NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Hi RickK,

Just went through Newpages and I thought I wanted to let you know that there is a template {{POV check}} for articles that may be biased/POV to be used rather than {{POV}}, which is usually reserved for POV/biased articles that are disputed between editors.

- Mailer Diablo 10:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is back. Haven't been involved in the VfD so I don't want to delete it, just a note to let you know. Rich Farmbrough 13:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's back. Resistance Manifesto. -Willmcw 00:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -Willmcw 01:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a chief concern of the "Resistance Movement" is the monument known as the Georgia Guidestones. Links to the recreated article re-appear there occasionally. AFAIK, the "movement" is a website. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I guess not. However, he's most likely a sockpuppet and probably a troll. Feel free to unblock though—I don't mind at all. Neutrality^talk 05:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, our new Glaswegian chum appears to be well versed in Wikipedia, creating nested macros. See his use of {{User:212.100.250.215/0808 570567|service=[[social science]]|name=John McGloin, [[Glasgow]]}} here. I've never yet gone through the process of proposing to delete a macro and right now lack the necessary time to read up on the procedure. Over to you I'm afraid. (No need to reply; but if you do, please reply here rather than on my page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 08:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I didn't create a bogus userpage: it was my userpage. I don't agree with the racist remarks that were made above and will be making a formal complaint by email to Jimbo Wales. Reply here.--212.100.250.215 08:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL. RickK 08:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

...on the other side of you face soon. ...at 08:31, 2005 Mar 20, the spammer User:212.100.250.215 shyly refrained from identifying himself as the author of this scintillating comment

You deleted this article, but I could find no evidence of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/California English, so I restored it. It seems like a perfectly reasonable article. I'm curious why you thought it should be deleted. Nohat 08:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

California English is demonstrably not the same article as California Accent. I really don't think it should be deleted. I won't revert you if you delete it again, but I really think it's not necessary to have to go through the red tape of VfU. Nohat 08:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never saw the old article Californian Accent, but from what I read at its VfD archive, it seems to have been nonscientific, impressionistic drivel. The article you deleted yesterday, California English, was not a restoration of deleted content; it was an encyclopedic article reporting on published linguistic research, i.e. not original research. And however much native Californian nonlinguists insist either (1) they don't have an accent or (2) there are lots of California accents, the fact is linguistic research shows that there are generalizations that can be made about California English as distinct from other U.S. accents. Please let the article remain. --Angr 08:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)