Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
YouTube links are not reliable as any person with an internet connection can upload a file on their website. Moreover, many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
So, now we're not allowed to link to anything at YouTube, period? Is that it? Please confirm, but if so, I find that rather harsh. After all, it's not likely that people like Mr. Coritz will be streaming such video material themselves any time soon, since the bandwidth requirements are obviously prohibitive. --Jwinius16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That claim is utterly ridiculous. YouTube merely has to be authoriszed by the copyright holder to display the video for the link to be valid. Claiming that YouTube must own the copyrights for Misplaced Pages to even link to the video is far beyond anything required in WP:EL, WP:COPY, or the DCMA. Argyriou(talk)17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
..."disruption" is a grossly inappropriate term, and it is uncivil of you to even suggest that a good faith editorial opinion given on a talkpage is "disruptive." Reread the Wiki definition of disruptive, toute de suite.
Cindery05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Only if "the video's copyrights are exclusively owned by YouTube"? That does indeed seem a bit exaggerated. Last month, Dmcdevit removed some of my YouTube links and told me that " In order to be linked to YouTube, they need to have a source and copyright status. This could mean saying he made it and he owns the copyright to it, and then he can release it however he likes." Since Mr. Coritz has added this information to his latest video material at YouTube, I don't see that copyright is any longer an issue here. --Jwinius22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the link. No where on YouTube is it mentioned where it was sourced from, copyright information. If you are only providing the copyright information on Misplaced Pages, that is clearly not justifiable. The copyright information and the terms of usage should be specified on the site which you have sourced. — Nearly Headless Nick09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion? That would suggest that there is still disagreement on the issue, in which case it may be premature to go around deleting YouTube links from other people's articles. As for the link itself, as I said before, the required copyright information, which I only quoted, is stated clearly at the end of the video clip. --Jwinius13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The clip has been copied from another independent source that holds the copyright to that video clip. The copyright information showing at the end of the video-clip does not mean that the copyright holder has licensed YouTube to use the clip. Do you not understand the difference? Why not assume good faith with me and let it rest. There is already consensus regarding the issue on the WP:ANI page. Check here – WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion, but from that it looks like I'm not the only one who disagrees with you. Therefore, you must forgive me if I choose not to assume good faith. It is unreasonable to maintain that it is necessary for the creator of a video clip to sign their copyright over to YouTube before we can link to it. Mr. Coritz now clearly indicates in his video clips that he retains the copyright to his material, so it is no longer for us to assume that he did not voluntarily post his material on YouTube. Indeed, in this individual case we must assume the opposite is true unless we have specific reason not to. In other words, innocent until proven guilty, and not vice versa. --Jwinius14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
...that is incorrect: all the admins are NOT agreeing with you. You do not have consensus AT ALL on any of the many discussions on policy pages--consensus is against you, in fact.
Cindery07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
YOU list them--I could use a laugh. And admin opinions, in any case, donot count for more than anyone else's--takea long look at the NOR and EL policy pages.
Cindery07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Your legal ignorance is currently placing Misplaced Pages in who knows how much legal jeopardy regarding libel--unsubstantiated allegations ofcopyright violation--and there is consensus that YOU are disruptive: please see current discussion at EL regarding filing a user conduct RFC against you, that you should be apologizing, etc.
Cindery02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
YouTube link removals
Please stop removing the YouTube links on "Daniel Edwards" Misplaced Pages page. I'm the filmmaker that made those short films and I have given my permission for the links to be there. www.GoodnightFilm.com
You link to in your edit summaries, but I don't see anything like "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" in the criteria. Am I missing something? TransUtopian16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources and Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. YouTube is not a recognised authority, as I have reiterated above, anyone with an internet connection can upload a video file to their website. Many of these videos are copyrighted by their respective creators and links to those should not be used on Misplaced Pages, as this constitutes direct faciliation of copyright violations. — Nearly Headless Nick16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Transutopian, please see my talkpage, "Ongoing draft of RFC re Nick" and feel free to join in on the RFC/Arbcom case which will be filed.
Hi again Sir Nicho. I thought most of the views at the Afd were for naming it Islamist terrorism instead of Islamic terrorism. Cheers -- Szvest - 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Nicholas,
I am here again.(Since you brought me to life, I wait additional care now.!!)
Please take a look to this case(If you have time);
I opened a TfD.
