User talk:Mayalld

Speedy deletion of NCipher

Dear Mayalld, I am humbly requesting re-instating my article for the reasons I place on the article's discussion page. I belived I had, in fact, asserted these points of significance in the article itself (but perhaps my memory fails me). Obviously I am happy to add all necessary information to prove the signifcance of the article.

Many thanks,

Slaphead99 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination

Dear Mayalld, I feel it is incorrect for you to label the page on the Liechtenstein Instiute a NN organization. You will find it is mentioned on several other wikipedia pages (that of Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein, and of Robert Gilpin, for example) and I felt it was sorely missing as I found no information on wikipedia about the organization. It is still under construction. Thank you for your time User:mschive ^{(Talk, 23:32, 23 January 2008}

User:CBMIBM

I appreciate it's getting a little frustrating, but I think after this diff [1] you should probably take a step back for 20 minutes. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SIMTHEGREC

Please bannish SIMTHEGREC, he is in my school and he destroys everytihing in wikipedia, including others account. If you don't believe me search for SIMTHEGREC in wikipedia french.

This is becoming very very tedious! Believe it or not, there is discussion on my talk page that ISN'T about you Mayalld (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Check user

I've had enough of this - I've filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wikinger. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I refrained from vandalisms and even reverted unwanted statements here. Blocking me is unneeded. Thanks. CBMIBM (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Borwick Proposals

Dear Mr Mayalld,

I understand your nomination of my article for delete but, as I must point out, the Borwick Proposals are on the verge of massive success. Certainly, the Conference was non-notable. Yet whether what occurred there is also non-notable is questionable when it is as yet too early to say. I have it on excellent authority that within a matter of months, the results of the harvest that was sowed at Borwick, (So to speak), will be such that there will be plenty of references to it.

The information, I can assure you, is completely verifiable and the article itself is still under construction. There is also the fact that there are articles that must be written to provide context and not only this, I have absolutely no idea how to create links to other articles. The life and times of Mr Bannon have proven so far to be of note, yet there are almost no published articles concerning him. This might be the result of his great reluctance to publicity beyond necessity.

The Borwick Proposals are a landmark event, even if so few people know it to be. I know without question, that history was made and my study of Mr Bannon has proven to be most interesting. We are looking at a modern-day Kafka, an outstanding novelist and philosopher who refuses to publish simply because he despises the idea of being a celebrity. The man is an Enigma, determined to pursue a political career; not because he particularly wants to, but because he hates the idea of dying in a ruined country. Amongst his circle, he is revered; amongst the Students of Lancaster and Morecambe College, he is recognised as a man of honour and a public servant (Due to the services he provides to its Students Union); while amongst the people of Lancaster, he is fast approaching cult status. Here is a man who will go far.

I therefore ask that you at least allow me to record his achievements, for such achievements have far-reaching implications for those around him and those who have yet to benefit from his endeavours.

Such is my appeal to retain my article. - Abdelard Knotwitt

Hey Mayalld, thought you should know that this user created a duplicate of this comment on a subpage in your userspace, at User:Mayalld/Archive1. I can delete it if you like. GlassCobra 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I marked this duplicate page for speedy deletion, as vandalism of Abdelard Knotwitt, which I already repaired by making move of its content to current talk page. CBMIBM (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your modification on Web3D article

I wrote an article on Web3D and you remove a link and a product name from it, I would like you to reconsider undoing the remove you made in the list of web3d products. DzzDDzzD (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:N. Ask yourself the simple question "are my edits primarily intended to improve the coverage of the topic in Wikipedia, or are they primarily intended to provide an opportunity to mention my product".

If your intention is to improve coverage, then mention of your product is not necessary. How does mentioning and linking to only one of many products (and not the leading product by any means) improve the article?

If your intention is to find opportunities to mention your product, then don't. Wikipedia isn't here for that.

As such, there is no reason whatsoever that justifies linking to your product.

