User talk:Chairboy/Archive2

Spiritpresent

After accidentally marking his page Farm Sluts as an attack (since to me it did not appear to be a genuine page) and notifying him on his talk page, User:Spiritpresent has apprently felt it necessary to call me mentaly retarded. After I apologized and retracted my statement he apparetly felt the need to go an make my article Doll Graveyard marked as an attack page. Could someone tell him to cool down, as he probably doesn't want to listen to anything I say at this point. -WarthogDemon 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about the poor useage of pronouns. I meant "your" as in "it seems he went to my page and clicked on the article I started up," not as in, "my own property." Sorry for the language confusion there. And I'll speak neutral from now on. (Heck I consider all pages "everyone's page" - I love it when everyone contributes.) ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Main Page

I don't think these edits of mine should be reverted. --64.229.178.41 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my edits there. Thanks. --64.229.178.41 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

fuck u possy vigina

Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [1] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Subst:

Hi, I've been doing that since day one, but I'll take your word for it, as you've gotten more techno-savvy. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Usernames w/o user:

Hey, thank you very much. I can't believe I missed that part. Khorshid 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spiritpresent

After accidentally marking his page Farm Sluts as an attack (since to me it did not appear to be a genuine page) and notifying him on his talk page, User:Spiritpresent has apprently felt it necessary to call me mentaly retarded. After I apologized and retracted my statement he apparetly felt the need to go an make my article Doll Graveyard marked as an attack page. Could someone tell him to cool down, as he probably doesn't want to listen to anything I say at this point. -WarthogDemon 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about the poor useage of pronouns. I meant "your" as in "it seems he went to my page and clicked on the article I started up," not as in, "my own property." Sorry for the language confusion there. And I'll speak neutral from now on. (Heck I consider all pages "everyone's page" - I love it when everyone contributes.) ^^; -WarthogDemon 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Main Page

I don't think these edits of mine should be reverted. --64.229.178.41 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my edits there. Thanks. --64.229.178.41 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistent and unending dispute with Mr Conradi

I am, apparently, a newbie at this kind of dispute resolution. I have no idea what to do, but ask you, since you have dealt with Mr Conradi before, to please see [2] and advise me what the correct procedure is. I have endeavoured to correct material errors in his edits, as well as to remove inappropriate references to myself, and he simply reverts every time. He is well over the three-reverts rule. I am probably also over the rule, but my reverts have in every case attempted to correct and improve the article, while his have simply been gainsaying. Please help. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Subst:

Hi, I've been doing that since day one, but I'll take your word for it, as you've gotten more techno-savvy. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTCbitch)

tyler lindsey wuz here 014 hell yea

Usernames w/o user:

Hey, thank you very much. I can't believe I missed that part. Khorshid 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I am leaving Wikipedia

Chair boy said : "Your snarky comment aside, the reason the HOTSOUP article was deleted was that it was being used to create notability for the site (it made no assertion of how HOTSOUP met WP:WEB), which is just not kosher. I protected it because the people making the article tried gaming DRV by "voting" a number of times and deleting other people's comments. If you're sure you'd like to align yourself with them, you're more than welcome to, but it will hurt your credibility." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to be "snarky" (code word for unwanted criticism), I was expressing my newfound disgust with the entire Wikipedia project and I will admit that Wikipedia is not the place to do so. For that I apologize. As for my credibility, I would not want it aligned with anyone involved in this "wiki" project. I once thought that collaborative enterprises were a good idea but after being accused of vandalism by vandals, observing the most petty of personal politics, seeing information blocked for ideological reasons (there is still not even an article saying what HOTSOUP is in even 3 sentences - can a thee sentence article be corruptible? BTW how many articles have you deleted as opposed to edited? judging by the comments it is a lot.) and reading the most corrupted of articles I can honestly say that I have never seen an idea seem to have so much promise yet yield so much garbage. Goodbye Chairboy and goodbye Wikipedia. Apple Rancher 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

kthxbai - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Brassiere measurements (deletion)

What happened there? Am I doing something wrong? I was trying to reduce the length of my article by starting a sub-articleMgoodyear 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to start articles with content. Use the preview button, an article should never be unable to stand on its own. All you had was a template. Do it all at once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just copying over the content! - will try againMgoodyear 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Manifesto

Thanks for reviewing my article. I'm uncertain that the article fulfills the a1 requirements for speedy deletion. I'd be grateful for further explanation. Best regards - Ezratrumpet 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're writing an article about a memo about Yahoo.com supposedly written in 1972. Is there anything suspicious about that you'd like to revise? Looked like nonsense, considering the date. If there's a legit article in there, then please repost it with the proper info. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was written today - my birthday, in 1972. Force of habit. I'll revise it. Many thanks! Ezratrumpet 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sxcbunni

Hi Chairboy - I read the username as "Sexy Bunny," which to me is a name that refers to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual preference including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. Of course, if you disagree pls unblock the user - I would recommend a name change though. Rama's arrow 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"MaverickFootball" is too closely associated with the NBA Mavericks team; although NBA, its quite close to the name of a sports organization. Please undo if you feel its unjustified. Rama's arrow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is really more towards getting names like User:Hugecock and User:Gapingvagina. I'm concerned that overenthusiastic blocking of innocuous names is a form of WP:BITEing that will chase good contributors away and hurt our credibility as admins. I'm unblocking that user per your offer above. Regarding the Mavericks, admin consensus has been that it's more towards names like User:Dallas Cowboys, things that are clearly trademarked. 'Mavericks' is a popular name for school teams across the country, do a google search. I'll leave that block alone because I can see some merit, but I'd like to advise throttling back the username blocks a little. Ask yourself if it is CLEARLY offensive or CLEARLY infringing please. In the example of SxcBunni, is it text you might see in a Hallmark store? If so, then it's probably not offensive, unless, like me, you are offended by Hallmark in general. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - its true, I'm a recently appointed admin and could use such practical tips - I'll unblock "MaverickFootball" to allow the user to clarify his intentions. Thanks for the advice, will definitely slow down. Rama's arrow 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Let me know if I can help in any way. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A question - as you can see, I'm a "strict interpretationist" of policies. A 3RR block I recently made was also based on strict interpretation. But now twice there was some criticism of my decisions. What approach do you suggest I take over policy interpretation - for example, your advice above is of caution and slightly "loose interpretation." Rama's arrow 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I read up on that specific block, and I can see the trouble. 3RR is an important policy for preventing back-and-forth churn. Personally, I feel that the missing ingredient was any sort of warning. The edit didn't appear to be a revert, and I think the 3RR report itself from the other fellow may have been in error, but I tend to believe that leaving some sort of "Hold on here" chillout warning for the offending party and giving them one last chance before blocking is a good idea. That gives them an opportunity to say "Hold on a minute, I don't think this is a revert" or "Thanks, I didn't realize it" before getting hit with the hammer. If 4RR happens once in a while because you give them a chance to fix their hurtin' ways, nothing is gonna break. We are not nuclear control engineers and the Wikimedia servers will not go supercritical and kill thousands if we make an error, so I tend to err on the side of WP:AGF. Also, one thing that another admin said that I took to heart is that blocks are not punishment, they're designed to slow down/stop disruption. Don't think in terms of "punishing a user", think in terms of "put the brakes on X happening until things can be worked out". You'll live longer, your blood pressure will come down, and somewhere, a flower will bloom just a little brighter because of it. Hope this helps! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I feel the 3RR violation was valid, your advice is most sound and self-evident. I already maintain that blocks are not "punitive," but many thanks for helping me develop a better decision-making judgment. I am in your debt and at your service whenever u could use it, Rama's arrow 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GPS/Angara

The edit in question was made before your original message. Your original message seemed to be mor informational than inquisitive, and therefore it seemed as if you were not expecting, or requesting a reply. I don't tend to reply to messages unless they ask a direct question or I require more information. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

If you're referring to the Apollo hoax page, at the time I assumed they were vandalism, like maybe that one user (starts with a 'C', I think, but I don't recall his name) had come back to haunt us. I see that Bubba73 has restored them. I defer to his and your good judgment. :) Wahkeenah 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Carfiend", it was. Gone but not quite forgotten. :) Wahkeenah 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warning

I'm not sure if noticed but I have only reverted the Space Warfare page twice today and only 3 times total. I am clearly not in violation of the policy. In any case I think that I explained my reasoning on the talk page. I hope work with you in future and by the way I definitly like your powerloader costume, if you haven't already you should take a look at the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual.Daniel J. Leivick 00:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Tutts

I have recreated the page and have proof under References. Please don't delete it again! --SilvaStorm

Okay, you really need to stop deleting the article as I have clearly stated it is a work in progress. --SilvaStorm

Yes, I would like to know why The Tutts section is banned. There is no reason to have a band's section on here deleted. Nick waters 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)nick waters

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Check out WP:MUSIC to see why it met WP:CSD A7. I salted the page because Mr. SilvaStorm kept recreating it without addressing the A7 problem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, that was a pointless thing to do. It is like deleting the Britney Spears article before she became a huge star...just wait and see. --SilvaStorm

Besides, what did I miss out on? They're a band, I had proof of their existence, and the article had a sufficient amount of info on it... --SilvaStorm

If you'd like to change the applicable policy, post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). If you disagree with my actions, feel free to post to WP:AN/I. I still think you haven't read any of those links I sent you which would answer your questions, so I can't really help you anymore. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand why this was deleted. They are a band, and a good band at that. They just are not that popular among the 'MTV' crowd yet. When they come out with their CD, they are going to be big. I recommend an unblock of this article.68.5.31.247 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Nick Waters

Thanks for "Rotary Support"! :)

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. Your support means a lot, and I was glad to see some references to my username! I'm curious -- are you a fellow rotary owner? Anyway,thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm a big rotary fan, I'm building an airplane (Cozy Mk IV) which I plan on putting a turbo normalized 13B into. In the more immediate term, I'm thinking of buying an engine-less LongEZ and putting a N/A 13B on it. These engines are just about perfectly suited for aviation, not just your undoubtedly pretty RX8. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Stephencolbert

If we know that the User:Stephencolbert account is not really an account for Stephen Colbert then it should be possible to remove the statement "Block pending identity confirmation" from User talk:Stephencolbert. The basis for a checkuser evaluation in this case has never really been explained ("It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects"). If there was a request made to check the IP for the the User:Stephencolbert account then who made the request and on what basis? If the check was done, who did it and what was done with the checkuser information? Some people have claimed that User:Stephencolbert is a "vandalism only" account and so a checkuser evaluation should have been performed. I do not understand how we are supposed to uphold Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and still decide that the User:Stephencolbert account is a "vandalism only" account. I do not understand why Wikipedia needs to prevent discussions and remove discussion from an editor's talk page when members of the community want to discuss the editing that was done by that user. Members of the community should be able to ask honest questions about administrator and checkuser actions. "If you feel I've acted improperly...." <-- I think we are dealing with a unique situation that requires community discussion. My interest is in understanding what happened and making sure that Wikipedia's response to what happened is reasonable. When unanswered questions about what happened are simply deleted it only produces the appearance of a cover up. Why not help the community answer the questions that have been raised rather then erase the questions? --JWSchmidt 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account, it was blocked because it's an impersonation account. As for "the community discussing the editing done by an editor", if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of "lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?". We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head. That's why I encourage you to bring it up there if you'd like. Tawker made the checkuser assertion, he was our designated contact with Comedy Central too, so feel to follow this up with him too. At this point, Colbert's word 'Truthiness' best describes the belief that it was actually him. We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account" <-- This is not my misunderstanding.
"if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of 'lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?'." <-- It would be interesting to have a panel of objective judges and ask them to decide what fraction of the material you deleted can really be characterized in the way you suggest. In any case, each edit should be evaluated on its own merits. When there is an edit that does not contribute to constructive discussion the first step to take is to discuss the matter with the person who made the edit. If such an editor does not correct their behavior then harsher action can be taken. It is not right to delete dozens of edits from a talk page just because some of the edits are silly. If a discussion becomes old and stale it can be placed on an archive page.
"We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head." <-- I hope you realize the damage done to Wikipedia when project participants make claims such as, "we know things based on IRC discussions, but we cannot explain how we know," and "Admisinstraters do not have to answer questions about their actions and we can delete discussions and stop discussions because a bunch of us got together on some other page and decided to do so, but I do not remember when or where."
"Tawker made the checkuser assertion" <-- I had a chance to chat with him on IRC about the checkuser. The trail seems to go dead at that point in the chain of events. What we really need to know is who did the checkuser, on what basis was the checkuser performed, and what was done with the information obtained by the IP check.
"the belief that it was actually him" <-- This is really a minor issue. In my opinion, it is more important that we understand what happened on Wikipedia after the two small edits from the Stephencolbert account. "We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state." <-- Please provide the link to where this community decision was made. Please, explain the "technical means" that allow you to be sure who created the account; in particular, state who performed the checkuser action on the Stephencolbert account. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This really isn't worth fighting over, if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead. I don't claim any ownership over the page, I was just the person who implemented the consensus. We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time considering the nature of the issue. If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge, let's chat about this on AN or AN/I. I'm just a janitor and I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety. If formalizing the admin consensus here is needed, then by all means we should do it. If you'd like assistance in getting this done, I'd be happy to make the initial post for you. There is no conspiracy, there is no plot to 'kill teh colbert', we just did what we did because it was unnecessary disruption (not his original edits, the massive influx of 'loldongs! you rule!' posts). If your specific problem is with my protecting the page, chalk it up to "WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do" and RFC me if you feel its necessary. As far as villains go, I'm subpar at best. I don't even have any sort of good spandex costumes or anything, and my 'secret lair' is a modest house in a suburb in central Oregon, not the lava filled volcano caldera I might have wanted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"isn't worth fighting over" <-- I have no interest in a fight. I agree that it was wise to do a checkuser on the Stephencolbert account, block the Stephencolbert account and since so much time has now passed it makes sense to strip the Stephencolbert talk page down to a simple request for identity confirmation.
"if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead" <-- I think your action was a reasonable action; I'm not sure that you are the one who should have done it.
"We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism, <shrug>, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time" <-- I do not have a problem with making use of IRC in this way, but I know it bothers other Wikipedia participants. In my opinion, if Wikipedia participants are bothered by these sorts of things then it helps to let them discuss the situation. Since most people who were concerned seem to have lost interest, I'm basically satisfied with the window for discussion that was allowed.
"If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge" <-- I have no personal stake in this matter beyond a hope that Wikipedia as an institution can learn from what happened.
"I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety" <-- My questions about deleting discussions from the talk page and preventing discussions by protecting the page from editing arise from by belief that it does not hurt to let people talk. The more fundamental problem is that for myself and others it is not clear that existing checkuser policy provides an avenue for checking the IP for a user account such as the Stephencolbert account. I find it a bit strange that nobody within Wikipedia seems willing to discuss the matter....the consensus seems to be that it is wise to let this sleeping dog lie. I guess the key dynamic of the situation is that the checkuser policy is something that comes down to the community from the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation now has an "ombudsman commission" that can play a role in suggesting needed adjustments to checkuser policy. I'll just pass the matter on to the ombudsman commission. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Refining checkuser policy for better guidance is a good thing, let me know if I can help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

SETI

I have already discussed this with a moderator about the SETI, and as long as it is put as a conspiracy (not claimed as a fact, similar to a JFK conspiracy) it is acceptable. But how can I stop people from removing it (especially if they are not registered) without telling me why they want it removed? If a section this large is to be removed, I need to first talk to them as to why (debate maybe?). "We have confirmation - and I'm not going to give the name yet because we are trying to coax this guy out of the closet - but one of the senior most people in the SETI project" ... that is why the name cannot be given out (safety for the person's name). I don't understand why you will block this. For a guy to come out and make a statement like that, especially while at the same time bringing up Paul Allen's name. I don't think Paul Allen would approve of him doing so, yet I have heard of no denial at all from Paul Allen (he also brought up Carl Sagan name). For him to go public, in front of many people, and have his videos uploaded knowing well that he used Paul Allen's name is risky because of the wealth and influence Paul has (to use Paul's name within a lie would not do him any good), and for him to get away with it as a "lie" cannot work in this situation because Paul Allen has not stopped him. nima baghaei 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nima, first of all, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. I'm a Wikipedia administrator, which might be what you're thinking of, and our job is to keep the project afloat by doing mop-work by preventing disruption. When I removed the section in SETI, it was as an editor. I removed it because, as I wrote on your user talk page, it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is not Art Bell. This is an encyclopedia, and the claim in its current state (without a published, reliable source) does not belong here. If you can provide a news article from a respected media outlet or something that otherwise meets the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then it can stay, but otherwise it will have to be removed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why a "conspiracy" would need even more references! I have a video of a guy, coming out in public, using names most people would not use, bringing what should be considered a "conspiracy." I do not understand why a "conspiracy" need a Newsweek or New York Times for a reference! If I was to find a book written by the guy, and I referenced that, would that help? You see, I cannot tell how I can backup a "conspiracy" with a "respected media outlet." Conspiracies do not start sometimes with respected media outlets. If you do not find understanding with what I have said, I would like to speak with someone else on the board of administrator. If you remove this section, you must remove every conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, and if not, I will need to speak with someone else. nima baghaei 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, other conspiracy theories written up on Wikipedia reference articles and books that were written that talk about them. It is not appropriate to "start" this using Wikipedia, as you seem to imply above. This is not a press release center, this is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOR for more information on why this is bad. If you'd like to contest this, then I suggest making your case on WP:AN/I. Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you need to clarify somethings. First of all, what is the "Wikipedia reference articles" because I would like to write one on the subject then. Second, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? Yes I am taking this to that board, and I will have them take a look at it. Please go and remove all other conspiracy sections now. Hope you hear from me soon. nima baghaei 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If I've been unclear above, I apologize, but I'll try again. I've provided two links that are immediately relevant to why I have removed this specific conspiracy section: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOR. When you see text like this underlined, it means that if you click on it, you can view the article. I'm not sure what "Hope you hear from me soon" means, but you sound upset. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not clarified anything new for me. I understand what the underlined text means, so is your assumption then I did not understand it? I would like to know once again how a person can have the right to remove a section without first informing the user who put up the section why it was removed. If you were the one who did it, I hope you will not do that for other users. You have to inform them or give them notice the moment you remove it. I do understand how to click on a link, thats how I was able to get to our short and continuous conversation page you are currently encoding in your memory. Would you like my to clarify what I have just said? You sound upset, believing that I am upset. Once again, what do you mean by "Based on what you've written above, I'll be removing that section now."? nima baghaei 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Please review the policies I've linked to above. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. In regards to your last question, I've removed the section in question from SETI. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to go and search for more conspiracy sections to remove? There are many, you should have a look, strange SETI was high-priority. What do you mean by "Based on what you've written above", I need to know which part and what I said that could cause you to decide so quickly to remove the section, for it seems from the way you have spooken that the you would have given me a lot more time then you actually gave me. I have contacted the Disclosure Group, and I am asking them to send me references. You have no right to just remove what I put up because of "Based on what you've written above." nima baghaei 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You've given no indication that you've either read the links I provided nor the reason why the section was removed. Until you do, I don't see what we have to talk about as I have answered your questions more than once already. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

for a start, my revert wasn't improper as you failed to provide a description and i believed the original version valid - secondly, right here, right now: i am willing to go into an edit war about this - consistency is of far more value to wikipedia than reliability --Danlibbo 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you enter an edit war, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

oh god no! please don't threaten me with blocking what ever will i do? oh that's right, for a start you need warnings, then i can get the argument moderated and if i am still blocked i can create a new account - watch me shake with fear --Danlibbo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

see here--Danlibbo 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review the applicable policies which I've drawn to your attention above, they should help resolve your confusion. If they do not, let me know and I'll try to help out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

don't you wuss out by just being patronising - i know what you're arguing but i've shown how it doesn't apply - the conspiracy exists, mention should be made of it - it's that bloody simple - if you can't follow an argument's line don't get involved --Danlibbo 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

if you fail to make a reasoned argument against the mention of the conspiracy (you have failed to do so as yet) i will restore the section and we can continue the debate on the talk page --Danlibbo 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to recheck the thread at WP:AN/I. As I have said (and I suggest you be WP:CIVIL), the conspiracy theory isn't the problem, it's the quality of the source that asserts it. You have both promised to edit war and have made statements about coming back as socks if you don't get things your way. Both of these reflect an attitude that might be better exercised elsewhere. If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• i've attempted civility and you've failed to answer the argument (since i identified to you the flaws in your argument and tried to redirect your efforts you haven't contributed and have only tried to evade your responsibility - if you get involved, either stay involved or get out) - now it's up to you and nima to propose rewrites to the section
• re the quality of the source - wtf? the source is the mention of the conspiracy theory - it's existence is the evidence - you still seem stuck on the fact that i'm trying to argue the validity of the theory (which is just stupid - why would i know what SETI's been up to, let alone the NSA or NRO?)
• if you disagree that mention of the conspiracy theory should be included on the page, provide a suitable argument and we can discuss it - but stay on point

