User talk:Davidwr

Davidwr is currently on death watch. You may comment on his or her right to live at Wikipedia:EFD#Davidwr.

This page last updated at 2009-02-10 10:53:06 AM UTC.

Additional archives

Some threads dated before June 8, 2008

To leave me a message, click on the + tab at the top of the page. Be sure to add ~~~~ to your message so I know who you are.

Thanks

Thanks for the comment... I was just expirementing... rajalberini (talk) 24:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AfC news

Dear AfC participant,

1. Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
2. Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
3. Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
4. There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.

If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msgj (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, if that's okay

Dravecky (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To all my Wiki Stalkers - Merry Christmas

If you are reading this because you watchlisted my user page that makes you one of my Wiki Stalkers. I think there's 2 or 3 of you out there.

Anyways, to all of you, and you know who you are:

Merry Christmas

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Now that's funny!
--NBahn (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sakanaction

The tour has not happened just yet. It is taking place next year. When it does, I will post more about the tour. I have the tour schedule but I do not think that is necessary to put up. So the tour is still able to talked about as a future event. It will occur in a few months time. Torothetiger (talk) 09:09PM, December 25, 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Thanks for the message. I just subst'd the {{vanish}} help desk template, so maybe that needs to be updated? – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuit sex

Replied to you there – if you can think of a better title, please do feel free to change it (or let me know and I'll change it). As I say, I'm not really happy with the title, but am having trouble thinking of something more appropriate. And if you can think of a way to expand it, do try; while I'm fairly certain it would survive AFD, I've no doubt at all that some of our more hardline deletionists would at least try to put together an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. – iridescent 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this; I've spent a lot of time lately reading unhelpful replies, and it's several lungfuls of fresh air to see you go out of your way to be helpful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yanjmaa1.jpg

An interesting result. In text, unsourced material may be deleted on sight, but for deleting unsourced images, consensus is needed. Not the only case where I have difficulties grasping the logic behind some deletion criteria, so it could be just me... Btw: Have you considered that if the "source" was wrong, it could even be a copyvio? Mongolian copyright on a movie still (not from the 20s then anyway) would only expire 50 years after the death of the author, and not 25 years after creation as with photographs. Of course, I'd much prefer for a confirmation in a book to turn up, ideally with a higher quality scan! --Latebird (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's the way it is with images. I don't regard this image as unsourced, but rather sourced from a source that is allegedly unreliable for that type of image. Other factors, including the photos apparent pd-US status, made it unnecessary to clear up the reliability of the source in a "keep/delete" decision. That's an argument best left for the editors of the articles that use the image.

I agree, the best course of action is to authenticate or replace the image. Alternatively, have the editors of the articles remove it and after it's clear that it's not going to be re-added in an edit-war, re-IFD it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Have you considered asking the Mongolian Embassy if they have an image they can certify is public domain in both Mongolia and the United States that they can send you? Or, if you live in a big city, try your main library or university library. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We have Mongolian editors, both here and on mnwiki, who often manage to dig up original sources for stuff like that. The communist era is usually not their favourite topic, but maybe one of them can be nudged into checking it out anyway. --Latebird (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines

Thanks for your note. A proper discussion on the guidelines has finally started at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification. You might want to put your oar in. --Helenalex (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I am currently reviewing you per your request...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 04:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize I'd moved to the head of the line. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to put people who are seriously thinking about running for admin ahead of those who are just looking for a review/coaching.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential obstacles:

1) You were blocked by Arbcom a year and a half ago. I personally don't see this as an issue, it was over 19 months ago. If we held that against you, then we are only creating a culture wherein we encourage people to create alternative accounts rather than redeem old ones. Personally, I would rather see somebody repair a damaged reputation that start afresh---this gives the community the ability to monitor their actions. The issue that you are going to face is that people are going to want to know the basics of what happened. If you aren't willing to disclose the basics 1) What happened, 2) Why you were blocked, 3) Why your block was lifted, 4) What you learned. Then you probably will never pass an RfA. You have the right to keep that private, which I've seen statements to that effect. BUT as long as you refuse to disclose the basics, you will never be an admin---people will always assume the worst and will oppose simply because they feel you are hiding something from them. Which you would be. It is your choice.