Mayalld (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBMIBM

Hiya. I've expanded on my checkuser request here. I think it may have reached the stage where we're best both off not feeding the trolls. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. He has had his last discussion from me. From here on in, if he steps over the line, it will be warn/report, and no discussion. Mayalld (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ChokeTheRighteous

Yeah, he's literally been at this for hours. Guldenat (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eck gads! Just checked that out... nastiness. Guldenat (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Craig Crespino

A tag has been placed on Craig Crespino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wisdom89 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Why do I get the feeling this was a twinkle warning? ;) Just a quick note - you don't have to, but if you want to be extra helpful while doing newpages patrol, you should check for copyright violations. Especially with blocks of unwikified text. I usually just cut and paste a sentence into google, and the website they got it from comes up. Also, if they include a link, it's very frequently where they got the text from. Just a thought. Keep up the good work. Peace, delldot talk 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "John Lasseter"	News and notes: Stewards, fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Scouting
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Stepping in after delay
New Wikipedia discussion forum gains steam	WikiWorld comic: "Goregrind"
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:USER:STEWY32

Actually, not to contradict you or anything, but it's considered disruptive, I know this from the countless times I've warned vandals and there is a message, usually from a sys op to the vandal telling him/her that it is disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf38 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. cf38^talk 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jungle Traffic

I have removed your speedy deletion tag on the article. I think that there's enough content to require a full WP:AFD discussion. You may wish to list it there. Cheers! Royalbroil 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Corton Football Club

I have been trying to make a wikipedia article about my local fan made football team Corton Football Club and the article has been repeatedly deleted. This has begun to irritate me as I have sufficiant copyright to the information and images provided. I have also read your wikipedia article policy and the page is not a just a personal page it provides information on lowestoft culture and the various activities that the townspeople like to participate in. If you would leave my article so I could include relevant information and show how it is linked to the lives of people in Lowestoft(A prominant town in Eastern England) please consider this request and reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firman08 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

R.E Corton Football Club

Dear Mr. Mayalld, when you replied to my message I was looking forward to a reasonable response to a reasonable request, the reason I repeatably remade my article was due to the fact that I thought I was doing it wrong. I thought the problem was copyright issues, then I saw all the messages you had left me and decided to leave you a message. But when you replied to me I think that you feel that I am using the article as a practical joke, this is not the case as the students of Benjamin Britten High School, friends and family of the players and the local community support C.F.C. You also suggested that I should write about Lowestoft, if you had given me time to elaborate on my article I would have described the surrounding area in detail. I do not wish to offend wikipedia or any of its administrators but I believe that my article is relevant and worthwhile in your encyclopedia. An encyclopedia contains aticles covering all branches of knowledge, C.F.C has affected people and are considered worthwhile so i feel that it deserves a second (possibly third apologies again) chance. Please reconsider your decision, I await your reply Firman08

Netar Mallick

You marked the Netar Mallick article for speedy deletion: a bit of Googling shows that he is a recognized leader in his field, and clearly meets the WP:PROF criteria, as his knighthood would suggest. The article is currently up for AfD discussion: I have marked it as a speedy keep, see the cites given there for reasons. -- The Anome (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to minor edits

My apologies. I also did the same with Mad Science as I obviously misinterpreted the term. I will use major edit for any future similar change. Thank you for letting me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoofpooh26 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyclists

Hey, thanks for your message, but I don't agree with you. What makes you think these cyclists are not notable? Why do you think there is a list of their performances there? Those should say enough. Iameddie (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Louis Mbanefo