--Danlibbo 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"If you cannot edit Wikipedia in accordance with the principles established by its founder and supported by the community, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia at all." - if you can't argue a point, then perhaps you should not get involved in the argument --Danlibbo 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered your questions, and I cannot control whether you act on the information I have provided. If you feel you have been wronged, I encourage you to request administrator assistance on WP:AN/I again or begin a WP:RFC about my actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

btw - i think you may have missed this --Danlibbo 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't miss it at all, you changed horses midstream. On the 27th, you and I are in agreement. Sometime after that, you seem to have switched to a viewpoint where the request for a source that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources is somehow offensive and warrants you threatening to edit war, come back as sock puppets to disrupt, and so on. I am constant as the northern star, my position on this has been quite stable. My suggestion to you: Read the applicable policies and re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

oh ffs - for the last time, i'm damn well aware of the policies and the bloody pillars - you argued that the video wasn't a sufficient citation and seriously misinterpreted my argument and i argued that it was the only possible reference and tried to clarify my point and all you could do was evade the debate

my suggestion to you: stop being so patronising and try to understand the difference between taking a viewpoint and acknowledging that a viewpoint exists

--Danlibbo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anyone being patronizing. This is about a Youtube link not being an adequete reference for an extraordinary claim. If you want to add a paragraph about the conspiracy, then please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's all that's needed. Let's go over a quick summary: You restored the section improperly, explicitly threatened to edit war, told me that if you were blocked you'd come back and disrupt as much as needed to prove your point, asked for someone to help on WP:AN/I and had my actions upheld, then you ended up restoring a subset of the section anyhow despite this, and through all of this, you feel somehow that I've been the troublemaker here? The facts do not seem to support your assertions. Your edit warring, threats, and incivility are all inappropriate. I don't know what's wrong on your side of the keyboard, but please fix it before editing again. One last thing, if a Youtube video is the "only possible reference" (which you assert above), then the text does _not_ _belong_ _on_ _Wikipedia_. I really can only point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources so many times before I begin to assume that you're not operating in good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

jesus christ! for a start i have never made any post on WP:AN/I and my original restore wasn't improper as you provided no argument - but the point is that I am not - repeat NOT - making any assumption to the validity of the claim in the video - but the existence of the video is surely not in doubt

just ask yourself: "has someone claimed that there is a conspiracy?"
the answer is of course yes - for a start there's the guy in the youtube clip, then there's also nima and i'm guessing plenty more

that's the end of it - the argument is over - a conspiracy theory exists

i'm arguing a theory exists (regardless of it's truth) & it should be mentioned on the page

you're arguing that a reliable source needs to be found before the theory can be true or not - I TOTALLY AGREE! the arguments are exclusive

--Danlibbo 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

and it's 'adequate'

I better understand the nature of your misunderstanding. The reference is not needed to prove whether it is TRUE or not, there needs to be a quality reference that makes the assertion notable. If I record myself saying "I think that John Lennon conspired with the CIA to create music that could duplicate the effects of LSD so they could use radio to control the Soviets", that doesn't mean that my conspiracy theory should be mentioned on John Lennon, CIA, or USSR. ANYONE can claim a conspiracy, but not ALL conspiracies should be mentioned, only the ones that have met the bare minimum of notabilitity via Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Does this clear things up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

that's what i've argued for days now - it's good to see you've caught up - now (finally) the argument as to whether to include it or not: here --Danlibbo 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then how many of my "You tube does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources" statements did you miss above? Also, I notice that when you re-added the text back to the article again, you once again did so with the Youtube link, not the news article. Finally, there's still the matter of your unacceptable threats to edit war and sock-puppet. Your conduct during this has not been appropriate, and I once again encourage you to re-acquaint yourself with the 5 pillars and review the relevant policy. We're all volunteers here, and this is not a battlefield, it's an encyclopedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you got it - wtf man? Menial stuff out of the way: I know my threats were "inappropriate" - I was attempting to be "inappropriate" - I wasn't abandoning reason, I was letting you know the parameters of the argument so you could still pull out (obviously I should have made the core of the argument more clear). Now:

If Air Force One crashed in a field and someone put a video of it on YouTube, that's clear proof, and a reliable source.

If Prince Charles announced his desire to abdicated on TV and someone put it on YouTube, that would be proof, and a reliable source.

If someone put a video of themselves, saying that Air Force One had crashed, on YouTube, that would not be anywhere near reliable.

Thus because the video is the event itself it is far, far better than the Register article.

It's not just black-and-white 'don't cite YouTube' - if the video is commentary, it's inappropriate, however if it's the event itself it's the best kind of a reliable and verifiable source. If you want the register link then ADD IT. You are an editor: you are allowed to edit as well as plainly delete. So do you get it yet (it's pretty simple logic)?

--Danlibbo 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report the news. If this is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, then someone will write an article (that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources no less) about the claim. Otherwise we're giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to non-notable sources. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And that would be a different argument--Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, attempting to be 'inappropriate' to make some sort of WP:POINT is bad chess. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

¿Que? I don't play chess...I kept beating all my friends, and I like an argument where I know the limits --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you to comment at the talk page, but last time I thought you knew what you were talking about you lost it pretty quickly. Care to summarise my argument in your own words? --Danlibbo 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil. I've explained why the link in the form you re-added twice was inappropriate. If you feel you can add the section back with references that meet the criteria that we have repeatedly addressed, then go for it. If you repost it with nothing but the youtube link, then it's disruption to prove some sort of point, and I expect better of you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

pixel

1. {{AutoReplaceable fair use}}=WP:CREEP--Pixel ;-) 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Patto1ro "Editing other peoples comments"

Actually, he was editing his own comment there. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page

With additional questions. Please reply there? Thanks! · XP · 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a soapbox (reference desk comment)

Thank you for reminding me that the reference desk is not a soapbox when I commented on how using drugs was, at least in my eyes, a "bad idea". Yes, I considered not making that comment, but should wikipedia really be giving out advice that could ruin its reputation, or perhaps even kill the person asking the question? I don't mean to disobey any rules about commenting on questions, but I do recall seeing a rule about wikipedia that said something like 'If a rule prevents an improvement from being made, break it.' or something like that. Similarly, I'm sure that many people who help run the reference desk would not like a question such as this one on their conscience. I didn't mean to be posting my opinion, but answers to questions like "are there any easily made narcotics" could really screw up someone's life and/or Wikipedia's reputation. That is why I said that giving an answer to a question such as this one is generally a bad idea. The issue here really is, "should Wikipedia really be giving out that sort of advice?". Thank you for reminding me, though. Ilikefood 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that you're asserting some sort of moral supremecy over anyone else who answers. You can choose not to answer the question because of your beliefs, that's fine, but that's not what happened here. Instead, you tried to stop other people from answering. If something like this happened again, you might instead say "Please be careful, narcotics can be dangerous. Also, you may wish to review this article to see what some of the possible legal consequences of doing this are. - ~~~~". That's a way of sharing your concern and "covering Wikipedia's reputation" without imposing your POV. A reference desk librarian gives answers, not moral counsel. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point on the way that I answered it. I shouldn't have said it the way that I had. You are completely right that I should have said that maybe he/she should review Drug-related crime instead of me telling him/her that it was wrong. Sorry. I just got a bit over-excited. Thank you for the advice. Ilikefood 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock info

Hi Chairboy; I'd be interested to see the evidence linking XP to Rootology, if you could email it to me. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Chairboy, I don't need to see the evidence. However, before taking any further action on this or responding to requests for the data, I'd appreciate it if you contact me privately. Thank you. --Durin 12:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef Block of User:XP

What was your rationale for determining User:XP to be a sockpuppet of User:Rootology? User:XP had a multi-month long edit history [3], and denied being User:Rootology when asked. [4] Abe Froman 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The identity was determined through a combination of technical and other means. Any administrators who would like to know more can contact me. The history of the user in question requires certain protections be taken, but the identity is not in doubt, and this is not a theory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry evidence isn't always made public, as that would teach the puppeteer how not to get caught next time. In the past, I've circulated evidence to the arbcom members and to some uninvolved administrators, but I haven't posted such evidence publicly. Personally, I'm satisfied in this case. AnnH ♫ 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned a legitimate user with a divergent opinion [5] from the majority of admins commenting on the Request for Arbitration in question has been blocked. No rationale for why this user was determined to be a User:Rootology has yet been given. How were these two users determined to be the same? Given that User:XP was expressing opinions anathema to dozens of Admins following the Request for Arbitration [6], I hope you understand why I am concerned an Admin simply silenced him. Abe Froman 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern and I support your inquiry. Indefinite blocks should not be casually used, and the integrity of Wikipedia admins must paramount. Please note that I was not involved in the discussion you mention and am a neutral party. The evidence used to make the decision, furthermore, was unambiguous. I would rather a hundred vandalsocks go unblocked than ban a single innocent user, so the quality of evidence in this had to, by definition, be neutronium (as a measure of solid). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to review. Abe Froman 19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the ANI thread Abe is agreeable to having me review the evidence. Can you email thatcher131 at gmail dot com? Thanks. Thatcher131 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 reviewed the data and I am satisfied with his review. Thanks for being open to it. Abe Froman 00:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for keeping an eye out for fellow editors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RJ Holsten Article

Why was this deleted? I gave ample reason for it to stay up. Maddox 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddox rools (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not for stuff you just made up. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps Myspace is the website you're looking for? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This was not made up in school one day. Me and a bunch of other people actually sat down and said, "Is it actually possible that RJ did create God?" when he stated that he had. We then did some tests and confirmed that it was possible that RJ Holsten created God. This wasn't through random facts either, actual things that happened in his life point to him having created God. Maddox 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The other policy you may wish to familiarize yourself with is WP:NOR. What you describe is, at best, original research and is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nanking film 2007

(You said) Hello, just a heads up about the above article. You used the fact that another similar article had been on Wikipedia longer as a criteria for speedy delete. That's not a valid WP:CSD, but your later addition of the copyvio claim was, and I have deleted the article. In the future, please use care in choosing which criteria will be used to delete an article. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure which took precedence. So many templates to choose from for CSD,.... I appreciate the tip, every day I learn something is a Good Day. David Spalding (☎ âœ‰ âœ) 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

why was the Billy Wright article deleted? the notability page describes that persons who have been also NON self-published then are notable and worthy of an encycolpedia article. he has appeared in numerous poetry and literary magazines and has authored a few books...

scheme implementations

Hi Chairboy, you deleted my stub about the Larceny scheme implementation. Of course technically your reason for deletion is valid, but this is not a bogus article. Please reconsider. Thank you. --MarSch 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not correct. Though there is little content, there is enough context I think. --MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"""Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub."""--MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire article was "Larceny is a Scheme implementation." I understand your frustration, but the article needs more than that to stay, otherwise it may as well just be an entry on a list. Expand it, describe what makes it different from other programming schemes, etc. The one sentence above, however, meets the criteria I applied when deleting it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was using that as a template for creating some articles. It includes formatting/linking and an external link. Could you undelete it so I can expand it a bit? --MarSch 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chairboy. I've written a new article. Hope you like it. --MarSch 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedist

Yeah, I noticed that after putting up the notice. Some banned users have notices on their talk pages as well, I wish we'd be consistent about that. Thanks for letting me know. —Chowbok ☠ 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're chucking a hissy fit, you know

"It appears as if you're not getting the response you anticipated, but I encourage you to pause for a moment, see that consensus already exists, and accept it"

I'm more than a little bit dissapointed at the tone you've taken on several occasions through out this Cydebot deletions micro-drama. I'm assured that everyone involved in bot-land gives tacit approval, no objections raised, etc etc etc. What I'm not clear on is why you (and Cyde) have taken such a hostile and confrontational tone. From where I sit, it's quite straightforward:

1. The policy page says "Bots do exactly what they say on the tin or else."

   I'm fully aware that policy and guidelines are descriptive not proscriptive, but they should actually be descriptive. If you mob are doing lots of other things than what's written down, write something else down. Which would require consensus just like any other policy change does. If there is anything in this statement that you can possibly disagree with, I don't know what.

2. Cyde was running a fully-fledged unsupervised bot under his admin account using admin functions.

   God only knows that Curps bot did yoeman's work, but it was also controversial. This work is hardly as time-critical or critical full-stop as the work it did. If there is anything in this statement that you can possibly disagree with, I don't know what.

Statements 1 and 2 don't match up, not by a long shot. When I asked about it, I got the polite three fingers and "Go write an article or something." Sweet. Admins and bit-runners should respond fully and civily when questions are asked, and in this case he was both and neither, in that order.

If someone says again that Cyde should be thanked for all this, I'll spew. It wouldn't have killed him, or any of you, do consider that you're a tiny percentage of wikipedia adminstrators and that everyone might not have agreed with the whole "tacit approval for unsupervised admin bots" thing. Now it may turn out that they do, although I have to say that the sample on Pump right now is a slightly biased one. But whatever the outcome, I don't see why I have to continue to be pilloried by you for intruding into the bot fiefdom and simply asking the question.

brenneman 04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, though I'm not sure that 'hissy fit' is an accurate description. To be frank, I was unaware of the situation until you brought it light today, which was a good thing. I read up on it, considered what it was doing and the work it was saving, then I began pushing the BAG to formalize the bots status. If you review the message I left for Betacommand on Cyde's page, you'll see that I feel that the BAG should be taking the heat for this, not Cyde. They've apparently all agreed in everything except a formal statement that Cyde is 'doing gods work' or somesuch equivalent. The tone you take with me in the text above doesn't seem to match the situation. I have no connection with Cyde, I haven't told you to 'go write an article', and I don't believe I've been incivil (which you imply). If you disagree with any of these statements, I request some diffs and explanation, otherwise I feel you should retract or reword them appropriately. We're all volunteers on this project, Mr. Brenneman. I'm not being paid, you're not, Cyde isn't, I don't know anyone outside of the foundation who is. This is something that stays the same across the project and the administrators. But there's something that does change every day: The growing backlog of work. _Something_ has to be done, and Cyde has decided to assert creativity in a method that the relevant parties have decided is ok (albeit after the fact). The BAG group, while failing to meet their responsibility by making a direct formal statement on the matter, _have_ made individual statements in support of Cyde's automation. I challenged your assertion that this wasn't the case, and I did so in a clear, civil manner. I would ask that you respond in same. If you disagree with what I am saying, then let us discuss it on the merits of the argument. Please don't interpret my disagreement with poor manners, and you definately shouldn't lash out at people with whom you have a difference.

We're all volunteers here. This is not a ren-faire where admins pay to come and churn butter by hand, we are a loose conglomeration of human janitors trying to keep the project in focus. AWB or a related solution would be great if there wasn't 1. something better and 2. a person willing to volunteer his time and effort to do it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, we've both churned a lot of words out in the last couple of minutes! Starting from my use of "hissy" which I'd have considered fairly harmless and working backwards to your "Nyet", I am able to re-read your Pump comments in a different light. I could explain carefully how I'd taken each mis-step in interpreting them, but I'll just skip to the end: I thought you were giving it to me good, and I was wrong. I didn't intend for you to feel I "lashed out" at you, no more than you intended to me to feel that you had. Hip-hip, cheerio, and all that?
brenneman 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mind if I removed the duplicate comments from my talk, I'm happy to have it all be here.

No worries, sometimes it's hard to convey meaning through text, and it's certainly easy to misinterpret tone. Let's agree to an intellectual disagreement over procedure and leave the hate rays for where they belong: Our spouses. Shake hands? (ps, feel free to clear the chat from your talk page, I'm in the habit of copying conversations texto intacto, but it's not a big deal and it all gets archived eventually anyhow.) Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• <shake> My spouse says she can feel your hate rays and that you'd better keep them above her neckline if you know what's good for you. </shake> brenneman 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do your homework

Learn some manners, and do your research before returning again to my page. Giano 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A request

Chairboy, could I ask you please to consider unblocking Giano? The block will only make things worse, and he was arguably provoked by an editor he's been in conflict with leaving a warning template on his talk page, which was guaranteed to heighten tensions. It would go a long way to quietening things down if you were to unblock him yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin, I'm not familiar with the provocation you're talking about, but I don't see any connection between it and the reason I chose to block him. Please review the diffs, including the message he left for me immediately above yours, his calling me childish when I asked him to be nice, etc. I'm an uninvolved third party, and he's being disruptive and incivil. Unblocking him would be absolutely improper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano is saying this was planned on IRC. If you were part of that, and I have no idea whether you were, please unblock him and allow a completely uninvolved admin to look at the chain of events. If you weren't involved in any IRC discussion, then of course I apologize for the implication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The incident Slim refers to was hours ago. I know, because I've spent the day trying to defuse it and get parties to back off. I'm not sure how/if it is related to this. We were getting a certain outbreak of peace on ANI, but Giano seemed quite keen for further conflict. He was baiting someone into blocking him. Whilst I'd unhesitatingly say the block was well merited. The effect is not good. it is only likely to heighten tensions.--Doc^g 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There was absolutely no plotting on IRC. It is an unsubstantiated claim. If he uses logs to make a case, I hope that he provides accurate and complete logs (and does so out of public of course) because they will show quite clearly that any claim of conspiracy is inaccurate, misdirected, and completely off base. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate Halloween Costumes

In the film 'To Kill A Mocking Bird', Scout dresses up as a ham for a school play and subsequently rolls around in her costume as she and her brother are attacked. How would you go about making such a costume? --Username132 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Neat costume idea! Hmmm.... large garbage bag filled with crushed newspaper, then spray painted to look like a ham, then a piece of cardboard as the open sliced end (where it's been cut into) with some cloth 'slices' partially folded open, also painted? I was thinking of a ham like this. At some point, stick a person into it so it's as if they're wearing a large ham. Sounds like a fun project, however you do it. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cane-do page

apologies, just at the time I believed it needed deleting but I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Regards.......Tellyaddict^Talk 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Frank Beuselinck

You deleted my page on Frank Beuselinck who is one of the Captains of Industry of Belgium. The page was created less than an hour ago and marked as a stub to indicate that it needs further work. Pvosta 19:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! It was tagged for deletion under Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria Articles, item 7. There was no assertion of notability in the article. If you can meet the WP:NOTABLE criteria for the subject of the article, I encourage you to rewrite it appropriately so that it doesn't get deleted again. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Star

Article was not "blatant advertising"; it was a stub. Are you familiar with the fashion industry? The company is certainly notable. Anyway, whatever. Merry Christmas. Perle 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

your message on my talk page

I used "illegal" in terms of the clearly stated rules at Fair Use. So why don't you chill out and stop threatening me? Tony 11:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm unaware of any fair-use images on my user page, and it's unnecessary to point out the rule concerning that. Please specify which one, rather than making non-specific allegations. Tony 11:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Apologies: posted on the wrong user talk page. Tony 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yogani Article Deletion

Hi Chairboy,

Just wondering why you went ahead and deleted my article after I had contested it and was writing an extremely detailed explanation of why the article had been previously deleted and why it should have a home on Wikipedia. Please let me know. Thanks and have a great day. Mdyogi 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Please see WP:CSD General criteria, article 4. The community had decided to delete it via the deletion process and it had been removed. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chairboy,

I'm going to copy the explanation here that I had written after contesting the deletion. I hope it helps to clear things up a bit:

I realize this article has been deleted before. What had happened was that the article had been originally deleted due to Yogani writing the article himself, without realizing that it was against the rules. Following the deletion of that article, I took it upon myself to create a new article on the subject which lasted until a few weeks ago, when it was deleted based on the discussion of the original article. What I'm getting at here is that I believe there has been a mix up leading to the deletion of the recent article, which I was the author of. It is understandable that the article would be deleted due to the author being the subject, but why would subsequent articles written by others be deleted automatically on the same grounds? By going back and reading the discussion surrounding the article, you can clearly see that this is the case. If for some reason the article was deleted for "notability" reasons, I can offer the following on the subject.

Yogani is the author of the Advanced Yoga Practices (AYP) websites and corresponding books. The free instructional websites of Advanced Yoga Practices have received over 100K unique visitors over the past three years (verifiable). The six books he has written so far are selling consistently (and often significantly) within the 100K rank level on Amazon in the USA, Canada and Europe (http://www.aypsite.com/books), and are in the process of being published in India as well. Yogani was interviewed on national radio in November and December (archived recordings and schedule can be found at http://www.aypsite.com/audio) and is scheduled for additional national radio appearances in January and beyond. I would hope that a subject who is currently redefining the way that spiritual practices are taught and utilized is extremely notable, if only for this reason alone. This is the main focus of the article, as it is what makes the subject stand apart from the many others in this field.

