User talk:CycloneGU

Nice updating of the Lambton College page. How quickly the rot occurs since I helped maintain that page. Just for reference you changed 'armoires' to 'armories'. The former is a cabinet for clothing, the latter is a place with weapons. You also changed the spelling of 'centre' to 'center'. Because the original was 'centre' and it is on an article about a Canadian College, I have changed it back.

Iæfai (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. But I think there are very few images of Bieber available in the commons. Candyo32 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oy, that was ages ago, LOL. I was A Step Into Oblivion, and this is my current account after WP:CHU. And yep figured that out eventually, heh, also figured out I was trying to talk to a bot. No worries and thanks for the offer to help, anyways. :) --Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the latest absurd 'Pending Changes' poll. I agree with your edit summary 100%. Jusdafax 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, I read your comment before seeing the new message here as well. =) I remember last time supporting that user's poll, but despite my somewhat praised efforts to turn the poll into something salvageable and much more useful, it instead turned into a bunch of bickering that even a 60-65% yea vote could not overcome. A lot of bad things were both therein and later said, including on Jimbo's talk page (I think even I might have offended someone) and I think a couple of people flat-out quit Wikipedia over it (hopefully returned since), with many others making the same threat. I happened to think about Pending Changes myself at just the right time and came along right after the poll was created after not thinking about it for a few months. I was just in the right place at the right time to squelch the absurdity.

As an aside, Off2riorob has yet to comment on my remark on his talk page asking him not to create any further polls. I will be watching his page (and maybe more) for a little while. Jeremy and myself have since replied after you on Jimbo's page. CycloneGU (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that some sort of resolution should be attempted with Pending Changes, and that another hasty poll is not the way to go. I dislike PC and as I have commented elsewhere that I think a partial answer to vandalism is required registration. But that approach is currently not in favor with many of the people that matter, so we are left with a stalemate at present. PC was touted as a great solution, but I think it raised expectations that could not be met. As someone who has spent a great deal of time considering the problems Wikipedia faces, and how to solve them, I've now taken a couple steps back from devoting multiple hours daily to the encyclopedia. This could change, but for now I try to keep it light. Again I thank you for your fair but firm actions. Jusdafax 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed now, but I was thinking of joining IRC channels about this in case any discussion came up. Maybe Wednesday or Thursday. CycloneGU (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I archived your discussion as I don't understand what part of "Any continued discussion would be better on the pending discussion page, thanks." you are unable to understand - also , your article contributions don't explain or demonstrate why you should be interested in or have a deal of understanding in this issue anyways, as your comments are a bit aggressive and attacking in nature, please do not post them on my talkpage anymore, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this discussion will be deleted after it has run its course; it will remain in the history.

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, already saw it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. "I'll take a look at what you're drafting" - sure, that'd be great. Just bear in mind, it is absolutely a draft of a maybe-proposed proposal to possibly show somebody...etc. -ie, it is my own notes. It isn't anything to be taken at all seriously, and I would not have mentioned it, except for wishing to show you that "people were thinking". I hope that makes sense. Thank you. of course, comments are still very welcome.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have asked you not to continue posting on my talk page in this manner, perhaps when this issue is resolved but for the time being please do not post on my talkpage again - I am watching your talk page and associated discussion pages and will comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my last post I must apologize for. You copied Chzz's post to his page and did not indent your comment, and I mistook it for a post you made complaining about me on his talk page, which I now know is not the case.

Further, what is your issue with me posting on your talk page in general? If I have a concern, I'm going to post on your page, not mine. I don't start discussions with another party on my own talk page. In this case as we have an ongoing discussion this is an exception, but in the future after this discussion is completed I would start a new discussion on your page since it's senseless to start a conversation with myself.

