Hey. In the future, whenever you add a post to a talk page, please sign your post. Read WP:SIGNATURE for more on this, but basically, all you have to do is add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. There's also a button in the toolbar above the edit box that will insert this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you don't mind my asking, but are you also User:Kazvorpal? --Elonka 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am not. --The Devil's Advocate 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just checking.  :) BTW, I'm in St. Louis too, let me know if you'd ever like to get together for coffee or something.  :) Do you use IMs? --Elonka 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I'm in Missouri, but not St. Louis, I live about an hour and a half away.

It is not acceptable to remove material from an article's talk page, except in an extremely limited set of circumstances. Your deletions constituted a violation of our norms of civility. Please refrain from such actions in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it. However, if the POV is not corrected it will end up at AFD again. --Coredesat 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Moneybomb. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Elonka 07:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moneybomb criticism section

I think you are wrong. The section may need some tweeking. But it brings to light the effectiveness of the concept/idea/mediation of a moneybomb. (The media coverage) As well their was only one direct recreance to Paul. If there is a section you object to like the polls remove it and leave the section. --So what you are effectively saying it is OK to criticize the supporters for choosing a date for a moneybomb but not the media coverage or the lack their off. What kind of bias is that? The point is fundamental to the origins of moneybombs to buy publicity. The section could also show the huge gap between the internet publicity and mainstreem media. --Duchamps comb (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)duchamps_comb[reply]

OK I am not arguing about the section I put together not being all quotes it was. So maybe some of you smart(er) folks than me can come up with something. My belief is the section is Needed, it does not have to be what I put in there. As well the one recreance you mention from the New Your Times said" The revolution, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." the revolution (Ron Paul supporters) So I changed it to, "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." to keep bias down. Some of my refrences would work for someone, NY times, Washington Post, Los Angelas Times--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 wars of independence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2008 wars of independence. Sandstein (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated 2008 wars of independence, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, if you had actual reliable sources, you should have actually cited them: citations from The International Journal of Because-I-Said-So don't count, and it was these unfulfilled promises of reliable sources Real Soon Now that prompted the second AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check #1: "look it up yourself" is NOT an actual reference. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability

Reality check #2: not even close. He could proclaim anything he pleases about his notability in a self-published source, which means it's not a verifiable statement -- pretty much the entire point of excluding them as indicators of notability. Did you know I'm an Emmy Award winner? Let me go create a Blogspot blog attesting to that, and I'll be getting my own article soon. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't so naive you'd know why it was removed, see the talk page for gods sakes. Rodrigue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in other comments, the legitimate reason is that this was not a land-line phone poll, as traditionally conducted, like most if not all other polls on the page.

The link says the methodology was from American Consumer Opinion [1], which does online-paid surveys.reason enough I think. Rodrigue (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want a copy of the article so you can improve it? --David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your many contributions to the hotly-disputed Kosovo issues. Your last change for the intro to "Kosovo", obviously, is far more neutral than the previous version. Thanks.Gkmx (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion [2] of text and citations from the North American Union article. While I recognize and sympathize the fact that you do not feel the article is very accurate, Wikipedia's core content policy Verifiability is very clear that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As such, it is entirely appropriate that the article reflect the fact that virtually all reliable, third-party, published sources view "the NAU threat" as being a conspiracy theory or urban legend (as evidenced in articles such as "The amero conspiracy" in the International Herald Tribune, "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" in The Seattle Times, "Highway to Hell?" in Newsweek, and "Diverted by jelly-beans" in The Economist). As much as I appreciate your efforts to improve this article (which I genuinely feel you have done), deleting properly sourced content that is cited to a reliable source is, at best, highly irregular and really looks like POV-pushing. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what your implying isn't even true, but don't know where your going with it.Anyway, unless you think its wrong I'm just going to remove the section, don't see the point. Rodrigue (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose now your calling me a racist??.If anything the opposite of what your saying is true,but the only polls that were seemingly outlier showed him ahead, which is the ones I pointed out.Oh, and was hillary also not born within the contigious US?.[3], it questions his candidacy the same way john mccain was born in panama.

