User talk:Ginsengbomb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

princess diana roller coaster

I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find proof of this beautiful memorial that does exists. The one and only beautiful Diana, Princess of Whales has her own roller coaster at Canada's Wonderland. Face it, there's nothing we can do about her death.

I am sorry to hear that -you- couldn't find proof, because until you do, your contribution will not be included in Wikipedia. Ginsengbomb (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, until Six Flags acquires the rights to Princess Diana's life and releases an official statement concerning this thoughtful memorial you just have to go up to Wonderland and experience the roller coaster for yourself. I promise you will enjoy it, it's an experience like none other, I will even pay your ticket and hold your hand on the ride (incase it gets emotional for you.)

I guess we'll just have to wait for Six Flags to release an official statement then. This matter is concluded. Ginsengbomb (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're ruining the fun for everyone! What a shame, Princess Diana would have been proud of her coaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.65.231 (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting that edit. You were really quick on the draw. You had reverted before I could even check my talk page. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for restoring my talk page! --NellieBly (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, and right back at you of course! *high-five* Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Isabelle Fuhrman

You tagged Isabelle Fuhrman as {{db-g7}}, which I think may have been a mistake, since many editors have contributed to the article. I removed the tag. -- Eastmain (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Yeah, definitely a mistake. I don't recall tagging that page, so I probably thought Huggle was pointed at a different article when I plastered that tag on the top. Thanks for catching that, and apologies for the screwup. Ginsengbomb (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an explenation too much to ask ?

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Smart card has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RSA23Sign! 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Smart card. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. RSA23Sign! 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Smart card. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is regarding smart cards that use metal contacts to transmit data. For smart cards that use radio frequencies see Contactless smart card

line 1 of article

Do not pollute this article with propaganda, and excuses about why a few countries do not use this. The us is waiting for wireless , fine , 1 line suffices to show this , do not copy paste parts of unrelated data into this article

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Smart card. Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

then merge the 2 articles

or remove this line from the top:

This article is regarding smart cards that use metal contacts to transmit data. For smart cards that use radio frequencies see Contactless smart cardµ

have the decency to read my replies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.12.121 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit to Mutinus caninus...

...is not vandalism. Refer to my talk for explanatory links. --Cú Faoil (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I agree with you. Ginsengbomb (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Hi, I agree that raising the points does not constitute discussion. I thought we were supposed to be bold and that reversions are always possible if the changes don't have merrit. I really think they do. I have spent quite a bit of time on this. I think before they're labelled unconstructive and deleted people should discuss them. If the consensus is that they're no good, I can abide by that. Cheers  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

They should discuss them by referencing them on a talk page. Think of it this way -- by introducing the changes BEFORE discussion, you are publishing the information before it's had a chance to come to debate, which should seem obviously wrong-spirited. You can't make this edit without more discussion, it will be viewed as vandalism (even though I am fairly sure you don't intend it as such). Check out how to make a sandbox page for the revised article so people can look at how you intend to write it when discussing via the talk page. In short, you need consensus BEFORE introducing sweeping changes to a published article. You can't "test" your changes via the published article for obvious reasons. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sandbox suggestion. I saw the article and really thought it was in desperate need of attention. I'm not really familiar enough to create a sandbox or with all the intricacies of wiki editing. I saw a problem and I thought i'd try to help.  :) I would really love to see the edit go through and hear what other editors have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood completely! I've made you a Sandbox that is linked off your user page. It can be found here. Take your contribution to the article, drop it on that page, and link to it in the post you made to the original article's talk page. That way, editors can look at your revised post and respond to it without having the proposed revisions published before they are discussed. Make sense? Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you were BOLD, but that doesn't mean BOLD changes must be kept. Placing new (cited) information into those articles would likely cause no problems, but the removal of paragraphs of information is a concern. To see how to create a "sandbox" look at my page. And it need not be called "sandbox", i.e., call it something more appropriate. Jwesley₇₈ 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the suggestions and assistance. Most educational. I saw the article and was very concerned about it. I hope that those who have spearheaded the article as it is don't have undue weight in preserving it in its present form, simply because they are on wikipedia more frequently than others and that they got to write first. Again, many thanks. Both of you have been most helpful to this wiki neophyte. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, jeez, my pleasure. I'm here reverting vandalism tonight so coming across someone who clearly wants to contribute -and- wants to learn how best to do so is extremely refreshing! Glad this worked out well :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is my fact wrong?

Im not vandalizing, i am ony stating the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchosdick (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an opinion, not a fact, but worse: you have already blanked and vandalized the page, and now you're adding a line to a quote posted by someone else. Please stop :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Correction

Hey buddy:

  I received a message from you regarding my edit to the Vauxhaull Motors page, something about citing sources. I didn't really add any information, but instead just merely edited the page
 to reflect correct English grammar (as the tense has changed). If this is wrong, or does need some sort of specific citation, please inform me as to how it should be done.      
   Appreciatively, M.R. 11/07/09

Replied on your talk page :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - I appreciate the clarification, my apologies for the inconvenience and thank you for your thorough explanation. I will not make that mistake again :)
 M.R. 11/07/09

I am a Myer's Hall resident, why is my entry vandalism?