As a side note, deleting posts doesn't make the issue related to you go away. You're treading a fine line now. Just my observation, I still assume good faith. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And he deleted your last post again. Like you said, no point in talking to him.EkoGraf (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you now Cyclone, would this be ok to add to the infobox in the Tripoli clashes article? 275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim), 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim) I noted the figures to be claims for the sake of neutrality. If you think it's ok than add them or that guy while bite my head off.EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please check the noticeboard here to see if I followed proper procedure.EkoGraf (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Added an additional note at the noticeboard in regard to the breaking of the Wikiquette rule.EkoGraf (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I added my own note as well. CycloneGU (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Need to sleep, it's seven in the morning where I am, will see what the situation is when I wake up. Thank you for your help in the attempt to try and resolve the issue.EkoGraf (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Hang around a moment, one more post coming on your page. CycloneGU (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself am not able to add the 275 figure in the box because it would be an additional violation of the 3 revert rule and also he would just revert me stating that humanitarian group is not reliable and is only claiming and not stating facts.EkoGraf (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you use this phrase at BN. Is it commonly used in Canada? We have an article on sticky wicket! --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I think it is a British saying, and it's not a saying that is often used in Canada (not as much NEway). Canada came to be as a colony of Great Britain and became an independent country after WWI, but we still honour the Queen and anytime a member of royalty visits it becomes a huge deal around here (the upcoming visit of William and his future wife is causing quite a stir). The beauty of the Internet is that you can find sayings from all around the world (crikey, mate) and can learn them before you ever set foot in the country. =) So I know the reference that "sticky wicket" implies (a situation that is difficult to get out of, or a bad decision that is going to be difficult to get away from, etc.), but TBH I think this is only the first or second time I've used the term. =D CycloneGU (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On 19 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glee: The Music, Volume 5, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Glee's newest album includes two original songs that appear in the Glee episode "Original Song"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just wondering what pre-fill text you've been using to create the daily log pages for DRV these past few days. They have been missing the navigation header, which isn't a big deal but does help for navigating between log pages. The regular preload text includes it, so I assume you've been using something else. If you wouldn't mind either using the regular preload text (there is a small link just above the log transclusions on the DRV main page which creates logs with this preload) or updating your preload to have <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> just above the date subheading. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hurriedly created the two I did because I noticed no one had created the one for that day (March 20), and I based the setup on the header of the March 19 one. If I did something wrong, please go ahead and correct it. I was wondering why there were no entries for today, but then, there were none for the 19th either.

I presume you are referring to the deletion review log pages, of which I have only created the two; the one that was missing, and the next day's. CycloneGU (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Tweet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nail Yakupov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nail Yakupov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Onthegogo (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the one who opened the Glee 'Born This Way' for deletion, which was kept according to some snow-ball thingy that I actually did read, and agreed with. Anyway, I realized that I should not have opened it up for deletion, which I did even after SilverSeren suggested me not to. It was a bad decision! Thank you, I guess for 'enlightening' me. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I think I have a HUGE number of policies to read. It's all just so confusing! :/ :D Kanavb (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I responded on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ROFL, I was eating dinner when you responded. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 last reply.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

About as necessary as you reverting it! Made you look, didn't I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, I was surprised no one else reverted it first. =P CycloneGU (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yair rand sums up my feelings on PC perfectly. And for that perfectly reasonable position in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, not to mention actual processes, we are accused of being hostage takers? Obviously the spirit of WP:PROVEBEYOND-ALLREASONABLEDOUBT-TOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERS-YOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH is in full play. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a poorly worded way of putting it, I was trying to introduce another angle on it and that crashed and burned very quickly when Kingpin commented on it. I have already apologized to Kingpin for the miswording in my trying to present another view, and I believe he now understands I was not trying to make any personal attack. I was trying to emphasise that some editors - not you or Yair rand, but basically those who comment in ways covered by WP:I don't like it - could be viewed as stalling the process, which...you get the idea, and I presented it badly. Never was I meaning to accuse any editors of being terrorists, or holding hostages. In a way, it could be boldly argued that PC is being held hostage by this eight month long debate over it (which I was trying to do), but my wording choice was poor and I made it sound like people here are terrorists - which is what Kingpin understood and not at all what I meant to say.

I'm sure others will be along to comment on this as well, goes with the territory I guess. Sorry for the confusion. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD isn't at all applicable here, that's for articles. See WP:CIVIL instead. It sounds like you still feel that the process has been held hostage through bad faith efforts even though we're not hostage takers. I argue that the supporters have held up the process through repeated polls and accusations of bad faith instead of consensus discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would concede that perhaps, yes. While I personally try not to assume bad faith (with exception perhaps to a very badly worded message - that to me now sounds like bad faith - in a discussion on a remote talk page that I now somewhat regret), and my only polling involvement was trying to fix a badly timed but already voted in poll that still meant nothing followed five months later by completely eliminating a very badly timed and also already voted in one, I can say regardless of all that that I still attempted many times getting involved in consensus-forming discussion. Yes, my opinion is slanted towards favouring PC and thus my consensus opinion is slanted as such, but I did keep running myself into WP:I don't like it and found some editors not really wanting to talk about it. At one point, I even found on a blog (in a Google search - don't ask me how it came up) an off-Wiki canvas effort trying to bring in more people to vote against Pending Changes in the October poll, which seemed to work based on my observations at the time when a sudden flurry of No votes came in. In such a case, it gets harder to assume good faith, and despite my attempts to always do so, I'm sure other edits of mine prove that sometimes even a general good faith presumption can come out sounding anything but. But again, I concede that there are also people supporting PC (I can think of an obvious one, think back to the useless polls) who are trying to force a decision now - and with something like this, that can't be done. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly users with extreme views on both sides who aren't at all interested in discussion or legitimate processes. They can only win by agitating everyone to the point that discussion can't take place, and unfortunately at the moment they are winning hands down. Please don't fall into their trap. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to. As Kingpin says, I think I am just becoming anxious to start moving forward. See the mediation thread that I linked to on your page, I have posted about eight minutes ago the copied results from Phase 2 and a suggestion for Phase 4 of the process, a process I can certainly manage to some extent if I am deemed capable to do so. CycloneGU (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I thought about it a little more, and I guess despite the fact that I was hesitant to have you waste your efforts, I figure that any effort to work on this kind of thing is a plus, so please feel free to be bold. :) Steven Walling at work 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Heya,

This may be an odd request...but still, hey, it isn't PC-related!