2) Your position on child pornography as described here can have negative impact. Having worked with child abuse victims, I know that Americans who have been exposed to child abuse issues may oppose you on this stance alone. Having lived in other parts of the world, I know that what you are saying is essentially correct---different countries have different views on nudity. Hell, the cover of National Geographic often has more explicit pictures than the cover of Playboy!! That being said, in the United States of America a frontal view of a nude child (or even baby) is likely to be deemed as indecent (unless on the cover of National Geographic.) Even if it is clear the child didn't have any issues with it---hell, my four year old doesn't understand the meaning of the word modesty.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3) You will need to highlight some of your article building/contributions. They are out there, but you really have to look for them. I know that you have several articles that you've created on your user page, but what is missing are the articles that you work on while you are patrolling pages. I was really impressed that you appear to be one of those editors who doesn't write too much, but when you stumble accross an article that interests you, you will pause to salvage it and help clean it up. Unfortunately, this gets lost in all of the clutter.

4) I was very impressed with your CSD work---namely the way that you would replace CSD tags with PROD/AFD when appropriate. If you are interested, AND willing to write a short summary per issue 1, I would be willing to write up a nomination for you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming in from left field here; but, Balloonman left a note that he was talking to potential noms and I had a feeling he meant you :) I came here to say that I believe you would be a fine addition to the admin corps; however, I'd like to echo B'man's words above. The community will ask for a disclosure about that ArbCom experience. If my suspicions as to what happened are correct: a concise and brief explanation should suffice. In fact, to my mind, that experience draws me to more strongly support you. You are the prodigal son; you've made mistakes, can admit them, and have grown. Also, you did not let the mistakes, the struggle, and the trial deter your committment to the project. I think the apparent weakness can be a stregnth; I tend to be suspicious of the "perfect" candidate. Just show us your mistakes are behind you!