On the topic of advertisement, there is only one link to the website (in the links section), which would be certainly relevant to the article as it is the location of the subject's main body of work. Also, the website is 100% free, so there really isn't much to be gained from any kind of advertisement. If you'd like, I can create a list of many spiritual teachers with articles on Wikipedia containing a link to their website.

I hope we can get this sorted out, as this article should certainly have a home on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and have a great day. Mdyogi 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article and for your note in the discussion. Your time and help is greatly appreciated. Best wishes and Namaste.  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdyogi (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Oh, as you neglected to include a storm joke you may wish to view my favourite which is viewable at tinyurl dot com slash ygpje9 ;) Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me. And I'd like to give you an apology too: One of my first admin acts was to undo one of yours at Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, you G12'ed it and I restored as the source site is in the PD. Seeing as we were both on IRC at the time, I should have poked you first, but oh well.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

SETI

Reverting evidence that SETI may wish to start looking closer to home first. What a great edit summary! Thanks for making my day brighter! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPP and Hruodlandus

Just FYI: not having seen you post at WP:VPP recently, I don't know whether you saw my comments/links there in your thread on username blocks, about the block of Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus (the Latin name of the historical Roland), now lifted by the blocking admin. -- Ben 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not-censored" box

Not meaning to "stalk" but rather to learn by example from your contribs, I saw your recent exchange on an article talk page where there'd been repeated requests to censor text, pictures, or the entire article. Thinking, perhaps naively, that one clear statement up front might help reduce the repetition, I came up with the following box, and added it at the top of that talk page. If you'd find it helpful, please use or adapt wherever you deem suitable. -- Ben 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

An interesting idea. Let's see how it's received by others. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did mention it at the project talk page. So far no-one's complained, though the week is young.

I have now turned the above box into Template:Notcensored.

Also, someone else had created a longer block of text, with a stop-sign, that specifically fits (and is on) the talk pages of articles with images of nudity or sexual anatomy. I've adapted this into Template:Notcensored2, with two minor changes from the original text: 1) removed a blank line from top, 2) used BASEPAGENAME to provide the article name automagically, so that doesn't have to be typed in every time.

It's probably better to "subst" these -- {{subst:notcensored}} or {{subst:notcensored2}} -- rather than make the poor computers transclude them each load. That also reduces the risk of being affected by template vandalism.

But would you please protect these two templates anyway? -- Ben 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't transcluded onto the main page, they don't need to be protected, this _is_ a wiki after all, heh. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:India - re

FYI. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

congratulazioni

File:Animalibrí.gif

You have won the "Name Giano's Bird Competiton", and are herby awarded a Spumoni of your own. Giano 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are you going to name yours? Paul August ☎ 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, an interesting quandary. These animated birds eat twice their weight in controversy every day I hear, so I'll have to wait and see. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I had been thinking of Woody for mine or Max, I had a toucan called Max when I was little - but he was a little vicious, so how about Woody afeter Woody the Woodpecker. Giano 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Woody it is! There may be those who would protest that a hummingbird's diet precludes the types of grubs a woodpecker enjoys, but that would be a failure of imagination on their part. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, Woody always sounds cute, while poor old Max had that great big frightening mouth. Be careful though they breed very fast. Giano 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Karmafist

Chairboy, I don't think that Karmafist's devotion to this project can be denied, right up to his demise. I don't think anyone ever tried to engage in debate with him and/or his supporters. So Wikipedia chugged right along without making any of the changes recommended by Karmafist, when in fact considering these changes could have been beneficial to the encyclopedia. Did we follow the rules in blocking him? Yeah. But I think it was detrimental to the project. Juppiter 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you characterize his fleet of sock puppets? BTW, thank you for your thoughtful reply. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was irresponsible, but I think that he was absolutely pushed into a corner. In addition, these sock puppets were created to block the ascension of user:Carnildo to adminship, which has been more harmful than anything Karmafist ever did. As a matter of fact, Karmafist made me aware of the sockpuppets before the Wikipedia community discovered them, and I was more offended by the witchhunt against the anti-Carnildo crowd that ultimately uncovered the socks than I was by the existence of the socks. It was good that the socks were uncovered, but that every single oppose vote in Carnildo's most recent RFA was inspected with such scrutiny was a travesty to me. Juppiter 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam4Adam

It appears you deleted the article Adam4Adam. The article had verifiable references that established notability. Adam4Adam has been discussed in newspapers across the United States and, given the opportnity, I can produce an avalanche of evidence of this. I had nothing to do with previous versions of the article; I didn't even know they existed until yesterday. There was a hold on the speedy delete and I didn't get a chance to respond. Put the article back and allow me the advocate for the article per Wikipedia policy. I am an earnest and guideline-abiding Wikipedia contributor and I don't appreciate this abuse of authority. House of Scandal 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no 'hold' on deletion. If someone puts a {{hangon}} template somewhere, it's a tag to draw someones attention to the talk page where they make an argument for why it shouldn't be deleted. If you couldn't be bothered to do that as you imply above, then the use of the template is meaningless. Second, I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you. Like everyone else, I'm a volunteer here, and I'm under no obligation to put up with abuse. I suggest you reconsider how you interact with people on the project going forwards. Assume Good Faith is a vital foundation of Wikipedia, and you've chosen to ignore it. I don't know why you felt your first reaction must immediately be hostile, but it was unwarranted, inappropriate, and out of line for working here. I hope you won't mistake my choice of inaction as another "abuse of authority", but I can't control your perceptions. I can only ask you to use more consideration when speaking to fellow editors in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I checked it out again, and I'd like to clear up a misconception. I didn't speedy-delete it because of unverifiable content of because it was a repost, please note that I provided the following delete explanation: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization" It fails to meet WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. Feel free to have a 2nd admin review this for you or bring it to WP:DRV. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a "hangon" which you choose to ignore. You not liking my tone is no exuse for you abusing your power, covering up your errors, or whatever. You wrongly deleted the article and you have violated policy. We're not done. House of Scandal 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, for some reason I have Chairboy's talk on my watch list, and I noticed this and I thought I'd chime in. While it is true that it might have been "nice" if Chairboy waited a little longer for the explanation from you, HouseOfScandal, there isn't, in fact, any reason why it is necessary to wait if the article clearly satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion, and I agree with Chairboy's assessment that it doesn't meet WP:WEB. If, however, this was the first or second deletion of the article I might be inclined to undelete it myself and send it to AfD. However, this is the sixth deletion of the article (one of which was reversed), and the ground was actually salted for a couple months, so it was clearly understood that it shouldn't be recreated. Your behaviour doesn't add to my desire to undelete either, HouseOfScandal. So if you want a second admin opinion, I give you one: Keep it deleted. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know about previous version of the article. The article had WP:V and WP:N. Even spammy, unWikified crap goes to AfD. To just press a button an eliminate a substantial article that someone had obviously created in good faith is very, very wrong. It was undeleted yesterday because, as the admin stated, it was undeleted in error without looking at it. What is the "hangon" template for if it can just be ignored? No different that either of you, I am a volunteer here. I work very hard fighting vandalism, creating and editing articles, and improving Wikipedia. If in my place, How would you like it? House of Scandal 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)-

From the {{hangon}} template itself: "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon." I understand your frustration, but casually ascribing malice to things you disagree with isn't a good way to get things done. If you still disagree with the speedy delete criteria used, I encourage you to use deletion review to pursue this. If you feel my actions have been in any way improper (which your text suggests), I encourage you to request external review at either WP:AN, WP:AN/I or via the request for comment procedure. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway you look at it, Chairboy, your decision was made without checking to see if it truly failed WP:WEB. I realize you're as busy as the rest of us, but it is clearly a notable site. The New York Times wrote an article about it a few months ago, after a site user was murdered through an assignation arranged there. A truly interestingWiki article could be written about it. I, for one, would like to see the article, evaluate it, and perhaps improve it. Jeffpw 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but your claim that I made no effort to see if it failed WP:WEB is inaccurate. I see that you're a member of "Category:Wikipedians against notability", and while you're entitled to your own opinion, I'd ask that you keep in mind that the notability policies are still in force, and if you'd like to change them, a better place for that would be via WP:VPP instead of my talk page. BTW, Alexa ranks it at over 7,000, and the articles cited appeared to mention it only in passing. If it's a notable site, then DRV will reflect this. Have faith in the process. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• You in no position to lecture me or anyone on civiliity or Wikipedia guidelines. There is more to civility than avoiding cusswords, sir. Being an admin doesn't make you any smarter or more worthy of courtesy than a brilliant contributor. HoS has something like 40 or 50 articles on DYK in months and the disrespect you have shown him, and by extention the whole Wikipedida community, is unworthy of your mop and keys. If you had "faith for the process" you would have proposed that article for deletion. The actions for which you seem so proud are shameful. Shaundakulbara 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shaundakulbara, those kind of messages aren't helpful. As Chairboy said to me above, have faith in the process. I am confident the article will pass DRV. Let's relax a bit for the moment. Jeffpw 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:PopeofPeru

Regarding this edit, c'mon. What are your goals vis a vis Wikipedia? Please have some consideration for the folks working on it with you, and refrain from this type of attack. We're all in this together, and comments like that do nothing to further the goals of the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realized it needed a bit of qualification and so I added a thing to it to further explain my rational... And while you are right, that comments like that do nothing to further wikipedia, neither does deleting user's user pages without asking them or offering to bring it back if they didn't want it to be deleted. Like I said in my additions to that comment, plenty of wikipedia admins have barnstars on their pages, to me at least, this is just like that, and does not qualify to be called "myspace material". -- itistoday (Talk) 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GymLeader_Dalton

I turned this guy over to an admin. He should be blocked soon. Thanks for your help. :) Wahkeenah 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

May I ?

US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy in 1942

I received your message. May I go ahead and put this picture in a Second World War related article with a caption like, "US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy?". At one time, Turkish army uniforms had double row of buttons, but not during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). If someone comes up and says, "Hey! Those uniforms are not that war!", it's a valid argument. Cretanforever 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. That's not a Speedy delete criteria. The proper thing to do is to fix the caption. If you're still unclear about this, then do this: Read WP:CSD. You nominated the image for Speedy deletion, and I've told you that "I think the caption of the image is wrong" is not a valid speedy delete criteria. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the user who uploaded it should be made to understand that editing in an encyclopedia is a rather conservative exercise, and in the specific case of wikipedia, there are rules to respect as you cite yourself. It's amazing that the image is around since months. I am not the fixer or the headmaster of Kalamata primary school. I will proceed differently. Cheers. Cretanforever 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not a tool for "teaching someone a lesson". Please use care in the future, and use the correct methods for fixing problems - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to User:PopeofPeru

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- itistoday (Talk) 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't see anything ironic about your message to this user? You were just defending PopeofPeru's right to blank pages two days ago. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said he was right to blank the Reality page, instead I was trying to show that his action required special treatment from admins and that this was not to be treated like a case of ordinary vandalism, which BTW was exactly the case with that anon who blanked his page. -- itistoday (Talk) 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why remove Puppets from deletion?

Their indefenetly banned, their one-time puppets used only for vandalism, whats the point of keeping their pages? Roxanne Edits 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Which article/users are you referring to? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Dscwp, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Xachna, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Evicorator666, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Nueroqhyer, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Nuerephyre, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Bearcatz

These users are puppets who werwe permenently banned. i just don't see the point of keeping his/ her pages. Roxanne Edits 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CSD, the criteria for what constitutes a speedy are pretty clear, and don't cover this situation. In fact, there's every reason to keep the pages, as their existence makes it easier for someone to detect the recurrence of the banned users at some point in the future. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If im not mistaken #5 says "Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned. This does not apply retroactively; contributions of banned users before they were banned should not be deleted under this criterion."

Can't this be interpeted liberaly. Roxanne Edits 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But that explicitly contradicts what you're asking for, unless I don't understand something you're saying...  ? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, have a good one. Roxanne Edits 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

KKE Architects, Inc.

Chairboy: First off, I am FOB (fresh off the boat) to wikiland and I apologize for giving the speedy deleted KKE Architects, Inc. page the appearance of an advertisement (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=KKE+Architects%2C+Inc.).

I am guilty of my own ignorance, but would appreciate the opportunity to revise the page to eliminate any notion of company self-promotion and display an accurate encyclopedic format.

My intention is to list the company information in a non-gratuitory manner, list the company history, and notable projects (similar to the "Skidmore, Owings and Merrill" page)

Unfortunately, I did not save my word format edit file, and you have deleted the only version of the page. I would appreciate it if you would email me the text (if you cannot temporarily reinstate the page on wiki).

Please feel free to reply on my talk page. Thanks!

Jisher 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, I've userfied it to User:Jisher/KKE Architects, Inc.. Take a gander at WP:CORP before reposting it, please, the wiki is very sensitive to things that look like advertisements at the moment. Best regards, and welcome to Wikipedia! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of William Cox

Hi there, just a reminder to please check the history of articles before deleting or tagging for deleting. This article existed as a valid article for over two years, was vandalised on 28 January, and was tagged for speedy deletion less than a minute later. -- Chuq 09:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: your administrative decisions

I've created an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy which I hope will generate some useful suggestions for you to consider. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to give you a heads up this had been posted, but I see the filing party has already done so. At the moment, the RfC is completely without links or context, and I've asked the filer to provide links to what he's talking about, as right now the claims are impossible to evaluate. Having just read this page, it seems implausible that you are "unfamilar with deletion criteria" as alleged, but we'll see what specific instances he's complaining about. Newyorkbrad 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I left out the link in one of my preparatory edits. My error, sorry. Will fix. PS, I am a she. Shaundakulbara 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go check it out. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view this RfC is totally unnecessary. I think you expressed a valid concerns at WT:LGBT. In response to them, in a later discussion I clarified what sort of conduct I felt was permitted by WP:CANVAS and what is not. Appeals to Projects to save articles from being deleted do seem to cross the border of what is valid, whereas asking projects to lend their expertise to finding reliable sources to confirm notability is probably all right. I can see why you were concerned by the post that was made at WT:LGBT and in any event an RfC is hardly needed to question one speedy deletion. I doubt a other editors will certify the basis of the dispute. If they do, I will state that I believe your conduct was appropriate in the circumstances. Maybe it is time for WP:CANVAS to include a statement as to the extent and manner in which it is appropriate to inform projects of XfD discussions? WJBscribe 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the above. You have not only acted completely within Wikipedia rules, you have been unfailingly friendly and helpful in the face of determined pressure - down as far as helping the (misinformed) complainant by answering a horrifically badly-structured RfC. You have my admiration for your coolness under fire <tips hat in appreciation> 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, fulfilling the trust the community has in me is vital. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article which you speedy deleted 3 days after becoming an admin has since passed AfD debate. I hope the opinions regarding your performance received in the RfC forum will help you to follow guidelines and avoid conflicts in the future. Best wishes. Shaundakulbara 01:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A note, the article that passed AfD was significantly better sourced than the one I properly deleted under A7. I wish to also draw your attention to the community consensus regarding both my actions and your behavior. I will continue to exercise the WP:CSD as I have before, in line with the policies set down by the community and the Wikimedia foundation. No change appears to be necessary, but I thank you for your efforts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Douglas Genn

Hi. I see you moved Robert Douglas Genn to User:Rgenn, but User:Rgenn seems to have moved it back. Just thought I'd let you know. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

aXXo revisited

Over one million google hits seems to be a fair indicator of notability, by my standards (summary: if it surpasses Bajoran wormhole which gets 44 thousand, it is notable). I know it's a fairly arbitrary standard, but think about it -- people are more than twice as interested in aXXo than in one of our oldest and most stable articles. I'm not stumping for reinstatement of this article, but I went to it to edit it, and found it nonexistent and salted, with you at the helm, so to speak, and just thought you might find it suitable to change your opinion on notability of aXXo... or at least keep abreast of the increase in notability of this entity. If there's no article, I certainly won't edit it, and I'll leave it alone, but I think this article will be written eventually. How's the weather up there in the Willamette valley? I used to live in Walton, just below Richardson Bridge on the Siuslaw. I love the area and the people, and plan to move back eventually. Nice meeting you, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. User:Pedant 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolutions Afterschool Program

Is there a way you can revert the Evolutions Afterschool Program deletion you made. There are several independant publications concerning the organization: Here are a few: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/15340 http://www.museumpods.com/id39.html Thank you. Please let me know if you can revert it. Ketan 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a copy to your user area at User:Ketanof92/Evolutions afterschool program. Please update it appropriately before moving it back to the Wikipedia. Remember, it must meet notability requirements currently best described in the WP:SCHOOLS proposed guideline to avoid another deletion under A7. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ketan 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Question re Copyvio deletions

Hi, glad to see you dispatched those two Mike Gravel articles. But I'm puzzled. I also tagged a third article -- Tom Vilsack presidential campaign‎ -- that was created by the same user, Nick37, and for some reason it hasn't been deleted. I figured they'd all go together. Just an oversight?

Also, for future reference, what's the best way to learn the disposition of a Request for speedy deletion? Cgingold 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! When working C:CSD, I'll usually load up a series of articles that are next to each other alphabetically and work through them one by one checking them out and deleting as necessary. I don't cluster my deletions by a specific editor or tagger, with the very rare exception of cleaning up after some sort of mess. Keep in mind, the speedy tagged articles are, like everything else here, worked on by volunteers, so it can get backlogged a bit now and then. Also, there are fewer admins per capita now than ever before, and consequently, there's an increasing workload for each of us, but we're trying not to get too far behind the curve. In regards to keeping track of things you've tagged for speedy, since they disappear from your watchlist upon deletion, it's really hard to keep an eye on them. If you really wanted to, you could make a page in your user space that has links to the articles you've tagged. Then a quick glance at that page would show you if they had been recreated or not by the color of the link. It's a pain, but it's an idea. It's easier for an admin to watch the things they've deleted, because there are delete logs (I have a link to the one for my actions on User:Chairboy, for instance, under 'das blocken lights'), but then again, keep in mind that there are plenty of times when a junk article is speedied, and eventually replaced by a good one later, so there shouldn't be a speedy stigma attached. Just because something was deleted previously doesn't mean that it must always be deleted on sight. Anyhow, hope my rambling has been of assistance. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment regards Gsd2000 conduct

Are you saying this link example does not show on your browser? It links to the edit history showing Gsd2000 removing another of my previous edits after he seems to have decided to attack.58.107.15.245 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm saying that you listed an RfC on WP:RFC/UC, but it linked to a non-existent RFC. There's more to the Request for Comment process than listing a complaint on that top level page, you need to write up a formal RFC document. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is he intending to trace me all the way back to 2001 and delete articles like Kangaroo just because I started them? Where would it end, will he track back my sister's edits and delete all those as well? I would appreciate your help if you are willing to give some time by reviewing my edits he has been removing from the History of colonialism article. I do not understand, my edit is based on the US Dept. of State own records about US actions in 1962.

If there is no option but to continue with getting others to sanction his ongoing behaviour, which frankly is attempted intimidation of people he thinks are less experienced than himself; will you assist with that? - And THanks for response:).58.107.15.245 07:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) - I'll be busy for an hour or so, am running awful late preparing the dinner tonight.58.107.15.245 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I can't help you with this issue, I have no experience with the user or articles you mention, but if you post a description of the problem and a request for assistance at WP:AN/I, you may find someone. I was simply removing a malformed RFC from the page. If you look at the other items listed there, you'll see that they go to a document describing the nature of the conflict and or the issue where comment is being requested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"I have no experience with the user or articles you mention" - this is precisely what people said three years ago when Wik and two of his friends took offense at articles which mentioned some black people had been working together since the 1930s, and had elected a national government in 1961; even though the three people conducting the edit-war admitted they knew nothing about the country or its history; they insisted independence is a western idea and the 'stone-age' primitives could not possibly have coordinated their efforts or voted a government in. Later I discovered the three people were also involved in edit wars on the Jerusalem article.

There was only one other Wikipedia editor who knew anyting about the subject and was trying to help. But Wikipedia 3-revert rule means 3 people automatically can control any article with two or less active editors. No-one would help because they didn't know anything about the subject -- yet they would allow three apparent racist impose their fixated beliefs. I do not want to waste my life dealing with Gsd2000, I refused to get into a edit-war with him and now he's taking his anger out on Wikipedia articles. If you don't help Wikipedia, who will?58.107.15.245 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC by 58.107.15.245

I feel I'm being harassed by 58.107.15.245 - he's filed an RfC on me and not even bothered to either read the requirements for an RfC, or even how to write one up. All I did was revert two of his edits that I thought were POV (and explained why on the talk page). What can I do? Gsd2000 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ps when you removed the malformed RFC, you only removed half of it... Gsd2000 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Where's the other part? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He removed RfC himself, seems an odd Wikipedia proceedure. Anyway, I am glad to see Gsd2000 did decide to remove the above claim that I undid Chairboy's edit of the RfC. I'm willing to admit I make mistakes sometimes, I hope Gsd2000 will relax and stop trying to prove he is 100% right all the time.