I'm not trying to be stupid, and I know that my edit was ridiculous, but I (and a number of my friends) are having a debate about wikipedia philosophy. Here was my edit on the Myers Hall (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Myers_Hall_%28University_of_Georgia%29) page under "Student Life":

"If you are a complete and total dork, you can join a group that refers to themselves as 'the drones.' They wear blazers and are annoying as hell."

I am actually a resident of Myers Hall, and I made this edit in the presence of three other Myers Hall residents who could verify the statement I made above.

Can you justify your re-edit to my edit, besides just saying that using the phrases "dork" and "annoying as hell" makes it an opinion? What would you consider a legitimate edit? If I said: "there is a group of residents that wear blazers and discuss topics of interest and often make a habit of disrupting the peace and quiet of the other residents." would that be ok?

Not trying to be argumentative, I'm just wondering. I also don't care as much about this issue specifically as I do about Wikipedia's policies/philosophy in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.206.61 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Unusual to hear a well-intentioned response from someone who introduced such an as-you-say "ridiculous" edit :). No, your revised edit wouldn't be okay either. The most straightforward explanation can be found here: WP:V. You might also want to read WP:SOAP and other applicable sections of What Wikipedia Is Not. Alternatively, if exhaustive lists of rules and regulations aren't your cup of tea (they are certainly not mine), try and see if your edits pass what I'd call, simply, the "Encyclopedia Test." For example, what content regarding Myer's Hall would you expect to find in a bound encyclopedia? Likely basic information such as location, building date, # of rooms, etc. You might also see a few examples of famous happenings, if any have occurred, at the Hall. These happenings would be famous enough that there would be articles from reputable sources devoted to covering them. You wouldn't see, for example, insinuations about a particular group of people and, just as importantly, content that only has meaning to people who currently live at Myer's Hall. Your revised edit is both of these things. So! In short, those are two ways of explaining why your revised edit doesn't meet Wiki standards for inclusion. Thanks for the message! Ginsengbomb (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! BTW: Wikipedia is a pretty valuable resource for me as a college student and I'm thankful for people like you who maintain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.206.61 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gleason Crop

This whole wiki system is very cumbersome, you know ? It could use a re-think ...

anyway, cf Gleason edits and Mr Wizard and whoever wrote the original article :

You said

"You removed a good amount of content without any explanation for why you were doing so"

This depends on how you define "content" :P If I went to an article about George Bush and added several paragraphs about the Trilateral Commission, the International Jewish Conspiracy and maybe a bit about Mr Bush'es association with the devil, I doubt that you'd balk at "removing content."

The two sentences I removed were not content for the following reasons ;

The vast majority of automobiles have been front wheel drive since around 1980. Front wheel drive drive systems with a couple rare exceptions (Saab and maybe Peugeout that I can think of) do not contain either spiral bevel or hypoid gears. So the claim that European automobiles are more fuel-efficient because they use Oerlikon-method spiral bevels rather than Gleason-method hypoids is ridiculous.

Further, the examples I can think of offhand that are rear-drive (BMW, Mercedes) use hypoids. The offset axes of a hypoid gearset allow the drive shaft to be several inches closer to the ground. This drops the chassis of the car several inches. Guess what ? Aerodynamics have a far greater influence on fuel economy than the total efficiency of one set of gears in a drivetrain.

Again, the portion I removed was entirely in error.

The thing about it that was disgusting was the way that pseudo-nationalistic fervor replaced fact. The people at Oerlikon (now defunct, so much for the "better European alternative") did not think their system was inherently superior to the Gleason method. Nor does Gleason look down their noses at Oerlikon. In fact they made several machines using that system. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods. Gear engineers are not ordinarily neocons or jingoists. Replace the word "Gleason" in that article with "nigger" and see how you react. There is no reasoning, there is no truth, there is nothing but nationalistic propaganda in those two sentences which I removed.

No reason to make a lengthy explanation, anyone with a little bit of knowledge should have been able to figure it out.Easily.

What surprises me is that Mr Wizard, who has a degree from a university in Milwaukee, is apparently not educated well enough to see obvious fallacies. Any claim that "European automobiles are superior to American ones" because they use spiral bevel gears rather than hypoids in a world where 95% of the cars built have neither one is an obvious joke. Cars nowadays have transverse engines and use parallel shafts, helical gears and CV joints. There are no right angles involved. The sentences I removed are ludicrous. They are not content. How can a person with so many engineering articles under their belt not see this ? Surprised me ...

"It's also generally a good idea to not attack someone who's just trying to prevent anonymous users from deleting loads of content without any explanation, particularly when that person just gave you a friendly, not-at-all mean spirited level 1 warning."

