Jump to content

User talk:PeterSymonds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neurolysis-Auto (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 17 February 2009 (Fixing Nja247's RfA thankspam - it didn't close. This is being done using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is PeterSymonds's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to PeterSymonds.

User:Mixwell/scrolling


WikiCup Newsletter

17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your approval!

Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for your approval to keep the article. I know that this is not the entry of a famous composer or anything, but I really do appreciate your help. YO (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research help

I recently asked for a semi-protect for Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research. It is due to User:Bushmills2000, who continues to re-insert a "Controversies" section that violates NPOV, RS, and OR. Basically, this is a school that has screwed over some employees (once of whome was Bushmills, it seems), and the disgrunteled employees have posted some blogs about the matter. The blogs, of course, don't work as sources for Wikipedia, and there aren't any reliable sources for anything in the "Controversies" section, so I removed it quite some time ago. I explained this to Bushmills in my first post on his talk page, after the first time he re-added the material. He continued to re-add it, however, and has shown no interest in discussing this. Additionally, he has now broken 3RR. I'm hesitant to change the page again (3RR for myself), but this is unsourced, original research, possibly conflict of intrest (not to mention potentially libelous) material which should be removed from the article. Additionally, and this goes back much further than the current situation, the discussion page for the article seems incredibly inappropriate, mostly full of personal attacks and discussion about the school itself, and very little about the article - should it be cleaned up, and if so, how? Thanks for your help with this. Otebig (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an on-going situation - now he is removing sources from the article. I've put up warnings on his talk page, to which he responds by calling me a "creep". I've never asked for a block before (and am not sure how to do it), but that this point User:Bushmills2000 is being only disruptive. It is clear he has no interest in learning about Wikipedia policies or discussing the matter. Something needs to be done here. Otebig (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constance R Howard

What claims of notability are asserted in Constance R Howard other than that someday she may put out an album? AnyPerson (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the AfD; thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for protecting Yao Ming

youre welcome, and thank you for protecting the page. ps: would you tell me how you got the awesome smiley at the lo right corner of your talk page? (edited) badmachine (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) The smiley is generated through {{User:Mixwell/scrolling}}. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you think that you could possibly leave any comments for me at my admin coaching page at User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching please? It would be very helpful. Cheers, Razorflame 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have much to offer you. I will give one bit of advice (perhaps a cliché, but one I happen to respect): Don't work for the sake of adminship; if you do good work, it'll eventually come. Something else that comes up sometimes are coachees rushing their coaches, or getting the sudden urge to run to RfA without the coach's knowledge or nomination. Just take it easy, and give it as long as it needs. Adminship shouldn't be a goal, after all, and while I know it has been seen as such, don't get into that mindset here (the community is much less tolerant of that mindset than elsewhere). Good luck with your coaching. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! I will be sure to not rush my coach/coaches and I will definitely take it much easier on here than on other Wikipedias. All of the work that I do, I do for the Wikipedia, not for the goal of adminship. Cheers, and wish me luck! Razorflame 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine industries

Hi - I note you've removed the speedy deletion tag from this page with edit commentary "speedy declined - no evidence of previous XfD discussion". While this is strictly true, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine Industries which I suspect is the same page with different capitalisation (as "Clandestine Industries" is protected against re-creation. So can it not be speedily deleted as recreation of deleted material? pablo ::  ... hablo ... 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to comment, this is just to let you know that have added this to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clandestine_industries. pablohablo. 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry I missed this thread. Hmm, I've had a look at the deleted version, and it looks very different. I'll have another look through and see if there's grounds for G4. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of CripKiller1

Hello PeterSymonds. CripKiller1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. User unblocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking and moving

A few days ago you blocked Total Drama Island. I was wondering if you could block Total Drama Action as many anonymous users are vandalizing it. I was also wondering if you could look at List of characters from Total Drama Island and see if you think it should be moved to something like List of characters from the Total Drama Series. I did but it was reverted as it was undiscussed. Lastly, I was wondering do I have or will I ever have the power to protect or delete articles? Sorry for asking so much! Thanks!!!-TDI19 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

