NOTE: IF YOU POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE WITHOUT A SIGNATURE, YOUR POST WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

---

Throwing insults at other editors is a bad thing, no matter how much you think you've been provoked. You make life harder for all contributers. Dial it back, please. ---Isaac R 20:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You attitude is not fine. Saying "Bite Me" is bad attitude, no matter what you're responding to. Rude behavior by other users is not a license for you to behave rudely yourself. That's just a formula for making things worse. ---Isaac R 00:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cant even be bothered to hold a civil discussion?

Wait, are you the same guy who called me "uncivil" in the same breath you call me "Fuel Gauge", and who then posts an indirect threat on my talk page that says your abrasive comments can, and eventually will, get you in trouble.???

I figured the most "civil" way to respond to your threat was to not engage. FuelWagon 21:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I used the wrong name, it was entirely accidental. It was in the midst of gordonwatts mangling my name every which way, so I assumed it was intentional. apology accepted. Sorry I blew up at you. My misunderstanding. My bad. FuelWagon 22:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously, I meant to write that. The man looks hideous in the videos. I wasn't trolling.

Project2501a 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Lara Roxx from the cleanup page because the article seemed to have been cleaned up and contained the links it required. I am new to Wikipedia, so in the future I will most likely just cleanup and then leave the link for someone else to tend to. Sorry for the messup. Eliotyork 2:09PM, May 17, 2005

Rick, I've been away for a while and even so, I never kept up on much of the project issues going on here. I just came across a couple of new pages in the Wikipedia space that I was hoping you could look at. Check the contributions for 68.250.226.34 -- sounds fishy to me, especially coming from an anon. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing to a rough draft of an RFC against Mr. Boyer with User:Plattopus and User:Classicjupiter2. I know that you've been quite aware of Mr. Boyer's shenanigans for even longer than I have, so I was wondering if you had anything to add to the description and documentation we have written at User:Plattopus/DCB before we actually submit it to the RFC page. Probably best to minimize use of the really old stuff, except as much as it shows that the same problems have occurred over a long period of time without any change. Thanks! Postdlf 23:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the result tables in British and Irish election articles, two templates were created in article space for each party. Unfortunately, being in the article space, they are showing up in the list of deadend pages, and at least one has been speedily deleted. I am checking the incoming links and tagging the redirects for deletion as I go. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you sign User:66.60.159.190 the way you did User talk:66.60.159.190? You're a favorite target of trolls and imposters, so this would help people to realize quickly that User:66.60.159.190 is really you. Isomorphic 22:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my page up for 5 minutes and you put in a vote for deletion. Try reading it all the way through first. Thanks. --JRGNYR

I read it all the way through. Sorry. I'm not a fan either :/ Just how do you win a title in an imaginary match and how is that win notable beyond someone's imagination? -- Longhair | Talk 08:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is what you make of it. But let's not discriminate here. If you're going to leave PTC up, then mine should be left up too. All I ask is that this little process be fair to all, and right now I don't see how it is. Bottom line is you have to be a fan to understand; if you aren't one, you won't "get" it. --jrgnyr

? -- and vprotected? - Longhair | Talk 10:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm having trouble with the vfd page, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 May 14. Whenever I add my entry, something screws up on the page. Am I doing something wrong or is it really not working properly? Marcus2 13:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea for an article! Make sure to list the actors' names and when they were on the show. If you need help, just ask and I'll chip in. The little descriptions are good, too.

As for Jen on OLTL, I always thought Miss Jessica Morris was a no-talent hack (I don't care if she IS from my hometown), so I'm not sad she's gone. Mike H 23:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lily's only 14? Wow. I'm about as amazed as the time I found out the actress who plays Georgie on General Hospital was only like 15 (I think she's 17 now). Mike H 00:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it can be deleted. I just saved some stuff there temporarily while editing because my browser was showing signs of instability. —Mulad (talk) 06:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I don't think it's a copyvio. I've looked very closely at the article and the source page you cited and I do not see the text of our article, or any significant part of it, there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I copied Cdc's stub into the temp, but I still think this is probably a little OTT. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't care about the name too much, although I'll mention that Twin Cities currently points to Minneapolis-St. Paul because, when it had previously linked to twin cities most of the links to that redirect were meant for MSP. —Mulad (talk) 22:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

This query is for the administrator Rick K.

To Rick K:

I may have accidentally used an explicative in: Talk: Evil. Is this the reason for my user id vandal status?