Anyway, I look forward to your candidacy. Let me know if you need help in any way; i.e. conom or help crafting a statement. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... disclosure shouldn't hurt you at this point... but failing to disclose will kill you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On the condition that you do at least a minimal disclosure of the events surrounding your block. (I couldn't find anything about it when I looked at ya---a link would be good, but if the case/history was deleted, you should mention that as well.) Also, if you run: 1) No more than 3 total nominators, 2 IMHO is best. 2) Be available to answer questions for 2-4 hours after transcluding the nom. 3) read my essay---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Be prepared for the possibility that our intuition is incorrect. Perhaps the community is not ready to accept your candidacy; if that is the outcome, I hope that would not influence your dedication to the project. All the best, remember: RfA is not the end-all of Wikipedia. If you'd like, and provide some details, I would be willing to co-nom. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Too bad for me then, I was offering to co-nom you as well, but Lazulilasher came first. If you disclose those details Balloonman mentioned above, you'll probably do great anyway, so I'll leave my best wishes for that instead :-) SoWhy 17:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm encouraging our German friend to write that second DYK so that we can nominate him as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a rare talent encouraging people into becoming admin candidates that are almost sure to pass. I keep on being impressed :-) SoWhy 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all do... I vastly misjudged RyRy's and Realists2.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)MENTAL NOTE: DO NOT NOMINATE ANYBODY WHOSE NAME BEGINS WITH AN R!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the topic at hand, where is the man of the hour? Hehe... Lazulilasher (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If he was smart, he would be filling out the paper work to exercise his right to vanish...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this doesn't work maybe someone will nominate me for deletion. But one thing at a time, one thing at a time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Balloonman,SoWhy, Lazulilasher, thank you for the comments. The other major delay is "do I really need the tools," until there is a need, it would be hypocritical of me to ask for them. I'm still mulling that one. Oh, BallonMan, I'm glad my name isn't Rwdivad :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody need them? Generally no. The questions is would the project be better if you had them? The answer is yes. If a person has their head on straight, it is always a net positive for them to have the tools because if they use them just once in a constructive manner, then the project benefits. Plus, you have experience in several areas where the tools would be helpful. The question (in my mind) is do you want to disclose your reason for being blocked... if not, then you don't run. If you are willing to do so, then you can throw you hat in the muck and see where it goes. No guarantees, but I think you'd have a good chance of passing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have faith that the community will judge you on your contributions; not your past. I could, however, be incorrect. Pursuant to this, we should be prepared for the possibility. My only hope is that, regardless of the outcome, you continue your valuable contributions to the project. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I might not !vote in your RfA David, but good luck with everything! Always interesting to see an RfA that hasn't gone live yet... and wonder how the vote columns will fill out. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the child porn thread that Balloonman mentioned, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedians who would have a problem with what you said, but Balloonman knows the audience at RFA better than I do. If you want to run and Balloonman says it will work, I say, go for it; you're a very positive presence at WT:RFA, and you'll probably be even more helpful when you don't have your own impending doom RFA to think about. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much worried about the RfA regulars, but this is an issue that touches a lot of people close to home. It is also an issue that can drive people in different directions. Thus, it is a subject that might get people who have never participated in an RfA to materialize out of the woodwork.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be a net positive in its own right. If my nomination does not succeed, but it encourages other clearly qualified people to run, or encourages people previously unfamiliar with RFA to seek out such people and nominate them, then that's good for the project. On the other hand, if it becomes a one-time blackball-fest, and those editors don't participate further in RFA, then it's just wasting everyone's time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reply: Would things be different if I made a similar statement on any other charged issue, such as the Middle East, Scientology, or whatever the latest drama at WP:ARBCOM is today? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here is the difference, if you made a statement that motivated Scientologist to oppose you, they would be identifiable. People would look at their oppose and realize, "That's a scientologist POV pusher, we expected that oppose." When it comes to child abuse/porn, you don't know who/what sets people off.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's safe to say very few people are in favor of child abuse/porn, but not everyone agrees on what that is, especially in cases where entire cultures view certain forms of child nudity as "not porn" and other cultures view the same image as the most vile thing man has ever created. Picture in French book in a Paris bookstore of kids in France on a nude beach? Not porn. Same picture in an American bookstore in certain very conservative towns? You will probably get calls for the police and seize the book. Same picture but with American kids on an American beach nude? You'll see demands to arrest the parents, send the kids to foster homes, and arrest the photographer, the publisher, and the bookseller. The world is a tapestry of many different cultures, the rules that apply in Georgia (US State) are not the same rules that apply in Georgia (country). By the way, I plan on avoiding acting alone on controversial administrative decisions when it comes to things like Israel/Palestine, Scientology, and in cases like the recent Virgin Killer controversy, child nudity, because frankly, if they are controversial decisions on issues like these, it needs more than one set of eyes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) That was a verbose and excellent response. I heard, however, all that I needed to hear with: " By the way, I plan on avoiding acting alone on controversial administrative decisions when it comes to things like Israel/Palestine, Scientology, and in cases like the recent Virgin Killer controversy, child nudity, because frankly, if they are controversial decisions on issues like these, it needs more than one set of eyes. Bingo. You've got my support right there. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone

Rather than spam all my friends with wishes, I'll just leave this note for those who are stopping by. May 2009 bless you with good fortune, good friends, and drama-free editing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MFD User:DJ_WikiBob/Sandbox_2

nein, go ahead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Love your vote rationales

