Hi Rick :) I've reverted your last edit, since the edit by User:12.234.161.193 had already gone through a large process by others of NPOVing and removing of all those external links.

It wasn't I who wrote that screed about Newark. I don't use "ghetto" as an adjective. Dinopup - JSB

Just "so you know" :) Dysprosia 05:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rick, can we move this stuff to Talk:Credit repair? silsor 01:29, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. Talk moved there. RickK 04:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on Dune (novel). orthogonal 04:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks :) Tualha 06:25, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi RickK-- I have now completed the merge in of cow and bull to cattle. I have left calf for the moment. It is still a rotten article, though... needs a real cattle expert to get at it. seglea 06:33, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

JackLynch

Right on JackLynch

Names of cities

Please stop renaming cities to Polish names. The names in use are those known to English speakers. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and needs not be done again. I'll revert all of your changes. RickK 05:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you want Rick?????????????????????????

Except just a few of Polish cities that have a commonly accepted English name like Warsaw, Cracow/Krakow and Poznan) all other cities should be named after their native or official Polish name. Usage of German names of Polish cities in English vikipedia is unaaceptable. Caius2ga 21:07, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

So let's use the English word, not the Polish word which is unknown. RickK 23:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your deletion of Lake Clifton Eastern High School was not in line with our deletion policy. Do you still not understand the policy, or do you just think that you are under no obligation to follow it? -- Oliver P. 01:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We have no policy on deleting "bogus" articles. The policy says that we can delete articles that are pure gibberish (e.g. "dsufygs"), or vandalism (e.g. "this sucks"), but not articles which make perfect sense but which you dispute the usefulness of. Deciding whether or not something is "bogus" is precisely what Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is for. -- Oliver P. 02:03, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't start creating articles to prove a point, particularly not a point about the deletion policy. It will appear to some people as trolling, as it did when BuddhaInside and Calmypal did exactly that. Angela 02:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because you're better than them? Because as a sysop you have more responsibility not to do these things? Because it would clearly be trolling and not done in the good faith that other people are doing it in? I'm sure there are many reasons you should not do this. If you actually change your mind and see the value in school articles, then by all means create them, but for now, I strongly believe that making your case at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools would be a better use of your time than creating articles which you think ought be deleted. And don't let the deletion policy stress you so much. It's not that important in the scheme of things. Angela 03:14, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re: undeletion of Sunset High School - that was me. Sorry, I should have told you but I decided I had better clarify the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy first. The page was listed on WP:VFU. Also, you might not have noticed but anonymous undeletions are no longer possible. Brion implemented the undeletion log on November 5. Angela 04:05, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I apologise for the insult I directed at you last night in an edit summary. --Camembert

--- Please don't list on VfD pages that shouldn't be deleted. --The Cunctator

Regarding User:Anthere/Sev'varannes languaje, could you perhaps notice when someone has asked that a page be not deleted for a little while ? Would you consider perhaps someone may have reasons to do so, and politely ask why before deleting the page again without even mentionning it ? Would you please accept to tolerate the existence of that page until the matter is fixed with user m:User talk:HeKeIsDa ? In any case, I will restore the page as long as it is not fixed, because I provided the link to that page for reference.

Apology I was not clear. I was talking of Sev'varannes languaje which I later moved to my space to avoid you deleting it again. This article (to be deleted naturally) is one of the reference I have to support keeping a user out of creating an invented language wikipedia on meta itself. I provided the link before the last week end, by email, to several users...only to find out the page had been deleted. So I restored it, and specifically asked that the page be not deleted immediately. Which you did, without any consideration for the message I put on the article. So my reference offered to other people was just gone because of your lack of consideration. Perhaps, could you "look" at what is written on an article before deleting it. Or if you feel the desire to delete it immediately nonetheless, you could also report to the one who ask to suspend the deletion that you did it nevertheless. I would much have preferred that the article stayed "as is" in the article space, as evidence; the article being in my space is quite ridiculous. Anyway, I will say again that should you delete Sev'varannes languaje another time, I will restore it again.