I note your comments, however I would like to state that the article was deleted for copyright violation of two web-based articles. Well sir, I was the author of those two web based articles and by placing it on wikipedia, I knew clearly that I was opening them up to the world, thats not my objection, my objection is to speedy deletion on the basis of "copyright violation", when I had placed a hangon and in addition, after i had raised the issue in the Talk column.Seal67 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply, i have indeed taken up the issue with the User, but merely responded to your comments on the page. Thanks Seal67 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, whilst I do not agree with you in the sense that I still maintain that the policy does not apply where the person placingthe article is the author, i welcome the fact that you have made constructive suggestions towards resolution, rather than a blanket "sorry no can do", which position the deleting admin adopted. My objection was not to initial deletion but to a failure to even consider the evidence of authorship- which I provided- that is my main grouse. In the interest of a constructive resolution, I shall repost the article as suggested. For the saek of good order, I have attached a link to the original article with the necessary amendment. Thanks Seal67 (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Here is the link http://subliminalcodesintext.blogspot.com/2007/11/sir-louis-mbanefo_19.html#links Seal67 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I Fought The Lloyds

Bad redirect, has been fixed now. Dailyguide (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stompernetsmarts

Thanks for your work doing edit patrol. However, user pages are rarely nominated for deletion based on their content. Users can put pretty much whatever they want on their user pages as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Happy editing!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they can advertise all day if they want. See WP:USER - user page content is only removed if it is illegal or highly offensive (eg. child porn).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DP Technology marked for deletion

Dear Sir,

DP Technology is the second largest independent supplier of CAM software in the United States. It is a member of the USA manufacturing community as outlined in many Wikipedia pages, including most that are listed as Categories at the bottom of this page, and most notable List of CAM companies. The content of this page is factual sourced from the company's website and as notable as any of the other pages listed in List of CAM companies. Please explain further, if/how this page needs to be updated to be more appropriate for Wikipedia.

Business Value of Social Networking marked for deletion

We are actively editing this page to streamline the text and reference the appropriate resources. I do not know the timeframe for deletion, but hope that you will give us a few hours to clean it up before this is considered.

Thanks, User:Vicperotti

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: A new weekly feature
Special: 2007 in Review	Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added	Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect"	News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tearaway88

sorry mate I didnt mean to upset anyone, but that page had some serious issues. I will try and keep more decent next time with my comments hey. aroha mai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tearaway88 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) got a question mate how do you get rid of the "new zealand" in the suburbs table up top? I did Windy Ridge but i think i stuffed something up :( Tearaway88 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

World Skills

Indeed, the article written by me, World Skills, has some blatant advertising, favouring certain moments in a particular company. I would ask you, I even do the cleaning of the article, with the goal of removing him of the criteria for disposal. I will do the cleanup as soon as possible.

--Argamandel 2007 Jan 18 11h35min —Preceding comment was added at 13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Weasel words

Come on though, it was kind of funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.155.225 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. You must have an abundant social life with a sense of humor like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.155.225 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now THAT's funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.155.225 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalicious!

Thanks for the help with the vandal, as good quick work from you as well. It's tough sometimes reverting with one window and trying to call for admin in the other, but it's all worth it when things are cleared up. Thanks for your help. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Windo Server 2008 Logo certification and application compatibility

Hi Mayalld. I think you may want to check this page - I noticed that you marked it for deletion on the 18th and then magically the page moved, changed its name and the mark vanished. I just thought it would be better to bring it to your attention than do something myself without knowing all the facts about what happened (though I must say the page looks to me like it does not belong.) --Ubardak (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Weasel

Are you sure about this revert [2]? It does look to me like the anon edit was correct: the negative of the statement "x is best" is indeed "x is not best" but I am not about to lose time over it. --BozMo talk 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. The intent of the statement as it was written is to show that not only is it possible that other editors may take the view that the superlative is incorrect, but that it is also possible that other editors may take a totally conflicting opinion. Mayalld (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree but it is still technically wrong. I wonder if we could change it to "some people even say" without protests from Montreal-haters. Anyway not a big deal. --BozMo talk 11:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the best would be to include BOTH versions, so I hsall be WP:BOLD and add the compromise Mayalld (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:GenUser