...at RFA. Very nice job with Roux. (Watchlisting a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I hope my comments at places like xfd and policy/guideline proposals are more thoughtful and given more weight than those at RFA. RFA directly affects 1 person. Policy affects everyone and content affects people off-wiki. Roux has one other attribute highly recommended for administrators: A sense of humor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of a different vote rationale now: in the "red" thread at WT:RFA, "But 10 months of general uncivil behavior means 10+ months of exemplary civil behavior.": that seems very specific. Is it really true that the typical candidate who shows up at RFA with a record of 10 months of uncivil behavior can expect your support vote 10 months in the future, if they just behave in a way that seems exemplary to them for 10 months? I think my position is that it might be unfair to the candidate to dangle this in front of them, if the reality is closer to "No". If the community really doesn't see them as admin material, it be a better use of their wiki-time, and help to save them from burn out, if they know that that's the case. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be likely to give "support," other editors might not. Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the question, I thought it was asking what we, as individuals, mean when we say "come back in a year." If the question was "what do you think the community means when the community says come back in a year" I think we won't know that until enough people say what we mean as individuals. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the two guys who said "wait a year" at Red Thunder's RFA for their opinions; if I have time tomorrow, I'll go back and ask people who voted in previous RfA's what they meant. My top goal is that people don't put off running out of a fear that running itself will mean that they are shooting themselves in the foot and won't be able to run for another year. I'm fine with the the known downsides to running (having to wait up to 6 months if it doesn't work, and having people dredge up all your misdeeds and hypothesizing or fantasizing about your character flaws); I think the fact that more and more people are saying "You shouldn't have run, wait a year" gives potential candidates the impression (right or wrong) that running before they are certain they will pass would be a horrible mistake. (And who is certain they will pass, these days?) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and sometimes, it is a horrible mistake. If someone is "plateauing" as an editor, that is, they won't be much better a year from now than now, it's better to not run until they know they can succeed, because people expect a noticeable change between runs. On the other hand, most rookie/NOTNOW and novice/still-learning editors will naturally improve significantly in the coming 6 months, so they have much less to be concerned about "poisoning the well." There are some editors who will only succeed by getting lucky in their timing, that is, who happens to see their RFA and what kinds of comments are made in it. There are others who of course should never run simply because either they don't have the maturity and never will, or because they don't have the project's best interests at heart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD Survey results

Updated per your request.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Administration

I just went ahead and removed the administration. The other school sites, or at least continuation sites I'm using as an example don't have the secretary mentioned, just head person, or principal. The principal for Monroe is already mentioned in the infobox, so just removed the whole administration page, or at least for Monroe, since really don't need that up there.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest undoing your close of discussion

I would think 70% support of any policy change would make it RIPE for a RFC, to try to engage more folks. There is No RAMROD, but there is also WP:CONSENSUS. SirFozzie (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong, it's not 70%, it's closer to 60%. I went ahead and re-opened it but I'll probably shut it down in a week without taking it to RFC if nothing changes. The most widely supported proposal had 28 for, 18 against, plus 4 "against all proposals". 28 to 22 is about 60%. I didn't read through the details but as I considered 70% in the "maybe" range, 60% is well below what I'm comfortable with to add a new user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stereotypes of white people

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record for anyone reading this, the version that just got deleted is not the version I created in 2007. It was created anew from a redirect in December 2008 and did not belong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: If you get deleted

The latter :) Watchlist it now, just in case... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stereotypes of white people

I have nominated Stereotypes of white people, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would you be able to explain to me what needs to be done with the WP:COI for Monroe, if that needs to be done to the article, so that it gets done. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people

FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above yours, Baloonman. I feel it should be deleted for those reasons; specifically, the subject would be best served by study within the wider context offered by the White People article. Further, notability is not established outside of the broader paradigm. This would have the added benefit of opening it to a wider audience, to protect from NPOV, unsourced, and unreliable information (as both versions: reverted and unreverted have fallen victim to.) Lazulilasher (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, David! I just respectfully disagree with you in this case! Though, I may write a new essay WP:JustBecauseItHasFootnotesDoesNotMeanThatTheArticleisVerifiableNPOVorNotable. ) But, I've never tried my hand at that, before. All the best, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And...holy cow ballonman...that was fast.... Lazulilasher (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even the version I reverted to should have been deleted... but it wasn't speedy deletable, until I realized that it was already AfD'd... at which point you have two choices: revert to a version that was already AfD'd or leave a version that was a clear G10 violation. Either way it was deletable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Two requests: Add the following information to the recent AFD: 1) The thanks goes to DanielRigal, he found the August version before I did, and 2) please link to all AFDs related to this article, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. Also, you do realize that you shouldn't have snow-closed this. AFDs are supposed to run about 5 days. It would have been better to say "the August version is off limits due to this AFD [link], we are heading towards a snow-close delete, I'll close it X hours unless someone gives a reason not to." Yes, I know the current version was tripe and I'm glad to see Stereotypes of Whites go with it, but I don't think process should be ignored when there's no emergency. That's gonna cost me the !votes of the "admins should be able to act decisively and quickly in all circumstances" crowd at RFA. BTW, I'm thinking of late this month or early next for that, I've got some things I want to do first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version was deletable per G10. It was nothing but an unsourced attack page, so in order for it to remain as an article, we need a version that A) isn't an unsourced attack page and B) Isn't covered under the previous AfD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys crack me up. David, just walk into RfA and be cool. Create clear, concise, and scintillating prose that explains you and your weaknesses. Use proper punctuation. Again: Clear and Concise=Brief. Also, use semi-colons and colons (trust me, chicks dig semicolons!). So, rememeber: be cool, clear, concise, and scintillating. And do it quickly, because we need some candidates out there (not sure if you've noticed, but we're hemmoraghing sysops and not replacing them). Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sysops need to procreate 2.2 other sysops in order to maintain their population... otherwise they are in danger of going extinct!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo, and I firmly believe that our best editors should have the bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