If you read carefully I did not attack Mr Wizard although his reasoning as an "engineer" leaves a lot to be desired. I attacked the article itself and whoever wrote the jingoist, ridiculous nonsense about spiral bevels, hypoids, the gleason system and the oerlikon system. In fact, one could make a good case that the oerlikon system was also a gleason system since gleason used that method on some of its very very early gear planers. Gleason pretty much invented bevel gears so if anything bevellish has ever been done, Gleason was right there. I am not rapturously in love with them these days but the ignorance spewed by some moron in the initial article (still there, thanks guys for your lucid reasoning) should be attacked. It's not factual, it's not impartial, it's not informed, it's not informative. It's nothing but venomous mean-spirited swill. Perhaps a little more attacking of ignorance would not hurt Wikipedia.

I understand your points, but nobody is asking for a -lengthy- explanation of why you're removing something. Just a brief edit summary to explain what you're doing. And, yes, if you added a bunch of material to an article on Dubya regarding Jewish Conspiracies or whatever, it'd be removed. That's not the point. The point is that it is very recommended to include an edit summary when making -any- changes. If I saw that type of material on a Dubya page, I'd excise it with an edit summary something like "removing material violating WP:NPOV" or similar. That's the ideal, anyway. It's not always followed. But, in particular, when adding or removing large amounts of content, regardless of how clearly right or wrong the change is, you should -always- include an edit summary. Removals of whole paragraphs without a summary are pretty much viewed with suspicion. We also have a system of warning "levels," because often times such changes are actually good changes (such as yours) that weren't explained, and if you go in and do the change a second time and offer an explanation, they'll be accepted. That's why the first "warning" is barely a warning at all. Regarding the "attacking" bit, reread your post on his page. You slam Wikipedia in general ("this is why people despise Wikipedia) and him in particular ("did you come in on your high horse?" "smugly trot off"? That's an attack). Even in your post here, you express "surprise" that he is "not educated well enough to see obvious fallacies." This is not exactly kind-hearted talk :). His warning to you assumed good faith on your part. You should do the same with your response, rather than assume the problem is his insufficient "education." Make sense? Regardless, on the whole, I agree with your edit, if that means anything at this point. Have a good one. Ginsengbomb (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Coercorash

He already received a level 4 warning from me today! He just blanked his page, so the next person coming by would start at a level 1. He warned me for warning him :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 07:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was watching the edits pass through and initially hesitated at involving myself in what I thought might be edit-warring until I took a closer look at what he was actually doing. His warning to you was...interesting. Anyway...take care! Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ginesengbomb, while I understand your motive in reverting Coercorash repeatedly, you should be careful that you don't exceed 3 reverts yourself; it can be argues that you were simply reverting vandalism, and hence WP:3RR does not apply - but that distinction often comes down to the judgement of an admin, which is not infallible. Also, it is a simple waste of time to keep reverting editors who it is clear are not going to stop - best to just ask for admin help at ANI or AN3 noticeboards. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was pretty clear vandalism after reviewing it all, and that he had been properly warned. That said... you are quite right. It wasn't quite as obvious/cut-and-dry as someone replacing whole pages with "I eat poopoo" or similar, and it smelled a bit like edit-warring when I first looked in on it. Apparent lack of restraint = Ginsengbomb go to bed now, wake up with clear head :). Thanks for the note, I agree. Take care! Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should check the section called Email spam

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hperkie (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Undo

Not trying to vandalize. Trying to find correct editorial marking to have phony citation removed. From Policy page:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

Still learning the system. Boybillyboy (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood! You're fine as far as I'm concerned -- I won't continue reverting. Thanks! Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ginseng, consider looking at WP:3RR, then at the article history, then at WP:SOCK, and you might feel differently. Take care, Drmies (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Right you are, actually. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism fighting

Just wanted to say you are very quick on the "Recent Changes" page. Great work! --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Something distracting me

As I am permitted to use the rollbacker feature every time I go to recent changes I always see [rollback] at the end of each edit, and it does distract me whichever article I want to go to. Is there a possibility that I can delete the [rollback] button on the recent changes page, and if so, how are we going to do it? Minimac94 (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Are you familiar with Huggle? It's what I use for rollbacking. It's fantastic. Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsure yet, because I haven't tried it. I'll might give it a go but I'm a little concerned by the fact that I'm not getting enough experience. I've started contributing since late October. I have definitely looked at the manual and part of the message says "Use of Huggle by new or inexperienced users is not recommended", so I'm in a tough situation. The message also says in bold: "Use of an automated tool is not an excuse". I don't understand why it's not an excuse. I would be grateful and may use the tool if someone explains it. Minimac94 (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it just means that even though Huggle lets you rollback and warn in an automated fashion (as well as patrol new pages, tag things for deletion, and make general edits), you are still solely responsible for your edits. For example, Huggle -does- make it a bit easier to make a mistake. Just last night, for example, I rolled an edit back but accidentally gave the wrong type of warning (I rolled back an addition of a spam link to an article but accidentally warned the editor against "personal attacks"). All the "use of an automated tool is not an excuse" bit means is that I can't blame my mistake on Huggle. It was my fault.