My number is: 152.163.100.201

--Michael 00:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RickK, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have nominated the artical on Dan Gable for the calaboration of the week. But the artical needs as much support as possible. This will be a tough one that has potential to become a collaborated artical with help of people like you. Please place your vote at the collaboration of the week artical under the Dan Gable Section. Thank you very much for your help. ZeWrestler 17:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry for spamming you. I'll further analize contributions in the future before I contact members. Please accept my apology -- ZeWrestler 20:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything further regarding the above article. I read your comments closely and attempted to make the changes you stated. If this has been done, can we get you to cvhange your vote to "Support"? You are still listed as an "Object" on the FAC nomination page. Thanks for your help. -Husnock 17:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I listed the article "Election '05: Timmy Turner vs. Tony Blair" up for deletion, and it has reached a consensus to delete. Please delete the article. Marcus2 22:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though at somewhat of a reduced capacity (in terms of time, anyway). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rick. Thanks for keeping an eye out for my talk page, but Wikimonitor's comments were actually part of a conversation the two of us are having about whether he/she/they should stop using that username. Cheers! FreplySpang (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... as I see you realized, by your participation on User_talk:Wikimonitor. Thanks for your support. FreplySpang (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted on the VfD for Stephen Weierman on the 28th of April. The VfD only received your vote and the posters vote, and was seemingly ignored by those closing VfDs. Its been 're-listed' today by User:nixie, although as it received 2 delete/0 keep as well as anon vandalism I can't see why it should have to do so, as it received delete consensus in April. The image in the article is also still on IfD. Hedley 18:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the ifd header on Image:MeStephenJW.jpg? RickK 21:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I processed its nomination, along with all the others from April 27. It wasn't deleted since it isn't an orphan. I left a note at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephen Weierman (as you saw) asking for it to be renominated once the article that uses it gets deleted. I should have copied the original IFD nomination to Image talk:MeStephenJW.jpg, as I usually do. Sorry about the confusion.

About the backlog at WP:IFD: when I left for vacation, I left a request at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion#Admin attention needed. It appears no one processed IFD while I was gone. I'm back now, but any help would still be appreciated. dbenbenn | talk 21:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading some articles and found my way to Erika Slezak's, so I was pleasantly surprised to find this writeup. Mike H 20:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Block me for doing what? This has nothing to do with that consensus - as a WP user, I have the right to make such changes if appropriate, and as far as these articles are concerned, it is most appropriate to not impose Christian POV terminology upon non-Christian related articles. Iranian history is not Christian, and there is no reason to impose BC/AD. To allow BCE/CE for consistency between articles is the most logical and reasonable action. Jguk has been the only user to oppose such actions so stridently. I am not the only user in favor of this, as you will see if you peruse the discussions related to those articles. Regards, SouthernComfort 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be left to the consensus of the users directly involved with the articles themselves? Jguk has 100% no involvement with these subjects, and is only interested in imposing the Christian POV terms, which I, as a non-Christian, find to be extremely offensive, as do many other users. WP policy says nothing about this other than that both are acceptable. As I have done nothing contrary to policy, I have done nothing wrong whatsoever, nor has Sunray. I urge you to please take the time to consider why I have initiated this action (as I am deeply involved with Iran-related articles), and to understand that not only have my edits been reasonable and within policy, but that furthermore I have done nothing wrong. All of this has been explained before by myself plenty of times already within the last day or so, but I want to be 100% clear about things. Jguk is the only user who has been so insistent on imposing BC/AD without any discussion at all, due to his POV. And again, he has no involvement with aforementioned articles and subjects. Regards, SouthernComfort 22:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of anything. I have not made any accusations against you, nor do I wish for there to be hostility. I did not make these changes out of some 'elitist' attempt to go beyond the consensus or the majority. As I related in my previous message, my actions had nothing to do with the results of the consensus. I am personally not interested in imposing BCE/CE upon any Christian or European articles. Zero interest in doing that. But Iranian history is not, nor has it ever been Christian or connected with Christianity. If you agree that imposing BC/AD upon Jewish religion and history is inappropriate, the same holds true. It is just as offensive. BCE/CE is standard in the fields of Near Eastern studies (one of my areas of expertise) and as I am involved in these articles here on WP, I do not see any problem with my actions, and I believe it should be left to the consensus of those involved with the specific articles in question. I am positive that if you take the consensus of those involved with such subjects, that you will find that BCE/CE is far more in favor. Again, Jguk was unwilling to allow the edits to remain to allow users to discuss. And again, I am well within my rights as an editor to initiate such changes. Please show me the policy that says I am wrong. Regards, SouthernComfort 22:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This anon voted oppose on my RFA and signed as you. I was just wondering if it was you or someone pretending to be you. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The latter. 24.54.208.177 00:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]