But I suppose your already made up about your judjement of me, so nevermind. Rodrigue (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't even support Hillary anyway, but I guess I see where your coming from with your POV theories.Though your views seem obvious. Rodrigue (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Devils A, I hope you will get over it, before commiting suicide, so dear Devils A., get help, please, I am really worried about you. --Tubesship (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assassination of Raul Reyes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Assassination of Raul Reyes. bd_ (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've userfied it to one of my subpages. Enjoy! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...in this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's OR?

Also not all are pro-Serb - I'm also working on the UN Charter's support of self-determination, but since you did this, I'm no longer sure where/how to add it..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think a lot of data is missing - including the very crucial UNSCR 1160 and the Contact Group statements. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my intention. Secession of indeed is legally hampered, so even the very best neutral whole article on the question, would be pro-Serbian; that has little to do with myself as a person.

Well then what should I do? End my quest (see the second sentence in my previous post)? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greets. Relplied on my talk page for others' sake (to keep the info in one place). --Mareklug ^talk 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually retarded to be blunt. I thought all these editors agreed with my idea to merge to achieve NPOV not their twisted and biased POV. What can we do now? Beam (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Hm, turned out you were right. The SRS, SPS, DSS, G17+ and DS political leaders in Kosovo made an agreement and scheduled for 15 June 2008.

The Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija shall have 45 Deputies. 43 are elected by municipal parliaments, while the remaining two are reserved one for Romani and the other for the Slavic Muslim minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the above article for deletion. Feel free to add your comments about the article here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho'd/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing how you are updated with Georgian-Russian tensions. :) Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognize that your many interspersed replies to Talk:North American Union were an attempt to keep the discussion focused, WP:TALK states that these sorts of interruptions should generally be avoided. If you feel that you absolutely must insert your own comments into others' replies, please use the {{interrupted}} template before your message so that other reads are able to clearly understand who authored which comment. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've changed the map after your feedback. Maybe you could have a look on it and tell me whether it's better now or not? Thanks -- DanteRay (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha,

I hope all is well. I've been keeping an eye on New Cold War and fear that it will be deleted. As such, I copied the original onto my user page. Please feel free to contribute to it, as I find it a rather interesting subject. Thanks, and

Best Regards,

Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm interested in stopping these deletions, I really don't find them constructive. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I may have been less than completely clear in my closure. While I used the words no consensus I did not mean that was the result of the debate. What I mean is that the debate did not have a consensus to change the status quo. I see the the debate ended largely endorsing the deletion. All debates on wikipedia, whether deletion, undeletion, RfA and so on use consensus to change something...without consensus we don't enact the requested change. Perhaps I was not expansive enough in my closure - I did feel that enough words had been expended by all involved parties.

What I see from both the debate and the preceeding AfD is a consensus, as based mostly in the original research policy, that the article should be deleted. After reading your message I've read the deleted article and see that it is is a combination of original research, a synthesis of ideas and an overused journalistic cliché. The term is widely used, seemingly as a snappy catchphrase, but there is no consensus anywhere on exactly what it means. It has been used by authors since the 1970s to mean many different things. Mostly it seems to reflect the same journalistic laziness that has resulted in "Mother of all xxxxxx" being abused to describe everything large for the last 20 years. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you or Coren properly evaluted the substance of the article. While the term was used during the Cold War that was more to describe a new phase in that conflict or another aspect of it. As such the article had properly noted it had another use for a period in the Cold War and directed readers to that article. Any claim the older usage of the term impacts the article itself is illegitimate. Also original research only comes into play when the subject itself is a product of original research. However, many articles and books discuss it as a concept and idea with a clear definition. The particular areas touched on in the article are all tied together in several articles on the subject, which I pointed out, so while the article itself may have used synthesis, the subject itself was not. This argument however, is simply unaddressed in both the decision to delete and your decision. You haven't given a good reason to dismiss this argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent an instructive few hours today at a library and on the internet reading up on the topic - I have read and reread the article, many news articles and parts of at least 10 books with the subject prominent in their title or subject matter. What is patently clear to me now is that there is no agreement in the wider world of what a "New Cold War" is. I can see it variously used

• to describe any conflict between Russia and anyone
• describing the relationship between the USA and China re: Tibet
• variously used in reference to the Strategic missile treaty dealings between the USA and USSR during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
• Used often to describe other US/Russian tensions post Jimmy Carter.
• Used as a catchphrase (not a proper noun) describing "a renewed struggle for influence between Washington and Moscow" over the politics and control thereof of the former parts of the USSR in the recent book by Mark MacKinnon
• Used to highlight certain assertions as part of a portrait of Putin's "ruling class"'s mindset in the recent Edward Lucas book.
• Used in a book by Edward Crankshaw in 1970 for one use (possibly regarding USSR and China) and by Noam Chomsky much later for another.