I am looking for a few random people to help me out with something.

There's a liaison project between Wikipedia and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.

Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Wikipedia community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!

The article Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was started by Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs),

The article California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, re. lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)

If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.

I hope you don't mind my asking. Any little comments to those users, and/or on the article talk pages, would be brilliant; thanks so much in anticipation.  Chzz  ►  05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay indeed; in fact, other than by replying to comments for the next nine days, we're otherwise in neutral on the PC thing ATM.

I've replied to the first, but the second is very well done; in fact, it's been around since last year and had many editorial eyes on it. I have little room to comment on a first read. I'll look again later when I'm more awake. CycloneGU (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work you did to resolve this issue. Maybe I will do more userfying in future if it can sort things out that quickly! Deb (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I did mean step 6 of the steps to list a new deletion review. But either way, no worries. It's over; I didn't have high hopes for it in the first place, although I stand by my position. Re rolling multiple items into a single nom, I tend to think FRCP 23(a)(2) is a good reference. Class actions are appropriate when "there are questions of law or fact common to the class," and I think multiple nominations should be handled as a single nom when the relevant issues are common to all the articles. Sometimes that won't be the case, and I'll admit that I've previously welded together two noms that should have been taken separately, and even when that's the case, someone will always see it a little different and want to split up the nom up, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. And it's much more efficient than multiple listings where the differences in issues are trivial; people can always !vote keep some lose others. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion at WQA (permalink), it's clear that you've been aware for at least an hour, now, since your WQA post at 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC), that you're obliged by WP:RTP to revert any talk page refactor - which includes collapsing comments - that another user objects to. To remind you, again, of the relevant passage of that page,

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. (emphasis added)

You were previously aware that Guy objected, and you didn't revert. He's not online currently, to ask you again, but there's no need for him to ask you twice. If there's the least doubt in your mind, I also object to your having collapsed his post in this thread. I understand how much you disapprove of his comments, but that's irrelevant to the point at hand; you have to abide by policy whether you like it or not, just as we all do. Please revert your collapse immediately.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at last check, he was online, but it seems he has not edited now for the last hour so must have gone offline. Per his latest post and my reply in a later section, I've asked him to visit this talk page to carry on the discussion as there is no point to having a public disagreement/fight/whatever that is in an RfC/XfD/whatever that entire page has turned into. Also, I was about to strike my comment regarding not removing the section, it seems to me that you feel this will not be enough to rectify this situation. I will post on his talk page and issue an apology, and attempt to carry out a discussion there. Will this be reasonable? CycloneGU (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sitting here, I think I just thought of a possible solution for all parties involved. Bear with me while I make a quick edit, which does involve uncollapsing. CycloneGU (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone, I've had Off2riorob's talk page watchlisted for a while; I posted there some time back, and just didn't take it back off. I went there just now, to remove it from my watchlist, and found you canvassing his assistance in this matter. I'm going to assume that asking him to jump in on your side of the conflict over this was just a moment of lunacy because you were upset about this. He had the sense and integrity not to do so, but please don't do anything like what you did here and in subsequent edits to his talk page again; I'm sure you have to know better than that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he and I have had disagreements in the past, but as someone who had participated at one point in the discussion that turned personal I thought he might be interested in at least knowing of the Wikiquette alert as I was already on his talk page previously; I welcomed his opinion on the matter one way or the other. It never was intended to be a canvassing attempt; I think I only notified one other user (which I later determined was not necessary) and neither user did in fact participate in the Wikiquette discussion. You will note I've participated in deletion reviews, AfDs, and such and in one case, it was my own article; in that situation when it went to deletion review, I notified all users, not just those I thought would agree with me (one in fact did Oppose the restoration). Off2riorob might have said that I was in the wrong if he participated, I had no way of knowing. I'll reread the post, but I don't think I just said jump on my side; if I did, then yes, that would be a moment of bad judgment in being upset about not having been notified of the Wikiquette alert after it was posted. Canvassing to me is not something I would consider, but I see no harm in notifying another user who has commented in the discussion. The second user I notified indeed was not necessary and I retracted that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to explain or defend your actions: If I'd wanted to make an issue of this I would have proceeded differently. You can take or leave the suggestion as you wish, but I think it could be to your benefit to ask an admin or other user you trust for an opinion about whether this, and your several subsequent posts to Rob's talk page were proper under our rules about canvassing or not. I think doing so could go a long way toward preventing trouble in the future. Heck, ask Rob what he thinks, whether he'd recommend that it's okay to repeat posts like that in the future. Perhaps he'll say, "Oh, yes; that seems perfectly fine to me," but I think it would be worth your while to get some outside opinions if only, as I suggest, to prevent trouble for yourself in the future. No reply necessary, unless you just want to, and no talkback necessary, either, as I always watchlist pages I've posted to. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I admire your advocating for a fresh start and your positivity regarding User:DeadSend4. Before you even suggested that I apologize to him for suspecting that his admitted sockpuppet-user was ItsLassieTime as well, I had done so. He refused to accept the apology, as you might recall from his talk page, and continued to insult, belittle, scream and otherwise verbally abuse me and his other critics, never once taking responsibility for his own actions — at one point comparing us to Nazis. I find surprising that you believe this is OK, and that he not face any consequences for such gross incivility, though, again, I do applaud your other efforts in this case. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was all right for him to do any of those things - what I saw was a user who felt like he was genuinely hurt and felt like he had to do things to get someone's attention, because no one was paying attention to what he felt were legitimate edits, and were just reverting them. I haven't looked at the edits myself and will not, because it's in the past and we can't change it now. I did advise on a better way to conduct himself in such discussions in the future, and if he does get out of line, I have no issue advocating a block in the right circumstances.