The cited source says 2.38 million subscribers as of when the site was launched, in January 2006. It is now January 2008 and the website claims 20,136,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GenUser (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't consider a primary source to be a reliable source? If a journalist today were to write another article he or she would consult the website (the information it provides) OR he or she would ask an employee at the company. Either way a primary source trumps a secondary source. --GenUser (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Id much appreciate if you notified me when you revert an edit of mine, as would many others i presume. Im not an IP, im an established user, i think i deserve, if nothing else, to be notified of the revert. What the revert also did was remove the start class rating i gave the article (which actually alerted me to the revert). Please, in future tell people when you revert them. Thanks. Twenty Years 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that I should have notified you. However, the normal convention is that if you wish to know about subsequent changes to pages that you have edited, you should add them to your watchlist (as I do, which is what drew my attention to your edit). It is unfortunate that the edit should have removed a legitimate addition to the page, but the main change made by the edit was to remove another user's comments from the page. Per WP:TALK, you must not delete comments from article talk pages. As such, I reverted the change as a breach of policy. Mayalld (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag on PrefixNE

Hi. Thanks for keeping an eye out for spam articles!

I think you should take a second look at our speedy deletion policy. If there's any doubt that someone other than an article's creator might contest speedy deletion, it should not be tagged for speedy deletion. In this case, I had already reviewed the article once and removed the speedy tag; a quick check of the article's history would have shown this. Also, this article has references showing that the subject meets our notability requirements, so rather than deletion, normally any problems should be fixed.

When you "speedy" an article, it's always good to give article creators and editors a {{spam-warn}} notice warning them of imminent deletion:

1. It's a courtesy
2. It gives them feedback on what not to do if they want to recreate the article
3. It leaves a record of the deletion on the user's talk page should he add more of the same articles in the future.

If you still think the article should be deleted, at this point I recommend putting it through our Articles for Deletion process.

Again, thanks for watching our new articles.
--A. B. ^(talk) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the declined speedy in the history.

However, on your other point, I did notify the creator (I always do, because I use TW to do it all)

Duly sent to AfD

Mayalld (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you warned the article's creator while I was writing my note above. Thanks for doing this. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Film School

You attached a notability tag to this article. There are few UK film schools acknowledged on Wikipedia, London Film School and the National. Even though it is tied with the faculty of Film, TV and Performing Arts in Leeds Met University, it is an established film school body, therefore it would need a separate page from the University page, which currently doesn't mention it.
I thought that my article had been sourced sufficiently for the time being. Would you be able to give some advice on how to improve the article. Thank you. -Brinstar85 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do the new sources satisfy Wikipedia sourcing policy? -Brinstar85 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Did you read the message posted at the top of User talk:Ling.Nut before you posted there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read the message. I used WP:TW to nominate the article, and twinkle notifies the initial contrib as a matter of course. Mayalld (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DGAF, DGAF2

.. those templates have been tfd'd repeatedly. They always fail. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They have actually been up fro TfD once as far as I can tell, along with a couple of attempts at speedy (some of which were doomed given the inconclusive TfD). Given that a reasonable time has elapsed since the last nomination, and given that the closure of the previous TfD seems to have been pushed for on the grounds that the nom had been banned, it seems reasonable enough to me that they should be considered again. Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right

i should fix that. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Expand Networks

You might want check your recent edit to Expand Networks. You reverted to a version that you had previously reverted. And in the process cancelled intervening edits that were good. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opps... I see that there was another edit that I missed. Never mind. But still you should incorporate edits that were good after a revert. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

VOIS.com notabilty

Hello,

I have just created the article. Do you have any other sugestions? There are other websites who are less notable than this. What should I add more?

Thanks PET (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

cuteness and diana

maybe the comments about diana are deemed innapropriate (although true) but whats wrong with the cuteness edit Cmon chelsea (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Phillip Silverstone.