As you can see, and I could read on and find many more definitions, there is no consistency except that the term primarily involves either Russia, the USA or both. The article pulled together various, recent, news articles and from this asserted a definition and structure that my investigations show me are original synthesis. While some sources mirror what was in the article, many more do not and there is nothing clear on which to have an article. While there is no consensus definition, the article will fall into the mire of not being ever able to be neutral by having to selectively chose from the available sources. At the deletion review I judged that the consensus decision was for it to remain deleted as original research. My feeling now, after some research, is that the subject is bereft of clear definition and as such, and as the article was framed, will fail to have a neutral point of view. If someone can find that, on balance, reliable sources over time say "The New Cold War is xxxxx" a neutral article may be possible. As it stands the reliable sources say "The New Cold War is <issue of the day involving Russia/USA/China/Whoever>" - not a single thing to write an article that is not a synthesis on. You would need an entire article to simply define the term by noting all of the varied uses of it - rather than the latest effort to focus on Georgia alone. I do note also that the term has been used as far back as the 1950s and perhaps we are beset here with recentism. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was hastily deleted after a consensus for merge was opened. It amounts to nothing short of censorship and individuals following their own agenda. The article was poor, but should have been merged and improved, not deleted. I think the contributors of those articles deserved more than what can only be described as a partisan and unfair deletion of their articles. This matter was grossly mismanaged and, while I was not necessarily against deleting the article, I believe that the users should have at least been given a moratorium for improvement of Neo/New Cold War articles. However, when two particular users saw that this might occur through a merge, they ensured it could not go forward. What you saw were a series of people who had nothing to do with the articles appear, as if by magic, to support two users who, in my opinion, acted dubiously. Either way, the article will be back. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. :) Mathmo ^Talk 09:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little update: A nice reference to the "| New Iron Curtain" 62.72.110.11 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of this talk page has revealed that the following users want the multi-coloured map to be removed, and replaced either with a map that shows only states that have recognised, or with nothing: Bazonka, Tocino, Tone, Hapsala, LokiiT, 195.98.173.10, Pocopocopocopoco, 141.166.152.145, K kc chan, Riva02906 and Mactruth. And the following users want the map to stay as it is: Avala and 195.98.173.10. Therefore, by the powers of democracy, the map must go. Sorry Avala. Bazonka (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) LokiiT (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. :) GlassCobra 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:CANVASS? Messages such as these ([4], [5], [6], etc.) may be viewed as an attempt at votestacking. In future debates, please consider using neutrally-worded friendly notices to nonpartisan audiences. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, canvassing and votestacking are verboten as per WP:CANVASS. Please use friendly notices in any future instances. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made renaming/move of Russian-Georgian war as you and others suggested. Now please help with modification of the content. I have to run right now, unfortunately.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any clarity on this issue. I suggest starting a fresh page move request, per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, with just two alternatives: the current name and the most popular other name (perhaps "Georgian–Russian War"). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on 2008 Ukrainian political crisis, but don't you (also) think the article is getting a bit long. I do :). I suggest we wait till there is a new government or election and then start cutting it, we should/could(?) know what events where really important then... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template suggesting a merger had been up for a long time and on either talk page their were no objections. Also, I did a text dump merger so it was almost guaranteed there would be incongruities. I placed a section-cleanup tag for that. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the template for a long time, mabye someone removed it and then someone replaced it. --Ipatrol (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this fall far short of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should consider going back and redacting comments on contributors, and focus instead on content. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you recently contributed to the article Q Group. I have nominated this article for deletion and thought you might like to know and perhaps share your opinion on the page's nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Q_Group. --  bsmithme  05:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the David E. Carter article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Wikipedia clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule in regards to edits to the North American Union article. It appears that you have twice reverted ([7], [8]) the article back to your preferred version [9]. Rather than engage in an edit war, please consider further discussion of the issue on the article's talk page instead. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