Thank you so much for answering everything and protecting TDA. Major vandalism was going on there. Thanks again!-TDI19 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teramaze

why do you keep deleting the teramaze page??????? it s pissing me off!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.9.242 (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. From what I can see, it was deleted four times between December 30 and January 3 because it was an organisation that did not assert notability. See WP:CORP, WP:CSD and your first article for more information and advice. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, you can just add this to your monobook.css. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks for the note. I think I'll keep them as they are for now, unless I accidentally revert someone... :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My page deleted

You deleted my page because of copyright infringement with Tucson air conditioning. I would like to know how you came to this conclusion. Could you please let me know. Thanks much, Jeff JML2112 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it was a word-for-word copy/paste of this document, which was why I deleted it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hi Peter, I got to head to bed now, could you provide a second opinion to this request for protection and take care of it? Regards SoWhy 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, another admin took care of it. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been out much of this week, so I haven't been able to respond quickly. Glad it got resolved. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you lock the edit this page section of Hannah Storm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.232.143 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, suspected copyright violations and BLP issues originating from several IPs were making the page unstable. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well be on the lookout, because he's doing this to a lot of female sportscaster articles (ie:[1] [2] [3]. And that's just for starters. ErikNY (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Aaron

Dear Peter ...

I am horrified that my "Raymond Aaron" page has been deleted. I see that "Blatant Advertising" was the reason. I really did not intend to do that. I can see that the section called "Services Offered" is the offending section. Please allow me to have my page without that offending section. I really was not intending to advertise. I was just carried away, adding different pieces of information, and I see that I went too far. It was my very first article. I'm sorry.

Can you reinstate it without that offending section? Or can you reinstate it and I will immediately delete that section.

I spent so many hours refining it and making it complete and it seems a pity to lose all that work.

Please tell me the correct protocol for reinstatement. I hope you understand that I am not a bad person and I was not attempting to do anything bad. I was just carried away a bit. Sorry.

Raymond Aaron <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It was deleted because it was written in a blatantly promotional style. You probably didn't notice because I believe you have an affiliation with the subject, but it was unsuitable for the encyclopedia. I will restore it to your userspace here, on the condition that you read through WP:BIO, WP:YFA and WP:NPOV. If it's not changed in a reasonable amount of time, it will be re-deleted. Thanks for understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that I broke the "blatant advertising" rule

Dear Peter ...

I just wrote you an apology, a few moments ago, but I did not notice the subject line. So, I have entered a subject line in this message to you. I just wanted to repeat that I am really horrified that I broke a Wikipedia rule. I really do want a wikipedia presence and have no desire to skirt the rules in any way. Please allow my article to be reinstated without the offending section of blatant advertising.

I do not know the exact protocol. But, please allow my reinstatement.

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted; it's fine, we all have to go through the learning curve. See above for a link to the userspace article. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted and I promise to comply

Dear Peter ...

Thank you for understanding. I will read the rules more carefully and I will have a "pure" version done by 4pm EST Sunday Feb 1. Thank you again.

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush; take your time. I was thinking more a few weeks rather than a few hours, but if you can do it by then, that's a bonus for Wikipedia. :) Thanks for understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All but one correction has been made

Dear Peter ...

I have completed the task of eliminating all "blatant advertising" and in doing so I realized how many of them there were. Sorry. You were totally right.

I have read the sections you told me to read and have complied (as far as I can tell).

Finally, the header information did not seem available for editing. So, there is one change right up at the beginning that I still need to make. Specifically, the offending sentence is ...

He is listed on page 1 of the Canadian Who’s Who [1] for his lifetime of achievement.

and, I wish it to read ...

He is listed in the Canadian Who’s Who [1].

Can you make this change before reinstating? Or, shall I make it myself as soon as it is reinstated? I dearly wish to comply. 

 Raymond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love stars

Just wanted to ensure you got my revised page

Dear Peter ...

When I came back today to see if you had replied yet, our conversation had disappeared. I don't know what happened. So, let me repeat. I have revised the article so that it complies. I want to change the line about the Who's Who but I cannot see the edit button to revise it. Please reinstate the article and I will correct that line too.

Thank you for your scrutiny to keep Wikipedia pure. 