I've added it to AFD. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Young Leader Programme

Since you listed yourself as a Explorer Scout Commissioner, we would appreciate expert input on Talk:Young Leaders' Programme. YIS --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoking in Playgrounds

The above AFD has been closed early as a delete per the reasons explained by you in the AFD nomination and those explained in the deletion log. Regards, Rudget. 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with newbies

In your recent interaction with a user trying to address issues with the CareerBuilder article, you removed content added by the user, noting that "That isn't how you cite sources!" In addition to the fact that this is a new user trying in good faith to improve an article to meet onjections, it would be far more appropriate to improve the article to address your concerns, not simply to revert an edit that doesn't fit your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The user added valid material for which there is no valid justification for removal. New or old user, providing a helping hand to improve the article would have been the appropriate response here. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already corresponded with the user in question by e-mail (at his instigation), particularly to address his COI editing on this article. My revert was in the context of our previous interactions. Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

ACMEMan, Eartha Brute, and Judge Jones are not socks of Gsnguy! Judge Jones (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So you keep claiming with such certainty. You are, however, wrong Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear, however, to have made a friend! Regards! gb ^{(t, c)} 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that I know who will be found to be a vandal! Mayalld (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariyen

Ariyen's a newbie, who I've been talking to (see his talk page and my own. Perhaps you can discuss your issue with the external links direct with him, rather that just reverting and citing the policy? Thanks! gb ^{(t, c)} 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

They're actual links that are on other horoscopes pages on here. They show what is on here as well. Why did you remove them? I'm curious Ariyen (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertising and promoting?

Are you crazy? or serious? Because these links were already on other Horoscopes Like Dog and snake, etc. And I decided to combine them as they're same. They're not promoting other websites. Just showing what's already here. Like a reference Link. Does that make sense?

It's not personal promotion of personal websites. I don't know those people nor own them. nor is it really Advertising those sites. Why don't you check the other 'links' that it's in? See for yourself, before removing. I'm gonna place a recommendation in the discussion To see if I CAN re add those as I SEE no problems. They are NOT conflicting with the guidelines! If they were! they wouldn't be on the others! Ariyen (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm serious (BTW, asking people if they are crazy is generally considered uncivil and frowned upon

The fact that other pages already have an excess of non-compliant external links is no reason for additional articles to be so afflicted.

If the articles linked are actually references for the WP article, cite them as such, rather than as ELs

Feel free to ebgage others in discussions as to whether the links should return, but the key here is that there must actually be a discussion. As I said on your talk page, just going ahead after 2 hours because nobody had replied is NOT seeking a consensus

As to your final remark. The best test of whether something is compliant is to look at the policy, rather than to compare against another article. The fact that the links exist on other articles doesn't prove that they comply. It could equally prove that the other article doesn't comply. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are the articles that are already El's then not cited as reference links? And secondly what's the difference between external and reference? Shouldn't the reference links, be the external links? vice versa? I'm curious that if the links aren't allowed. Why are they on here already on pages? how did they keep from being deleted? j/c Ariyen (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They are there because they probably got sneaked in one at a time, and nobody noticed that the EL list was getting silly!

Reference links are a different kettle of fish. They are used to substantiate a particular passage in the article, and are positively encouraged, because they are so much more closely tied in to the text.

I'd be more than happy to give you a few pointers on converting the external links to references tomorrow. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd be nice. Also, what about the dead links? And my thing on pages is that I've found only like maybe 3 sites to be the best sources for most to a lot of these horoscopes.... well good links that have good mount more detail than some of the others, including ones in there... *musses* But if I find dead links, is it okay to remove them, letting the people know that hey, they're dead links? not leading to anything good? Ariyen (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should boldly prune dead links. Just put "rm dead links per [[WP:EL]]" into the edit summary Mayalld (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry case

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster - a case which you recently submitted has been under consideration, and is pending closure per your responses. If you may reply to the comments, that would be most helpful. Regards, Rudget. 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lean accounting

I've started a discussion about Ideasintoaction's edits here. While I'm not sure this is the best forum, I wanted to get some discussion started and other editors' perspective. Your comments would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Steer Wrestling