Either way, if you don't feel absolutely comfortable that you're familiar with all the different warning types, what constitutes vandalism, all the protocol there, etc., you are right in thinking you probably shouldn't use Huggle yet. It makes fighting vandalism and other problems much easier, but it also makes screwing things up much easier, hehe. Good luck, whatever you decide! Ginsengbomb (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

mistake

you too fast fo me chico. Great work! A8UDI 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks man. Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

re: comment

I understand your concern, however if I do not tell him, he may possibly offend others too. The world isn't sunshine and rainbows. A good way to learn is via criticism and harsh criticism is a great way to learn. There is no reason why you should get involved in this situation. Please leave it to me and him. Thank you, 76.197.130.49 (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're just dangerously close to violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks with your post on his page, and there is certainly a reason for me to be involved -- I don't want you to think that you can attack other editors for leaving kind (if canned) messages on your talk page by mistake, and I don't want Minimac to use his rollback privileges carelessly. Regardless, "harsh criticism" is absolutely not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. You can advise him of his error without being defensive and resorting to threatening to report him to the rollbacker police. Read WP:AGF -- it doesn't just apply to people combating vandalism. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not violating any "personal attacks" as I am not committing any personal attacks. If you want to be involved, I find that as a personal attack against me as I feel that you are trying to find ways to offend me. I do not wish to be offended and I wish for you to stay out of the matter. It would be better if this situation was handled in an Adult manner by me and the person in question. Please do not make me report you for harassment as I feel that you are trying to harass me. Thank you. 76.197.130.49 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the person in question has apologized. Please refrain from even replying back to me as I do not wish to hear any hurtful comments from you. I would like to end this dilemma now. Thank you 76.197.130.49 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you do not get to determine who sticks their nose in what on Wikipedia, that after all being kinda what the whole project is about. My involvement is not in and of itself a "personal attack." Read what I first wrote on your talk page and tell me where the "personal attack" is. Reading the history, Minimac left you a kind (if canned) message on your page, and you came back, told him that you were extremely offended, called him a vandal, and threatened to report him. He subsequently apologized to you. Also, just pointing this out here -- I intervened on your side in this matter, and you are threatening to report me for harassment, calling my involvement a "personal attack" (how my gently advising you that you shouldn't yell at someone who made an honest mistake is a "personal attack" is completely beyond me, but whatever). At this point, I don't really care. Just be careful with your attitude. "Harsh criticism" -- those are your words, not mine -- is not acceptable. Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ginsengbomb: I have e (mathematical constant) on my watchlist and am here as a result of following the recent change. The situation is that user 76.197.130.49 correctly undid a very misguided edit, and then 76.197.130.49 was reverted with edit summary "reverted 1 edit by 76.197.130.49 identified as vandalism to last revision by Going3killu", and a standard level-1 vandalism notice was placed at User talk:76.197.130.49. 76 is absolutely correct to have complained to the editor who did the mistaken revert and warning, and the language that 76 used was not anywhere near a personal attack. We should be apologizing to 76, not adding further warnings. If wanted, you might like to let 76 know that the revert was a mistake, and that 76 shouldn't really describe the reversion as vandalism, but that's as far as it should go. I came here to let you know that I have removed the warning at 76's talk (and in doing so, I removed a comment by yourself). I really think we should all forget this now, but if you would like to reply please do so here and there is no need for talkback, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah. Deleting my response (which you can read in history if you want). Long story short: I disagree with your interpretation of events, but I certainly agree with forgetting about all this, since the whole thing was sparked by a silly and now-reversed misunderstanding! Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

lib?

Are you a lib, slanting documentation?

No, but you are incorporating derogatory information into an article about a living person without sourcing it. To wit: what documentation are you suggesting I am slanting? Ginsengbomb (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

lib?

How do I add a link with Stephen being interviewed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.159.202 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Go here: Wikipedia:Reference. However, I should warn you that you still won't be able to justify talk of him "dodging" questions or anything similar which may violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Keep things neutral. I'm not commenting on your politics, here -- politics should, in theory, have nothing to do with this. Ginsengbomb (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a video link

How do I add a link to a legitimate video with Stephen discussing global warming?

Go here: Wikipedia:Reference. Ginsengbomb (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:DerrickC12

Re your message: Unfortunately, I suspect that the only way to get him to stop is to block him. Since he is putting the article at various different names, setting a create protection isn't going to work. It is unfortunate in that he does seem quite skilled in wiki things, but since he is unresponsive to comments and won't stop, I think a block is the only method left. Perhaps a block for a week the next time he attempts to publish his bio will get his attention. If you seem him attempting to publish again, WP:ANI is the better place to go than WP:AIV since the issue is not vandalism, per se. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Effects Nitrogen Cycle

This section does not adequately distinguish the impact of natural NO and N₂O from anthropogenic; I am not sure that it is known, but the article makes it sound as if it is all based on humans. Wikipedia should avoid bias. What is your opinion, since you edited this section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmicrobe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you let me know specifically which article you're referring to? I'm not sure, but would be happy to take a look. Wikipedia should certainly avoid bias. Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Figured out which article you were referring to. I reviewed the article and I unfortunately do not agree with your concern. The article's title makes it exclusively about human impact on the nitrogen cycle, so there is no need for a section about non-human impact on the cycle. It is also one of the more extensively cited articles I think I have seen on Wikipedia, and I didn't detect anything like actual bias (and this is certainly a subject rife with the potential for serious bias, in at least two directions). If this were an article about the nitrogen cycle in -general- and it spoke only of anthropogenic effects on the cycle without acknowledging natural effects, your concern would be wholly valid. As it stands, though, the article is -specifically- about -human- effects, and as such, to me, seems adequately neutral. That said, that's just my take on things. Why not bring your concerns up on the article's talk page? Either way, have a good one! :) Ginsengbomb (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, in case it's unclear (I don't know how familiar you are with Wiki in general, insofar as I don't know how long you've been using it), my opinion on this holds just as much weight as yours, so if you disagree with my opinion you're free to act on it! Ginsengbomb (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi!