Per Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24 h), I have blocked your account temporarily. While you are using the talkpage and making other constructive changes, you are engaging in a long-term edit war against consensus at the talkpage. If you find yourself unable to convince the other active editors at an article of the merits of a particular edit and if following extensive clearly set forth discussion you find that you remain convinced of your original opinion, please moot your edit to the wider community. The several WikiProjects at the top of the talkpage might be watched by editors who could become interested if you clearly, concisely, and neutrally lay out the history of the dispute and the reasons why you maintain your stance. You might also consider filing a request for comment on the matter. Simply inserting or removing the same text repeatedly, however, is nothing more than unproductive edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should really consider who I would be edit warring against. Consensus is not a majority vote. All three of the editors who reverted my changes hold the exact same opinion not only on my edits, but on the subject itself. The first revert came here, then I reverted that. This was followed by another revert by Canada Jack. I reverted it yet again and as you will see in the talk page Canada Jack changes his mind and agrees with my revert. At this time Orange Mike stepped in and reverted me in Canada Jack's stead who has once again changed his mind. I revert this one more time. Orange Mike once more reverts this. I revert it again. Now Kralizec jumps in and reverts me, furthermore he gives me a warning, while Orange Mike and Canada Jack are not given any reprimand. Indeed, though one could find several violations of the rules by at least one of the editors at no point does Kralizec give either warnings. After I revert it again Canada Jack reverts me. Then after my final revert Kralizec steps back in and reverts me. Amazingly after he reports me and me alone for edit warring Canada Jack rewrites the section apparently conceding that it was poorly-written all along. In all they made 7 reverts together and then seem to concede that one of my reasons for the revert was legitimate. I did engage in an edit war, but it only took place because there were three editors who could tag team reverts rather than doing it alone. However, while they consistently sought to return to exactly the same version my last revert only removed that part I objected to rather than reinserting the portion I supported. In fact, I changed that portion other times to try and meet their objections to no avail. The fact an admin was clearly engaging in what he himself called an edit war, which was started by a user other than myself, is quite inappropriate. If he were being neutral he would have edit-protected the page with my last edit, which did not include either disputed phrase, rather than reverting me and seeking to block me and me alone insuring his preferred version remained in place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wont happen. For good or bad, Wikipedia has overly conservative rules concerning article name moves. When that vote a while back was successfully rigged in favor of the current title, any reasonable chance of changing it died. I share your belief that the current title is not the best one, but it is simply not worth expending any effort on this. And don't even think of trying without about 20 good sources using a different one. --Xeeron (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it "not the best title" it is the worst title to use because it focuses all the attention on South Ossetia and is the least common name used. The fact so many biased editors favor the current title goes to show it also serves their bias. I can not accept the current title and will continue to seek a change. There is no rule saying the title cannot be changed after a vote or even that a vote is the decisive matter. South Ossetia War is used less and less as time goes by in the major news media, not just in the West, but China, Iran, and even Russia. No argument for keeping the current title has any legitimacy on Wikipedia and neutrality was already shot down by several admins as a reason for not changing the title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi TDA, I posted something without getting too involved in the details. I hope it's useful. Crum375 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Xue Hanqin has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stickee (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think weve run into each before except on the current Kosovo status ruling on talk where we agreed. I was just reading your main page "politics" template box and i think we're practically twins (the main page text too if i read it right that you dont support the kosovo thing as is but in theory it could be a-okay). Where have you been hiding? ;) politics and Econ. as an interest...its the ultimate intellectual pursuit. I was wondering where are you from? I see youre probably American. If so whereabouts?

ps- feel free not to answer those q's if you find it too personal. was just pondering cause i was in TX and VA.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being placed on the Administrators' Noticeboard for your ongoing POV-pushing and edit-warring in the 7 World Trade Center article. I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy. -Jordgette [talk] 01:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an arbitration case administrators can impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at 7 World Trade Center. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]