It would be a relief if I knew I didn't have to worry about someone trying to wipe out every contribution I've made to Wikipedia over the years because of a mistaken believe that I am the devil child or a equally wicked editor. Wikipedia generally seems to be under using suitable Article discussion pages, hope the History of colonialism page will get some constructive use.58.107.15.245 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake and failed to remove the entire link to the RfC, his actions were appropriate in taking out the rest. It wasn't an actual RFC anyhow, as there was no actual RFC created, just a redlink. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I wasn't very keen on making official or public complaints, but I did want someone to say something to him along the lines of "Hey, have another read of the edit before you delete it again.".58.107.15.245 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you're looking for, then you should create an actual RFC. Please understand, there's more to doing this than simply adding a link to WP:RFC/U, you actually have to create the document that outlines your complaint. As it stands, no action is likely to be taken by anyone because you never bothered to actually write the RFC. Also, have you considered creating a user account? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tar, As I mentioned earlier I have been writing/editing Wikipedia articles since 2001, but after protracted abuse by Wik and two of his friends - I was nearly sick to the stomach at times. Wikipedia has its problems, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile endeavour; I just don't want to be sucked into another round of pointless 'discussion' with editors who will not change their public declarations no matter what is said or pointed out to them. There is no level of 'proof' that will ever satisfy them regarding what they view as the 'opposing' view - but they will instantly claim complete validation by the most trivial argument. My life has more value to me than wasting it trying to talk to such people. I hope Gsd2000 is not such a person.58.107.15.245 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've been editing since 2001, then why didn't you know that an RFC is more than just creating a link on WP:RFC/U? If you _did_ know, then I'm boggled at why you'd do it in the first place. I just don't get it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for the author to respond before deletion of a page

I wrote a page that was marked for speedy deletion only seconds after it was created. There were already some twenty links to the page, that's why I wrote it. It took a minute to understand what had happened, and to act accordingly. So I inserted ((hangon)) in the article, and wrote an explanation on the talk page.

When I had submitted the talk page, the article was already deleted by Chairboy. Why? Did you have time to read the article? Or did you have a list of "forbidden topics", so that were sure that a bot could make a proper decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.237.142.11 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello! The {{hangon}} template isn't binding, and the page met the speedy deletion criteria and was removed accordingly. The best way to avoid speedy deletion is to write pages that do no meet the WP:CSD criteria. There's no list of "forbidden topics", speedy deletion is a maintenance task performed by volunteers and on an individual basis. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How did you manage to mark the article for speedy deletion within a minute after I wrote it? Apparently, there was an article with the same subject deleted in January; at that time, the given reason for deletion was "blatant advertising". That's not the case with my article. So, what was the reason? Why did the deletion have to be speedy? Was the decision based on the subject (Propellerhead Software), or on the article contents? Disclaimer: I don't even use any software from Propellerhead Software, and I have no relations to the whatsoever. I'm just interested in the field of music software. See also: may talk page. --HelgeStenstrom 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you close a merge proposal?

Could I ask you a favor? I'm looking for someone "neutral" to close the merge proposal that is being discussed on the talk page of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given the edit warring and personal attacks that have been taking place on that page, I think it would be best if I were to stay out of making the final decission. Thanks... Lunokhod 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the related pages in the past, to avoid the impression of any possible impropriety, I'd suggest finding an admin who hasn't even touched them, especially considering the editing history of some of the folks involved. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why "Speedy Deletion" of Flipside_(webcomic)?

How did the Flipside webcomic meet the criteria for speedy deletion?

Kial vi rapide malkreis Flipside?

It's one of the best webcomics out there, and it sure is noteable, so why did you speed-delete it?

If there's no really fitting reason, please undelete it, because the Flipside community is already very upset about your vandalism (that's how your deletion got perceived).

Wishes, Draketo 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The article was tagged for speedy deletion because it failed to assert any notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links or a web directory, the only web comics and websites here must assert an accurate notability that meets WP:WEB. It's unfortunate that my deletion is being perceived as vandalism, but that may be due to a misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policies regarding websites and webcomics. If you would like the content of the article copied to your userspace, I'd be happy to oblige, but I'd have to insist that the article was modified appropriately to meet WP:WEB (if possible) before it was reposted to the project. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you then please copy it to my userspace, so the flipside community can edit it to meet WP:WEB? Draketo 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have moved it to User:ArneBab/Flipside (webcomic). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lauren Goodnight

The user (User:Hurpaderp) who requested the speedy on the Lauren Goodnight article has no prior edits. There may be a case of oblique personal attacks being perpetrated by sock puppets here. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NWA Virginia Alpha Title page

Why the quick delete??? It's the secondary heavyweight title for NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia.JeffCapo 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

csdhelper GreaseMonkey script

I stumbled across your script while reading the thread on WP:AN about automated deletion. Interesting code. I cobbled together something similar last month. One difference I notice is that you put the HTML tags in yourself while I build up the HTML from an array of CSD reasons. I thought that it would be easier to edit the array than edit the HTML. Anyways, if you're curious, you can take a look at my monobook.js for the code. It's at the bottom. I haven't released it as a separate tool as I wasn't sure that anybody would find it all that interesting. -- Gogo Dodo 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misformatted RFC

Thanks, I've e-mailed User:Jmax- to assist me with this since he is a friend. Thanks for your offer to help with this! Aftli 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gravitor

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

Hi Chairboy. I note the logic of your recent comments arguing for "allow". However, I think your final comment on the "Developer Dan" case is a little harsh and could be taken badly by the proposer, as well as any of those who've said to "Disallow". Feel free to disagree. Hope you don't mind me posting in this way - it's meant with the best possible intentions. Cheers, --Dweller 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, I appreciate your note. I've considered your message and re-read my comments, and I feel that they accurately reflect my views on the matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while I'm sure the folks who proposed the block and those who agreed with him/her mean well, their actions are reflecting poorly on the project and are making things worse. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's your call. Presumably, you use the term "block" loosely, as (so far as I know), no-one is suggesting blocking the user. --Dweller 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I Am Clueless - Please Advise

Chairboy - I have no idea how to do Wikipedia. I am not qualified to be the editor of this page. I was simply trying to establish that the band does meet the notability requirements. Can you communicate with who ever did the page in the first place and remove me as the editor as I have no idea how to do this. I was just trying to provide information to have the page restored. I do not know the lingo or the process. I am just a fan and see that their credentials more than qualify. Thanks Avidbandfan 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I Set Up An Account

Just letting you know that I set up an account like you recommended. It is avidbandfan Just let me know what is next. Thank you for your offer of help. I hope this means you will restore the site. I am not a writer - just want to give you the facts that establish that the band meets a good number of the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Thanks again. Avidbandfan 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Improper Deletion of The Wedding (band)

You deleted The Wedding (band)in error. Please restore. According to Wikipedia the following are some of the "criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician:"

  1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.  The Wedding had two number one hits on the national radio christian rock charts (Radio and Records).  Right now they currently have 2 hits in the top 30 if you will look at Radio and Records charts this week (March 2, 2007) at http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/Charts/Christ_Rock_Chart.asp  The songs are "Morning Air" from their first album, and "Say Your Prayers" from the upcoming album which has only been released to radio stations. This chart is the authority used in the music industry to monitor national radio airplay.

    3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources. The Wedding has been on national tours - You can verify one of the national tours with well known bands at the following website www.seespotrock.com   This tour alone included 14 states and Canada.

  4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).  The Wedding is issuing it's second album on April 17, 2007. The first album had 2 number one radio hits (Radio and Records) as stated above.  The label executives also signed and produced notable performers Michael W. Smith, Amy Grant, Relient K.

 10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.  The Wedding's "Say Your Prayers" and "Morning Air" are in rotation nationally right now.  In fact, "Say Your Prayers" placed first with the most adds by radio stations according to Radio and Records for the past 2 weeks.  Again, here is the URL to the chart for you to verify http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/Charts/Christ_Rock_Chart.asp   You can also verify on the Effect Radio Network of radio stations - they have over 51 stations from east and west coasts + Hawaii.  That is only one of the networks airing and that add alone has over 50 stations.  You can see others that have on the Radio and Records site.  Here is an actual current playlist that will show The Wedding's songs being played 9 times in 24 hours.  The URL is http://www.christianrock.net/playlist.asp?userid=0&more=yes&bwDate=2/18/2007  

The song Say Your Prayers is also on Radio U's Ten Most Wanted. The URL is http://tvulive.com/radiou/tmw

 11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.  The band has already had one appearance and just recorded another for "The Logan Show" which is aired on the nationally.  According to the Logan show's website it is broadcast to over 225 million homes nationally and internationally on a growing list of networks including JC-TV, FamilyNet, The Inspiration Network (INSP), iLifetv, TCT Network, Victory Television Network (VTN), God TV, Alpha Omega Broadcasting, Good Life Broadcasting and DirectTV through World Harvest Television. The audio version can be heard on Sirius Satellite Radio, channel 159., this is where it airs. The April 28, 2006 appearance can be verified at the show's website at the following URL http://loganshow.com/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=70&NEW_SUBSEC_PAGES=1,0

The show just recorded will be aired in April just before the release of the band's new album.

I will check back on this page to see your response of if more information can be provided to you. Thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.178.172.57 (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC). Avidbandfan 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored User_talk:Bodavis

Just for info, I have restored this page which you deleted since the reason you gave (talk page of article which didn't exist) didn't apply to user talk pages for a user with contributions: hope that's ok. If its any consolation the original cock-up was mine since I put a malformed reference to a speedy on another article on the talk page which resulted in it being listed at WP:CSD --BozMo talk 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I Am Clueless - Please Advise

Chairboy - I have no idea how to do Wikipedia. I am not qualified to be the editor of this page. I was simply trying to establish that the band does meet the notability requirements. Can you communicate with who ever did the page in the first place and remove me as the editor as I have no idea how to do this. I was just trying to provide information to have the page restored. I do not know the lingo or the process. I am just a fan and see that their credentials more than qualify. Thanks Avidbandfan 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job

I think your creation of WP:HONESTY was a good and welcome response to recent events. I wouldn't mind seeing it evolve into a quideline or policy.Thanks. Paul August ☎ 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. what happened to Spimoni II (aka Woody)? DId he fly away?

Thanks for the feedback! I'm not sure how it could be a policy, but I hope that it serves a useful purpose in describing what the community expects. Regarding little Spumoni II, I'm not sure where he went. I'm worried that Werdnabot may have eaten him. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Young Electric Sign Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vegaswikian 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Idle chatter here, if someone were to run CU on every sysop account I bet it would turn up some rather fascinating insights and dish about how a big slice of this wiki truly runs. Gwen Gale 17:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not a tool for fishing expeditions, the action you describe would be improper. I'm concerned, however, that this is the second time you've made an assertion, this time by inference, that there are sockpuppet admins out there without providing examples of folks you suspect. Please present specific evidence. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop misrepresenting my posts, thank you. I did not suggest that anyone go on any fishing expeditions with CU. I started the sentence with the phrase idle chatter. Moreover, my comment contains no recommendation that this be done, only idle speculation as to what the outcome might yield.

• I'll make the assertion again: Many admins are sockpuppets and PoV warriors.

• As I said before, I will not be drawn into making any charges against any individual editor, won't happen. I can handle my own worries here by myself and truth be told, I have very few if any.

• If I have violated any WP policy in my remarks, please cite it now and I will fix things. I support WP policy.

Thanks again though, I'm sure you're reacting in good faith. Gwen Gale 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not acceptable

It is not acceptable to mess with other people's comments - even if you do think that they are illegitimate. It is especially bad form to do so when you are on a different side in an ongoing debate and the comment is in no way an attack or obscene.

So you can be as nice as you like on my talk page, but you shouldn't have done it, and you owe me a simple apology.

David Spart 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "mess with" your comment, I moved it to the talk page as it was inappropriate in the DRV. If you disagree with my action, you may have another administrator review it by posting a request at WP:AN/I. I don't actually know which 'side' you're on, and if you'll review my only other posting to that DRV, you'll see that I've tried to suggest a compromise between the two. As such, your characterization is not entirely accurate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

whoops

Nevermind that, I'll go reply on drv--sorry! I completely misread the deletion log I suspect or had a minute of total brain stupidity as to who actually deleted it... - Denny 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Axxo

I noticed the page of axxo being deleted and protected from recreation.I think I already know but i just want to make sure,what was the article about?192.30.202.20 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some guy who rips DVDs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you said on my talk page:

I saw that you asked why the AXXo talk page was deleted. It is standard practice to delete talk pages to articles that don't exist. The article has been deleted and salted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is at least some importance to this topic though, since people do make searches and post inquiries into the AXXo talk page. When will there be a process for reinstatement, since the link on the aXXo page gives me no information to appeal an article post deletion.--Chrisdab 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodness no, the person does not appear to meet any feasible definition of Wikipedia's notability clause. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me modify that slightly, there's deletion review, though I can say with utmost confidence that the article will remain deleted. When the gentleman is featured on CNN, perhaps it might be revisited, but realistically... no, ain't gonna happen. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know this guy is pretty knotable since most of his dvd rips come before the films are realeased on dvd and they are are perfect quality.How does he do it, Is he some insider who gets advanced copies of films and then distributes them?Rodrigue 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Elves? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what your responce is.what do you mean when you say "elves"?Rodrigue 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you asked how he gets the advanced copies, and I honestly can't tell you. Perhaps from magical elves? I strongly encourage you to review the notability link I provided above, if you can make a good case for this gent (or lady) meeting it, I can unsalt the article, but it seems rather unlikely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was stated before on the article's talk page, before that was deleted too, that if a good article was written on this person, that it would be used as the article. It was also stated on that talk page that the reason the page was deleted and locked was that the previous article there was poorly written. Now although you dont feel this person is notable and I can agree with your points, it should also be taken into consideration that there are forums and websites dedicated to this person. If a well written article was written on this person, would it then allow the article to be created? --Chrisdab 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why did you delete the Axxo wikipedia page. I personally think you blatantly violated wikipedia policies and without proper explanation I'll have to report this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.127.122.248 (talk • contribs).

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please sign your messages with ~~~~. The article you ask about was deleted for the reason outlined in the deletion reason. Specifically, it met the speedy delete criteria 7, no assertion of notability. If you feel the article was deleted in error, I encourage you to make use of the deletion review process. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Please, can you do a little research on the internet. Significant amount of new pirated movie releases come from Axxo (who is a person or a group? - actually that's the reason i came to wikipedia - to find out). Less significant entities of warez scene have their pages on Wikipedia, how would you justify that. --91.127.61.144 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! Have you considered creating an account? If you know of other articles on the project about people that lack assertions of notability, feel free to tag them for speedy deletion. If you feel the article deleted met our notability assertion requirements, I invite you to make use of our deletion review process. There, other people will weigh in on the subject. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a listing of some of the "warez" groups which have an article here on wikipedia that were not deleted yet, and in my opinion are less significant than aXXo :
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Razor_1911
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/DEViANCE
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RELOADED_%28warez%29

some of these articles contain the logos of the corresponding groups, their notable releases, even their members. Now I'm sure they'll be flagged for lack of notability if we apply the same logic. aXXo is/are by now, in their most "notable" state than ever, as (s)he/they became sort of an internet phenomenon.

Provided this and the exclusive selection of the aXXo article to be deleted, and with all due respect, the motivation behind it's deletion is questioned and a more convincing argument should be made to justify the act and/or unfreezing the article ASAP. Regards. - 196.203.40.209 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, tough crowd. This is my first posting, so I apologize for all errors in advance. I originally came here looking for information on Axxo also, but after reading this discussion I would like to post a few points.

a) Because other articles exist that also deserve deletion is irrelative (i.e. because all mistakes are not corrected doesn't imply that no mistake should be corrected).

b) Axxo is notable, well sorta... It/he/she/them certainly doesn't meet the criteria Chairboy cited, however thousands if not millions are familiar. The MPAA certainly is, not to mention the UrbanDictionary defines axxo as a generic term for a high quality rip. Also, imho, notoriety and controversy should be considered. I believe Chairboy's CNN comment was to contrast Axxo's notability and inject a little humor, not to be flippant.

c) If the article were revived what could it possibly have in it? Little information is known, hardly enough for a decent article.

d) It appears if Chairboy did error, and not I'm sure he did, it was an honest mistake -not a malicious one.

My humble suggestion is prepare an article, show them the error of their ways. What else is the point of this discussion? For what it is worth74.34.111.38 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the less we know about aXXo, the better. Unless you want to destroy its myth :-) --217.238.203.63 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Username

Hi Chairboy. Re the Biglotteryfund username - this is the same name as the major UK national lottery's charitable arm. It's hugely notable in the UK. I agree with your sentiment, but in UK terms this is like arguing in favour of User:MacDonaldsburgers or some such. --Dweller 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Chalk it up to geographic business ignorance, I agree with the nomination now. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's amazing how often the Internet global village makes us me forget the cultural differences. Thanks for reconsidering. --Dweller 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian userbox

I was wondering where I could find userboxes regarding political parties/ideologies. I tried to find them once, but had no luck. CLSuggs 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They're being discouraged, I keep mine only because it's in user space, doesn't contain any fair-use imagery, and I don't believe it to be divisive. If you really want one, you'll have to hunt around, sorry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedian pilots

I'm fine with that, but the category needs some categorization. It can't just be a stand-alone category. Feel free to look for a more appropriate parent category, but it at least needs something. VegaDark 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An inaccurate category is worse than no category. Not sure where it belongs.- CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Conner

I was quite surprised to see this page deleted since I have been recently adding content that supports notability. It would have been worth at least discussing before deletion, given the recent edits. I would like to see the deletion reversed, but I don't know what the process for that is? (I feel that, informally, I can assert notability, but I am still building suffficient web-based references). Please reply here or on my page. Thanks Natebailey 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Programming

Hello, Chairboy. Glancing at your userpage, I've noticed that you're an expert programmer. I myseld only know Visual Basic, but I've been trying to learn some perl. Do you know any good resources to become a better perl programmer? Thanks for all your help! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Zanimum

Yes, I'm fully aware. I simply meant that you didn't have to ask before doing. -- Zanimum 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, just wanted to touch base. I like to ask the blocking admin first anytime I undo something, it's a good way to avoid the dreaded wheel war, heh. Best regards, and thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Disk Crasher

The name "Disk Crasher" could be a violation of Usernames that give the impression that you intend to cause trouble, such as "Vandal", "Hacker", "H4X0E", "Spammer", "Troll", or "on Wheels". This includes names that may refer to malware, such as "Virus" or "Trojan horse". Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it. The examples from WP:U you quote above are things that a person can do on Wikipedia, but crashing disks is beyond any reasonably realistic threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:NotQuiteEvil665

See warnings at User talk:63.215.28.130 and User talk:NotQuiteEvil555.--Pharos 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Request for the future, please consider linking to that info on the other pages so folks like me don't get too confused when we're trying to figure stuff out. :D Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Brooke Hogan Untitled

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Brooke Hogan Untitled, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. 1312020Wikicop 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why you telling me? I'm the one that suggested prod. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...My bad. I didn't notice that in the history. Sorry again. 1312020Wikicop 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Username's

True. Where I'm from it (cutting) is a big local issue, and I just saw it as something I should flag. I can totally see were you are coming from. Thanks, Wikihermit 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conner

You recently deleted this article under speedy-deletion case A7. The speedy-deletion was challenged in good faith. The page has been temporarily restored and listed to AFD for community discussion. You may want to participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Serial Copyvio problem

If you're not too busy, could you possibly lend a hand on a problem I just discovered? (I recall that you took care of some Copyvio deletions I requested a few weeks back.) In the space of one hour earlier today, an anon. editor posted lengthy POV Copyvio edits on nine separate articles (whew!). I have already confirmed and deleted two of these copyvio edits, and I am quite certain that all of the others were copied from the same source -- a very POV right-wing website called Discoverthenetwork.org. I also left a note on the anon's talk page asking him not to post such material. However, I have to leave and cannot finish the job right now, so if you can spare some time to help clean up the mess I'd sure appreciate it. Regards, Cgingold 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted.