I noticed you use Huggle. I recently acquired rollback rights, but when I try to load Huggle it tells me that my configuration is not set properly! Any idea how to fix this? Thanks! Enti342 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I actually have no idea, unfortunately. Have you pored over the materials at WP:HUGGLE? Might be a bug report or similar item there of use. I took a quick glance over there to see if I could find anything and didn't, but perhaps you might have better luck. Best of luck getting up and running! :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, you beat me to the punch on 3RR and was wondering if you used a tool to make it fast and as elaborate as it is. CTJF83 chat 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Wondered if that might happen. Yeah, there's a nifty tool linked from the project page. [1]. Sorry about "sniping" you there. I was following that nasty disagreement and it looked like it had gone well beyond 3 rounds, so I just went for it. Sorry if I've stepped on your toes -- feel free to comment on my submission. Cheers! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem bud, thanks for sharing the tool! :)...there might be a problem with your signature missing </font color> CTJF83 chat 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah, now that you mention it, hehehe. I'll fix that :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and fast reporting. Have a great night fighting vandals! CTJF83 chat 06:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don Oneil

I dont understand why you keep erasing my edit. Im not making it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handhco (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The messages I've left on your talk page should explain. If you can supply a verifiable source that backs up your claim, then it can and should be included. Otherwise, it's essentially unsourced biased content and will be reverted. Make sense? I certainly mean no offense by reverting your edits. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, I will figure out how add the source.

Sounds good. I'm going to assume good faith and undo the warnings I left on your page. Cheers! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:PeshawarPat. Thank you..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Decibel review and Embers

Hello, I think you may have inadvertently misrepresented the Decibel Magazine coverage for Embers (band). I have cited a review in Decibel from the current issue. On the various pages you have stated that Embers only received a passing mention. This is not true of the current issue of Decibel. I have seen the article you are referring to. That was an old blog which I never cited as a reference. This is the full quote from the current Decibel review:

"EMBERS Embers

The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. They've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. Bands like this you hold onto for a while. www.myspace.com/embers666"

(There is a photo of the cover of their C.D. next to the review.)

That is the write up. I request that you go back to the discussion and clarify your statement. I also request that you vote with me to keep this band's entry as per the comments I recently posted. I would appreciate if you read my recent post on the discussion page and take them into consideration. Thank you for you efforts.noodle 00:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

First, I want to applaud your assumption of good faith there by describing my possible misrepresentation as "inadvertent." A lot of people in your position at this point would be angry enough to start accusing me of intentionally distorting matters of factual record! So that's to be applauded.

That said, I still have a few concerns. The notability standards require "multiple, non-trivial" coverage. There is some grey area in the word "trivial." I, personally, would consider the above to be trivial, particularly when I consider that it is, as far as verifiability goes, the only source that confers any notability on the band at all.

Then there is the issue of verifiability. The list of reviews in the March, 2010 issue of Decibel does -not- include Embers. Here's a link to an area of their web site which lists the reviews in a given print issue: Decibel. You refer to the content quoted above as a "review," while Decibel does not list it among their reviews in the March, 2010 issue. I actually tend to trust you that the above quote actually appears in the print publication, as you describe it. But I have no way of verifying what -type- of coverage it actually represents.

So, long story short, I do not agree that this constitutes and confers notability. I may or may not go to the AfD and incorporate these thoughts there -- I'm leaning against because I've made my case and, in my view, the above doesn't change things. As I've said several times before, I hope you don't take offense (you certainly don't seem to -- which, seriously, that's laudable...most people get pretty angry when their content gets AfD'd!). Good luck, either way! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Embers (band)