  Raymond Aaron  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still checking some stuff out. I haven't forgotten. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You earned this

The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with a particularly large number of requests for page protection today as well as the great job you usually do in this area. I am glad you are back :-) Regards SoWhy 10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Grin* Thank you much! :) Half way through I thought I'd finished, but turns out they were just drive-by protections, leaving the other half still to do! XD But it's an area I enjoy seeing to often. Thanks again! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Ricardo Quaresma

Thanks for protecting the Ricardo Quaresma article and responding so quickly, much appreciated keep up the great work! Tango22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for granting me rollback!! :D astatine-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) Remember to be cautious with your reverts if you decide to use huggle. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty creating a new article

Dear Peter ...

I am on the Board of The Transformational Leadership Council. We have decided to have a separate article on Wikipedia, instead of having reference to it under Jack Canfield, the founder.

Every time I tried to create a TLC article, I kept getting directed to Canfield's article.

So, I deleted all reference to TLC from Canfield's article and still I keep getting directed to Canfield.

Once I mis=typed "Transformation Leadership Council" and now I cannot delete it.

This is quite frustrating.

Would you please ...

1. Delete "Transformation Leadership Council" or else tell me how I can do it. 2. Would you please tell me how to create a "Transformational Leadership Council" article.

I greatly appreciate your help. 

  Raymond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION !?!!?!?!?!?

WH YDOES EVERYONE KEEP DELETING MY ARTICLES! YES - - I KNOW THEY LOOK LIKE TEST PAGES, GIVE ME TIME TO MAKE THEM INTO ARTICLES FIRST!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeteer12 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you come up with a subject to write about, go ahead and write it bearing in mind WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Use the article wizard for more helpful guidance. But creating a page informing us that you're going to create a page is rather contrary to the purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Raymond Aaron Article is complete

Dear Peter ...

As of an hour ago, I have obeyed every single rule and I have accepted every suggestion on my article. Would you now please consider reinstating it?

Raymond Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now at Raymond Aaron. Still needs a bit of work, but you've made many improvements. Good work. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YEA!! Thankyou so much for reinstating Raymond Aaron

I am so glad you were patient. 

   Raymondaaron (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

Transformational Leadership Council ... difficulties

Dear Peter ...

I have been authorized by The Transformational Leadership Council to post an article. But, every time I attempt to do so, I get shown Jack Canfield's article. He was the founder of TLC. But, I have deleted all reference to TLC in his article so that I can post a whole new article for TLC. Yet, even though all references have been deleted, I still get sent to his page when I attempt to create a new article.

This is frustrating.

How can I create a new article for Transformational Leadership Council? 

   Raymondaaron (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Raymondaaron[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/John F. Kennedy Inauguration Address Video

One of the opposes was indented, so posting a query to make certain you're aware you promoted a nomination as consensus support while it actually had 3 supports and 2 opposes. DurovaCharge! 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, silly me, I hadn't noticed. I'll contact X! now and see if we can resolve the issue about whether it qualifies as a picture or sound. There seemed to be dispute about it, but the supporters argued that the venue was correct because it was being judged for its sound qualities rather than its photographic qualities. Instead of instantly reverting myself, I'll see if I can get some further opinions and take it from there. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen kumar gorakavi

Um - are you sure?? I was just looking at this one when it went ..... I was just thinking AFD... Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(checked th edeleted history BTW!) Pedro :  Chat  09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the one time I don't check the history... Sorry. I didn't see any assertion, however, but AfD is fine. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Er. Hrm. Damn, I see. :/ PeterSymonds (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RECALL THE BIT :)! Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. My rights log is going to look very repetitive if I keep this up... :) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not going to even AFD this - looking at the refs he's clearly notable. The article is a shock of horrors but just needs a rewrite. Just preparing my nom for RFA 3.... "Peter is a fairly accurate admin who lost the bit the second time......" :) Pedro :  Chat  09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, silly me. I was looking at this rather questionable revision. I find it highly amusing that the one time I don't check the history, there's a good version to revert back to. Very appropriate slap in the face from the ol' deletion policy there. :) While you're at it, might as well watchlist RfAs 4 and 5, eh? :). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JF-17 article unsourced edits/vandalism

Hi, after you locked the JF-17 article a few days ago the vandalism stopped, but the article is now unlocked and is being edited again with incorrect information. The user with IP address 24.87.45.232 keeps changing the specifications section with information from an unreliable source that is different to what all other sources say. The user has never used the discussion section at all to discuss changes, he/she just keeps making edits. Is there any chance that you can lock the article again, or perhaps take action against this user? Hj108 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look into it. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turn blocked "nuke the fridge" article into redirect.