Creator of Template deleted/divided and transferred my and some other comments. I sent many messages to that user about Tfd.
But he insists to destroy my comments.
He changed the name of Template when TfD in process.
here the last version of TfD( if not changed in some minutes again)Is it alloved this action before TfD close.?
He logged-in as IP and Username, (I think there is no bad faith here), but he emptied IP talk page and User talk page, I found them from my contributions here talk messages;IP talk,
...but I do not know how myself. It is incredibly frustrating when dealing with people who simply won't listen. I deal with a significant number of people who simply ignore the rules because they think they know better but so far have not (I believe) attacked anyone - which I think is pretty good as I'm now at ~5250 edits :).-Localzuk16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Your signature
Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde Weys17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
hi Nick - I don't want to get embroiled in the AP:EL border wars, but I did want to ask you about your removal from John Lennon of the 2 you tube clips. They were not add-ons in an "external link" section, but actually integrated into, and illustrative of, points being made in the text. I stopped reading the EL talk page because I couldn't take it any more, but I recall there being some movement against wholesale removal of You Tube references just because they are You Tube. So are you sure that these 2 need to be removed? thanks Tvoz20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
YouTube links are either copyright infringements or not reliable. Not necessarily so. Policies and guidelines can't exercise judgement, only editors can do that. So when you delete a link, you have to justify why the clip violates policies, not just brand YouTube as "bad." -- David Spalding (☎✉✍) 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly right, David Spalding. Nick, at least please acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion regarding this guideline. I would like a specific response, not a referralto general guideline pages. Thank you. Tvoz05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I have had more than my share of discussions on WP:ANI. I have cared to present all the evidence as to *why* those links should not be used – . There is a notification of an RfC filed on this issue. Please feel free to chime in. David, I think the users *have* exercised their judgment in framing the policies and guidelines. So, when you put in a link to YouTube, you need to justify how it *does not* violate copyrights and *why* it should not be removed. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that a) I find the implication of the statement "all the administrators who are comfortably aware of the policies and guidelines of this place" insulting not only to me, but also to anyone who disagrees with you; and b) I've seen the hit list and a random sampling shows no valid reason for some of those pages even being included on the list. So I have no idea what the point is other than for systematic and indiscriminate excision of all material that you think could be tainted. Directing me to those two pages was a waste of both of our time as it illuminated nothing. This entire discussion is so far out of line with what I understand Misplaced Pages pillars to mean that I choose not to continue having it with you. I asked for a specific reading on a specific removal that you made and you told me that wiser heads than mine "have their reasons". That, sir, is classic totalitarianism, and it has no business here. Tvoz06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus on policy pages is NOT a blanket You Tube ban--the overwhelming consensus is that there are some valid You Tube links, and therefore no blanekt ban is possible. You are grossly in error, and aware of it--you are, at this point, deliberately misrepresenting the truth. We call this lying, and it is evidence of bad faith. The current RFC is a user conduct RFC against you, and to the extent that anyone has even suggested it pertains to You Tube and policy it regards your disruptive behavior in refusing to honor the fact that there is no blanket You Tube ban. See EL, ANI, etc.
Cindery05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have pointed ou already, you can say "I'm sorry, I was wrong"--to a lot of people, as in, the community--and then do something constructive with your time.
Cindery06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop wasting MY time, and the community's time--keeping bullies in check is a dirty job, but bummer for you-- I WILL be doing it. Again: you do not have consensus. You are lying about it. The consensus at the RFC is that you should desist and apologize. Below, a member of the extreme *minority* to which you belong has noted that you are incapable of knowing when the "drop it and move on." There isn't anything for you to do except apologize/get over it/admit you were wrong/move on already.
Cindery08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it's time to dropit and move on...