;:;;;:::;;;;;:;;;:?!? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it will be at least a week and a half before I put my hat in the ring, possibly up to a few more weeks after that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for rescinding your comments in the AfD. It appears some editors simply react to others' reactions rather than read the article and respond to their own interpretation. • Freechild'sup? 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Only Thing that might Change

Only thing I might change, not the size of it because I fixed it to the size it should be because 390 was too big is the actual picture that I took of the school. To me, that picture seems to dark. If it's nice and sunny tomorrow, I'll take a better picture that I'll put up, or make it the offical picture that will stay on there, so the school can be seen better. If you notice with the summary I left on the article history, I took out that wording "students respond well" also because really didn't get to the point about the school, after reading it. Seemed like it was going off topic. You probably noticed after your one edit and mentioned that it needed citations etc. that I changed the wording, or replaced what was up there. Thought then that the wording needed to go back to what it orignially said after fixing that saw in edit before that where you marked where citations should go, put in citations, or used that as an example to go from. Hopefully everything I'm saying makes since on where the article is at now. That's why I feel the article doesn't need to change anymore. If I think anything else needs to be added, which I doubt there will, then I'll let you know about it and put in that tag, but the article pretty much gets to the point about the school and what's on the site, which is basically what I wanted for the article. Thanks for helping me get the article to where it needed to be. I worked with you and you worked with me and as a team, we got the article to where it needed to be at and I want to thank you. If you see anything else that should be added, then let me know. I know a little bit about the history, but not enough to put a history section about the school. If I can find any history on the school itself, then I'll add it, but lets just say it won't be any time in the near future. I've tried to find some history about it over the internet and couldn't find anything. It use to be the old elementary school, or that building in the picture use to be the old elementary school for a small town outside of Tehachapi, California called Monolith, California. I've had no luck, that's why there's no history about that up there. Want some reference to back that up.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if Monolith has a local government, it qualifies for a stub article. Typically small towns have their name, population, county, a link to an official web site if any, a link to official US census bureau information to serve as a reliable source, a list of what school district or districts serve the town, and not much else if there isn't anything notable. If they have notable festivals like Pioneer Days or what-not, those can be in a short list, as can any businesses or historical events or activities, like gold mining. All in all, they rarely rate more than a paragraph. They may also get a standard city infobox and if there county uses a template, the county template. Rural counties typically don't have county templates but some do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Monolith doesn't qualifiy for a stub article, because Monolith use to exist, but now is part of Tehachapi.--JoeCool950 (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do know that Monolith doesn't have a local government. The local government is in Tehachapi. I'll leave a reference here for you to see if you think it qualifies for a stub to at least explain about what Monolith is. There's not much left of Monolith except for Monroe, which is ran by the Tehachapi School district, the cement plant, and there's a mobile home park, but no government or local government out there. Here's the reference though. Let me know what you think on my talk page. [1] Let me know if you think it qualifies though for a stub. We'll have to say there's not much left out there.--JoeCool950 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Note: Changed from <ref></ref> to [] form since talk pages don't have reference sections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That reference is a Wikipedia URL, I think you meant to put something else. What reference do you want me to check?