Hi,

You deleted the article Nuke the fridge and prevented recreation. However a new article Nuking the fridge has been created, to which Nuke the fridge is an obvious redirect. Therefore, would it be possible for you to recreate the page as a redirect, and then lock it?

Alternatively, you may decide that the Nuking the fridge article is an attempt to circumvent the deletion of the Nuke the fridge article. (I would probably agree with this.) However, even if is the case, there is an obvious contradiction between an article existing under one name, and it being blocked under another name.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath(Talk) 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Done Redirected and locked. I'm not one to judge whether this is an attempt to circumvent, but AFD is always the place if it is (note the "Nuke the fridge" AFD resulted in a consensus to delete). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please...

protect Total Drama Action again. I am sorry for asking again after it's last protection just expired, but since then there have been around 75 edits, probably half of them vandalism or deletion of pages, plus unofficial rumors being put up every 5 minutes. Greatly, greatly appreciated- TDI19 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done sigh, what a total drama island. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!!!- TDI19 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editor assisstance

Hi there :) I saw your offer for help on the editor assisstance page. I wondered if you could possibley help me with the discussions on the leeds page. I feel the page is in breach of core policies, and I would like an experienced editor in this field to see if they feel this is true, and if so to advice on what steps to take. I have brought up the core policy issues, as have numerous admins and editors involved in the discussion, and such assertions are never refuted, yet the article remains in status quote, and any changes that address the core policy issues is reverted. Hope you can offer your experience, thankyou --Razorlax (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. :) I will look, but not right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow evening and make my comments. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats brilliant. Thanks Peter. Before messaging you, I posted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Leeds.2C_UK but realised it may be easier to just speak one to one with an experienced editor, that being you lol :D --Razorlax (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Looking into it now. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks peter, hope it isnt eating into to much of your weekend, the talk page is quite lengthy lol.--Razorlax (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, any progress report from ya? @:D --Razorlax (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was away most of today touring a town as part of a university assignment. I've spent the last few hours writing it all up. I've not forgotten, and will make my comments soon. Once again, sorry for the delay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter, good luck with the essay. To assisst you I've just spent some time summarising the Leeds problem and summarising the points from the Leeds talk page and put the arguments into tables. Its all on my sandbox and should save you some time. BTW a pro-change involved-administrator did expand the article to adhere to core policies 16:24 1 Feb 2009, but it was reverted by another involved editor :-( Razorlax (talk)
Okay, I'll leave my comments on the sandbox talk then. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok thankyou :-) --Razorlax (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Peter :) was just wondering how it was coming along. Thankyou --Razorlax (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm still struggling through it. Sorry, there's one or two things I've had to check out, and still a couple of things I don't quite understand. Hoping you'll forgive the delay, I should be done by tomorrow night, once I'm sure about it all, but I'll comment sooner if it's urgent. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes tomorrow night would be great if possible as I'm quite engaged in the discussion and I dont want to be proceeding in the specific direction i am if my interpretations and understandings of the core policies etc are wrong and I am going about things the wrong way. That said, please dont over-prioritise, Im just very grateful that some outside assisstance from an uninvolved editor will be given. --Razorlax (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Peter, any further progress today? Hows it coming along, anything you're not sure about just ask. Tell me of if im stalking you now btw lol! --Razorlax (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. :) Done at last. Sorry for the delay but I needed to look into the back story. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Ada High School (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ada High School (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ada High School (disambiguation) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ada High School (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ooh, a bot warning, I haven't had one of those for ages. Speedy was declined by Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and categorised correctly. Not that you'd realise, I suppose. :( PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur Page

can you please protect Tupac Amaru Shakur's article on a higher level some how. there has been a lot of vandalism, probably due to the film "notorious" coming out in the cinema's about the notorious B.I.G (one of tupac's main rival) and i think fans have been vandalizing the page as a sort of relaliation for notorious big's side. i would be very thankful if you protected it even more as i have had to edit the page many times and the vandals carry on vandalizing the article. thanks 04dejand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04dejand (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by myself on February 2. Autoconfirmed vandals can be easily blocked, so protection isn't necessary right now. I'll keep an eye on things though. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a while ago you deleted and then userfied Raymond Aaron