I haven't assumed "ownership' of Steer Wrestling and I resent your insinuation. It seems to me Montanabw has assumed ownership in that he/she feels he/she has the right to "edit" the sourced contributions of others and to reword such contributions in a way that promotes her POV. Please send Montanabw a warning. If he/she doesn't want his/her unnecessary edits reverted or edited, remind her that he/she should reconsider his/her "editorializations". He/she needs to research her contributions and cite them accurately and not "muss' with others because she disagrees with the inclusion and has her own program to promote. My contributions are accurate, neutral, and sourced. There's no need for Montanabw's endless reverts and editorializing to promote her viewpoint. HatAct (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing problems Steer Wrestling

Montanabw is making sweeping, unsourced statements - statements that he/she is presenting as "facts that everyone knows, and thus need no sourcing". Mbw's profile page indicates he/she is a horse person living in Montana. I think Mbw's is approaching the subject with a proprietary bias and simply does not want a researched, documented "Animal Abuse in Rodeo" controversy presented. Mbw is minimizing my contributions while maximizing his/hers. Mbw is very slightly altering my contributions to reflect a "this is an animal nut" statement sort of thing. In one contribution I named a veterinarian with work in rodeo and included her credentials and her professional observations. Mbw reduced the contribution to "a spokesman for an animal rights group." So how come you are supporting someone who is actually damaging the article, and coming down hard on someone who is trying to improve and cover all the bases in the discussion? You should be telling Mbw the same thing you are telling me -- if you don't want your material to be heavily edited then don't contribute. Mbw is minimizing the Animal Abuse Controversy (which is a valid point in the article and has its own little section within the article) in order to sell her pro-rodeo agenda -- claims of being neutral and balanced notwithstanding. IMO, Mbw should be balancing my points with his/her own researched and documented points. Not "editing" mine to reflect his/her point. Leave mine alone, mine are researched, documented, and neutral. HatAct (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not supporting somebody who is damaging the article. In my view, both of you are attempting to push a POV in the article. The fact that you are inserting sourced POV doesn't stop it being POV. My warning to you was on the basis that you are attempting to send another editor away from the article. Montanabw is allowed to edit text that you introduced, and isn't required to keep his/her text distinct from yours. Whilst you may well have included the veterinarian's credentials, did you mention that she is connected with an animal rights group. If not, you are being selective to further a particular POV. Mayalld (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HatAct"

Facts, observations -- not POV. Facts and observations from professionals qualified to speak on the subject - Animal Abuse in Rodeo. Yes, I referenced the veterinarian's statements, directing the reader to the animal welfare site. Her professional observations are posted at an animal welfare site. Her observations were sourced. I don't know if she is a "spokesman" for the organization, I don't know if she is "connected" with an animal rights group. Maybe she is maybe she isn't. Maybe she's the president, maybe she's just a contributer. How far do I have to research a veterinarian's background before including her observations on Animal Abuse in Rodeo in an item about Animal Abuse in Rodeo?

I'm not sending anyone away. Where did I say "Get out of here"? Mbw is not contributing in a positive way and needs to source her contributions. In one instance, he/she made sweeping statement with a footnote. The footnote supported absolutely nothing in the statement. Is Wiki a collection of misleading info? While I agree that Mbw is allowed to edit my text, he/she is not improving it. And why is everyone having a problem if I edit his/hers? He/she is tweaking mine to subtlely reflect her pro rodeo POV ("animals are practically never injured, abused, bruised, broken, maimed, or killed in rodeo") or to invite the reader to dismiss mine as the contributions of an "animal nut". HatAct (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to research her background sufficiently to be satisfied that there is no WP:COI. An animal welfare site cannot be regarded as an impartial reliable source that complies with WP:RS and WP:V, because the owners of that site will only host material that is in accordance with their POV.

This is where POV becomes tricky. You have a sourced statement, but it comes from a site which is not impartial. How can we be sure that the site hasn't sifted through 1000 statements until it found one that agreed with its position (I don't suggest that it had, but you can see the point). It is vital that you source from impartial sources.