Hello Ginsengbomb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Embers (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The arguments presented on the talk page are enough of a credible assertion of notability for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Certainly felt like it was trending that way based on the article author's sterling effort in arguing his case on the article's talk page. I'll think about AfD'ing or not -- I think while his arguments clear A7, they still fall short of passing the music notability standards, but I agree that it's no longer a case for a speedy delete. I'm usually pretty hesitant about bringing things to AfD, however. We'll see. Anyway, thanks! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments at the AfD are accurate and policy-based so I don't see why you would hesitate to nominate articles to AfD. The arguments of the "keep" side can be summarized by Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so unless real sources are provided, this debate is heading towards a "delete" close. Thanks for bringing this non-notable band to AfD. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I of course agree! What I meant above is that I hesitate to bring things there in -general- unless the article at issue is nowhere near passing the relevant guidelines. I hesitated on this article because the article's creator was making what I saw to be a good faith attempt to find sourcing for his content, and because he kept referencing a Decibel article which, to listen to him, would go a long way to establishing notability. I ended up AfDing it because after doing some prowling around I simply wasn't finding anything to convince me that the band was particularly close to passing. They're clearly a popular band in certain circles but there's nothing out there -- that I can find, anyway -- that confers notability. Anyway, thanks for the note, I appreciate it! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read the AfD discussion. Yeah, the concern I'm having is that the sources -sound- reliable/verifiable by name, and it's only after you read the actual coverage or take a close look at the source that the problems become clear, so anybody strolling in and taking a cursory glance at the article will think "well, I don't get it, SFBG and Decibel!" I'll be interested to see how it turns out. Thanks for your excellent contribution to the discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that unclear notability causes one to hesitate from nominating articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination) was a fairly long debate that resulted in a "no consensus" close due to some users not applying Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and resorting to unsubstantiated appeals to WP:IAR. Compare the revision I nominated for deletion (see here), and what the article looks like now. After other editors have removed the inappropriate sources from the article, the lack of notability is very clear. I plan to renominate Bullshido.net for deletion within the next three months.

This AfD is getting to be a lively debate. To humor the creator, I just assumed that the Decibel review exists because it does not add to the band's notability. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting tale re: bullshido.net. That's a pretty striking change. And yeah, certainly a lively bit of discourse. Hopefully it stays merely "lively" and doesn't graduate to "heated." I've decided to pull back from the debate for the moment and proposed that Noodle do the same. Neither of us are really adding anything at this point, and ending with two successive exhaustive line-by-line interpretations of the quality of every reference on the article is both nutty and probably the last useful thing either of us will be able to contribute. I do intend to follow along but, assuming Noodle's in agreement on this (he seems to be a completely reasonable guy, just not one I agree with on this article), I'm going to refrain from posting anymore and just let the process go. Big thanks for contributing on it, though. You've been precise, to the point and rational...things which I usually aspire to be but after a certain point in this AfD lost track of! Heh. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment about me being concise. I rarely am "to the point" as seen by the Bullshido.net AfD. I practically responded to all the opposing viewpoints in the debate. The discussion, luckily, wasn't too heated. In fact, it led to some fun banter between CoM and me at User talk:Cunard/Archive 4#COI?

Stepping back from the debate is good, though. Endless walls of text will make it more difficult for the closing admin to read and weigh; however, I don't find your analysis of the sources to be too verbose. It just shows that you have thoroughly researched the topic and thus strengthens your arguments in the eyes of the closing admin. Ah, if only I could step back like you have done. I enjoy debating so I cannot help responding to the faulty points made at the AfDs I frequent. I pity the admins who must read through such debates. ;) Cunard (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If I can't quite summon the will and un-befuddledness of mind to be clear about all things, allow me to be clear about one: the banter betwixt you and CoM is, quite simply, completely hilarious. I laughed. Out loud. Seriously, an actual bona fide LOL.

It's difficult for me to step back from things like this because I, too, love a good debate, particularly when two factors are met: 1) The debate is academic in tone and subject and 2) I am completely convinced of the overwhelming superiority of my point of view. As such, it is with some reluctance that I step back from Embers. You know, I should check out their music at this point. I feel like I know them.

Regardless, I certainly intend to keep observing. Cheers! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM is such a good-natured guy. I'm glad you were entertained by our little talk about dodgy dojos and such. I'll be actively participating in the AfD, so you won't need to worry about unanswered "keep" arguments that "are blown away like so much sand in the wind [and] are revealed to be nothing more than whirling eddies in a strong current". Take care, Cunard (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this -- getting baited with a personal attack from an anonymous IP editor who's decided to make his first and only contribution to Wikipedia an attack against another editor in an obscure AfD debate...that was placing a serious test on my ability to hold true to my "I'm done here" bit but then...well, hey, it's some anonymous IP guy who somehow (heh) happened upon this discussion. Who's he, and who cares?

By the way, strange number of IP's and newly-registered users participating in the AfD who haven't ever contributed to anything -but- this AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, those debates are getting lively! New users and IPs abound. I fully — I 299% — believe per Wikipedia:Assume good faith that they just so happened to stumble upon the article for Embers (band) and just felt the urge, the obligation, the necessity, to voice their support of retaining such a beautifully-written masterpiece. Their stellar arguments, none of which violate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and their laudable assumptions of good faith in the face of two evil editors who plan to delete their perfectly-referenced, notable bands that easily pass Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability, certainly imbue me to appreciate their insightful commentary. How could I be a "bloody masochist" in the face of such collegial discourse? . Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering how Noodle seems to be attempting to canvass for as many "Keep" votes as possible (look at his contribs!), one might -almost- suspect that he's been doing some canvassing outside the Wikipedia world. Wait, wait no, that would be mean of me to suspect that. Oh, wait, no, one of the people he canvassed he thanked for letting him know about the Embers AfD and said "it would have been nice if the AfD nominator had told me." The hilarious part is that my post informing him of the AfD is, naturally, still sitting on his talk page. Lying makes my AGF gloves start to fray. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Noodle believes that I am being "conspiratorial" when he himself is the conspiratorial one — he denies the blatant canvassing, although he posts "Now they're out to get Lesser of Two" and "Please help" messages on multiple talk pages. That gets me thinking. If he can canvass multiple people to join the AfDs, why can't I? I'm busy right now as I have to conspire with my special group of special Wikipedians, many of whom belong to this special group. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut, tut. Shame on you. You've defected to the "other side". Now I'm going to lose the "big tug-of-war battle". :(