I was wondering if you were monitoring the recreated article and the promotional activities of the eponymous editor? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping an eye, but thanks for pointing this out. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I see attempts to use WP as personal web space. But my opinion is just one person's. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you're not alone at this point. :) I've been trying to assist with questions from the user. We'll see how it goes. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am cynical of "major motivational speakers" and tend to see Emperor's New Clothes, especially when they insist on COI edits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I fired a large warning shot on hos talk page and ripped a lot of spam and POV stuff out of the article and some of the other articles. I have seen evidence of restraint, though I think it and the related articles are very advert-like. I think we still need to keep an eye. Especially the links, which appear to go directly to "buy buy buy" pages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am RAYMOND AARON. I am doing my best to be a good Wikipedia contributor. I listened carefully to Peter's comments and obeyed them. I have done my best to delete all opinions and all "blatant advertising". I am proud to have a Wikipedia article and I do intend to obey all rules. You have requested CITATIONS for my athletic achievements. Some of them occurred before computers and really there is no online record. This pertains to my marathons and my ultramarathon and my caving and alpine club. I do have a photograph of riding my 5-foot-tall "giraffe" unicycle and I have posted that as proof that I can ride it. However, I will never be able to provide CITATIONS for achievements that occurred before computers began recording information online. I would really appreciate your removing the CITATION REQUESTS for those athletic achievements for which there is no independent verification. Raymondaaron (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

I have replied to Raymondaaron on his talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosy.jpeg

I believe this image was deleted on an incorrect basis. The request by Madeofstars was per Wikipedia:CSD#G7: "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith". As I understand it, this criterion is a discretionary one, not mandatory. The image was in use in three articles and as it is a historic image (i.e. from 2003) it is not replacable. The user put it in article space, when it was first uploaded on 6 December 2008.[4] Furthermore, on 17 December 2008, he reinstated it after a deletion of the image was reversed.[5]

Two months later, he decides he wants it deleted, but has not given any reason why this should happen. The file upload page[6] under step 2 "free license" says in bold, "This release is not revocable." The norm is that we do not allow material, once released under a free licence, to be removed. This is especially the case when it is incorporated into articles.

I am not asking for the image to be undeleted, as it is already on Commons, so would need to be deleted for that reason anyway. The user does not seem to have realised this, as the new name for the image had not been put in the article to replace the old one (I have now done this). However, I request that you inform the uploader Madeofstars that this was the only legitimate reason for its deletion, and that he has given a licence that the upload page clearly states "is not revocable", so he should not normally expect such deletion requests to be met.

Ty 03:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of the irrevocable licenses (I've dealt with several at Commons), but the G7 could've been for any reason. Most G7 images I've seen are for uploading under different names, so I generally fulfil them. However, it might be better to ask the intent of deletion before deleting next time, so I'll do that in future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is now more on this at User talk:Tyrenius#Stella Vine and Rosy Wilde photos, Commons:User_talk:Geni#Madeofstars and User_talk:Madeofstars#Photos_of_stella_vine_and_her_gallery. Ty 06:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the Fact page

Hi Peter, I reverted the page because of a long list of what appeared to be trivia added. It wasn't sourced, and I wasn't going to track down the individual items. This was the version I reverted, and it looks like it may be a well meaning very new user who is editing, so I didn't create his talk page or anything. When you have a moment, could you look at it and advise me on any different measures I should have taken. Thanks — Ched (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change - I did leave him a welcome template — Ched (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did absolutely fine, Ched. Most new users aren't quite aware of the project scope, so will add long lists of trivial facts, unsourced information, etc. The best thing to do is do exactly what you did: revert and explain. I know when I was a new user, I created articles with "redirects" to external sites, but I gradually learned I shouldn't do that sort of thing. :) That said, I don't think it's necessary to give long and detailed lists of policies, because it often means little. Learning by experience is the best thing for new users, in my opinion. Keep up the good work! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IP user (80.47.184.89)

Can you block editing talk page? Versus22 talk 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for doing that. :-) Versus22 talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. Sorry I didn't spot it sooner. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I posted somebody for vandalism. You noticed that there weren't any warnings. The reason is because I'm not interested in giving out warnings. I just brought that user to the attention of administrators. Should I have done that on another page? Anyway, if you want to take care of it, there's Special:Contributions/92.12.36.59 also, apart from the Special:Contributions/4.88.20.100 I mentioned there. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally administrators like to see two or three warnings for an IP, unless it's a known vandal. You did right to report it, and I'll keep an eye on it, but I can't block it if it hasn't received warnings. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOTALLY CLEANED "RAYMOND AARON"

Dear Peter ...