Like I really need people to stay in contact with me(lol).We Need You 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey Chairboy, can you just give me a quick review of my WP:RFCN closing from today? Seams concerns have been raised but I trust you to be neutral with consensus, cheers, and I'm happy to review any discisions which you feel are inappropriate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCN - Assertion of Authority

Chairboy, by making the statement you did with the wording you used, it was clearly an assertion of authority. I read Sam's RFCN Submission and I fully understood where an violation of WP:U can be interpreted. Your statement read much like a internal memo from a superior officer to a subordinate in a company. Remember: it is not what you say, but how you say it. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're really quite mistaken. I hope you haven't mistaken our disagreement over the subject of the RFCN with something more insidious. Please re-read the specific message you've taken issue with, and if you remain concerned, I welcome any external input you'd like to bring in. If you believe there's a problem, I'm a big fan of the RFC process and will assist in any way needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no way mistaking this disagreement with something more. I was merely pointing out how that statement came off. I have a real problem with people asserting, deliberate or implied, authority over others when there is no such authority, and in my humble opinion, no reason for such a comment. I probably came off sounding a bit harsher than I should have, and I apologize if I have done so. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace offering

I wanted to extend an olive branch after the unpleasantness yesterday. It looks like we disagree on some tenets of username policy; however, looking at your user page, it seems we share an interest in aviation. Anyway, just wanted you to know that I pledge to be civil and to assume good faith. Peace - RJASE1 ^Talk 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, let's edit with happiness in our hearts and a quick submit button that will save us from edit conflicts. :) Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin - Change

Never really was opposed to adminship, it was just the only usebox that I found at the time that showed I was not an admin (I had a situation where a new user was ranting that I was an admin.) I've found one that better suits my actual position, and felt it was time to change to prevent people from misinterpreting my position. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, my appologies if I've seemed a bit on the rude side. This week (er, month) has not been the best (not horrible, but somewhat stressful), and it seems that in the heat of discussion, I may have allowed my frustrations from elsewhere spill into my arguments. I'm certain we will still disagree on things, but I will make a consious effort to keep from being, well to put it bluntly, an ass. If I am, feel free to let me know via my talk. Thanks. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the kind note. If there was never any disagreement, life would be boring. :D Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For you

[7] seems to be similar to what you interrogated me about. The Behnam 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aces High

Comment on an article or article section on the article's talk page. Not only is that the correct venue but it allows others interested in the topic to view the history of discourse. That's why articles have talk pages. Some editors will get in a huff and nance right over to another editor's talk page and place "wildly" inappropiate claims on the editor's talk page, exactly like you did. Don't do that. --Scribner 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please don't continue to make inappropriate posts on user talk pages. Thanks! The Behnam 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? If y'all feel I've made an "inappropriate post", please provide diffs. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning 3rr Violation

You are in violation of Wikipedia's 3rr policy. If you continue to revert you may be blocked from editing. You continue to remove a cite tag I placed on an article that isn't cited. Personally, I don't understand your behavior. Direct your energies toward citing the article rather than attempting to defend it as uncited. If you remove the tag again I'll file an 3rr complaint.--Scribner 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I'm not sure where you're coming from, I've left a message on both the article talk page and your talk page asking for discussion about this, and have not in fact reverted it again since requesting your input. A couple hours ago, I asked for your assistance in working this out to avoid any type of edit warring, perhaps you missed the notice I left on your talk page? If this is a retributory 3rr notice, c'mon now, that's just silly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said

I was searching for words for the same message, but you got there first[8]. Dispelling ignorance before it is used to make a decision is one of the best things you can do for Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pothead...

That's the problem. I was trying to add the user, however I am having problems adding him/her because I don't understand the new format for adding names into the RFCN. The user is user_talk:Pothead12345. Could you please go ahead and add him? Thank you! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to create the page first, _then_ add the reference to the section as a transclusion. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Chairboy, thanks for your note. That edit refers to a series of personal attacks made against that editor on WR, and I feel the new editor who posted it was using the thread as an excuse to allude to those claims. I was bearing in mind that this is a new account who has already posted an RfCU against another established editor. He's out to make trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, roger that. Thanks for the clarification, was just dotting the T's and crossing the I's to make sure! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RE Danny

If you re-read the message I left on Danny's page...I am interested in getting this before the media does. If the authorities are involved they almost surely will get this story, and assuming it to be true, if the kid turns up dead, then they will use that to their advantage to try, in whatever way possible to discredit WP...i want to prevent that, to show that an effort was made and that the steps were taken to ensure his safety. I also replied on my Wikinews talk page. DragonFire1024 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS is the applicable text here. The media will do whatever they want, and if you check the thread on WP:AN/I, you'll see that there's been plenty of work on this already. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So what are you saying? I am not following you...sorry?? Are you saying forget about it? DragonFire1024 05:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first and formost, I'm saying that it's a fools errand to try and get an official Wikimedia Foundation response from Danny because he resigned from there last week. He no longer works there. He's pining for the Fjords of Wikimedia. He is an EX-foundationeer! So it doesn't make any sense. Past that, please take a moment to read the WP:BEANS essay. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read it...thats where I am lost. The media will do what they want, but at least i am trying to get the real story before they screw it up. DragonFire1024 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Frustration

I guess I wasn't able to properly express my opinion. Feel free to change my comment to whatever you think is best, i'm washing my hands of that rfa at this point .I do not want to cause rancor or dischord, but I do not want to be a sycophant or a coward. However, I can't see the use in the Beans essay, from my viewpoint, basically the message has been "if enough people gang up on you, they can portray you as disruptive."Just H 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin Advice

Chairboy,

Since you so graciously offered any assistance in my possible quest to become an Admin, what advice would you give someone who is considering doing so. Is there something they need to focus on? That sort of thing. Thanks for whatever advice you can give. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are an idiot

1. You are an idiot.
2. Did I say that I wanted to kill myself on the main page of Wikipedia? Did I valdalize Wikipedia? I did not ask you to post on my user talk page, I did not reach out to you, you contacted me so mind your own damn business.
3. In the case you share the impossibly ignourant belief that after clicking "Save Page" that I would off myself you or others must truely be the most ignourant person on the planet. Obviously you and others must not have filtered in other factors such as material possessions, pain, and time. I will not explain any further because if you cannot find the answers for yourself then you are truely an idiot.
4. If you really think I need therapy, shut up. My life is mine. You have no right to tell me how to run it.
5. Do not message me back I came on Wikipedia to take care of other things, but I will not come back after this. -PatPeter 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I think you may have me confused for someone else. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That user has been recently blocked for personal attacks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Before I Forget

You deserve this.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For reaching out to me during Danny's RFA even though he disagreed with me. Just H 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

whim

I have made an attempt to clarify my comment. I have no reason to believe that anything inappropriate went on, and didn't mean to imply that it did. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. CMummert · talk 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kncyu38

Howdy! On the talk page for Danny's RfA, you wrote 'Sigh, what purpose do these stats serve?'. I'm not certain what you mean, they serve the purpose that anything does on this project. I found an interesting correlation, and I shared the raw data so folks could come to their own conclusions. While I invested quite a lot of time and effort in collecting the data, it didn't cost you or anyone else anything, so your comment is puzzling. With the utmost of respect, I'm not in the habit of telling people what they can and can't work on. I ask that you return the favor, my time is mine. If you feel that it was actually harmful, then I invite feedback, but if, as your phrasing suggests, this was more of an issue of "I don't see the purpose of doing this", then my request stands. I hope you won't take offense. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked what purpose the stats served as a matter of respect for Occam's razor. They are not needed nor particularly userful, as me and others and even yourself have pointed out. Another way to put my critical attitude may have been: "You supported Danny, why not leave it at that? Why present statistics that can only reasonably be interpreted in one way, no matter what you declare your motivations to be: The sample you provided does clearly speak against newer editors, as if they should have less say in the RfA in your opinion (since you researched and presented those stats then & there)" Now, I replied here to do you a favor you asked for. Here you are. As for what your initial motivation to post the stats where, I'm inclined to stick with Hanlon's razor. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your linking to Hanlon's razor suggests that you're calling me stupid. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't reflect terribly well on your ability to make an argument that can stand on its own merits. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To freely quote from yourself: "I only referred to Hanlon's razor, you may interpret it any way you want, I didn't mean to say anything particular by posting it here, I just find it interesting." —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a pretty boring place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How?

I appreciate the input (sincerely), but how does one go about fixing a situation when the results are a foregone conclusion and those in power are vested in keeping things that way? Corvus cornix 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Civility prevents me from furnishing you with the answer your comment deserved. Please, spare this nonsense for those who it will actually have an effect on. Grace Note 03:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you describe my request as nonsense? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'll leave that puzzle for you to figure out, Chairboy, while you do me the favour of leaving me alone. How about that? Grace Note 03:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're being very rude to others and disrupting the project, so unless you knock it off, I'm not going to simply "leave you alone". I'm asking you politely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are now harassing me. I suggest you stop and go and do some editing. You might consider writing snotty messages on talkpages of editors who are disappointed in the Danny RfA to be included in that but I don't. Not that I mind you wasting your time, but dude, you're also wasting mine. Well, you were. Now I'm simply going to revert unread any further messages you put on my talkpage. Grace Note 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this isn't harassment, it's me doing my job. I've been politely asking you to stop disrupting the project, and you've been responding quite rudely. I'd like to avoid blocking you, but if you keep behavior up on the talk pages we discussed, I'll have to. Please consider this a formal warning, any administrator (including myself) may block you after this if you keep it up. There are civil, non-disruptive ways to make your argument, I'm asking you one final time to pick one. As this is a formal warning, it's inappropriate to revert it from your user talk. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for chiming in, but actually, policy allows removing even good-faithed warnings from your own talk page. See here and here. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunroot -> Jerusalem Artichoke redirection

G'day Chairboy,

Just a quick note to say that I've reimplemented the redirect from Sunroot to Jerusalem Artichoke which was previously deleted with the reason of 'db-bio'. Given that the page in question is about a vegetable, I can only assume that the db-bio deletion was in error, or I've completely misunderstood the meaning of db-bio.

If I've missed something important here, please let me know.

All the best,

--Pjf 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion of the bio "Paul Courbis"

Hi

You've just deleted the "Paul Courbis" page I've created. I try to understand the process. You say (in comments) that "14:35, 11 April 2007 Chairboy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Paul Courbis" (WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization) "

I don't understand this as I explained (both in header & discussion) that Paul is one of the main contributors of HP calculators development as he wrote unoficial reference books about the Saturn processor. Thus, the "no assertion of notability made" seems to me a wrong assertion. I'd understood if the reason was "notability is insufficient" or "not enough explained" by the author of this page.

Can we discuss a little bit more on this deletion ?

I'll be looking here for your answer

Thx

Alain

PS: english is not my native language, and there is peharps a misunderstanding from me on what an "assertion of notability" is ? I understood it as a objective justification but perhaps is it some paper to sign ?

Apc005 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Please take a moment to review WP:BIO, it describes what we're looking for in articles about people. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Independence Seaport Museum

Could you undelete Independence Seaport Museum? I want to take a crack at it and would like to start with what was there originally. There are at least six links to it. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The entire article was "The Independence Seaport Museus is more better known for housing the Uss Olympia." Seriously, that's a copy/paste of it. Hope it helps, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just made a stub for Independence Seaport Museum. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome, you rock. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortpages

Good point -- I don't know if it will actually work. If you find that it wasn't worthwhile, feel free to revert the edit. Andre (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Point?

I was not trying to make a point, and I won't have myself be pushed into that corner. I wanted to cheer Tobias Conradi up, in fact I thought about awarding him the original barnstar instead but thought it was kinda lame. However, to prevent this kind of misunderstanding, I had asked whether or not I could be blocked for adding that link to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites. This is how Fred Bauder replied. My asking that question was preceeded by reading this, linked to by Kirill Lokshin in the Mongo request for carification. As long as Tobias Conradi has no problem with it, it should be of no concern to you. Should he not welcome this or any further messages from me, he can tell me so, and I will never message him again. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you didn't even remove the link. So what precisely are you threatening me for? You saw that link and left it there, you're just as "guilty" as me. Great stuff. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There, I did it for you. Happy? —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "disrupt the project to make a point". Could you explain how you arrived at the conclusions that (i) it was my intention (ii) to disrupt and to make a point. To (i) I can say it wasn't in the least bit my intention to disrupt the project or to make a point, (ii) I don't even see how either might apply here. If you believe it was somehow disrupting and/or making a point, I'd greatly appreciate your input to help avoid further incidents like this one. Have a nice day. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for deleting the link, it shows that you're willing to take a step back from the precipice, and I appreciate it. Second, as you know, the purpose of an ArbCom ruling like this is to implement a decision to protect the project. It is their ruling that linking to an attack site is verbotten. When you instead provided a link to a Google search that had the attack site in question as the only result, it's an example of trying to weasel around their ruling. Now, there's nothing wrong with weaseling, it's what seperates us from the animals. Well, except for the weasel... but in this context, it comes back to the first year law student issue. There's a term 'wikilawyering' that has come into vogue that describes this action, specifically looking for a tiny loophole to remain technically within the letter of, but in direct contravention of the spirit of a policy or arbcom decision. I think you're very aware of this, but I'm hoping you'll reconsider the path you're on and try doing things that help the project instead. If you have any further questions, let me know and I'll try and help. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I assure you I mean well, but I fear that this encyclopedia is shooting itself in the leg by censoring material that is not in itself attacking Wikipedia users. I just happen to find that essay on cabals very interesting. I would never have linked to a subpage with attack material, the exact page I linked to does not contain any libel or whatnot that I could recognize. Is it also "weaseling" then to suggest a Google search with the keywords "aware of the following faults"? And what about that second ArbCom case? There seems to be no consenus on generally forbidding links to each and every site with attack content, that's why Kirill Lokshin linked to it, I believe, to illustrate that ArbCom itself is rather undecided on the matter. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You see, it seems rather difficult to respect and adhere to the spirit of ruling, when there seems to be no consensus on what that spirit really is, what precisely it includes and what it excludes. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"You see, it seems rather difficult to respect and adhere to the spirit of ruling, when there seems to be no consensus on what that spirit really is, what precisely it includes and what it excludes." — You must find it maddening to exist in the real world. -- KirinX 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, Actually no. In the real world, I enjoy freedom of speech. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As you've just established that your dispute is with the Arbcom decision, it'd be appropriate to take it up with them at this point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, and Fred Bauder responded that he wouldn't block me for that, and Kirill Lokshin had linked to the other ArbCom case. Don't you see that reyling on the older MONGO ruling in a blocking warning is a bit controversial given the extensive debate at Wikipedia talk:attack sites and here. You may also want to read the current, protected version of WP:BP. I am a little confused, but I'm not the only one. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Try this, for example. "Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to." That's part of what Fred Bauder said on behalf of the ArbCom. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence

Hey, just a quick message to let you know we have a new user who goes by the name of Chairbhoy (talk · contribs). It may be pure coincidence, but I had a doppleganger a while ago and it was... well... troubling... The Rambling Man 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye out for him. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag for The Used Discography

Hi. All the links to this page (except the admin-type ones) were from Template:The Used, which I have now edited so they should be gone. Cheers Lou.weird 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Instron

I was pointed to the deleted text as a review of the deletion; it turned out most of the text is a copy and paste job from [9]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you & assistance please.

Ben, thank you for your actions related to the Klemmer & Associates page.

I see from your history and personal page that you champion neutrality and removal of POV from wiki.

As a relatively new contributor to wiki, I have been dismayed by the one-sidedness of the LGAT series of articles. The creators and major contributors appear to be pushing their POV. However, they appear to be using (twisting? distorting?) wiki rules in order to document their pov and thus legitimize their use of wiki to attack companies and organizations.

My understanding of LGAT is that it is not scientifically defined. Each author defines it for themselves, either by direct-definition or by definition-by-example. As there is no clear and concise definition, there is no standard which can be applied against an organization in order to include them in the LGAT category. The pro-ponents of the LGAT label, insist on branding companies as LGAT, but refuse to allow LGAT to be properly defined or documented. They refuse to allow its multiple and vague deffinitions to be documented. They refuse to allow the fact that it is a term primarily used by the anti-cult community to be documented in the article. They very adeptly use wiki-rules to delete, revert and re-write anything which gets added in an effort to clean up or unbias the entire series of articles.

I feel completely out-gunned here and everything I have tried to add either gets reverted or the paragraph gets mysteriously re-written in a flurry of other edits and any injection of neutrality is suddenly gone.

Ok, that (brief?) history being given.. My question/request is this.. can anything be done to stop/correct or resolve this? (you may respond here, I will watch) Lsi john 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned user

I probably shouldn't have said it since I'm not sure but I believe this is light current. At least one other editors has reverted someone with a similar IP [10] & [11]. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Shampoo where there is discussion Nil Einne 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammyou unblock

There is a distinct lack of consensus on ANI that my block should have been reverted, if anything the consensus is that the block was within my discretion. You agreed that the block was not invalid, and RFCN does not review username blocks. There is nothing left to do but to reinstate the block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, okay I am willing to just let this go, the username should be blocked per policy but it is not the end of the world if it is not. But the next time you want to revert an admin action do two things, get the agreement of the admin or the consensus of the community, and for god sakes have some sort of complaint about the block itself. Whatever you do, don't say the block is not invalid, then unblock without agreement or consensus. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny

you wrote "Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs), the person not responding, isn't an admin. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)"

I don't know whether Danny is an admin now. Sorry if I called him admin and he is not. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent problems

I think one of the major issues in our argument was that I was not clear enough in my initial response. While I thought I was clear that the block should stand and that greater discussion should take place before any reversal, it seems I failed to communicate that correctly. I will try to be more clear next time, and I will also search harder to notice such miscommunication in the future. I certainly have respect for your actions in the past, and in light of this misunderstanding this issue starts to make sense too.

Sorry if I was a bit heavy handed, at the time I was under the impression that you knew I wanted more discussion before you reverted me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for reversing your block so quickly, perhaps part of my misinterpretation of your message was that I read what I expected to read, and should have sought more clarification. Let's work together, I think we have the same goals in mind. We don't always agree on the details, but that's part of what makes us (as a group of admins) effective. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:A10148

Hi, will you please block this user, he is obviously a sockpuppet of that user who you recently blocked and who keeps making personal attacks against both of us, I've left a suspected sock tag on his userpage and warned him for vandalism on his user talk page, sorry I have not reverted the vandalism on your userpage. Cheers and happy editing! Tellyaddict^Talk 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

reply

I hate to say it, but perhaps a community sanction discussion is in order at the appropriate page. This just gets worse and worse and shows no sign of improving. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we only need that admins respect the written policies. My page is deleted and this deletion does not even show in the deletion logs. Censorship. Why are you all afraid of true and verifiable facts about yourself? Some people have a very different culture to that of truthfullness and harmony. They run around beat people. If the beaten record this, they delete it. And beat again. They invade Iraq. They kill the Indians. The aboriginans. The Africans. The Arabs. The Jews. They spread lies about weapons of massdestruction. They lie half the day. But the world goes on. There are allways people lieing and hiding truth. And deleting. And throwing bombs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never killed an aborigine, afaik. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good. IIRC me neither ;-) - News: User:Tobias Conradi, once ranked 87 in en:WP, is indefinatly blocked. One admin reached a consensus for himself ;-)

Thanks

I was remiss in not thanking you for your actions earlier. Thanks! -- Avi 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Compassionate Wisdom Award I, Dweller, make you the second recipient of The Compassionate Wisdom Award for an outstandingly wise and compassionate contribution to WP:RFA. --Dweller 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image of Christopher Meloni

Hi. I noticed that you deleted an image of the above at 18:30 on April 11. I was wondering if you could give me a detailed why and wherefore to the decision as I was using it to show new users what images of actors they could upload and it now turns out that I was showing them incorrectly. Also, would there be a way to find out who initially uploaded it. (Quentin X 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Howdy! I deleted the image because it was licensed under a Creative Commons license that specifies "for non-commercial use only" or "no derivative works", and there wasn't any fair-use assertion anywhere. This falls into the WP:CSD Images, subsection 3, which asserts how this situation is untenable and that these images are to be speedily deleted. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Image:Ceca on Pink1.jpg"

For the life of me I can't figure out why you suddenly deleted this image without even looking at the accompanying discussion on its discussion page, the result of which was to keep the image. That discussion is now gone and I don't know if it's recoverable. The person who deleted the image the last time also did so completely blindly, saying that it's an orphan which was complete nonsense since turbofolk article always linked to it. Zvonko 00:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ace High

Learn to comment on an article's talk page. It benefits other authors interested in the topic. It's obvious you have an interest in seeing the Ace High article violate Wiki standards. Just cite the sections correctly or stop reverting and forcing a bogus issue on Wikipedia.--Scribner 05:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonyan

Does Bonyan qualify for deletion? It appears to be a very small seminar company. The only references I find on google give an address and phone number. thanks for your attention. Lsi john 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've deleted the article. In the future, you can add speedy delete tags to articles like this to get even quicker response from an admin. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and I'm much obliged in return.

Other than the obvious speed, is there any significant difference between speedy delete, and the slower delete process where requests for comment and opinion are solicited?

Does one or the other have a heavier weight if someone tries to re-write or re-add an article?