As to saying "get out of here" I quote from your edit summary Reverted Montanabw's edits to previous No need for Montanabw's edits

Mayalld (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand the NPOV but my contributions are not presented as the opinions, observations, etc. of Wikipeida or its article authors. My contributions are presented simply as "this is what has been said or observed by Dr. ZZZ, a veterinarian with XXX years of experience in rodeo." Mbw has been citing partial sites as well -- gung ho "pro rodeo" sites like the PRCA, and "Cowboys are the Greatest" type sites -- distinctly partial sites that cannot be regarded as impartial reliable sources that comply with WP:RS and WP:V, because the owners of that site will only host material that is in accordance with their POV. Would one expect to find a pro rodeo site or a "Cowboy Way of Life" site that would host impartial info about animal abuse in rodeo? HatAct (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also sourced newspapers which I would believe are impartial sources. Newspapers are cited all the time simply because there are no other sources. But how can I know if a particular editor has biases? i can I know if an editor is an "animal nut". I can't. I can only present the info here by making it understood it is not the opinion of Wikipedia or its authors. HatAct (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing that has to be borne in mind when citing potentially POV sources is that it is vital to avoid undue weight. You MUST ensure that all opinions are reflected, broadly in proportion to their prevalance in society. The best way of avoiding undue weight is not to balance the number of pro and anti sentences, but to work towards sentences that both sides will accept.

May I suggest that editing this article would be easier, and an edit war avoided if you embraced WP:WFTE Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rodeo articles

Thank you for coming to my defense on steer wrestling, see also problems ast rodeo, calf roping, and Saddle Bronc and Bareback Riding. I am really trying to avoid "feeding the trolls" here, but I seriously misrepresent the personal attacks of HatAct (just because I live in Montana does not mean I am either a rodeo contestant nor an apologist for the industry; I am neither, I just happen to live in rodeo country and know something of the sport). I would encourage you to please keep an eye on this situation and if you are friends with any admins (or if you are one), please alert them to this situation. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

You'll be receiving an email soon. Regards, Rudget. 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you receive it? Rudget. 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Appologies for the lack of a reply so far. I will respond later today! Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:CBMIBM

Thanks for your message. I'm not sure how the block evasion escaped both of our notices, but I've contributed my two cents' worth here. _GB^T/C 14:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~

For information, I'm banned by Fut.Perf only from Evertype page, but not from other pages, and will never break this ban, thus please don't block me. I only wanted to know some things about Greek support in Unicode. On my talk page is now extensive proof that I'm not Wikinger. CBMIBM (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On your talk page is proof that your so-called proof is nothing of the sort! Mayalld (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a piece of supplemental evidence here. I honestly think that nothing further can be served by continuing your discussions with CBMIBM - you're retreading very tired ground, I think, and I cannot see that it will get us any further to a resolution that your past efforts. Give my regards to Derbyshire, by the way. Down to London in 2 minutes? The M1 must have been quiet! _GB^T/C 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you promised me avoiding of block if I capitulate, I reveal that CBMIBM=WIKINGER. As a reward, please don't block me even temporarily. My old and abandoned account is WIKINGER, and new and current account is CBMIBM. CBMIBM (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be me speaking about 2 minutes too soon, then... _GB^T/C 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I marked my Wikinger's former account as former and sock puppeting to show my reform in realtime. Please permit me to continue here in constructive way. Thanks. CBMIBM (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse for that refactoring, but this IP terrorist provoked me by his lies. I only defended myself from his lies. My accusations were withdrawn by me already after final capitulation from talk page mentioned by you. How I can defend myself when this terrorist places his terror crap and I even can not revert his provocation? CBMIBM (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is said by owner of the Aminullah/Al-Bargit/WCKinger account: Wikinger and Aminullah are not the same person. I am, and always was and will be, a Wahhabi Muslim of Chechen origin. Wikinger is a Christian and denies the prophethood of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). He also erroneously believes Indo-European as divine language, instead of Classical Arabic. I agree our IP's are similar. I have harassed him (including mocking conversion) to cause him to leave Wikipedia and stop spreading his false religion. There is no link between us except of hostility... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.69.46 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

IP talker, I never will believe in your terroristic beliefs. Leave me alone and please stop make provocations against me that are thought to be my edits. CBMIBM (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mayalld!