I read your communication with Fiddle Faddle and I am doing my best to comply.

I have just revised the article again deleting every single objection you could possibly have. I have deleted ALL my athletic accomplishments (except Polar Race since you did not object to that as it has a citation).

I even deleted reference to my own website www.Aaron.com even though you did not object to that.

There is nothing left to do. It seems to me it is totally clean.

Would you PLEASE remove the objectionable notice at the top of my page about COI? Please.

Raymondaaron (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]

Excellent work. I'll go and read it now. By the way, on talk pages, you can click the "edit" button on the section you originally started, and indent your post using :. Saves more space that way. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Talent Support

Dear Peter,

ITS is an organization and one of the most renowned platform for young creativity, we have a large press coverage from international press, see our press page http://www.itsweb.org/jsp/en/presstype/type_1_edition_5.jsp and I think it can be an informative page for who is looking for opportunities for young talents and anyway we are not taking space from others or creating fake or just adv pages.

If you think it can work I will try to write the text with a more encyclopedic style. Thanks pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbaccio (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hi again

Hi, thanks again for protecting Total Drama Action. I was wondering if you could protect Dancing with the Stars (U.S. Season 8) please. People keep unofficially pairing professionals with celebrities. Thanks- TDI19 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Seems like very few people are watching the page, and it's getting a lot of traffic, so I've semi'd it for a month. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!!!- TDI19 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the stars U.S. season 8 protection.....

Umm, I'm actually kind of glad you semi-protected the dwts season 8 page, but I'm confused. It says in the wiki policy that semi-protected pages can only be edited by users who have autoconfirmed their accounts. Well, uhh, I autoconfirmed my account, and I still can't edit the page when logged in. Explanation? Help? Thanks

Mallory, onesmallnote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmallnote (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users for more information. Autoconfirmed is an automatic user group attained after 4 days of registration and 10 edits. As for the protection, I'll keep an eye, look at it again, and possibly unprotect it this evening. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My main concern is that now the real list of pairs is out, and the wrong information is up, and obviously I can't fix it. That was all. Thanks for your time :) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onesmallnote (talk • contribs)

Vandal

I've just reverted several vandal edits for contribs 195.194.86.166 (a school). I don't know the procedures, so I'm hoping you will deal with it appropriately. Thanks. --Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done schoolblocked for one year. After the recent activity, it's clear the vandalism has quickly returned. For reference, the venue is Wikipedia:AIV. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

Hi Peter. I have a bit of a problem. this edit concerns me. I admit that I have the Larry Sanger page in my watch list, and I have contributed greatly to the talk page. I came across the whole thing back in mid-January through an RfC, and attempted to make changes around the 15th of January, but I'm getting bogged down in my own thoughts here. Anyway - the issue that I have a problem with is that QuackGuru insists that the following be included as such (even though another editor attempted to include the information in a more rational manner)

(from article) While Citizendium is wiki-based, several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia:

  • Prospective contributors are required to apply for membership under their real names.[92][93] Wikipedia consists largely of anonymous editing.[94][95][96]
  • Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work.[80] Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth.[97][98]
  • Citizendium has a very low tolerance for vandals, trolls, or disruption.[92][99] Wikipedia has been prone to disruption and sometimes misinformation.[100][101][102]

Primarily the statement that "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is placed in a comparison that makes it appear to be a fact, rather than what some OP-ED columnist wrote (my thoughts are WP:SYN). (end paste)

The whole issue has been through 3O, RfC, and WP:WQA recently, and nothing has been accomplished. I admit, I'm relatively new (mid-Nov.), so I am open to suggestions. The editor (QuackGuru) has been around for quite some time, and due to his block log, I would imagine he/she is familiar to many editors. I honestly believe that his/her edits to the article are degrading the quality of the article. Since this is not only a BLP, but a BLP of a founding member (exact definition isn't an issue with me) of Wikipedia - I would think that the article would be important.