Further, I agree that sockpuppetry is not all right, but the facts presented by other users seem to be forming the consensus opinion here. Part of that is that he only has one sock account, and another that he had been accused of - the Lassie one I think - has been deemed to not be him. All we can do from here is accept that he has served his block time and give him a chance to reform in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. I think that's the right thing to do here. Don't get me wrong, however; if he acts out of line and in bad faith in the future after I advocated giving him another chance, I will not hesitate to side with blocking him if I feel it necessary. I'm sure he knows this, too. CycloneGU (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I want to go back into this mess, but the comments and supposed 'screaming' was only done towards one person and I think we know who it is. No one else, becaues no one else has disrespected me to that level. The Nazi comment is being taken to seriously and it seems like it has been constantly brought up by this person, though it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. With that said, I think this individual should move on with his life and carry on. I've been editing and have contributed a lot since 2007, this event was very new to me, I never had someone have so much energy to have me banned. Therefore I retaliated. I don't think there's anything else to discuss. My thanks again to everyone who was helpful and kind to me. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to stay away and not comment, but this sockpuppet-using editor continues to behave in uncivil ways. The "comments and supposed 'screaming'" were done toward only one person, and that makes it right? I'm afraid I can't follow that "logic."

DeadSend4 blames everyone but himself — he refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. He edit-wars with several editors, and attempts to own articles, and thinks those are both fine. He disparages anyone who disagrees with him and falsely attributes sinister motives, never once examining his own behavior. He insults and uses schoolyard taunts, and thinks that's fine. (The Nazi remark was taken "to [sic] seriously"? Learn some history and perhaps you'll be ashamed at how blithely you throw the term around.) Someone who does all these things and spends so much of his own time writing walls of defensive texts clearly cannot or does not want to assume good faith or collaborate with others. Until this person learns to control this immature and passive-aggressive bullying, and accept that he has done wrong, he is not a constructive contributor.

We shouldn't be discussing this on another editor's page; if he wishes to continue, we can speak to each other on our own pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

TBH, I think he was referring to you in the post above, something you've clearly seemed to acknowledge. I do not know his history, and from what I'm understanding much of the problem stems from what happened at Nicole Kidman, which he's said to me he's staying away from for the time being. I don't know if he tries to own articles, but yes, that would be concerning if true. I happened to find three small helpful edits at Christina Aguilera after this was all over (I also made an edit there), and I didn't see a problem with them. I'm not going to follow him around and check every edit for problems (that is Wikistalking to some extent, almost looking for a reason to throw him out), but if you feel the need to do that it's your choice, just don't involve me or come back here saying, "See? I told you so." I noticed the walls of defensive posts, but I think the reason he felt he had to defend himself is because he had accusations of all sorts flying around, including a sockpuppetry claim that had no truth to it at all. I think as a community we owe him a break here, and I think it wise to put everything in the past where it belongs and give him a chance to prove himself. Isn't this fair? CycloneGU (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If I "feel the need to" Wikistalk him? Wow. I'll assume in good faith that you didn't mean that the way it came out. I wish you could do the same to me: I'm perplexed as to why you'd suggest I would say, "I told you so" — I've never told anyone that on Wikipedia, and I know that if you'd see the kind words and accolades other editors have given me on my user page, you wouldn't have made that uncalled-for remark.

