a life. The former Lucky 6.9 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)