The debate over the barrington link has become a waste of time. The same arguments are being repeated over and over. I think at this point it is a better use of our time to simply move on. ---J.S23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries on talk pages
Hi. I noticed that you most of your edit summaries to talk pages are just "comment", i.e. that you overwrite the automatic edit summary (normally consisting of section heading). May I politely suggest that you don't do that? — I'm often interested in which section someone has commented, especially in long pages such as WP:AN, and when you erase the section name, the edit summary totally loses the purpose: I still have to use the diff to find out where you commented. At least, please append the "comment" to the section title. Now that you're an admin, you don't have to be anal about 100% edit summaries — the automatic one works better on talk pages. Duja►09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that one is fine (it contains the section title), but this and this weren't; it's fairly difficult to find out where those ended up. Duja►10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Although, it will definitely take sometime before I get used to it. I wonder why nobody else cared to tell that to me, when I have been *grossly abusing the system* since such a loooong time. >:) — Nearly Headless Nick10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably because it's a) only minorly annoying issue (e.g. how long time would it take until you decide to tell a person not to scratch his ass in public every while? >:)) b) difficult to spot on high-traffic pages — it only happened that I saw it twice in a short period on my own watchlist, and I probably wouldn't have noticed even then if you hadn't such a long user name. Duja►10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking at your block log summary here (21 Dec), and I noticed you used the phrasing "etc, etc." Do you think you could avoid using imprecise and open-ended expressions like that? It would be best to say what you can fit in, and what exactly the block was for, rather than vague hand-waving. Thanks. Carcharoth16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I think there was a consensus to delete, but even if you don't believe this to be true, there certainly wasn't a consensus to keep -- no consensus maybe? Andre (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
What consensus? As far as I can see, there were only five participants in the discussion. I produced the sources and closed it. Please don't take this personally. I have made worse mistakes. Cheers! :) — Nearly Headless Nick05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your good humor about it, but producing sources is really not your role in the deletion process if you're also going to close the debate. Besides, there were 3 delete votes, the nomination, and one keep vote which professed ignorance as to "alphabetti spaghetti." At any rate, you closed the deletion with a consensus of Keep, and certainly there was not. I am going to reopen and relist the AFD, since I don't think you handled it properly. No hard feelings. Andre (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:IAR doesn't mean you can ignore consensus procedure just to make things a little smoother and easier. As we're seeing now, that creates problems. Please see my comments on the new AfD. Andre (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. Therefore, consensus is not about numbers -- it can exist within a group of 5 users or a group of 500 users. Andre (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The admin closing the AFD is expected to issue discression. Sometimes the admin is wrong. Thats what deletion review is for. This might be a case of misaplied SNOW, and DRV will sort it out. ---J.S17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not even close to a case of SNOW -- nor has anyone brought that policy up. The AfD was not properly closed and we don't need any input on the decision, we just need a new AfD. Also, J.S., no offense, but you've been an admin for a total of 10 days, I'd recommend picking up some experience before sticking your neck out with possibly iffy policy interpretations. I don't mind, but there are some users who might not be so understanding. Andre (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Mimsy: did you happen to read the policy on how an admin should close an AfD debate? You're supposed to gauge consensus, not use your position to push a decision. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
While I normally applaud any moves to protect a page that is seeing massive reverts, I think that you came in perhaps a tad too early on this one; my last statement on the talk page after removing a section of the article was , indicating that the section needed merely to be rewritten. The request to discuss was ignored once, but I doubt it would have been ignored twice, when my edit summary specifically requested it. (There are some newbies involved, I think). The discussion on that had not begun yet, and so perhaps a page-protect was not immediately called for, as there was insufficient evidence to my mind that people were unwilling to talk.
Hi, Sir Nicholas. Since I was one of the people who disagreed with your block of User:Malber, I also wanted you to know that I don't agree either with some of the more vociferous criticism that followed the block. The policy against an admin's blocking someone whom he or she is personally in a dispute with (whether it's a content dispute or, as here, more of a policy dispute) is a good one. The other problem I had with it was that you went pretty quickly from what seemed like partly joking around ("/me desyops myself ... /me desysops badlydrawnjeff") straight to a pretty long block, which I think surprised a lot of people, and 48 hours was a longish block just for disrupting a noticeboard. But at the same time I definitely hope this user will take into account some of the comments that have been made about his questioning style. We shall see what happens; hoping for the best. Regards, Newyorkbrad17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We can only *hope* for the best. As it is quite evident, Malber has not yet quit his disruptive editing – , nor has he waited for consensus – , , . Such long history of systematic disruption is not to be dealt in the way it is currently dealt in. — Nearly Headless Nick17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You are quite unclear on what constitutes "disruption" (hint: diagreeing with you is NOT it) and this makes your apology regarding the block, your "plea" to the community to forgive to appear rather, er, insincere and contrived...