Since you ask, "Isn't this fair?," my answer would be that it's not fair to editors who don't edit war, name-call, try to own articles (25 edits in a row at Nicole Kidman at one point, and reversions of editors who change even a few words of his), write walls of defensive and accusatory text rather than try to discuss things, and, yes sockpuppet: While one claim wasn't accurate, another one, Jane his wife, very much is.

I suggested that it would not be fair of DeadSend4 or me to use your talk page to air out our own disagreements; I'm only responding here since you asked me a direct question. I understand your trying to turn the other cheek with DeadSend4. Whether that's fair to the five editors with whom he was edit warring, and the one to whom he was, inexcusably, being verbally abusive, is another issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Bashful look. That did come out sounding negatively and I must apologize for that. Yowch, not like me at all.

I will therefore better state my point there and let's be done with it, because we do generally agree on much of what we're saying. Yes, he got into what can only be referred to as an edit war with other editors who as a consensus disagreed with him. My point is that he's been editing for something like four years, and while I don't know his history, it sounds like this is the first time he's ever gotten into trouble for anything along the lines of edit warring (I will excuse the sockpuppetry as a case of not realizing he was breaking rules, though I think he might have known somewhat he was certainly bending them). Often in any editor's Wikilife, a mistake will be made that (s)he will learn something from. I think most of the warring took place specifically around the Nicole Kidman article. He has told me he's not going near there. It sounds to me like he has learned the lesson and taken my advice to heart, and is ready to move on. Let's give him an opportunity to learn for he has served his block time and there's no point in badgering him. Ignore the whole Wikistalking bit, except for knowing that I will not be going around babysitting edits myself; that's what I was trying to point out. =)

As for using my talk page, it doesn't bother me in the least. I just wish it didn't notify me every time. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and clearly a kind soul. I will say that anyone here for four years ought to know very well about sockpuppet rules, and that he's shown own-type behavior at Cate Blanchett and other pages (which, like Nicole Kidman, I'm staying away from).

But let me say I admire your qualities of forgiveness and generosity, and your belief in the power of redemption. That indicates the kind of grace to which we should all aspire. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are bitter because I am not blocked and you tried so hard to do so. So you didn't do what you planned and we can move on. I'm not going to address anything you typed above me (because most of it is false and I explained you're the only one that has gone to such an extreme) and no I will not comment on your talk page because I have nothing else to say. Move on, everyone else has.

CycloneGU I admire your class, understanding and helpfulness, people can learn a lot from you. :) I will continue to be a constructive contributor. DeadSend4 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly (edit: to both). =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Since DeadSend4 continues to spread falsehoods on others' talk pages, rather than discussing things directly with me, I have placed this response on his talk page, where it properly belongs, and, in order to counter his untrue assertions on this page, I also place it here:

Your comments to me on CycloneGU's talk page are simply remarkable. First, I am not bitter because that would entail my taking this personally, which I do not. Purely in my capacity as a contributor to this wonderfully egalitarian, free encyclopedia, I do not believe that people who name-call, edit-war and use sock-puppets, among other bad behaviors, are appropriate here. To say that you did not do these things, by calling my assertions false, is demonstrably untrue. And telling another editor to "move on" because he calls you out on bad behavior is uncivil and not constructive. I urge you take responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming others for pointing out bright-line facts. You did do these things. All your denials and schoolyard taunts cannot change that.

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you closed two DRVs at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 14. Would you consider not closing any more for the time being? You had participated in both DRVs, and your closing statements could use some work. DRVs are usually closed as Endorse or Overturn. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi CycloneGU. Non-admins should not close DRV discussions. Spartaz (talk · contribs) said it best in a recent discussion:

DRV closes are not subject to appeal. They are an appeal. It is for this reason that non-admins are not supposed to close DRVs.

I have asked Spartaz to review your closes to ensure that they are correct. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do want to learn, and so far that's where I'm most active. Problem is I always want to participate in everything I see, I should stand back where I'm not 100% sure. CycloneGU (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fine to want to learn, but you should learn through participating in the discussions, not closing them. Closing admins occasionally face nastiness because participants disliked their closes. See User talk:IronGargoyle#Deletion review for Debrahlee Lorenzana for example. The closer must then explain at great lengths why they closed as they did. See User talk:Daniel/Archive/79#Jon CJ Graham DrV for another example. Therefore, only admins experienced with DRV should be closing DRVs. Both of your closures are not uncontroversial. For Me at the zoo, comments ranged from "endorse" to "relist" to "overturn to keep". For The Writer (song), you closed the debate three days early. You also participated in that DRV. As S Marshall (talk · contribs) frequently says "It's not enough that we make the right decision: we must be seen to make the right decision." Because DRV closures are not subject to appeal, it is essential that process is followed. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. The only doubt I had with closing both was the fact that I had participated in them, and in hindsight I am realizing that my having participated might give reason for someone to think it was a vested interest. The main reason I've really started getting involved, believe it or not, was when my first unique Wikipedia article (as in one I wrote the basis of myself) went to AfD, then to Deletion Review (April 9), then I objected to the close of the deletion review (which is/was on the closer's talk page). While my AfD participation is still somewhat minimal, I think I've chimed in on all but a few file deletion reviews (those on the 20th) over the last week or two, and THAT only because I started creating the log pages after I found one not created for the current day (apparently it was created incorrectly, again it was my first time and I was trying to get it posted quickly because no one had done so). Coincidentally, I found one review (the 17th) that led to me working on an article that actually has some interesting material about the park in question, and hopefully I'm ready to move it to the mainspace soon as a fresh article (might even try to put a DYK tag out for it). I think my interest is mainly in finding articles to save, but also putting in comments on reviews where a page isn't worth keeping; see my comments on yesterday's, in fact, where someone kept insisting his bibliography for an article deserved its own article space despite being 35 times the size of the article. I have a good common sense to know what's keepable and what isn't, and if not sure, I don't say or do anything.