Thanks. -Peace in God. Lsi john 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing copyvio tag

Hi Chairboy, regarding this, I wonder if you might take another look? I didn't provide a link in any of the templates because I couldn't get it to work, it just stayed as "unquestionably a copyvio of {{{URL}}}". The uploader has provided the URL from which the image was taken and there is no assertion of ownership or permission. The link is still on the image page and was directly underneath the template, so I didn't feel it necessary to spend time playing about trying to get the template to work. Could you go back and see what I mean? --YFB ¿ 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Thanks! I've deleted the image. The format for the template is, if I recall correctly, subst:db-copyvio|http://www.somesite.com/picture.jpg . That way, it passes the URL as a variable to db-copyvio. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied at my talk page. --YFB ¿ 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

Why did you delete Image:Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg? It complies fully with WP:COPYRIGHT#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements by form and content, a detailed rationale was given. --tickle me 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because the image had a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it was an image that failed some part of the fair use criteria and the uploader had been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 13 July 2006) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I answered on my talk. --tickle me 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP policy and templates

Ben, thanks for your comment; let me clarify where I'm at a little:

First, the burden of understanding what a warning template says falls on you.

That is well and good, but for any policy that is enforcable against users, there must be a way that a reasonable user of ordinary intelligence can discover what the rules are. The problem here wasn't that I didn't understand what the specific template said, it was that I was mislead by WP's written policy and previous replies by admins in blocking requests as to what the purpose of using the WP:WARN templates is.

Now, you must surely see that there's only two ways that a user can discover that: if it's written somewhere in WP policy, or if they get it wrong ("wrong" being defined by common practise) and an admin tells them. What you wrote on my talk page is all perfectly reasonable. But it isn't in any written canonical WP policy document that I'm aware of. That left only one way I could find that out: to get it wrong and be told. If one of the admins at ANI had responded the way you responded on my talk page, that would have been fair and reasonable. But as you can see at ANI, they didn't; they formed a lynch mob. That's why I "dug my heels in and fought harder" - because the admins there were being totally unreasonable. At no point did any of them grasp that they were trying to hang me from an understanding of WP policy which is not only not embodied in any written policy, but in fact cuts against the very strong insinuations of several written policies, not the least of which being WP:WARN itself.Simon Dodd 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G6 deletion of Image:Cadet2.jpg

Chairboy, I came across File:Cadet2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when I followed a link to it from a derivative work. Why was the image deleted? --Iamunknown 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD Images, article 1. It was a redundant copy of Image:Cadet.JPG. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iamunknown 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiGnosis block

"I'm very confused about how things work on Wikipedia. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?"

I for one don't agree that this constitutes a legal threat. Even policy discourages defamatory remarks. That isn't thereby threatening to file a lawsuit. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously do not see how this is a legal threat. I will unblock unless you have further objections, which will be discussed. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Review his other edits, there's repeated vague legal threats, this alone might not be enough, but it's the camel that breaks the straw's back. I don't think unblocking the user without them discussing and agreeing to abide by WP:NLT is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

That also is not a legal threat. It's a true statement of the law (as far as I understand the law), and incidentally of Wikipedia's policies (e.g. WP:BLP), and might possibly suggest that Brandt could sue, but it says nothing about the writer's own intentions; it never suggests "I'll sue!"

Chairboy, if I offered links to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios, and you advised me that these were violations of copyright law (and thus of Wikipedia policy), could I have you blocked for making a legal threat? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis.

-- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

3O: Based only on the text in this thread, I see no legal threats. As far as I know, a person can't sue for libel on someone else's behalf. There may be a straw that breaks a camel's back, but it should be a real straw and this doesn't appear to be one. This seems to me to be a description of facts, as seen by the editor. I don't even see an implied threat here. Lsi john 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't see a threat of any sort, pointing out that something may be illegal is not a legal threat in itself, though it is muddy ground. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(Copied back from User talk:Ben#WikiGnosis:)

Howdy! While I respect your opinion, I must disagree. The user has repeatedly made legal threats against users. The cutesy way he/she is doing it doesn't excuse the fact. Also, the user just accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting wikipedia to make a point in this edit. As I mentioned in the AN/I thread, this user does not appear to be operating in good faith. Review the content of his/her edits, both for the circumspect legal threats and the content, and I'm certain it'll become immediately clear. You and I have agreed in the past about some admins being block-happy, specifically over at WP:RFCN, but I don't believe this is one of those situations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, Chairboy, I haven't seen any legal threats in what he wrote. If I've missed some, please direct me to them. The two passages already quoted here and here don't contain legal threats. WP:NLT#Legal complaints explicitly says "A polite, coherent complaint [...] is not a 'legal threat'". I think policy has been misapplied here. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see this. When counseled on it, the user quickly asserted that it was not meant as a legal threat, then a couple weeks later leaves the cutesy "starts with L, rhymes with bible" message on Durova's page. Legal threats don't need to be explicit, and I said that I'm more than happy to unblock the user once they assert a clear understanding of how unacceptable legal threats are. The user has chosen a different path in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"This" was one of the two passages already discussed. It neither makes nor implies any legal threat. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't see any of the satemes you quote above or on WP:AN/I as a legal threat. To be clear saying "That is lible" or "In posting information X, you are libeling person Y" is not a legal threat unless there is also a statement of some sort "And I will sue you over it" or "and I will urge Y to sue". While I am ready to unblock myself, i would prefer to have you do so, adn i don't want to do so withotu discussing it with you first. As I said on ANI, ther might be grounds for a block for disruptive editing, but not for leagal threats, at elast not based on the quotes and diffs i have seen. Please unblock User:WikiGnosis. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User has been unblocked already, and this is the third message you've posted since I said was going to unblock it, I've even left a message on your user talk. (taps microphone) Is this thing on? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I just saw your msk on my talk, and no I did not see your previous msg saying that you would unblock. Possibly ther was a race condition, and the msg p[osted after I acessed the page, and before I clicked "save", or possibly i just read poorly. My apologies. I was not in any case goign to unblock without waiting for your response. Thanks for unblocking. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, ihave now read both your msgs on my talk page. The matter is over as far as i am concerned. I apologize for not corretly seeing your statement of intent to unblock before posting -- when I checked the block log (after poting my first msg on this topic to ANI I think) it didn't yet show your unblock. Let's just vcall this a case of msgs that crossed in the e-mail, ok? DES ^(talk) 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: WikiGnosis

Chairboy, I saw that Checkuser result also, and indef blocked WikiGnosis as a result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on my talk page, Chairboy. I'm not familiar with MyWikiBiz's editing patterns, so I cannot make a judgement on the case, but I'm willing to let those (you, Akhilleus, Durova and others) who are familiar make the judgement calls. Regards, Iamunknown 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry, when I saw the page it had just been created, I didn't realize I was recreating the page with the speedy deletion tag. It appeared I would be adding the tag to the page not recreating it. Once again I am sorry. Xtreme racer 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand...

You deleted my page "Casual Science" before I was even finished. You flagged it as CSD, which states "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."

Your reason was that it lacked notability. My unfinished page was mine, the website it represents is mine, and the website exists. You made reference to Articles: Section 7, which makes no sense. My site deals only with science and art, as mentioned, and just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean it's not important.

I don't see what the problem is. JimCS 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I provided a link in the delete reason that explained things, but no worries. Please visit WP:WEB to see the criteria needed for a website to remain on Wikipedia. Your article was deleted to Articles, subsection 7 of WP:CSD which includes websites that do not meet the listed criteria. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick, but seemingly automated, response. I understand what you claim that I violated, I just don't understand why. Given the fact that I was not finished typing it, I still feel there is no justification for its deletion. If I write it all out before saving, may I resubmit?JimCS 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not automated. I don't eat old peoples medicine for food, I'm not even hunting Sarah Connor. If you can make your article meet WP:WEB, then sure, go ahead and repost it. It would be useful to see some sort of acknowledgment that you've read WP:WEB and understand it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JohnHistory

Thanks, will do. —AldeBaer 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Usernames and judgment

A number of usernames you've reported to AIV or WP:RFCN lately have been fine and the concerns have been roundly dismissed. Please reconsider submitting inappropriate usernames unless you can confidently do so properly. Violations should be absolutely crystal clear, with no doubt about their propriety. If you can't accurately judge this quality of a name, then there are many other areas of the project that might be better suited for your abilities. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am using a script called TWINKLE. You may need to contact this person about "Username is a clear violation of the username policy". ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs) 02:25:00, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The source of this username reporting is from here. ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs) 02:25:47, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As the person running the script, whatever names it flags are your responsibility. If you cannot take responsibility for the script you're using, then you must stop immediately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slave hack

Hello,

Recently I noticed that an article Slave hack was deleted because there were no third party sources.

I've recently, however, found this: [12] from PC gamers UK. Do you have any suggestions? Would that be good enough to satisfy notability? Perhaps something to start a deletion review? Please respond on my talk page. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, worth a shot! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen

Please don't treat Irpen like that.[13] He's a very committed Wikipedian, whatever disagreements you may have with him, and he took the trouble to write fully and explanatorily to you. You're an admin, you're held to a higher standard than grinning and waving like an idiot in response. If you weren't just doing that — if there was some deep dimension to your post that made it meaningful and valuable — then he didn't get it, and I don't get it. Perhaps in that case you could interpret and explain. I hope you speak to users in order to communicate with them, not in order to amuse yourself and your friends at their expense. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Treat him like what? He made weird vague statements about me controlling things from behind a curtain or something like the Wizard of Oz. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction

I made no statement about you doing anything with respect to this particular accident. In my ANI entry I stated some obvious facts:

1. "Cool-off blocks" never ever helped but only made things worse (show me an example to the contrary)
2. Undiscussed (and in the open!) controversial blocks of established editors always made matters worse (show me an example to the contrary.) And I do not mean blocks of established editor who after a drink or two decide to log in to WP and go kick some butts. I mean those obviously controversial blocks only.
3. Such blocks in the past started or exacerbated the standing of several admins to their eventual desysopping (I am sure citing examples would be excessive and let's spare their feelings by not naming them. They might be reading this page)
4. Admins who eagerly blocked have never been seen reformed to my knowledge (show me an example to the contrary.)

In response you posted a strange entry at my talk accusing me of being generally admin-hungry, in that eating (or at least biting) admins is all I do. Further you vaguely accused me in having no interest towards "investing the effort." I did not get that part at all, especially when said by someone who hasn't made a single substantive article edit in last month (56 mainspace edits in the month of April, none of which significant. I did not look further back, could be if I looked for two months I would have found an FA or a GA plus a DYK entry and destubbing of the underedited article. In that case, I would happily retract and top it off with a great article writer barnstar.)

I posted a detailed and good-faithed response where I elaborated in a greater detail. Then you posted this (possibly) offensive, purposefully ungrammatical and somewhat contrary to the original book statement (about Oz and a bucket) which does not make sense no matter how one looks at it.

Your invoking the WoO implies that I accused you in being behind the scenes in orchestrating this incident (I never said it was you in this case). However, it was the witch, not the Wizard, who was killed by the bucket of water which I (or you?) supposedly "has" (hard to understand exactly who you refer to in your edit summary.) So, it just didn't make sense to me.

Neither I could make anything out of your deliberately ungrammatical summary. If you were mocking my imperfect English, do it as you please. (Btw, English is my third language by the order of fluency. Not very impressive, I admit. Perhaps, you know more foreign languages and know some of them better than I know English. Good for you.)

If that was not mocking my English either, the only other way I could imagine is that it was your attempting to assume blackface dialect, which is itself very offensive in a public forum, especially when said to a person that you don't know.

If that was neither of those but something else all along, I would have no clue but I did not know what to do with what seemed nonsense to me (offensive or not, I was not sure).

Bishonen, who watchlists my talk, spotted the entry and took an effort to reprimand you because whatever it was that you were saying it was nonsencial at best, intended as an offense (likely) or harassment at worst. I thank her for that, but such matters are not worth her valuable time. I have a very thick skin and I've seen much worse than your acid-tongued remarks.

Happy edits whether you plan to make some in the mainspace or not. --Irpen 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After posting I realized that you might have taken the "yes, you understood me correctly" remark in my original post exclusively on your own account in relation to this incident similarly to the past incident where your involvement was so, uhm, shall I say "undoubtful". I did not mean to imply your direct involvement in the last incident and I am sorry about the ambiguity. I meant that the incident at hand was obviously originated in the same forum, that's all. Since then, there was another demonstration to which you probably have no relation either. --Irpen 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off yourself, you don't know what your talking about. (AldeBaer/Kncyu38)

I don't think you know the whole story between me and AldeBaer/Kncyu. (he changed his name recently) It is long and it involves hateful e-mails from him to me, and his new found support of prejudiced propaganda on the Manfred Von Richtofen page to furhter his feud with me. I don't know why you would take his side, or why he would reach out to your if he did? I at least say my responses, which at this late point are heated, openly. I also provide sound logic. I do not do all of the subterfuge and feuding that he does. II have asked him to drop this so many times. I would not even be writing about this if he did not start pasting old random discussions and warnings on my talk page obsessively, and maliciously reverting the MvR page to include "propaganda" (Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization, vii) while I was gone, I was assuming he would be stopped by someone else, or grow up and give it up. He even said he didn't care about the article at all earlier, it is just his feud with me. whatever. Wiki is really not a respectable source for anything anyway. In part due to characters like AldeBaer//Kncyu and his incredibly limited number of supporters. 71.192.101.77JohnHistory

BTW, having read your offensive message on my board, if you haven't already seen me show how he is a jerk on the discussion page at Manfred Von Richtofen (and archived) and all my exhaustively detailed points along with others ( i bought the sources)  then you haven't been paying any attention to this "debate" at all.  I have tried to be civil, and I still am keeping a lid on it.  However, he doesn't engage in logical debate, he attacks me and trys to get me blocked, and reverts to propaganda just to be uncivil himself.   I could care less about all this "blocked" whatever mumbo jumbo, all of your weird phrases about socks. etc.  I am a purist here.  I just want some basic integrity for the articles I see.  You guys can run around like chickens with your heads cut off all day for all I care.  It is really pathetic.  Why are you here if not to work on the articles?  Why support prejudiced propaganda and destroy Jimbo guidelines as Kncyu38 (now Alebaer has done?  can you answer that for me please?  JohnHistory 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Johnhistory

Kichak

Hi, in the Kichak article the sanskrit spells <Kachik> instead of <Keechak>. I could not figure out how to transliterate into sanskrit. Would you please change it? I dropped a note to User:Dangerous-Boy but later realized that he's on a wikibreak. Thanks. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I edit any page, some one may indefintely block me as the User:Dangerous-Boy was blocked. I am afraid to edit wikipedia. Please request some other editor. Thanks for your message. --Bhadani (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about all that. Thanks anyway :), I'll ask someone else. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fine - by the time you are able to search some one, most of them may have been indefinitely blocked. Please do not ask any one to touch any thing on wikiepedia related to India and Hinduism as their contents are owned and maintained by a select group of editors. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a concern about folks with ownership issues, bring it to WP:AN/I if talking to them doesn't help. If you think there's a massive administrator conspiracy, WP:AN/I or WP:RFC should hear about it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your suggestions and am obliged to you. However, by taking such foolish steps, I do not want to be blocked. It is a matter of faith in the system of wikipedia and wikipedians. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Slave Hack Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slave hack. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks & Request

Thanks for userfying Slave hack to my user page, it's appreciated. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if it'd be possible to get another deleted page userfied over to me for an overhaul? It was called RPG World Online back when it existed. If you could, that'd be great. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. It's at User:Aquatics/RPG World Online. Remember, if it's reposted in anything like its current form, it will be deleted on sight. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. Definite overhaul needed. Thanks for your help! Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

wp:rs

I've added a suggestion via wp:brd - to WP:RS discussion. I don't know if you think its relevant/necessary or not, but I'm interested in your input. Thanks. Lsi john 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: MotherLoad

Thanks for the contact; I have chosen to withdraw the DRV in light of pending consensus that the article was not notable and was a valid A7 deletion. I suppose I misremembered the article, or at least its own assertion of notability, and I haven't found anything too promising through Google. Cheers, Dar-Ape 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you think it can be made into a good article (that meets notability requirements) and would like a copy of what was deleted restored to your userspace to use as a base to fix up (preceeding a move back to article space), let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry about my laziness. I will try to avoid that in the future. Aquarius • talk 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to do it again. It's a bad habit that I will fix from now on. Aquarius &#149; talk 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Markku from Finland deleted

It's a shame you deleted Markku from Finland. Hosting his own Tv-show on Finland's third largest broadcaster means he is a notable figure. The article was speedily deleted before I even had any chance to add more international sources. I can undestand if people are not interested in Finnish humour, but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable phenomenon. Wstryder 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ping

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=131761287&oldid=131590232 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremybub

Thanks, just reading his edits, he's made a lot of good edits, but a lot of recent edits seem to be vandal/attacks, I'm wondering was his account compromised in some way. Wildthing61476 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tres possible, but in the absence of evidence to that effect, I believe an indef block is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the help! Wildthing61476 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JBAK88

Hi, you suggested that this user's unpleasant behaviour should be addressed rather than the username - would you care to comment at [14]? Zaian 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Salad days

Hi Chairboy, I'm defending Salad Days because my experience with him has been quite positive. I've helped him on the WP:DEAD project, which he ran and where he did a lot of good work for the project. The edits you highlighted do show that he has a tendency to make a point, but he's hardly a complete disruption to the project. But I won't argue about this matter any further, as others seem to think otherwise. Cheers, Jayden54 09:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias article

Hello, I went to the talk page of the lesbian article and twice I have had my comments about the article removed by Gwen Gale. I notice that the article is somewhat bias, it seems very pro-lesbian, which is not worthy of an encyclopedia. I found no scientific nor psychological studies to back up the article. It seems one is not allowed to question or edit Gwen Gale's article. --Margrave1206 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What article? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The lesbian article. --Margrave1206 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We've got a few hundred... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is the main one called lesbian and it seems to be the only article with a talk page one where bias rules out, and where Gwen Gale can rule the talk page and the article. I did not know that wiki is a place for non nutral articles. --Margrave1206 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

Nice point. My Ip changes daily, so bare with me (for now). However, I do have a valid point on his talk page. It is certainly not trolling or any kind of disruption, so do not revert it. 217.43.59.234 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert it, I'm just letting you know that it's doubtful anyone will take it seriously. It certainly isn't an 'official warning' of any sort, considering the origin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will register an account tommorow, and leave you a message. 217.43.59.234 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My new account. Phantom Renegate 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

(cross-posted)
Thank you for checking! I apologize for blanking the page and understand this is not how speedy deletion usually works. For this cleanup project, however, it makes things much easier because of the many redirects involved. Content is moved from his pages to other more appropriate pages, unless it is copy-pasted or irrelevant in which case it is just deleted. Several hundred disambiguation pages have been deleted in the last week or two alone. Some of the content added by the banned user (SU) might appear to be relevant but is actually very often not. To someone unfamiliar with the project I can totally understand the thinking that his contributions should be kept - that is one reason why his thousands of destructive edits have lasted for so long. His content is being deleted for a reason, though, so I would urge you not to restore anything since it will just be deleted again anyway. Thanks again! shoeofdeath 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating blindly keeping his contributions, but I examined the specific claims in the disambig page in question:

• Frederick F. Moar is the 2004 recipient of the order of new brunswick.
• J. Moar is a fellow of the order of icarus.
• Moar is the name of a horse from the 1964 summer olympics.
• And it is a moon from native american mythology.

The 4chan neologism is dumb, but other than that, it seems relevant. What's the nature of the disruption that's being cleaned up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, none of those things have a Wikipedia article so a disambiguation page is not needed there (These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article - see here, although I hate pointing people to confusing policy pages that I don't understand myself). IMO none seem notable enough to have an article on them (they are very specific, not likely someone would be searching for "Moar" and looking for one of them) but obviously if an article is written then Moar should be re-created. The part of WP:SU (one of many parts - very complicated situation, no real need to explain it all) being cleaned up here is surname pages, of which many needed to be fixed or deleted. This is not a typical example by any means (I certainly should have written a better speedy delete summary, that happens to be one I have ready to copy-paste) but since disambiguation pages are supposed to point people to other pages and not give information I still think it was rightly deleted. That being said, if you feel extremely strongly about it I am not stopping you from restoring it. shoeofdeath 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I didn't understand the speedy deletion before, but I appreciate your thoughtful writeup. The deletion makes sense to me now, and I agree with your decision. Embarassingly enough, the reason I stumbled across it was because I was sorta hoping I could figure out what the whole 'MOAR!!!' thing was (as I've seen its droppings about the web lately). Seeing that it's a 4chan'ism and reading your writeup, I suspect the user you speak of may have created the page explicitly to rationalize the existence of a sub-stub where said 4chanism could be mentioned. I may be wrong, but I love a good conspiracy theory. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no problem, and don't be embarrassed - I didn't even know what 4chan was...shoeofdeath 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that innocent period of your life with fond remembrance, there is no turning back. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moar

I looked at the pre-deletion content -- none of the disambiguation items were to bluelinks. My preference is to leave it deleted and let someone repost it if they can come up with noteworthy content. Thanks, NawlinWiki 11:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Formatting

Yeah I know, I fixed it :P. I meant to do place a "|" between user and Buddhipriya, but I accidentally used a colon, and it ended up transcluding his whole userpage, when I meant to just have a link to his user, user talk and contributions page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

I had a look at the user's talk page and took my call from there. Whatever, it didnt look like the kind of stuff Jimbo should spend his time investigating, just another angrey person, and it was his comments in his contribs that provoked my comment to be honest. I just looked at your user page and you sound like an interesting chap. My family is full of pilots but I have never been one of them, SqueakBox 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

Thank you for the information on policy [15]. I am not experienced with this process and so am just trying to do things right. Buddhipriya 06:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks!