Also, on talk pages, use either [http://somethingorother.com/something] which looks like this: [2], or [http://somethingorother.com/something Web Page Title Goes Here] which looks like this: Web Page Title Goes Here. The <ref></ref> format only works on pages with <references /> or {{reflist}}, both of which are usually found only in References or similar sections of articles. Having several different ways of doing references and knowing which ones to use where takes some getting used to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you type in your search box Monolith, California, when on the internet, you can see what I'm talking about and need to know if it would consider having a stub artile. Although, let me try putting it on my sandbox, and you can check it out there. The [] didn't work. Let me know though, if I can get it to work on my sandbox. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the [] up so it works. The key is you only use "nowiki" when you want things to be displayed literally, you leave them off when you want them to function as markup code. Also, based on the reference provided, it's not notable and no article should be written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jan09

Hi. Thanks for your recommendation about linking to images on my userpage. Actually, I've been using userboxes for that, and I've even created some new ones. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Houston colleges

We had already discussed it in the other college page, which is why I made it. I request that it is put back. XxTrillvillexX9 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section: Line of succession to the British throne

I tried to make a statistical argument that shows that the Victoria descendant count is "about" correct, but there are probably 2000 names missing on the lines more remote than Victoria. Including some famous ones.

I could barely edit the article, now. I can't imagine with thousands of more entries. Reconsider, the anti-split people seemed not to present an argument. If not, just put the names back (without reverting to early version). That way the rest of the work is not lost.Pacomartin (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what editing sections is for. The only place editing will be difficult is in at the high levels of long sections, such as "Line of succession" or "Descendants of George II (1683–1760)" in the original list. You can edit the top of the article, "section 0," easily by changing your user preferences to turn that feature on. If you don't have that turned on, or you don't allow JavaScript, you can edit it by editing http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne&action=edit&section=0. By the way, I feel your pain. One of my early wiki projects was to split up Wikipedia:List of missing journals which at the time was 400K+ and crashed some browsers in edit mode. That was a chore, but at least I was the only one involved, so consensus wasn't an issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, one of the strengths of Wikipedia is also a weakness in this case: It runs by consensus. Unless there's a clear, unambiguous policy issue, technical breakage, or extreme badness, like 1000 editors supporting removing Ronald Reagan as non-notable, consensus overrides correctness. In this case, the pre-split non-reliability issues have been addressed by language in the article header, and the purely technical issues can be dealt with for the most part by editing sections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Buddha and His Dhamma

While going through edit history of the article The Buddha and His Dhamma, I found that you have removed the table of contents. I didn't understand the rationale behind this. Will you please explain? Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 05:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's rare to put tables of contents of books in articles about them. It's also a very likely copyright violation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spending your time to explain. Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		The Guidance Barnstar may be awarded to users who help others locate valuable resources, information, or assistance. For all of your assistance that you have given countless editors, and in particular the wonderful help you have given me in the past, the pinnacle of which was your incredibly revolutionary suggestion, I award you this well deserved and well earned barnstar. Thank you.travb (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What in the world?

What in the world is this?:

Committed identity: b9aff890ed99c8ba000d13fc7f96c260c260fdae is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

I keep seeing this on users wikipages, but I try to read the explanation and it makes no sense whatsoever. travb (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If I ever get locked out of my account, I can "reclaim" it by emailing the "original" information to an administrator. He will then run it through SHA-1 and if the result matches what's on my user page, and if the string were not "easy to guess" and not so short as to be guessed by a brute force mathematical attack, then the account will be unlocked and I'll get the newly-reset password.

This is useful if you share your computer with family members who might accidentally or deliberately reset your password, for example. These days, SHA-1 and MD5 should not be used, use SHA-512 instead. I really should go back and change mine. Read Template:User committed identity for more information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just for the record

Heh, that was a good one! Might be an indication that you're addicted when you start making wiki-related yo mama jokes. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I note, however, that it was originally Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs)'s idea. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where was it his idea? I may have to make it a joint award. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, it was Wehwalt's idea. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like someone else already honored him. Oh well, now he's got 1.999... barnstars. Or he would if I didn't change mine to an endorsement of his existing one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

I answered your humorous question at my RfA, though I doubt it'll help you decide. :)

• • CRGreathouse** (t | c) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• That depends, it is a European or African commissariat?