So as I noted, I am eager to learn, and I've started my deletion review participation over the last couple of weeks. I can actually see this as an area I would want to work in, even more than AfDs themselves, simply because it's a very useful part of the project. If this is out of normal procedure (i.e. I should really start with AfDs), I understand that feeling; I strongly believe you learn by doing, and I wanted to try two uncontentious closes after doing my first snowball close at AfD weeks earlier (a nomination of a Glee article that had 7 or 8 keep votes by the time I walked in within 24 hours, and I realized adding another keep !vote was pointless and just ended it; that episode airs in the U.S. this week). I looked at the example discussion you gave (once I found the AfD itself) and, just from the AfD, don't think I would get involved with close something that contentious in my present role, but I am aware that is the kind of thing I'd be jumping into as I become more experienced; I'm sure I can handle it (see the barnstar below that Chzz left here, very nice of him). I'm eager for new challenges and when I'm ready I might be interested in trying some more contentious closes with guidance from an experienced admin. And even though I don't see myself right now in any such role, who knows if I might be deleting pages myself someday as an admin.? I of course don't want that responsibility now, I just want to learn and know I'm doing the right thing, and if after some time I'm not, I will simply limit myself to participating in reviews if I just am not learning. If you think I shouldn't close for a while and should only participate (say for three months, I pick that figure randomly as I'm not sure what the guideline is) before even thinking of doing closes, then I'm open to that suggestion too. I can withhold participation if you think it would be good for me to try some proper closing as well. Just let me know what you think. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to your participation at DRV, though I strongly discourage you from closing DRV discussions before you have passed an RfA. To avoid controversy, only admins should close DRV discussions. Many non-admins are frequent participants at DRV: 82.7.44.178 (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Reyk (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), and Tarc (talk · contribs). They participate but do not close discussions. There are numerous admins so it is unnecessary for a non-admin to close.

Two exceptions can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 18. S Marshall closed two deletion reviews because one had no deletion to review and the second was cleaning up after an admin. If you come across DRV discussions like this, feel free to close them.