I'd like to thank you for your particularly unique support in my RfA, which succeeded. I never imagined that someone would mention ninjas. :) Thank you. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure to use this well.

Nobody expects Ninjas. Do good work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

C'mon now (copied from here)

Please stop reposting the guts of the debated article to the RfC. The subject of the proceedings is the conduct of the people involved, and your actions are disruptive and are being seen as an 'end run' of sorts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my RfC post that now is deleted in its entirety, it was my outside view of the dispute that the conduct of the people involved was in part based on attempts to protect the privacy of 20 year old whose name has been conveyed to millions of people throughout the world (China, France, Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, and Ireland) As included in my deleted post, this person set up his own blog in November 2006 on Sina with pictures saying, "I welcome you to PhotoShop my pictures" to generate more publicity for himself, and, as reported in February 2007, now is taken advantage of his fame to play emperor Liu Shan in a new cinematographic adaptation of "the romance of the Three Kingdoms." This hardly is a private child needing protection. The information I posted to the RfC was to show that the conduct of the people involved to protect this fame seeking 20 year old was misguided. My purpose for posting that information was to support the RfC desired outcome of "allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article" since the failure to allow a consensus to be reached was based in part on misguided efforts to protect the privacy of 20 year old. The posted information was from news articles based on my own research, not from the debated article (which I have never seen) and included references to those new articles to support my claims of misguide behavior. If some of the information I posted to the RfC seemed to be as an 'end run' of sorts, then that information could have been redacted or rewritten. Deleting my entire post, including those portions that were my outside view of the dispute and not seen as an 'end run' of sorts, is a poor way to respond and borders on reckless or aggressive behavior. Please ask the person who deleted my RfC post to reconsider their actions. -- Jreferee 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hello, Ben. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you spot me messing things up, feel free to shout at me :) Best wishes, PeaceNT 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Falcon 9 image

File:SpaceX-Falcon9-variants.png

The image currently used on the Falcon 9 page has listed in the description section:

• The three planned variants of the Falcon 9, a rocket being built by SpaceX.
• Image courtesy of SpaceX
• First uploaded on en.wiki by en:User:Chairboy

The licensing section indicates it is used under the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL).

But the image is now somewhat out of date, as it shows a variant no longer planned for production, the Falcon 9 S-5. My understanding of the FDL leads me to believe that anyone may make a derivative work (in this case, removing the section of the image showing the S-5 variant). Before suggesting anyone make that effort, though, I thought it would make sense to check with you to see if the FDL certainly applies to this image, and also if there might be some already-updated version of the image that would similarly be available under FDL. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide about the origins of the current image! (Sdsds - Talk) 17:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the pointers, but I'm not really interested in getting in the middle of any disputes between you and Grace Note. Grace Note turned me down based on interaction like that and how it would play at an rfa. I tend to avoid rfa nowadays anyway. I should try and stick to that. Steve block Talk 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, Grace Note and I aren't in a dispute, we had a conversation and it's over, I just wanted to follow up with you so you before you nominated so you'd have the full picture. His editing history has plenty of examples like that, the one I picked with me just happened to be the easiest to find. BTW, don't beat yourself up on the mixup, plenty of us made it (me too, I had to go check out the history before I realized it was a different person). Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm aware of the behavioural issues with Grace Note, and was when I offered the nom. I guess I just think there's a useful contributor under there and I'm prepared to overlook the abrasiveness. Grace Note did turn me down but was hoping to moderate their language in the hope a future nom would be looked upon more favourably. How that's going I don' know. But I have a bad record with my nominations anyway. That's one of the reasons I stay away. I'm glad you and Grace Note have sorted out your differences at any rate. And don't worry, I'm over it. Steve block Talk 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn status change

Thank you for the notification. I see there has indeed been a change of status. Tyrenius 03:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bureaucrat chat is open on Gracenotes's RfA

Of somewhat more importance than the numbers, which any monkey can count, is the strength and validity of the arguments for and against the candidate. Please remember that, otherwise there is no point having bureaucrats at all – Gurch 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spluh! :) Hence my comment above "While the final decision is, of course, a judgment call from the 'crat who adopts it and RfA isn't supposed to be a raw numbers game" followed up by a suggestion that the closing bureaucrat engage Rdsmith4 because he recently closed an RfA in a similar situation, and he might have some thoughts on how to determine the actual consensus here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you know. I was talking to the bureaucrats, if they're even listening that is – Gurch 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger that! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I listen, Gurch. And judging by their comments, the other 'crats who are involved will be too. I would caution at this point, though, that just as I feel that I would prefer that the bureaucrats not become "supervoters," neither do I feel that very passionate editors should expect that a running commentary will sway the process. There are more than 270 opinions to consider, and I hope the bureaucrats can do justice to that. -- Cecropia 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While there may be 270 votes, I fear they are rather fewer than 270 opinions to consider – both support and opposition has been something of a let-down in that respect – Gurch 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry and

Sorry about calling you an idiot in the past, I was just frustrated that after correcting a redirect of mine you had to chime in "even during your attention getting stunt," I mean you could have just told me about the redirect and been on your way, if you still are vague on the ordeal you can find it at User talk:PatPeter/Index/Usertalk#Deleted Redirect. -PatPeter 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the quasi-suicide threat thing led to heated tempers all around, but it's water under the wiki-bridge. See ya around! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Sysopindef

Don't worry, just took some time to ponder how to present the nomination :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr desysopping

Hello. His statement was ambiguous enough to require an emergency procedure (that was asked by people from your wiki). I knew there was a possibility of misspelling, but there was also a possibility of disclosure. I desysopped him to let the time for the ArbCom to look into this case or for him to explain himself. If he was really about to disclose deleted bio content, risks were high and action was necessary. If it was only a misunderstanding, losing his admin tools during a few hours was no big deal, and any bureaucrat would give him his tools back without any problem. Cheers, guillom 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

anti-transparency corruption-fueling ArbCom

do you think the ruling to forbid listings of admin actions is not corruption fueling? Why can admins maintain listings of Tobias Conradi behaviour while Tobias cannot list their actions? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy thinks there's a difference in credibility between the arbitration committee and its peer reviewed inventory and Tobias Conradi's grudge list targeting people he disagrees with who have had the temerity to apply the same standards of conduct to Tobias as everyone else. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

where did Tobias target people? Was it not that he targeted behavior? As opposed to the ArbCom ruling that is expilictly targeting Tobias. Why do you doubt the credibility of the ArbCom and put it lower than that of Tobias annotated diffs, and why then, if Tobias annotated well sourced diffs are not allowed when at the same time lies and falls claims about Tobias are allowed? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tobias, you had ample opportunity to make this case at your arbitration hearing, but you chose to ignore it for the most part and treated (as far as I can tell) the whole event as if it didn't apply to you. Now that the ruling wasn't what you expected, your sudden interest seems to be too little, too late. Suggestion from a fellow editor: Just take the advice given to you by so many and be a force for positive contribution. With respect, it seems as if you feel you're a victim, but this is a view that is not shared widely. Buck up and get back to the good work, the alternative is the virtual equivalent of sitting on the couch at home, complaining to anyone who will listen that you "could have been a contender" as folks gradually back away and disappear from your life. I don't think that's right thing to do, and your obvious talent with articles deserves a better fate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people wanted an ArbCom case with topic Tobias Conradi. Not me, I never saw anything Tobias did that would warrant that. The ArbCom memebers did never talk to me, nor ask any questions. After some time I stop watching the page and also was mostly off from WP. Then I saw the anti-transparent corruption-fueling ruling. Why am I on 1RR? Why can I not have admin actions listed? Why is the ArbCom helping corruption? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Victimhood is unappealing. You're an adult, you made choices, and the choices have resulted in a situation that you don't care for. This is the Way Of Things in life, and applies to us in every aspect of every day. You can't be outraged by what happens when you don't show up. Find a way to develop from this and move forward, the alternative is to fall into a spiral of spite and depression. In 6 months or so, you could make an appeal to the arbitration committee and cite your 6 months of compliance with the decision as evidence that you've taken their advice to heart. In the meantime, 1RR is a fine guideline to follow in any case, anything past one revert should go to a talk page anyways, rv-warring just weakens the project and causes problems anyhow. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

I'm not doing absolutely anything wrong, I've got no reason at all to be warned. Your bot decided to pick on me and other members for some strange reason. Funk Junkie 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's not my bot. Please note, I am Chairboy. Second, if you're uploading fair-use content without a fair-use rationalization, you are endangering the project by placing it at risk of being sued for copyright infringement. If you do not understand WP:COPYRIGHT, then you must stop uploading pictures immediately. If you continue, I will block you to protect Wikipedia. This is a formal warning, and I hope you will take a moment to stop and review the policies that you're violating when you upload pictures without an adequate fair use rationalization. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Funk Junkie-- you may as well do as he says. You see, if Wikipedia were magically turned into a Principality or a State or some other Polity, these guys would be its shock troops-- and unless you have some pretty serious firepower of your own, your own best Policy (get it? Polity, Policy, Police) is to cooperate in plain view while subverting in secret. You see, until the King is cured of the phobia that came upon him in early 2006, and until the fawners and flunkeys who enabled and now escalate his phobia are brought down, those of us who cannot abide a wretchedly illustrated Wikipedia must lay low and trust in the efforts that are underway to cure the King. We have several excellent people who are very close to him (two of them in RL (Real Life)), and they are searching his history for the source of the trauma which is almost certainly the source of the phobia-- some long ago event involving a civil action that wounded him to the core. The good news: the King is a deeply reasonable man and loves the project almost like a child. We'll bring him around. Until then, follow the paranoiac WP:COPYRIGHT without indulging the paranoia yourself. And remember: the Deletionists are all about denying, removing, annulling and, well, deleting. We're all about the opposite. We're fundamentally friendly and optimistic. We can't lose. JDG 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Brick O' Common Sense

I hereby award you one of my coveted Bricks 'O Common sense for this edit. Raul654 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Hi Chairboy. As a bit of advice from some random guy on the internet (so take it for what you will), it would be better if you assumed good faith, not just on article edits but also on processes like uploading images. I've been here for years, and I haven't usually put fair use rationales on fair use images. It hardly seemed necessary, since the specific fair use templates provided more than enough rationale for the specific articles to which they apply. Now that there is a drive for specificity (which I don't think everyone yet understands, let alone agrees with), a lot of people are being caught off guard. Please stop threatening people with banishment, when most people really have no idea that they have done anything to offend a process. Cmprince 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I assume good faith with each and every edit, which is why I so strongly urge the folks I've been speaking with Re: their improper utilization of fair-use rationales to familiarize themselves with the policy. Wikipedia is put in danger every time media is pushed up with a bad fair-use tag, both legally (because of the wacky copyright laws) and ethically (because of how it flies in the face of our charter to be a FREE encyclopedia). You don't appear to be aware of the fact that fair-use rationales cannot be machine generated/templated, that there _must_ be a specific rationale for each use. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the applicable policies immediately, and I thank you for your time. If there's anything else I can do to help you avoid endangering the project, please let me know. We're all in this together, and we all have a responsibility to do our part to keep Wikipedia safe. I hope you'll join me. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For that painful but useful "goodbye" article from my old page User talk:Wahkeenah. A few friendly editors encouraged me to come back, and I chose a new user ID in order to start over. It's better to be watching a couple hundred pages than a couple thousand. Today I also posted that article on the talk page of a similarly-exasperated editor who, like me, got fed up after too many reverts and a resulting block. That article is painful to read, because it hits too close to home. But it's worthwhile, especially the lesson about too much editing in the middle of the night (especially the wrong end of it, i.e. staying up too late, as opposed to getting up early as I did today). Thank you for your kind consideration. :) Baseball Bugs 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff

I spent an indeterminate time, perhaps ten minutes, trying to post to the noticeboard asking for the discussion to be closed. Then someone says he's gone and blocked Jeff. I think the thing here is that people do sometimes get very upset and throw the rattle out of the pram. At such times it isn't a good idea to hassle them. I mean if you look at the comment to which Jeff was replying you'd have to realise he wasn't his usual self.

Anyway I asked coredesat, who blocked him, to unblock. And he did.

Of course people shouldn't go around making foul personal attacks, but well it would have helped if you could have kept the discussion to my talk page so I would have noticed it before it got out of hand.

Don't misunderstand me, what Jeff said was quite out of order, but I don't think this was the right way to deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony! I was never on your talk page, actually, and was unaware that any discussion was taking place there. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I've replied to your comment on my talk page. --YFB ¿ 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Khlav Kalash

Plenty of citations, a CD, more CDs on the way, international tours in Europe, a Youtube video, official web site, tons of fans, fan blogs, interesting sidenote on the name (Simpsons reference), arguments showing how it doesn't meet WP criteria for deletion... yet you deleted it, the day it was created. Wikipedia policy on notability says that notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this," or "page does not meet the Wikipedia notability requirements" without explaining why. [16] Why didn't you discuss it on the talk page, per WP policy -- at least allow 24 hours? ([17]) Gekritzl 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! You may wish to review WP:CSD, the article failed to assert any notability, the stuff you mention is fine if it's actually _in_ the article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - I read all of WP:CSD and can't see where you can justify speedy deletion without dialogue. Please cite which reason in WP:CSD that this article was deleted without mercy. Thanks again! Gekritzl 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - regarding your message to my talk page - most of that stuff was actually in the article (citations, CD, links to international tours in Europe, the Youtube video, official web site), and what wasn't directly there was in the references. I can't point it out now, because just hours after I created it, you completely deleted it instead of discussing on the talk page. Any chance of restoring it and leaving it to another administrator to determine notability/acceptability? Gekritzl 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'll gladly restore a copy to your userspace so you can fix it so that it meets the proper criteria. Alternately, you can request a deletion review, though that will take a bit longer. Let me know which you'd prefer, thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if you would restore a copy to my userspace that would be great. Gekritzl 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a copy to User:Gekritzl/Khlav Kalash. In its current form, it will be deleted under WP:CSD A7 if it leaves userspace, so please don't move it back to project space before adding the appropriate assertions of notability. Also, please use the Move functionality when it's ready to preserve the edit history (not copy/paste). I've cleared a landing spot for it in its original location for when it's ready. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oregon

Hi Chairboy, thanks for the nice work on Creswell. That was a good message you left--I hope s/he decides to communicate. I've seen your old school telephone sig around but just now noticed you're from Springfield. So howdy from north of you. I used to live smack up against Kelly Butte, and I miss the bike path, but I don't miss the more, uh, colorful neighbors. Cheers and happy editing! Latr, Katr 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I have replied on my talk page.

I'm sorry for any part I played in your misunderstanding of my previous wording. I do not support making a point and I do not support intentionally starting a squall, nor did I ever make any statement which supported or encouraged such actions.

There is a fine line between doing nothing, to avoid any conflict at all, and doing what is right, knowing that there may be someone who retaliates in a conflict manner.

If you edit an article, and I revert... who started it? Should you have not edited? Should I have not reverted?

Lsi john 22:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks Sexyorge 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

wasn't sure thanks friend! Sexyorge 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ColScott/Don Murphy

Could you consider protecting Don Murphy? People on his Page are already planning some vandalism, might as well do a preemptive strike to their plans. Sometimes requests for page protection is too slow. Saturday ^Contribs 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disregard, already protected. Saturday ^Contribs 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You should probably let Bastique know what's going on. Corvus cornix 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, protecting his user talk page would be a great idea.Proabivouac 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedians who are pilots

Hmm ... I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WTC

OK, no argument. But how many were flown into?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit I saw was just that three towers of the WTC collapsed due to the attack on 9/11, not sure how that applies to your statement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ali cimen.jpg

I was working through CSD and saw that you tagged Image:Ali cimen.jpg for deletion. What does 'CV' mean? When not using an actual speedy tag, could you provide enough detail so that the deleter doesn't need to try and decipher a code? For example, if CV means "copyvio", I'd expect to see a URL or supporting explanation. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In this instance - CV== resume... As far as I knew WP:NOT an agency... ShakespeareFan00 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, could you please be more specific in your tagging? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK- Will do. In respect of the specifc one I could have tagged {{db-advert}} I suppose... ShakespeareFan00 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Devaneya Pavanar Stamp.jpg

Any reproduction of an Indian stamp image is clearly copyvio as has been mentioned in the webpage of the Indian Postal Department. I am not sure what kind of fair use rationale would allow the copyvio to be rectified... -- Amarrg 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

While organizations can claim copyright on media, Fair use exists as a method for using that when needed to make the encyclopedia. For example, if there was an article about the Coca-Cola logo, the fact that it's copyrighted doesn't mean that we're unable to show the logo in the context of an article about it. Please review WP:FU to see the privileges and restrictions surrounding fair-use and its role on Wikipedia. Also, please note that en.Wikipedia is based in the United States, so the US law applies. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. I was of the opinion that usage of copyrighted material in Wikipedia is based on the copyright rules of the person(organisation) who(which) produced the material irrespective of where they are located in the world... -- Amarrg 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Alexyss K. Tylor entry=

I asked that it not be deleted and noted several arguments in favor of it's inclusion which you igorned and simply deleted. Litch 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no claim of notability anywhere on the page. Please see WP:NOTABLE to see the guidelines used on Wikipedia to determine whether someone should be written about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was on the talk page, ever heard of WP:AGF]? Further you utterly ignored the hangon tag.Litch 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Has to be in the article, and I don't think you quite understand AGF the way you think you might. Finally, hangon isn't binding, it's a request. If the argument on the discussion page isn't persuasive, then the admin can use their judgment. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where it has to be noted is not mentioned anywhere in the notability article and you noted you never even bothered to look at the talk page to consider the argumentLitch 16:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I read the talk page, and the argument was not persuasive. If you have any objections, feel free to engage WP:DRV for a deletion review. If you object to my conduct, feel free to post a complaint to WP:AN/I. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RCAB

Believe it or not, it's not my blog. Promotion or not aside, why can't the picture remain on the site? Vartan84 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because of the iLoser+spamvertisement bit. I think the picture adds nothing to the article (Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links and pictures) and is meant to be promotional for your website, but that's a content issue that would need to be resolved independently of administrative action. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs P-47 Thunderbolt Slaughter (band) The Young Werewolves John Colicos C-46 Commando Greg Cox Battlestar Galactica (video game) WCWM Airshow Starbase 3rd Spacey Awards Televators List of keyboardists FB-22 Colonial One F-102 Delta Dagger De Havilland Canada Dash 8 Felix Wankel Daggit

Cleanup AgustaWestland EH101 Space science Frank Gambale Merge Pulse jet engine Sukhoi Su-30 Pub games Add Sources YF-23 Black Widow II Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 Orbital Space Plane Wikify Bjo Trimble Composite material Eugen Sänger Expand Orbital Maneuvering System Aerospace Norton AntiVirus

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Sampson

Hi I have just created an article entitled Geoffrey Sampson, and note that you deleted one with this title in May 2006. My Wikipedia skills are not such that I could determine the reasons for deletion (I couldn't find the discussion). The chap seems easily notable enough for inclusion (he is already referred to in several other mainspace articles), but if I'm missing something, please let me know. Regards ElectricRay 10:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The version I deleted was comprised of nothing other than "Geoffrey Sampson is a big stinky poo face", so I think we can safely assume your version is somewhat better. :D Looks great, and keep up the good work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha - That explains it. Thanks, Chairboy! ElectricRay 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Naconkantari

Hi Chairboy. I wanted to seek your advice about something concerning the above page. Naconkantari has made it perfectly clear that (s)he will not be editing Wikipedia anymore. I previously had left a note on Nacon's user talk page that (s)he was on long wikibreak and would be back when ready. Now that they have left with the intention of not coming back, I was going to leave a {{retired}} on the userpage, but noticed it was last deleted by You on 1st July this year. Could I please seek your permission and/or advice with regards to marking Naconkantari as retired, so that I do not breach the rules regarding recreation of deleted pages. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a retired tag, and considering that the last act of the user was to delete his own page, it's obvious that he does not want one. Please see m:Right to vanish, it is obviously the user's wish that the page not exist, and that Wikimedia policy establishes the precedent that this is allowed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hans Boskamp

On 24 june 2007, you removed the article on this man, who played a major role in both the Floris (TV series), and the movie Turkish Delight. The man has a IMBN-sub page. By my opinion, this man was notable. Care to undelete it, Chairboy, so that I can review the information given there, before I make a new article on this man? -The Bold Guy- 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I've restored it to User:-The Bold Guy-/Hans Boskamp. As you can see, there is absolutely no assertion of notability in the version I deleted. If you can alter the page so that it no longer meets WP:CSD Articles, section 7, then feel free to move it back into article space once that's done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you've been following...