Cindery09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll drop the whole matter and just get back to editing if you'd drop your pompousness and sanctimony just apologize for the inappropriate and out-of-process block. Here's your chance to be civil. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers on deletion review
This is strange. The {{recreated}} template must have changed since I started using it, because last time I remember checking it, it simply stated "Your re-created article was deleted per WP policy, do not re-create it, use WP:DRV." The "you might be blocked without warning" bit was added since then. I guess I'll use test2article, although it doesn't specifically address the re-creation issue, but can you tell me why the recreated template was made so much harsher? Danny Lilithborne20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I cannot understand your deleting a link from the Derek Sherinian page for a YouTube video interview link. The intereview in question was SHOT for YouTube and identified as such at the head of the interview in front of all of the participants. Yet you deleted the link because of a COPYRIGHT question? We already went through this once, and you have repeated the same mistake. Furthermore, as even Jimmy Wales has publicly stated, the DMCA is the means to resolve YouTube type questions, not Misplaced Pages as an arbiter. And this is NOT even one of those issues, and it couldn't be more clear. The other link you deleted is covered under the DMCA, and the language you refer to I cannot find on WP:EL, although it may have been there at one point. Mr. Sherinian is very familiar his Misplaced Pages page, as is indicated on the Talk page, and has approved all of the outside links included. Reverted again. Tvccs01:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see my talkpage, beginning with "Nearly Headless Nick," and feel free to join in the user conduct RFC/Arbcom case which will be filed against him to desysop him and prevent him from engaging in the long course of unacceptable conduct regarding this issue.
Cindery09:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi - could you explain why this article was deleted please? Was there some confusion with the irrelevant Tuba article talk, or is this a precursor to eliminating all artists in the fantasy field from Misplaced Pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkgod (talk • contribs).
The article did not fulfill the requirements of WP:BIO. A person, in general, has to be notable to a certain extent to have an article on Misplaced Pages. The guideline provides the prerequisites. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the edit I made to the article the day before you deleted it? It fulfilled two of the requirements of the WP:BIO and I included many verifiable references to point out that fact; they proved not only is she notable but a.) she's one of the most prolific and desired watercolorists in contemporary fantasy art, and b.) she's just as or more notable than most similar articles (on contemporary fantasy artists) that remain on Misplaced Pages. Would you please review that edit I made and reconsider your decision? Inkgod00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Summary of your concerns - let's talk here
Hi, I appreciate the discretion you used when you posted the first admin noticeboard discussion on my talk page. I just wanted to get a summary from you on your concerns. I would appreciate it if you could post them here as I would prefer to get your independent thoughts without the others chiming in. Thanks. Alan.ca04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Alan. I know you have been acting in good-faith; but others don't think so. I saw that some of the articles you prod'ed were clearly notable; or atleast deserved an AfD. You have been propounding the beauty of {{prod}} and saying that if the articles are notable then someone will remove the tags, and when Chacor and Tixotd decide to remove some of the tags from the page, you accuse them of contrib crawling. Please see that you tag the articles properly, otherwise it will only cause misunderstandings between users. You can take help from Aaron, who, in my opinion, is an exemplary administrator. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick08:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for recognizing my good-faith intentions. I think I'm going to have some WT:V discussion with other editors as it seems that the policy may not represent consensus. It seems that things change here as far as policy and maybe someone taking a fresh look at a newer version of a policy reaches a different conclusion than someone who has been around through the evolution of it. Aaron's advice was prophetic and I hope to grow from the experience. I hope we can meet up again under better circumstances. Alan.ca10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Nick, would it be possible for you to review the article Hamilton, Ontario and make some suggestions from a quality perspective. I have near 60 edits into the article and could use an outside perspective. Alan.ca10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I am an IRC fairy, not an IRC pixie. There's a huge difference, and I don't appreciate you changing it on my userpage, especially not without talking to me. Please don't do this again. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
As to "sockpuppet" allegations based on checkuser results: are you aware how few IPs there are in many third-world regions, and how much IP-sharing occurs as a result? – SAJordancontribs18:08, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Clearly "Kuntan" is in fact used as a given name, in the real world. – SAJordancontribs01:00, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Is there any particular reason that you have chosen to stand up for a particularly vile troll, SAJordan? Kuntan and his idiotic sockpuppets have merrily trolled a number of RfA's, ANI, userspace, etc... -- Samir धर्म05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not addressing his contrib history, I'm addressing the username issue — which is the only thing he was blocked for. If you want to have him blocked for trolling and sockpuppetry instead (and can prove those, better than the accusation about his name), go right ahead. But why is this spurious username block defended by simply deleting a comment that questions it? – SAJordancontribs07:34, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
