This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I suggest that before you close as no-consensus as with the scout camps you let the discussion run the full time, not close a day or two early. Consensus often develops towards the very end. DGG ( talk) 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I could have waited a day or so for a couple of those, although the nominator did all of those deletions only a few days after one of the articles he participated was pretty much transformed into a redirect link to another article - so the editor seems to have tried to make a point with this series of deletion and some of his nominations look to have been bad-faiths noms, especially the Treasure Island one - so maybe that one precipitated me to close the discussions especially since few wanted the articles deleted. Also, he is suspected of sockpuppetry, although that is less obvious/evident and quite franquly the prove is not conclusive even though it is close to a snigle-purpose account. Although I've may have close the discussion a bit early, I left options open for merging, maybe tags can be added and discussions can be continued.-- JForget 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coupable-Lapointe .jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Esgr.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:76.18.212.187. Corvus cornix 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who semi-protected James D. Nicoll under the reason of "Earthlink repeated vandalism " could you please identify the edits that are 'vandalism'?

Was it when I placed a 'citation required' on the comment that a 'brain eater' has attacked an author "at the point when their stories start showing a marked decline in quality combined with an increase in focus on their own obssessions. "?

Or was it when my tag requesting a citation for that comment had been repeatedly removed so I removed the unsourced comment from the article?

Or was it when I flagged the following section Original Research

Over the years James Nicoll has had a number of life-and-or-limb-threatening accidents happen to him, which he has told and retold with a certain dry wit on various science fiction fandom related newsgroups. He gained such a reputation for these accidents that regular posters in rec.arts.sf.written or rec.arts.sf.fandom no longer need to look at the signature under a post describing a horrendous accident to know it is James. Tradition in these two newsgroups has led to calling any seriouc accident in which the poster lives to tell the tale a "Nicoll Event". Over the years these events have also been collected into a canonical list called Cally Soukup's List of Nicoll events

because when I looked at the 'source' for the statement, all it actually said was:

James Nicoll is a blogger, denizen of rec.arts.sf.written, game and book reviewer, cat rescuer, and all-around swell person living in Kitchener Ontario. He is story prone, and has a very nice style of relating those stories (IMHO, naturally). These are some of the stories.

or was it when my tag of 'Original Research' for that section had been repeatedly removed and I replaced the original claims with a statement that is actually supported by the source:

Nicoll tells of a number of life-and-or-limb-threatening events have happened to him (and to those in his family) and is credited with having a "very nice style" of storytelling about these incidents.

or was it when I tagged the folling sentance for 'weasel words': The term has also been applied to Orson Scott Card. or was it when my request for attribution for that statement had been removed several times that I replaced the sentance with

"A poster on Google Groups has also applied the term to Orson Scott Card. ^[1]"

I am trying to understand which of these actions is vandalism or did you simply not review the edits made by the 'anon Earthlink' editor when you added the semi-protection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 ( talk) 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review your decision. SavingJDNfromthefilk 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I reversed it since there wasn't enough activity/dispute. JForget 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How much activity is required before you will protect an article. This has been going on for a long time, and it was protected for a while, but it didn't take long after that expired for somebody to put the usenet section back. I have just reversed it again today. Thanks. Nightingale0 —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me or another uninvolved admin know if the talk page debate gets silly. In my experience anything even tangentially related to remote viewing is a recipe for disaster. I think protection is warranted here, but you can unprotect if you feel the need. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not having discussed the deletion tag on the pages. I haven't edited that many articles yet so I'm still learning. The pages I created are still far from over, but I'm working on it, collecting reviews and a lot more information per album. Now according to the WP:Music page, section 'Albums' ('If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.') the albums are allowed to have their own pages, in case they will be extended. (Or else a merged page if not) I must admit that I was only be able to probe that the producer is a notable person in the second revision of his bio. I think he's notable because he complies with numbers 3, 9, 11 and 12 of page WP:Music. The prove for this is now available in small portions. I'm still collecting more sources of it to strengthen it. My conclusion would be that the pages can still exist. I hope you agree with it. Another reason why he's a notable man is because he's developed a new genre of music ('baby music'). This is a complete new thing and although already available in 48 countries it is still relatively new. I think he therefor is a pioneer. (Frl90) ... If you'd like to do that, you can send me the deleted articles to florislap@gmail.com. Thanks (Frl90)