Anyway, I have advised Noodlesteve (talk · contribs) to provide reliable sources that prove that the band passes WP:BAND #5. This appears to be the only way that the band Lesser of Two can pass Wikipedia's inclusion standards since it fails the other criteria listed at WP:BAND as well as Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If that is done I will withdraw the deletion debate — and get back to some more writing and sourcing of Middlesex (novel). Cheers, Cunard (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Was wondering how you would respond to that. Indeed, and I am not attempting flattery when I say this, your focus on making purely rational arguments throughout this whole drama made me second guess the MRR source (based on your opposition to its value) more than I might have were that counter-argument coming from someone else. But, yeah, my opinion changed, and now the tide of war has turned on you, and you should run from the field before the Army of the Semi-Notable crushes you under our sorta-brutal boots and kinda-vicious rifles. YOU SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT I WAS A SOMEWHAT-DOUBLE AGENT FROM THE OUTSET! FOOL! :P

Anyway. Yeah, I hear you on your other arguments. Lof2 (I can't/won't type that whole name out) is a very close call. I think the Embers and Lof2 AfD's have helped sort out where I stand on the whole (ridiculous) deletionist/inclusionist thing. I'm a moderate. Maybe even an inclusionist. Yay. How interesting to be a moderate who might be an inclusionist. How very exciting!

Strong work on the Middlesex article. That's a freaking wonderful book. We may find ourselves now in disagreement on Lof2 but I am certainly pleased to have bumped into you over these two AfD's. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for those kind words. My deepest sincere apologies, but I do view such words to be that of a sycophant; however, you have made me feel so good I'll overlook that. ;)

I don't consider myself to be an inclusionist or a deletionist. I support the retention of articles that have sufficient coverage in reliable sources and support the deletion of articles that fail Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, so that probably makes me an inclusionist-deletionist-I-don't-know-ist.

I'm pleased to have met you too. What fun we have had over the past couple of days! Perhaps you can help me do some copyediting of Middlesex in the future? :) Cunard (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please don't lie

You stated, "I noticed that you wrote on Scartissue's talk page something to the effect that it "would have been nice if the AfD nominator had told me that they were trying to delete my Embers article." Please don't misrepresent the situation. The message I sent you the instant I submitted your article to AfD is still on your talk page, and it clearly states what's going on. You are not helping your case by misrepresenting my actions to make them look inappropriate (because failing to notify you would have been very inappropriate). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

I also ask, "Please don't jump to conclusions." It appears you are correct and I apologize for the inadvertent misrepresentation. For some reason I had not been aware of your AfD until the user I contacted informed me. Somehow I just missed it. I was somewhat taken off guard by it which was, as it now is clear, my own fault. Lets both try to take it down a notch and remember WP:AGF.

On another note I respect your position on Embers (band) even though I disagree, but it appears that Lesser of Two is not as good a candidate for AfD. I could really use a little more time to collect sources, scan them, and upload them. I have been asking others for help, but it seems there is little interest in digging through hard copies of music magazines from the 90's. I understand and so it is up to me. I have recently uploaded the following sources for Lesser of Two: File:MRR.LoT.Cover.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.SceneR.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.1.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.2.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.3.jpg, File:MRR.LoT.4.jpg, File:Flipside.LoT.cover.JPG, File:Flipside.LoT.review.JPG. I have also uploaded the Decibel review for your viewing pleasure File:Decibel.Embers.Cover.JPG, File:Decibel.Embers.Review.jpg.

It is clear that you are convinced about Embers, but I ask that you reconsider Lesser of Two since there are many more magazines I can dig up. They were active for over a decade so it's only a matter of time before I upload more references. Maybe you can AfD later if I don't put in the work or something. Also, assuming that Embers (band) is deleted (God forbid) should I merge it into the Lesser of Two article since it is a continuation of the same musical partnership? noodle 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Gotcha.

I didn't nominate Lesser of Two for AfD. I agree that it is not as clear cut a candidate for deletion as Embers is. That said, I'm not participating in either conversation further than I already have. My research into the Embers situation is all in the AfD, and I don't have anything new to say, nor will I. I have nothing to say on the Lesser of Two situation that others haven't already said in that debate. As I have said from the outset, I sympathize with your situation, and understand that you are acting in good faith.