If you check the history of User_talk:Kuntan, you can see users including myself requesting him to change his obscene username. The word has an obscene meaning in Malayalam. The user in question is indeed a Malayali and is very much aware of the meaning of the word, as can been see from his edits to the Kuntayithote article he made. The hideous images he had on his user page further point out his disruptive nature. Also, I also fully endorse the above mentioned revert. A blocked user's userpage is not the place to put up questions regarding his block.--thunderboltz08:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
No, a blocked user's talk page is where an {unblock} request would be posted — but since that's been protected as a redirect to the user page, the user page is as close as anyone can get... and the blocked user himself can't post there, thus can't appeal on his own behalf. And with "Kuntan" being the name of a town in Malaysia, what happens when one of its residents says where he's from? Or wants his home town in his username, like User:BostonMA or User:Newyorkbrad? – SAJordancontribs20:40, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Common sense: don't advocate for trolls. Kuntan was blocked, and it's a good thing as he was inordinately disruptive (and still is; look at the offensive sockpuppets he's making). You don't know the history, and haven't taken the time to look it up, so I'd suggest that you not try to vilify Nick for a good administrative action. -- Samir धर्म09:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
"Vilify Nick"? I'm discussing a block and its justification, or lack thereof. This isn't about Nick himself, good, bad, up, or down. – SAJordancontribs20:40, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I don't care whatever definitions exist for the word "Kuntan", he created the account for trolling and hence the WP:USERNAME was absolutely inappropriate. You can check the contents of those particular categories and the later part of my talk page to see how he continues to disrupt Misplaced Pages by creating sockpuppets. Also, do not come up here after receiving requests from trolls. I know what I am doing. — Nearly Headless Nick11:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone creates an account User:HellNorway (because he's from Hell, Norway), the fact that "Hell" is in other contexts an expletive does not make it inappropriate in this context. We have a User:Dreko, despite any possible accusation anyone might make that it contains the obscene word "Drek", because "Dreko" is a real-world given name, and even a company name. "Kuntan" is also a real-world given name (a football player and a police superintendant were given as examples in newspaper citations above), as well as a real-world town name. The same reasoning should apply. And if anyone, of any name, including "Nick" or "SA", uses an account for blockable offenses, that makes a block for those actions appropriate, but it doesn't make the WP:USERNAME inappropriate. As for "do not come up here", does that mean don't communicate with you via your talk page? – SAJordancontribs20:40, 25 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Hi Nick. You posted a final warning about vandalism on my page. I'm mystified by this - I'm a completely responsible contributor, and have never fooled around with article content; nor will I ever do so. Comments / explanation welcome. Regards, Notreallydavid06:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You also posted a final warning about vandalism on my page and I don't know what it's about. Is this a mistake? It must be, but it's a little disconcerting. Do you have any idea what this is about? I can't help but be curious. Thanks for responding.---Storyliner 06:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, and Merry Christmas.---Storyliner06:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Nozuka. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Apparently some vandal has been imposting Sir Nicholas with sockpuppets and posting {{test4}}s with his signature. They are being dealt with as far as I know. - Mailer Diablo08:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I got one, too. He seems to have hit 14 editors so far, from his "contribs" log here. Another editor has already reverted the warning on my page. Thanks for the quick work. Casey Abell09:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea13:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
W00t on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of W00t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRBerry (talk • contribs).
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral)
I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year!
All the best, Asterion13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Confused
Hi. Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I was a bit confused by one of your comments. You state that "Also WP:BIO candidates are not speedy candidates." I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstand the A7 category. I would appreciate any clarification. Thanks --BostonMA15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! According to me, this edit (specially Crypto-Christians) doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. The editor had added similar stuff to Christianity in India, but was reverted. The data presented in the tables do not match with the official India census records. We can't even access data from the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) by David B. Barrett, et al. as its not in public domain. Can you suggest stance in these controversial topics? --Victor20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My Talk Page
Hello. In the future, please don't remove other people's comments from my talk page -- i'll take care of it. However, it seems as though you had good intentions, and I thank you for your concern. Just H22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
— the automatic one works better on talk pages. 