Peter, I respect your opinion here - and if you feel it's best for me to just walk away from the whole thing I will. I think the article is important, and my first instinct was to revert and tag QuackGuru with a vandal notice, but I doubt that would accomplish anything. I would greatly appreciate any advise you could offer on this. — Ched (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it now; will comment soon. At first glance I agree with you. The edits don't appear to have much relevance to the article anyway, aside from the unencyclopedic style of prose. The edit was undone by the time I returned, which suggests the issue could be resolved, but there appears to be a slow edit-war developing on that article...If I recall correctly, I protected it [edit:sysop] once before, but I might be mistaken. I'll keep a close eye on it, but from what I can see, your method would've been correct (though a personalised note rather than a template might serve better. Possibly not, but you never know). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Peter, I appreciate you taking the time. Hopefully it will all work out in the wash. ;) — Ched (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind coming back to the R Aaron party?

I have been trying to advise him and finding that there is a disconnect between my advice, which he says he is grateful for, and his actions. He is currently ojn a roll editing references into the article in what looks like a flurry of desperation, but without checking the end product, and seems not to be aware of the issues. I am taking a pace back form this because it is actually heart rending. You were kind enough to advise him before me, and I hope you can bring fresh eyes!

At the end we may well have a salvageable article, and a lot of that will be down to him, but... HELP! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. PeterSymonds (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian vibist

Hello Peter,

Can you help me? I would like to appear here as a hungarian vibist. Why did you delete my page, copyrights, syntactic errors ... ?

Thanks in advance,

Richard Szaniszlo, vibist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.156.52 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error

I was going through Let It Be... Naked and I saw that at the end it says "Cite error: ref tags exist, but no references/ tag was found." I have limited citation experience, but I tried a few things to fix it (without saving my changes). I don't understand how to fix this. I've seen it before, and I'd like to know how to handle it. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just a fellow Wiki user, and I just had this same problem a few days ago. All you have to do is put < references/> (without the space) at the very bottom of the entire page.  :) Onesmallnote (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, please use {{reflist}} in the place of <references/>! :) It looks so much neater. But Onesmallnote is right; the citations can only be pulled when the software recognises a place to list them. Don't worry, it took me a good year to figure that out myself. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Peter, I was just trying to help. From now on, I'll just let you take care of everything! Onesmallnote (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was only joking. :) Stems from my personal distaste for < references/>, because the formatting looks ugly and outdated. I find reflist a lot more manageable, as you can split it ({{reflist|2}}, for example, splits the references into two columns, especially useful for articles with many citations). Smaller text gives more distinction between the text and the references, too, in my personal opinion. I know you were helping, and I wasn't discouraging; I was merely pointing out that reflist is, on the whole, a lot more successful. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's really interesting. I'm learning a lot about working on Wiki, so I really should just leave it up to professionals like you.  :) Hey, now Belasted has two choices of how to fix it! Haha. Onesmallnote (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already had the reflist template. So I added < references/ > (without the spaces) after it and it still had the cite error. Belasted (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Moved slightly further down so it captures the rest. The reflist has to be below all the references, or they won't be captured. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the help. I also just used your mention of reflist|2 to split the reflist int he Ben Folds article. Thanks again. Belasted (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Thanks for the fixes. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re NPOV/FAQ

Peter - I don't want to get in a squabble over this on the talk page, but it probably would have been better to add the 'under discussion' tag and leave the 'policy' tag off. there's just too much aggravation over this page for it to pretend to the kind of consensus that policy is supposed to have. just my two cents, and my apologies if I dropped you into the middle of a quagmire. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the policy tag was to stay if the under discussion tag was attached. At least, that's what I've seen in past precedent. Further, no, it's not your fault; I was just looking at things with an uninvolved eye, so I only looked at consensus on that page. I'll keep watching the discussion though. Hope there's a satisfactory conclusion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is only now in its second day, and no real attempts have been made to get broad input. It seems premature. The editors attached it to a thread that had last been commented on a few months ago, which gives the impression of a lengthy debate, but this particular discussion is very recently started. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'm beginning to see this is being discussed in other places, too, and the whole thing isn't as simple as I originally thought it was. I'll stay out of it from now on, but will follow the discussion with interest. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi Peter, thanks for the ACC, and I'll make sure I read through everything before I actually do anything. ;). By the way, don't you ever sleep? .. lol. .. I see that admin Moni3 has been working with an editor I had questions about recently. That's great! I tried, I really did, and I think the talk page does reflect that, but the important thing is the article seems to have settled down for now (thank goodness).