I am heartened that you intend to salvage articles at deletion review. Many times, a new or inexperienced user brings an article about a notable topic to DRV and is unable to demonstrate that it passes the notability guidelines. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 23#Starfall.com, I rescued Starfall.com after the article was speedy deleted. I was also able to resue Lucia Newman (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 9), Yogurtland (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14), and Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14). I have also been able to help a new user with Ambarish Srivastava at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14. If you would help out by rescuing articles and aiding new users, I'd be very grateful. I find that it is not necessary to close to have an impact at DRV. Participating in the discussions, rescuing new articles, and aiding new users can be more rewarding and more impactful than closing. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is most certainly good to know, and I will continue to participate. Now the obvious question that comes up is after participating for a while, might I later be encouraged as an active participant - while still a non-admin - to potentially trial close DRVs under an experienced admin. to get a feel for how it works? Or, if I want closing experience, would that be better handled in other areas? I ask this because, quite truthfully, I am finding the DRV section to be the most appealing place for me to participate and give an opinion in and, if I were to, say, two years or so from now be handed a mop by some strange chance of a successful RfA (which right now would merely be a train wreck as I am lacking experience), that would be the very place that I would participate in most as an admin. I know such a thing, if it even happens and I don't take another hiatus as in the past, is very far away, but I feel my mop would be best handled at DRV if ever granted. So would asking someone to provide coaching to me as a non-admin. be something I could do if I work in this section for a while and decide I like it and want to up my involvement? Obviously I'm not making that call today, that could be disastrous on many levels; I'm referring to in the future. CycloneGU (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The active non-admin participants have not closed DRVs, not even on a trial basis. Most of the DRVs are easy closes—a simple "closure endorsed", "deletion endorsed", or "overturn to no consensus". You do not need to have closing experience for these types of DRVs. The more difficult DRVs—for example, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 29#Bigoted woman incident, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards, Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27#Template:Expand, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 16#Gay Nigger Association of America—can only be closed by admins. If you want closing experience, you can read through a contentious DRV discussion, think about how you would close it, and review how the DRV will be (or was) closed. If you want feedback, perhaps you could ask Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), or Chick Bowen (talk · contribs), all of whom are experienced DRV closers, to review your proposed closures and closing statements. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, you must not close DRVs unless you are an admin. This is a hard and fast rule designed around maintaining the credibility of DRV as a final appeal. its must be seen to be fair not just be fair - and any procedureal impropriety - for example closeing something you commented on - unvalidates the general expectation of fairness that is implicit in DRVs function of a final court of appeal. I'm going to void and reclose your DRV closes - not because the outcomes are wrong but simply to ensure that process is seen to be followed fairly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		You've been amazingly civil in the midst of some heated debates; you've remained cool, and you're comments have been thoughtful and constructive - and, not just re. PC, but in general. Thanks, for being such a lovely user.  Chzz  ►  02:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! My first Barnstar. =D CycloneGU (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've accidentally removed my !vote when you added your comment. Don't worry, I've fixed it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It was intentional, the edit I made. As nominator, you are assumed to support deletion, so your vote is not needed. It could be seen as gaming the system. CycloneGU (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I did it is the way about 99% of AfD nominators do it, so it's not "gaming the system." Moreover, there are occurrences where the nominator is neutral, or wants an article kept but not without a discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I think it could be seen as gaming the system is because another user could come along and claim you nominated and thus think delete, and then you added a bolded !vote also saying delete. The nomination of a page at AfD automatically says you think the page needs to be deleted. There is no other reading of it. Further, a quick perusal of today's nominations does not show 99% employ your method; rather, it shows 99% don't. Your two are the only ones that show it, and I also made the fix to one other nomination earlier. None of the rest show it (unless I missed one). CycloneGU (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. I've been around AfD's for quite a while, and the way I do it is the way it was usually done when I started. I never looked back. In three years, you are the first editor to mention a problem. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a problem - most closing admins. probably discount the extra delete in any case. I just would hate to see you called out for gaming the system. =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Blanchardb (talk · contribs)'s formatting of comments, though unconventional, is not problematic. See the exchange here on User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality (2nd nomination). I doubt that a closing admin would misread Blanchardb's bolded "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John James Nazarian as being a second vote. Cunard (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought for formatting purposes it was discouraged to have a bolded delete in the comments. I took this practice from when a similar promote comment of mine was removed during the FLC for Glee (season 1) (granted it might have had its own line, I dunno). I'm not going to edit war with the user regarding its removal, I just think it unneeded overall. CycloneGU (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That the bolded "delete" is unnecessary does not mean it should be removed. FLC may have rules for nominators' voting for their own nominations (I don't know), but AfD has no rules prohibiting this style of AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough then. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• • CycloneGU I left you a message on the Deletions discussion for this article but wanted to put this here to assure you I don't think anyone here at Wikipedia would ever stalk another editor... I go into that on the other page. What I would like to add here is that your suggestions today is what kept me going and looking for references and not just walking away. I greatly appreciated the pep talk and it made the difference today in what I then did. Thanks for that --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much in your suggestions to me as a new person lost in the maze of Wikipedia land. Thanks for the suggestions and the pep talks through my jumping in the deep end with a bio page and then helping me learn how to swim. I greatly appreciate your kindness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my bad level in english.

• The table will be closed when he will finish his carrer that's why the bottom borders are missing.
• Naïl Iakoupov is the good transcription from the cyrilic in french so we have to keep this version for french wiki. It's the french proper name like Nail Yakupov is the english, or Nail Jakupow in deutsch.--Benj05 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, point taken on the name.

• As for the tables, I've seen other borders missing from templates on your talk page. I think it's more of a style problem on the templates, but that's just me. We always close the bottom of our tables at the end of current information, with no bias to adding to tables. Either way works I guess, it just looks neater with a closed table. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason not to do a speedy delete is that it sounds as if it could be a valid topic and the author could come around and add in an introduction to clarify the scope. However you are right as it stands it should be deleted, just not speedy deleted! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Villa Giulia (Palermo) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• This article is probably running out of time for DYK. If you want to get it in, you'll probably need to improve the sourcing and reply at the DYK nominations page within a day or so. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your request for sources, try these;

• John Dixon Hunt, The Italian Garden: Art, Design and Culture, Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 0521033926. If google won't show you all the pages, try Amazon
• "The festival of Saint Rosalina", The Golden Rule, vol.4, no.11, pp.169-173, 14 March 1846.
• Patrizia Fabbri, E. Leckey (trans), S. Johnson (trans) "Palermo and Monreale", p.56, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 2000 ISBN 8847606721.