... the full version of the ongoing fair use issues for the past year or so, but your statement on the Betacommand talk page that:

If your images are being tagged and deleted, then I propose that you are not, in fact, "following the fair use rules" correctly

... fails to take in to account a couple of things. One, enforcement and interpretation of the fair use rules have, obviously, changed significantly over the past six months. (For example, what was once "fair use" is now "Non-free content.") And what was once perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policy is now not so much. It's entirely possible for a contributor to have followed every guideline as they existed a year ago, and now find their contributions being massively deleted. (This appears to be happening quite often, judging by the Betacommand talk page.) And two, there are at least two major instances of editors/admins deleting thousands of images out of process, thanks in part to the Betacommandbot. (Here's the most obvious one.)

Just remember that it's entirely possible for the Betacommandbot to be tagging and prepping for deletion thousands of images... AND for those images to have been uploaded and accepted entirely within process. The ever changing nature of Wikipedia makes it so! Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but if you take a moment to check out his (User:Steve_Eifert) image uploads, you'll see that his image uploading didn't even meet the previous, more 'lax' interpretations of fair use, much less the current. As such, his assertion that he's been doing it right really isn't accurate. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Yes, I stopped the page loading after clicking "save page" to type more and then again clicked "save page". I did notice that somehow this had deleted a previous users edits and you reverted it very quickly, before I had a chance to. Thank you. Think outside the box 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Showbiz Pizza Place

Good catch! It looked copyvio-ish, but I didn't find a Ghit on it. Myself and some others have culled/are culling and rewriting the identical copyvio at Chuck E. Cheese's. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rootology

Believe it or not, I didn't know that "right to vanish" existed. My bad... Ranma9617 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image.

You can perhaps understand how shocked I was to see myself on the internet; Image:Pasen 2007 045.JPG, is a picture my grandson took from me weeks ago! I don't now how it came on the internet, but what I do know, is that I want it to be removed as quickly as possible. Such things cannot be tolerated! It is a complete violation of personal information I don't want to be within the public domain. I am a amature-sailor and won some sailboat-races, so it is quite possible I am on the internet, but I never gave permition for this to happen. Can you give me the name and some information on the user who uploaded this? Is it used more often? Were else can it be seen? I wanna know! I want it removed completely! -The Bold Guy- 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Tony Little

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tony Little. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The thread has been archived and is now located here. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... anyone there? :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! Feel free to restore that older revision. Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I must have missed a couple of the messages before this one, based on the dates. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About Image:mappart1,2,3

I am not using Wikipedia as a free web host. The graphics lab is in fact part of Wikipedia! The reason the images were in the graphics lab were because they are parts of a main image, but in a higher resolution. This main image had recently been marked for deletion, as it was replaceable. The purpose of Image:mappart1,2,3 was for the image lab to make the replacement (they needed larger version). As i said before, they were never intended for articles, but were for the graphics lab. Therefore, I am not using Wikipedia as a web host!

As it happens, the lab has now finished with all the images, and they all can be deleted- the replacement is ready.

Please do not leave anymore pointless messages on my talk page. Please read and check facts before accusing!

Regards, Dewarw 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The message you're responding to is:

While on the site, an image must comply with our licensing policies. Also, please find another website, Wikipedia ain't a free webhost, if that's the use you're describing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So... 'do not leave pointless messages' is a bit over the top, and the point stands that images uploaded, no matter what the intended use, must meet our licensing requirements. Please use more care when responding in the future, civility is what makes our work possible. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Silverbird

First of silverbird group's one of largestest multimedia companies in Nigeria. And believe me its not spam (like they r not loads on wiki). Just bcuz, it doesn't have an article, doesn't mean its not notable. And btw, if we folloew ur logic, d leo sayer album might as well b taken off, bcuz i have never heard of it either (and it doesnt have an article). Adaobi ^YELL!!_done 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Write the article, then add the link to the disambiguation page. Review WP:3RR if you haven't already before re-adding it, please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday (Doctor Who)

Thanks for your attention to the above article. However, due to Doctor Who's strong national ties to the United Kingdom, the MoS developed at project level (WP:WHO) recommends we consistently use British spelling. There's a big article on the difference between English variants here, but for practical purposes it's probably easier to navigate the Cambridge ALD if you simply want to determine whether a mistake has been made. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I wasn't trying to de-anglicize the spelling, it looked like a misspelling. Are you saying that "Traveller" and "Cancelling" are british versions of the words? I looked at the MoS and the Cambridge dictionary link and didn't see that specified. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In brief, yes. If you look closely at the Cambridge entries for the words ([18],[19]), the single "l" versions are specified as the US spellings; it's written from the POV that our versions are the "norm", so to speak. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, I've been looking for a way to reliably differentiate between the two. The obvious ones like 'colour' and 'stabilise' are easy, but the double L threw me for a loop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

I just wanted to take a minute and compliment you on the extremely diplomatic tone of your note to Tobias regarding his ban. I was really impressed...it was far better than what I could have written. Many thanks for taking up this unpleasent task. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. after reading your user page, it must really chafe you to be a Warrior owner and have to have a CE pic on the pilot user box!) AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Tobias Conradi

"tenacious"? Are you sure you maybe didn't mean "tendentious" or something else? In any event, I would like to say thank you for having sent as pleasant a discharge letter to the above user as is possible under the circumstances. John Carter 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw geez, you're right, I'll fix the word. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Flyaow

You just delted Flyaow as spam. I don't think this was blatent advertising, in fact I was editing to remove the speedy tag when you delted. Please reconsider this deletion. This looked like a fairly factual description of an arguably notabel web site to me. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:WEB criteria. If you feel it does and can provide some corroboration, let's restore it and update it appropriately. Good articles deserve space on the project, no argument here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this meets WP:WEB, or not, or could be brought to do so, although i suspect it could. i haev not, as yet, done any research on this, simply read the article itself.

I am, however, convinced that this wasn't blatent advertising (so WP:CSD#G11 didn't apply) and that it celalry asserted signmificance -- for one thing, as the oldest such site on the web -- so WP:CSD#A7 didn't apply. The WP:WEB standards are, IMO not relevant in a speedy deeltion situation, only in an afd (or prod) where there is a chance for anyone intersted to research the isuse and determine whether a subjects fits WP:WEB. Also, WEB is a guideline, and there will be soem cases where a subject does not strictly fit is parameters, but ought to be kept nonetheless. Not that I ahve any particular reason to think this is such a case, but IMO that is another reaosn not to invoke WEB, or any of the other specialized notability guidelines, in an A& speedy deletion situation. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the first airline portal when it went online in 1994. In terms of WP:WEB I think it satisfies Criteria #1 of non-trivial coverage in independent sources. See these citations as examples:

Deletion of Giles peters

You deleted this under WP:CSD#A7. I think there were claims of notability present, such as "the largest diabetic gift service in the U.K.", and "has received mass media coverage for his business". Please consider undelting and, if you still think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, letting it go to AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob, restored and initiated AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of A Band of Orcs

I don't understand why you deleted this page. Did you not see that the notability was confirmed in the discussion/history of the page by Merope? Ballstatic 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:MUSIC, it outlines the criteria that the band fails to meet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Doo Doo Stretch & Scrotum Shrivel (band) page

I don't see how there's a lack of notability with Doo Doo Stretch & Scrotum Shrivel (band) when they are directly associated with two notable bands (A Band of Orcs, and Former Fat Boys) especially considering they are currently working on an MP3 single with Former Fat Boys.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballstatic (talk • contribs)

Please review WP:MUSIC to see the standards of notability required for articles to remain on Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So I should wait until completed and use preview verses publish?

I'm not trying to be a smart well ya know. I'm Just a little unfamiliar with how the editing works here. It took me quite a bit to figure out how to message you back. Your input would be greatly appreciated. I am an avid user of the wiki and I dont want to put junk out there so I'm sorry if it seemed that way

posted answer to your (jul 26) reply in my Talk Page (sorry for the delay, I've seen it to-day) Gaetanomarano 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Adminreview1, Template:Adminreview2, and Template:Adminreview3

A few templates you created, Template:Adminreview1, Template:Adminreview2, and Template:Adminreview3, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I am puzzled as to why you would nominate my article for speedy deletion. I have followed underground British hip-hop and grime for the last 10 years, and any artist who has won Kennet Awards, usually has huge success (eg. The Streets & Dizzee Rascal). G-Star has released 2 mixtapes (available at some HMV stores) and is shortly releasing his debut album. His 1st single went in at #49 in the UK Charts, and was considered for the Need For Speed soundtrack. What else does it take to show that this artist is famous enough to stay on Wiki? I'm unsure whether it was you or not, but the article "G-Star" has been deleted, and the last name on the log was yours.

I'd appreciate your help with this. Please reply to my talk page

GR55TAY

I don't know what article you're talking about, but vandalizing my user page pretty much shoots any argument of yours in the foot. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Okies. Just one question: Shouldn't account creation be enabled as well (sorry if I sound a bit noobish, but I haven't been a sysop for a long time. )? —« ANIMUM » 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you put a checkmark in 'account creation disabled', that prevents them from coming back with a new, proper username. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

$\ldots$and if the autoblock were enabled, the new username couldn't edit, correct? —« ANIMUM » 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My words are failing me, I apologize for the confusion I've caused. Instead, please see this subsection of WP:BLOCK which communicates what I've been suggesting without my awkward phrasing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay$\ldots$I think I've got it. —« ANIMUM » 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Contact with H

I need to get into contact with H. Do you know how? --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, but I'd like to respect his privacy. I could probably pass a message along if you'd like, no guarantees he'd respond. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tell him my username and that I need to ask him a question. Ok? If not, it's fine. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John Whitney Hall

The deletion of this article was too fast. I did add the hold on tag, and then proceeded to explain on the talk page; but by the time I was ready to save what I'd written there, the stub itself was gone. I'm not sure what to do now. I could start again, of course ... but maybe it's simpler to approach you directly?

Short & sweet: John Whitney Hall is one of the few recipients of Japan's Order of the Sacred Treasures for a life's work in academia -- Japanese history and literature. Born in Japan in 1916, he eventually became a professor at the University of Michigan and Yale University. See extant talk ... if it still exists. Ooperhoofd 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The article deleted had none of that info, and was basically just a sentence about a teacher who his students like. You may want to recreate the article from scratch, there's nothing from the previous one sentence bit that'd be of use, but please make sure it has assertions of notability consistent with WP:NOTABLE in the first edit. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was appropriate

See also: WP:AGF--Loodog 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What does AGF have to do with my request? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random observation about your web page

"I am not a bot, but I have been called a tool" should be on a bumpersticker or something. :) —tregoweth (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Try taking this objectively

The disruption you accuse me of can only go on as long as User:Wibbble engages me for it. Only once have I posted without it being a direct response to that editor. I assure you that I do not continue my argument for the sake of ego, proving anyone wrong, or disrpution, but because I sincerely believe that this change will improve the article to those who read it.--Loodog 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain you do, I'm not accusing you of editing in bad faith. But your insistence is bordering on disruption, hence my gentle suggestion that you reconsider. You don't believe me, and that's fine, perhaps you should request external comment. I think Wibble is arguing from a point supported by policy and our style guide, and you aren't, but you're welcome to seek out another opinion. If we all agreed all the time, it'd be boring. One thing that puzzles me is the subject of your message, where does objectivity come in? You didn't mention it in your message, seems a bit like a stinky fish. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant that in accusing me (and only me) of disruption, you've taken an argument which has two points of view and called one "disruption" and the other one necessary speech. I've done no more "disruption" than my friend here has.--Loodog 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay move

As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding {{merge}} tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion. >Radiant< 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there, a pilot like you JennyLen, when we discussed about someone having Space flight interests remembered your user page. Would you care to visit us at WP:TIMETRACE and see if you can help with the page Space flight ? Or just give a look around and see if you would like to help in the project aims? You would be very welcome ! ℒibrarian2 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

michael jackson

hi I have just looked at the users edit history he has done this before so obviously it was deliberate. [[20]]. I have told him to stop vandalising, any thought on this? Yours from the depth of enlightenmentRealist2 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22 edits

FYI, I've replied to you on my talk page.--Dali-Llama 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Flyaow

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flyaow. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 137.82.96.26 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Automated reversions

Chairboy: Hello... thanks for your note. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, and agree with it in principle. However, in this case, I should point out that the only "automation" involved using the TW "restore this version" tool. I still add manual comments when appropriate, as I did here, so it is identical to doing an "old-style" revert. (In some respects, it is arguably better as the utility adds version information that is not easily accessible.) Thanks again, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

aXXo Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of aXXo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Xiaphias 00:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Koby Abberton talk page

Hi - a little courtesy note.

02:28, 22 December 2006 Chairboy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Koby Abberton" ‎ (WP:CSD General criteria, subsection 8 - Talk page of an article that does not exist.)

The article Koby Abberton is up and running again. I think Mr Abberton's notability is no longer contentious (tho the article contents may be), so I've restarted the talk page.

--Shirt58 11:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Coffee

Which "folks" would you be meaning? DuncanHill 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers my question, my apologies for the misunderstanding. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are on about! DuncanHill 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just a mistake on my part as I mentioned. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronicas

Wondering why you deleted the stub for Chronicas Media. It did not blatantly advertise, and it described the details of the company... if I had had the time I could have easily added more details about the company but before I knew it the article was gone without a chance for me to contest its changes. There are numerous other pages on Wikipedia about other small businesses. Please reconsider its speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeber (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicity and Wikipedia

The method you employed for having those categories deleted (by misrepresenting the time they had been empty) is unacceptable. The merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, you employed deletion templates in such a way as to perform an "end run" on consensus by essentially tricking someone into deleting them under false pretenses. A user with your experience should know better, and this type of action is simply not proper. This, in conjunction with the many other dramas you've been the center of over the past two years is making it difficult for me to assume that you're consistently editing in good faith or using good judgment. Reconsider the means you're employing to edit the project, this can't continue. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved with any drama. No idea what you are talking about unless you count every disagreement I have as "drama".

I have been harassed for the past 2 long years. My only mistake was seeking community help. Community was more than slow in dealing with a user who dedicated his entire contribution in harassing me. That indef block could have happened two years ago.

Merits of "Kurdistan" nonwithstanding, User:Diyarbakir, my harasser (one of the indef blocked sockpuppets anyway) had added this kind of categories to the articles on occasions simply to bait me (this evidence is present on the checkuser case I believe). I looked the other way for ages so as not to create what some may call "drama". After waiting for so long I decided to make a few edits. I haven't just mass removed the categories instead I recategorized on many occasions from "Kurdistan" -> "Iraqi Kurdistan".

I have requested an inclusion criteria for these articles numerous times. I have attempted a discussion numerous times. They were all ignored. The only time a response is indeed posted seemingly is when one of these categories get deleted or nominated for deletion.

And for my highly slow-paced consensus seeking attitude I am accused of bad faith.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Pilots

Regarding this edit, there's a bit of a problem. Most of us in that category are not pilots by profession. This has been discussed quite a bit. Would you like to roll it back? Again, like most people in that category, I am not a pilot by profession, so your edit is simply incorrect. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're a licensed pilot, but not a "profesisonal" pilot, correct?

I had presumed that that was the difference between the pilot and commercial pilot categories. - jc37 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I am a licensed pilot (heck, I even own my own plane), but I don't pilot airplanes as my job. Another example: There are people who are paid to ride motorcycles (whether they're police officers or racers), but the vast majority of motorcycle riders are not motorcyclists by profession. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Which is why the category is also under Wikipedians by skill. You are not under "by profession", the parent category is. And some pilots are professionals, and some are not. So the category was doing double duty, including those by profession.

However, since this has become a great concern to you, I went ahead and created a "profesisonal pilots" category, and did some related categorisation work (inclduing the flight instructors, which are also a profession).

Have a great day. - jc37 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for drama, it's just that the original change you had made was simply inaccurate. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No drama, just explaining/clarifying. Anyway, have a great day : ) - jc37 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Hello, could you please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Judgment (Angelico), I would like to withdraw. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Hi, the "stupid mistake" was warning me of the fair-use crap about two images that I didn't upload. I had never had anything to do with them. That is a mistake, and not entirely proper, I hope you'll agree. Please reply below or on my talkpage so I know you understand this.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, when you write "I didn't upload EITHER of those image, you PRAT!" you're making a personal attack. Take a civil tone with people when you're working with them on this project, even if they made a mistake. If people don't, then the work we're trying to do here becomes impossible. Review the policies I mentioned above, if you do it again, you'll be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But, you said his actions were reasonable and proper. They weren't. I think you should note that you also failed to assume good faith.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

reply

As you requested I wrote up a note about my first impressions of the citizendium.

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As time passes and if things change, I know a lot of folks would like to hear about how well your experience turns out. It sounds as if you've just started, the real meat will probably come about from reading your thoughts after a few weeks of work on it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Drama sucks

Regarding this edit, if you feel someone is stalking your or attacking you, take steps to have the problem resolved by asking for help, either on AIV or WP:AN/I or whichever means are needed. Dramatic proclamations like what you wrote in the link above don't do anything to fix the problem, and the passive-aggressive traits it resembles are considered ineffective and poor form. Take control, be assertive, and work to have a problem fixed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't read anything on your page that indicates that you are a psychologist and since you have never met me and know next to zero about me your amatuer and unwelcome comment that my comment was "passive-aggressive" was inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary. However, I do take your other comments at face value and I agree with them. I was attempting to deal with a difficult editor who is screwing with me. I was hoping to avoid AIV or AN/I, but I guess I have no other choice. I will "take control," as you say and move the direction of AIV or AN/I. But once again, in an effort to "take control" and "be assertive" I would encourage you strongly not to engage in any more amatuer, inappropriate, incorrect, and unnecessary attempts at deep psychological analysis because when you consider how very, very, very little you really know about 99.9999% of the other Wikipedians your amatuer psychological analysis is not only annoying, but clearly violates civility and quite possibly falls under personal attack Really keep a lid on it. But as I stated the other comments are on target and I will follow up on those constructive comments. Have a good day!--JobsElihu 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel I made a personal attack, I strongly urge you to seek remediation. If an admin was making personal attacks on a user, then it's your duty to Wikipedia to make sure that problem is resolved. Unless, of course, you're throwing the accusation around as a tactic of some sort, in which case I could see why you wouldn't want more eyeballs on it and would hope this would sorta just 'go away'. It's up to you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The difficult user is NOT an admin. No, it is not a tactic. I was just working through the options as Wikipedia suggests. The first thing on the list is to attempt to work it out with the offender directly because, yes, I was hoping that it "would sorta just 'go away'". Obviously, that has not worked. I will take it to the next step. Take care.--JobsElihu 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Cool Cat, this is a formal warning for you to stop your disruption of the project, specifically your efforts to whitewash the past and modify inert archives. This is getting ridiculous, and if you continue, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Such a block will be contested at an arbcom or foundation level as my privacy has real world implications off wiki. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no realistic chance that your connection to the name 'Cool Cat' will ever be dissolved, especially in light of your increasingly bewildering editing to update connections between the accounts. If you were actually interested in privacy, you would stop editing under your latest account and start afresh, never touching any of those other accounts or edits. Since you haven't, and in light of your edit history, there's no risk that the Arbcom or the foundation would ever seriously consider you're operating in good faith if you were to cry 'privacy!'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you were to block him for something as banal and harmless as renaming archives to match his current user name, it would not look good for you. Maybe you should read this AN/I section which indicates several administrators consider the making of an issue out of this to be disruptive and pointless, and reconsider your behaviour on this talk page in light of that. - Mark 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

bot boo-boo

Thanks for catching that; reply here. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Userfy request

I see that the Molly Stevens article was deleted[21] as non-notable in January of 2006 and again two months later; if the deleted article was about the cooking author/teacher, could you userfy the page so I can work on it? She's definitely notable. If, on the other hand, the article was about, er, the "14 year old upcoming supermodel hottie," please don't bother. Thanks, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya! Both deleted versions were about the 14 year old middle schooler, sorry. Writing a Molly Stevens article about someone notable would be great! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. I'll proceed to write a new article, then.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Universal Florida Studio Tour

Hi Chairboy. I'm currently building up a page for Universal Studios Florida's former Studio Tour, The Universal Florida Studio Tour, And i'm in desperate need of a ride video of the tour to post on the article, Would you happen to have any? Please respond with a message back to my talk page, Or post a video of the tour on the article first, And then send me a new message. Thanks--5VH9 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)