RFA standards

Thanks for linking me. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Burp. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user

I left Icat59 (talk · contribs) a message. If he requests unblocking and seems sincere and demonstrates he knows the rules and intends to follow them, please consider unblocking him. I don't know this guy but I do know sometimes people at his stage in life jump into a project not realizing it's not a playground, but once they do realize it's an active worksite and that their input is valued, they take it seriously. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's a conditional/probationary unblock path to follow, where the user selects an article to improve and works on it on there userpage to show they are redeemable. Blocks are only to protect the project, and he seemed to be making unconstructive edits at a high rate. If he shows he can constructively edit, the he neds an unblock. Cheers, and thanks for the note. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At one time, "second chance" was part of a guideline or essay, but it was meant for users who had been blocked for at least a year. I can't seem to find it now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment needed

Shit, i was only trying to help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inclusionist (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your view at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion was not clear:

• I am interested in gauging your opinion on changing the name from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion

Thank you. travb (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Comments_by_Davidwr

Herding cats

I give up. travb (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, more than half of the ideas I've thrown out in the past few months went nowhere. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you David for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your candidacy was a no-brainer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

he he he he... --Mixwell!^Talk 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 78.150.158.199

Hi

Aye, I'm fairly sure it's the same sock - its current targets are mostly related to Leon Jackson, which is how I spotted the latest IP sock, but it still maintains an interest in Michelle McManus and other Scottish topics (its ideal target is Scotland, but that avenue of pleasure has been semi-protected).

It's IP changes periodically; it's editing under 92.25.164.51 now.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to watchlist Special:Contributions/whatever. But that would be wikistalking :) . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

;-) Fortunately the sock has a fairly limited range of current favourite articles - they change, but I add their other articles to my watchlist so I generally see new IP socks pop-up. There are a couple of admins who are good at spotting the registered socks, too, which is good because I'm uncomfortable labelling registered editors as SSPs - the IP socks all have the same ISP so I can sanity check myself quite easily.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My (failed) RfA

Dear David, thank you very much for participating and for asking me silly questions to which I failed to respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Young

She's still too young to create an account she's 6. Mayme08 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

I don't think Wikipedia has an age limit to have an account. However, most children that age are much too young to edit without help, whether they are registered or not. If you want to use your account to make edits on her behalf, that's okay, as long as you make sure all of those edits are within the rules and you take full responsibility for them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Sir Mayme08 /(talk)/ —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

RE: Removal vs. strike

Duly noted. I'll let that editor decide on his course of action, then. GlassCobra 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EFD

Haha, I couldn't put anything else, as it wouldn't be as amusing. Blue Wagon (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism finder

Heh, thanks. Here is an excellent tool for catching plagiarism. Doesn't catch everything, but it does a very good job. //roux   03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:EFD followup

David, I've responded to your threads on the EFD talk page, and started another that you may be interested in. GlassCobra 02:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Lastbroken

...alright, I'll do it: SPI request opened! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering how many days hours it would be before someone asked for a check. I suspect you are right but I hope it's just a coincidence. I figure if he is a sock, after a few days it will be blindingly obvious. I have a deep reservoir of good faith. If this guy does turn out to be a sock, rather than speedying Just For You (Michelle McManus song) I'd prefer to do like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle McManus discography, where I'm asking the article be redirected and protected to prevent "re-creation" by anyone, including future sockpuppets. If it's not a sockpuppet, I'll probably redirect anyways after a suitable discussion period, but without the protection and voice of authority that AFD brings. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I have a lot less good faith, but I'm mindful of that and trying to improve - hence I'm trying to avoid being quite so confrontational (whereas recently I would have simply reverted all edits from an SSP, I'm now ignoring all but the most silly and letting SPI work its magic).

The AfD approach sounds good.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Any plans for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davidwr? I'm doing my monthly cleanup of the RFA namespace and wanted to know if it needed deleting or should be left. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it in play. Things keep happening on- and off-wiki to push this off. For the past month I've been "a week away from letting it go live." I want as few distractions as possible during the first day or so, and that won't be in the next few days. I'm hoping for early February. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey, sounds good. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief... I might actually be retired before he goes live... and I'm talking about retired from my job, not Wikipedia!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you retiring at the end of the month? Look on the bright side, I might actually be dead before you retire. Can zombies run for administratorship? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support your RfA. Ikip (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Conversion from acres to km2

You are right. I confused the figure 244,742 with 244.742 because in Italy we usually separate decimals with the comma and not the dot, though lately the dot is also being used. Thank you for your answer, --Gabodon (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

blast your eyes!