While I'm here - I've seen several editors mention "gwarp", but I can't find info on it. What is a gwarp or gwarping? — Ched (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sleep. :p Most nights I'm up late for university assignments (I'm on a history course, so it's 90% reading and 10% anything else!). While I'm busy I generally poke my watchlist to see if anything interesting comes up. Yes, the situation seemed awkward, but it seems to be relatively resolved. I was going to comment again but I don't think my further input is needed for now.
Grawp (User:Grawp) is a banned user (formerly by the name of User:JarlaxleArtemis) who has some sour grapes about the project. His trademark is page move vandalism to variations of "HAGGER??" (see my move log, for example, linked on my user page). Also attacks on other editors is frequent (example). We know who he is, but we can't stop him, because he uses many open proxies to connect. Sigh. Hopefully he'll get bored one day. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh ... OK ... sounds like that Willie on Wheels thing I read about a while back. gotcha! thx :) — Ched (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Computer Virus

Hi. Are you sure this edit was the right thing to do? Looking back at the previous few edits, I noticed that 1nt2 (talk · contribs) replaced the previous {{pp-semi-indef}} template with a {{editprotected}} template, and the page logs suggest the page is still under semi-protection. Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The {{editprotected}} template is used on talk pages to flag an administrator to edit a fully-protected page (see Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests). I'll replace the {{pp-semi}} now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding

I have finally finished the prep work for Fielding. Here is a list of things I need you and NuclearWarfare to complete. If there are any questions about individual sections, missing info, etc, just contact me and I will provide the bulk. I basically need help with all the formatting. Right now, I am keeping everything on one page (the individual plays sections right now). Wikilinks, leads, summaries (for the "early plays" page) and formatting are the primary concerns. Any work is a help, and remember, this will be 15 pages (plus one more about the 1733 Actor's Rebellion, which I will put together tomorrow). Thanks and sorry for the delay. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trout slap - Rollback issues

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.


Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example


Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

The IRC cabal has discovered that you have given a user, rollback, when they aren't yet autocomfirmed. Please accept this slap as way of thanks. ;) Thankyou, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) with CWii's approval CWii(Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't happen that often, but it's been known. The only thing I really look for is experience with vandal-fighting and a reasonable number of edits, as that's only what rollback is really for. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton

Hi, I was curious about your putting only semiprotection on Reggaeton, given that one of the edit warriors is a registered user. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that one. Upped to full. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi again. I would like to thank you so much with all your help with the Total Drama articles, but it is annoying me that established users are now vandalizing it and using it for personal predictions, and I do not know what we should do about it. I was also wondering if I could be a rollback. I am really responsible, and want to keep Wikipedia clean and informative, and I think I will do a great job as one. Thanks again for everything!!!- TDI19 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bachelor (Season 13) vandalism

Hey Peter,

The Bachelor Season 13 is getting closer and closer to the season finale and people keep vandalizing the page. Is there any way you could semi-protect it? I'd really appreciate it. It's getting tiring to keep deleting the same vandalism over and over again. Onesmallnote (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Koskidzrules1

Hey. As I noticed you were the blocking administrator in this recent sockpuppet case, I have to come to you. This is kind of embarassing since I'm the one who filed both the SPI and a few different ANI threads...

The Checkuser came back saying that LGOutcast =/= Lizard1000. However, Lizard1000 was blocked as a sock of LGOutcast per the duck test [7]. Now he's been cleared by CheckUser. Lizard1000 and Koskidzrules1 were the same person, but if Lizard1000's block was wrong, what does that mean for the guy?

I'm not at all sure where to proceed from here, but I wanted to bring all this to your attention. McJeff (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yeah I could see where the duck test was coming from, but as Lizard1000 turned out to be a sock puppet anyway, I'm not too worried about his block. What I will do is re-block the user with a note about the checkuser findings. I think that's the only thing to do at this stage. Don't feel embarrassed; you did the right thing. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Talent Support

Dear Peter I posted a comment on your ban on International Talent Support and I would like to know if it would be possible to create the International Talent Support voice again in a more informative way. If you think it is worth I can submit the content to you first to check if it can be interesting for wikipedia users. Any suggestion is welcome thanks pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbaccio (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral

Cheers! Nja247 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterSymonds&oldid=271447240"