    I have made the changes in Geometric Ltd. I am part of Corporate Communication team of Geometric Ltd. The changes which i have made are correct and updated. If you want to cross verify you can visit our official website, www.geometricglobal.com. 
    So, please don't revert the changes, which i have made.

    Still, if you have any queries, feel free to ask.

    Thank You,
    Af9999 Af9999 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Campbells Shortbread

Thanks for your input into the Campbells Shortbread page. This page has been highlighted by other users as not having valid references and for not being notable. The page was added recently and includes 2 external references; both of which appear to be written by the company itself. Despite warnings, no independent references have been added. You turned down the deletion very quickly after it was added; what should be done in this case? Thanks. (Spyrobot (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Take it to AfD if you wish. However, it is NOT appropriate to take a declined speedy to PROD. The mere fact that speedy was declined tells you that the deletion is NOT uncontested. Sourcing may prove difficult, but it is likely that sources do exist Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kentish121 & Tombrant407

For your information, i am not running Kentish121, even though the edits are mutual, so i would like an apology for unfounded accusations. Thanks...TOMBRANT407 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was NOT an unfounded accusation. There are strong grounds to believe that it is true.

User:Webmaster 1stwordsley is undoubtedly the same as User:Kentish121

At 01:10 on 7/2 User:Kentish121 was renamed to User:Tombrant407

At 13:02 the same day, User:Kentish121 was registered again

Do you really expect people to believe that there isn't something odd about a new user registering an account that was given up by the previous user 12 hours earlier, then nominating the previous owner of that name for adminship.

As to an apology for unfounded accusations. I left you the message because I believed that you were making a serious error of judgement, and believed that the best way forward would be to advise you informally that this was not a good idea. It seems that you don't agree with me.

If the position is that you resolutely deny that you are the same person, whilst I believe that there is ample evidence from the logs that shows that you are, the proper way forward is to settle the matter more formally by my submitting a sockpuppet report, which can be properly investigated. If that investigation finds that I'm wrong, I'll offer an apology. If that investigation finds that I'm right, you will end up blocked from editing.

The choice is yours.

Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

P:UKW

Just thought i would tell you i thought it was a good idea and so i am currently constructing it. I would welcome help, especially as i have never done a portal before. Simply south (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Irwell Gallery

Thanks for that, I'd just sorted out where I was going wrong in the sandbox - sometimes it's so obvious you just can't see it. Richerman (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock case reopened

A suspected sock case you filed has been reopened and reassessed. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PopMaster

--Cexycy (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I did contribute to PopMaster as you well know, however the information I provided is actually from my owm memory as I often listen to Radio 2 whenever I get the chance and I do often listen to PopMaster, therefore I know what I added to be correct from my own knowledge and experience. This should be allowed as all books and information sources are from various people's own knowledge.

My knowledge here has the added bonus of not being copyrighted as it is my own work, therefore it should be allowed here for everyone to read as they please. I like contributing to Wikipedia for these reasons and I ask for nothing in return, just the chance to share my knowledge which is what Wikipedia is all about.

Please do not dismiss my contributions as "random trivia" as this is just unpleasant and discouraging.

PopMaster

Okay, how can I add the information that I know?

Technically, this is not research, it was something that I personally heard live on radio. It was not something that I looked into, nor is issomething that I am trying to use to prove any point. I am just representing the facts as they were.

Is there anyway I can convey them here please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

BUT I AM NOT!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manadude2 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 

Wiki isn't accepted as Credible because of the nature of Wiki

My experience today only showed me why wiki isn't accepted as credible. It's because of the nature of how the articles are edited. It's the process that is inherently flawed. No guidelines will ever change that.