And I was just off to bed! ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Davidwr. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It was a result of not seeing the relevance and an unclearly-written injunction. I've commented there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pantego Christian Academy

I started the article, but feel free to contribute to it. - also, please look at the talk page. Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice. I added the athletics section. I see you restored the Pantego article's text, with a reference. I feel no shame in being wrong since it motivated you to improve the encyclopedia like this :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Stark dab page

yes...i made the change before i realised Jonathan Stark (screenwriter) was a redirect to Jonathan Stark (actor). --emerson7 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

mail

you have mail.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC

do you think it is a good idea to post on village pump the name of the RfC? Ikip (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but be sure to do it in a neutral manner, like "There is a request for comments concerning xyz, see link to RFC. your sig here." Under no circumstances suggest people should comment one way or the other - keep it neutral.

On the talk page of the RFC, say where you announced it. For policy RFCs, it should be on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Be sure to read WP:CANVASS first, anything it says overrides anything I just said. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NOT Thankspam

WikiThanks

Thanks for your response to my question on WP:VPM, I never thought of using that type of statistics on wikipedia, stupid of me now never to think of this, it could revolutionize the way I do research. Another user responded with: User:Knulclunk/Random which is a wealth of information. The editor did use Special:Random though. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For the edit you made to Bun39's talk page, it might be the best example of WP:AGF, I've seen. Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! I hope he takes up the challenge! Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you know, david, why we are so desperate to hurry you through RfA - because that's the kind of AGF and helpfulness we need in an admin :-) SoWhy 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't require the bit. It's so easy even a caveman new Wikipedian can do it. I forsee one of the downsides to having the bit seeing just how many people abuse the assumption of good faith. I hope it doesn't ruin me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does not require the bit. But seeing that we unfortunately have a number of admins who shoot first and ask questions later, I'd prefer more who are patient with newbies to balance them out. AGF does not mean you cannot punish those who abuse it - but if you don't assume it in the first place, you will hit some who don't deserve it. So don't worry about that, I am a huge assumer of good faith and I turned out to be a pretty okay admin (if I may say so). Btw, when did you plan on running again? ;-) SoWhy 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When? I haven't decided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Notsooldafterall

Aye, I'm pretty convinced I've slandered an innocent bystander. I'm happy to let the SPI request proceed as it'll clear the victim (at which point I've promised a grovelling apology). First time I've made a mistake re: Nimbley6; it's been educational for me.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, it should be up to him. I know he said "go ahead and check me" earlier, but the principal of "don't checkuser unless necessary" should govern unless he wishes otherwise. I would apologize now, and if you turn out to be right, then you turn out to be right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've left a note on the SPI page noting that a probable Nimbley6 IP has just reverted Notsooldafterall, and that I don't believe Notsooldafterall is a sock. Off to apologise now... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. – iridescent 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What he said. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not an admin?

How can this be?? You are admin material! Would you like me to nominate you? Simon^KSK 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Simon - please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Straw_poll_about_RFAs_from_people_with_things_to_hide_in_their_past. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see Balloon's thing over there. I have read it and I understand. Sorry for any inconvenience. Simon^KSK 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: possible sockuppet of Nimbley6, past-disruptive IP address 86.144.136.133, or both

Hi!

Sorry - terse answers as I've been away for the weekend and am now catching up!

Cross-wiki investigations? I'm afraid I don't know. I did come across Ificouldlistentoyou as they were the uploader of images to several articles that Nimbley6 was targeting. In each case the images were scans of album covers, so unsuitable for commons, and I dealt with it on commons on a per-image basis. Incidentally, I don't think Ificouldlistentoyou is that new on commons; it's just that their contributions are deleted very quickly as copyvios.

86.144.136.133 doesn't seem related to Nimbley6; the ISP resolves to BT instead of "Opal telecom DSL" - Nimbley6's ISP. 78.144.226.100 and 78.150.249.189 are both Opal Telecom, however.

I've posted on SPI's talk page to see if there's a better way to deal with this sock on a cross-wiki basis.

Finally, ping me when you decide to lauch your RfA: I'd be delighted to support you.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ificouldlistentoyou has been around since January 9. Drop me an email please. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

blenheim high school

actually, the accusations put in by the user "Bloons" is true DuttyYo (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)