The page was protected to calm down an edit war of the genre's So I think it should stay there for the forseeable future until it is resolved (Ryan556). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan556 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. -- Dweller 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I've been through this before.-- JForget 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your comments. I hope to exceed expectations; If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. -- ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Thanks for uploading Image:Esgr.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why have you tagged these four users as suspected sockpuppets? [1] [2] [3] [4] I don't see what relation they have to "My words can laugh". Acalamari 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I think the puppetmaster might actually be a user called " Owner of boats" (see their edits), as the harassment began after that account was created (and "My words can laugh" appears to have been created after "Owner of boats" was created). Just a possibilty anyway. Acalamari 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon; I see that you have removed the protection from the Saugeen Stripper article. Despite the fact that it was protected for two years, the redirect was replaced with the article less than 48 hours after the protection was removed (evidence in my eyes that the protection is still required to fit the consensus that was reached that the subject should not have its own article). Please undo this unprotection. Thank you. Andy Saunders 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you propose to delete this? This article is not "controversial in tone and unsourced" - it is a statement of two facts, both of which can be sourced multiple times, and this article contains a direct link to a government registry of sex offenders. This is a canonical source that cannot be legitimately disputed. This person is notable, and has been covered by numerous printed publications for the past ten years. Meehawl 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you were too swift with your delete operation. The article provided a link to Digital Entertainment Network, which provides a lot of context. Adding more to the Collins-Rector page requires careful analysis because of the legal issues, and a refactoring of content between the DEN page and the Collins-Rector page. You need to reconsider your haste. meehawl 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you were the closing admin for Goon shower. The article also had a picture associated with it that I've nominated for deletion. Handschuh- ^{talk to me} 08:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm posting this here, because 211.30.34.207 currently has a block of seven days on (5 days left). He has been reduced to vandalizing the talk page associated with his IP address and continues to threaten further hits upon release from the block. For safety's sake, I think these threats may warrant a longer term block (to help encourage him to 'go away'). Even if he continues to vandalize the talk page, no further threats (in the way of final warnings) need be issued, since that is as far as he can go. And, I'd be able to remove him from my watch list, since I would not have to be concerned with further hits to the main spaces. (I tried posting this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but the bot immediately removes it, since the block is still valid.) Thanks for the consideration. -- LeyteWolfer ( talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Cumberland Ward the same place as Cumberland, Ontario (city)? I notice that both are part of Ottawa. Cumberland, Ontario also lists a Cumberland, Ottawa, Ontario (community) which I gather is a separate place. Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of Cumberlands. Reminds me of where my brother used to live. There were three completely different "Old Gulph Rd."s and there was a place where all three intersected. Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Jack ?! 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		To JForget for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Thanks! Jack ?! 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was recently deleted after an AfD on the grounds that he failed WP:BIO. As he is now on loan at Crewe Alexandra and recently made a first team appearance [5] this article should be re-instated and then updated. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 13:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed this AFD, it was also connected to the ones you just closed. Best, shoy (^words _words) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I trouble you enough to take care of its child articles as well? Thanks, shoy (^words _words) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why [6] [7]?  ?-- victor falk 05:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My question is much the same as Victor's. It appears you also removed the section "First Party Content Creation". I expect this was an accident. Please advise. Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Wikisoftware seems to be quite amazing, but not perfect. Wanderer57 ( talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore my article on sciousness. The quote is from an 1890 book. No copyright infringement! Bricklin@earthlink.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbricklin ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Allow the article to go thru and it will build. It is a key concept, or rather an american version of a key concept, in east-west philosophy. As for this:

"what does not help for this title, as that I have found nothing - no pages on Google on the subject thus it may be very hard to build an encyclopedic article with that few content, so it may be best for you to merge the quote with the William James article for now in a section somewhere in the artic;e,"

You spelled the word wrong. There are tens of thousands of entries for sciousness. It's an important concept and term and deserves a chance to grow on Wikipedia. Deleting it serves no worthy cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbricklin ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE RESPOND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbricklin ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

confused why my edits didnt work and you pointed me to the sandbox i was in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.162.140 ( talk) 00:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Watters-AW.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my vandalism. I realize it is not funny and it is always changed back in one second anyway. From now on I will keep my stupid thoughts to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.107.183 ( talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chessgames.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Potato dude 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've been adding speedy tags to Denise milani but the author keeps removing them while adding new content rather than using the "hang-on" tag. I still feel the article is worthy of speedy deletion, but I cannot re-add the speedy tag again due the the three-revert-rule. Could you take a look? Thanks Whitstable 00:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Certainly seems to be written in a rather NPOV way! Whitstable 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all.-- JForget 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just created the following article: Early December 2007 North American winter storm, unknowing that you had started one at the same time. I think if we merge the info that you got and what I've got, we'll have a pretty good article on our hands. Abog 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the Abe Carver AfD and deciding KEEP. It's appreciated. CelticGreen ( talk) 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems - you're welcome.-- JForget 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked for semi-protection in the "Wikipedia : request for page protection" page, but no one responded. This page is being vandalized so please, put semi-protection on it. Footballfan190 ( talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please can you explain the reasoning behind your closing comment - I thought that I put forward the strongest arguments. Thanks -- John ( Daytona2 ·  talk) 13:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've only just seen your second comment on my talk page, in case you're wondering why I was seeking wider discussion <g> ! In any case I'm unsure if currency pair is the correct place, so I made the discussion as wide as possible and will wait to see what other editors suggest. -- John ( Daytona2 ·  talk) 14:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the comments, I've raised this on deletion review - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_18#Currency_correlation. -- John ( Daytona2 ·  talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. A while ago you kindly put semi-protection onto Grassland to deal with a vandalism spree. We've got another one now and would appreciate your assistance again in a similar way. What it is about grassland that the vandals find so hilarious I really don't know, but hey, who can guess? Naturenet | Talk 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :) Naturenet | Talk 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

JForget, thanks for your support in my RfA. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Enjoy the haikus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article December 2007 North American ice storm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{ db-author}} to the top of December 2007 North American ice storm. 209.247.22.166 ( talk) 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you replace the new user greet that I deleted? Was it because I added your crappy insignificant transit route articles to the AfD? 216.55.220.216 ( talk) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Something_X

Hello. The article on Quebec Route 209 gives two different southern termini for the route; the article mentions that the southern terminus is the U.S. border, but the infobox places the southern terminus at Route 202. Which is correct? Regards, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)