Regarding time to upload references, if they exist I would certainly urge you to do so -- AfD's last a -minimum- of seven days so you have some time. If you're concerned about that timing, I'd recommend saving a copy of it as a subpage on your user page so you can recreate it if and when you have more references. That's perfectly allowed. Best of luck. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you still think Lesser of Two should be deleted considering the articles I have uploaded? If so then I guess that's that. I just hoped that you would consider retracting your vote to delete regarding Lesser of Two once you had seen some of the coverage that I am still in the process of uploading. I think a four page interview in MRR is pretty significant since it is the premier punk rock magazine (see above). It is the most reliable source in the genre. At any rate I appreciate the motivation you have given to improve these pages. I hope all my work is not wasted. Thanks. javascript:insertTags('noodle 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Just reviewed the MRR source (I hadn't before my last post on this talk page -- I didn't realize that this was new material and not something I'd seen before, so I missed that). That -is- interesting. I'm going to have to re-review the Music notability standards and form my own evaluation based on Cunard's counter-argument (I just checked the AfD discussion again and noted both his analysis of the MRR material and yours). I'll say this though: you've got me re-evaluating my opinion on Lof2. At first glance this would go a ways towards changing my mind but Cunard's counter-argument is interesting as well. Let me look into this for a bit and then I may (or may not) post an update to the AfD on my thinking. Might not be til later tonight or tomorrow, though, that I have a chance to look into this -- about to go out to do some music and dinner! Take care. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad your reviewing the new information I uploaded. I also want to thank you for challenging me early on. I think the pages are better for it (ie. better references, more useful). Perhaps this AfD will also serve that purpose as well. It did cause me to dust off the old scanner in the end. javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Noodlesteve (talk)

Alright, you sold me. I changed my vote to a "weak keep," and wrote a shitload of babbly, wordy edit regarding my change of opinion. That becomes a full keep with additional sourcing -- there's an AGF element to my vote change at the moment -- but my opinion is that all things considered, you've demonstrated notability in Lof2's case. A "weak keep" is ultimately a "keep." Probably goes without saying at this point, but this doesn't change my opinion on the Embers article (Embers doesn't inherit notability from Lof2 by virtue of sharing band members, per the notability guidelines and, in my opinion, common sense). However, again, I personally think the Lof2 article should be on here. Good work! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for following WP:DONTBITE and your efforts. Should you strike through your old vote to delete Lof2 or does that matter? I wonder why the stats are off on the Embers AfD as well. Hmmm... ('noodle 06:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Noodlesteve (talk)

Not a problem! Think it doesn't matter regarding the strikethrough bit. The reviewing admin will read the whole debate (and oh how his/her eyes will be bleeding by the end). Haven't looked at Embers recently...wouldn't worry about any "stats" on there. Indeed, I don't know that I've seen stats on an AfD before...are they actually "keep/delete" stats? That is unusual. Regardless, I'll look in a bit later and see if something's wonky but, again, stats don't matter. Reviewing admin will look at the nature of the arguments. "Consensus," in the purest sense of the word, is not the most important thing in these debates. It's not a vote, basically. Anyway, good luck to you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Just checked in on the AfD and saw the decisions finally came through, so the above is all moot. Congrats on Lof2 passing AfD! Excellent work on that.

Embers closed due to no consensus...seems a fair opinion. For one thing, we didn't get enough of a variety of different opinions. This is often the problem with AfD's -- if it isn't just blindingly obvious that the article is a keep or a delete, a lot of people will stay away.

If Embers gets AfD'd again I'll likely vote the same way, but I'd say it's unlikely at this point that -I- will AfD it again, as that is arguably inappropriate. Either way, recommend you keep working on that front to find additional sourcing. The concern is going to always be finding non-trivial sourcing. The Decibel coverage is your most obviously reliable source but it's not a stretch to call the coverage "trivial."

Also, the inherited notability guidelines do not allow Lof2 to automatically confer notability on Embers. You have to prove that the band members in Embers are notable of their own accord in order to have them confer notability on Embers, and merely being in a notable band does -not- confer notability on a band member.

And that's a lot of babbling to say that you won't likely see me AfD Embers again, you will see me vote the same way if someone else does, and either way I'd urge you to continue your efforts in sourcing. You're a valuable new contributor to Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai RfC

Hi. There is an RfC currently in progress on the Yehuda Amichai Talk page, concerning an ongoing content dispute. As an editor who has previously been involved (you reverted an edit on Feb 9), you might wish to comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American Republicans discussion on inclusion criteria post-AfD

Hi Ginsengbomb. I'm leaving you this message because you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American Republicans. There appears to have been consensus to clarify the scope of the list. I've started a discussion on the topic at Talk:List of African-American Republicans and would welcome any input you have. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review: done

I have done an editor review for you at Wikipedia:Editor review/Ginsengbomb/Archive 2. Perhaps you could consider doing a review of another editor? It takes a bit of time (reviews can take anywhere from about 15 minutes up to 2 hours, depending on how many contributions the editor has made, where they have contributed, etc). The ones marked with a * are those editors who have not been reviewed yet — if you want to review one of these, make sure you remove the asterisks in the parts indicated! If you have not done a review before, you might feel more comfortable giving a second review to an editor — this will show you an example of a review that has been done, and show you the kinds of things that can be commented on. I hope that you find the review useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)