Hope that helps SpinningSpark 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That comment would really best be redacted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I don't want to draw his wrath, either. CycloneGU (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I am, I did the first semi-final as well. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

On 15 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Villa Giulia (Palermo), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Villa Giulia is home to the Genius of Palermo, a city symbol and laic patron of Palermo? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you remember me, but if not, I was the one with the whole issue about me being blocked, editing Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, reverts, and so forth. Hopefully that rings a bell. ;) Anyways, I took the advice I was told and figured I'd go article by article collaborating with everyone. Well if you look at Cate Blanchett's discussion page you will see I've added several ideas, suggestions and asked for opinions. I did exactly what was asked of me and have NOT TOUCHED, that page since I want to respect everyone elses opinion before making any edits. I wait exactly ONE full month and I get nothing. What do you think I should do? Should I go ahead and make my own edits? I even had an admin tell me herself she would collaborate with me, weeks later, she's off editing other articles, working with others but me, and this person was one of the many people who had an issue with my edits. Especially that article specifically. What is your opinion in all of this? By the way, I already posted what I'm writing to you in the page in hopes to get a response (which I haven't to date).

Thanks in advance, really appreciate you offering to help me. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner - I have felt literally like shit the last few days and didn't do very much even when I was online. And yes, I remember you. =)

As for the discussion page, the "Can someone explain to me..." section comes across like pointing out flaws and trying to incite an argument. I get you were speaking your mind, but at the same time, if the page is rather dead already, it'll stay dead.

I'm going to take a moment and review the edits you are suggesting. Back in a moment. CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, it looks good to me. I'd say go ahead and add it. However, in this instance, I've posted at Bigweeboy's talk page to ask for another opinion (since that user said [s]he'd be happy to review suggested changes). If that user has no problems with it, I say make the changes. If they then get reverted, approach the reverting user for the reason why. CycloneGU (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no need to apologize, just happy that someone actually got back to me and willing to help me out. :) Well, I'm sure you know the situation going on, I honestly think it'd be best to just lay off Crohnie girl for the sake of her health and just go ahead and edit Miss Blanchett's article (of course collaborating with people) and go from there. Again, thanks for your help. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at [[User talk:--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)|User talk:--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded to your apology at my talk page. Thank you very much, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, a lot going on here, I didn't pick up that you were hinting I should change the typeface to remove the section head aspect. I've done so. Thanks for the heads-up. Abrazame (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm about to go to AN/i and saw that you wanted notification if this happens so I need to ask you this, what is your involvement with what has been happening to me? I have done nothing to deserve all the incivility and attacks that I've received so please enlighten me and let me understand why you feel you need to be involved in this mess? I am still deciding whether to go to the board or whether it's just not worth the time. I would really appreciate it if you would explain your relationship with DeadSend4 and myself. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no involvement with what's happened to you, I merely want to follow the event as I did advocate giving DeadSend4 another chance after his block as he came across to me at the time as an editor who just couldn't get his voice in the right place, and needed help doing that. So I'm merely interested in following whatever happens, not so much participating (though I may chime in if I have anything to add). CycloneGU (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On that note, if this has nothing to do with DeadSend4 directly, I probably won't be as interested but I'll still see it as I do visit AN/I and watchlist it. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello CycloneGU. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Crystal Baller, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I will add it ASAP. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cyclone GU,

Thanks for your reply on Fastily's post regarding my page on 'Tim Fisher' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Fisher). This was the article that I created and was deleted under G4. While I understand G4, what was the previous article , having the same title, that was previously deleted in Dec 2009 under reason A7? Please can you help me to find out what that article was so as to know if that 'Tim Fisher' was the same person as the one I created the page about.

Regards,

Karma Child (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You would know better than I do, so here is the deletion discussion for that one. If it's not clear from the discussion which Tim Fisher it is or how A7 applies (if that was indeed used), ask the deleting admin. The admin. can see the deleted article. CycloneGU (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I just had to at this point. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You missed. =P CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to bring it up, but I noticed after you linked 'that was easy' on AN/I that the licensing information is probably incorrect. It looks like the person who recorded it tried to release it freely licensed - but since recording it was a noncreative process, surely the rights would stay with staples - which would mean that we could only use it with a fair use rationale and should not have it marked as a freely licensed file. I pretty much never touch images and don't know my way around licensing stuff at all - could you take a poke at it? (I'm just bugging you about it since you linked it :p) Kevin (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, perhaps I should not have linked the music sample (which actually appears in the Staples article itself under fair use context), but at the same time I linked to it the same way as I would have linked to something offsite. If it's a case of that I shouldn't have used it in the AN/I resolved note, I can remove that (that was me using humour =D) and just change the link to the Staples article if I still want to try to be funny, but I know nothing about the licensing information behind that tidbit. I know it's most likely being fairly used on the Staples article itself. If not, then yeah, it might have to go. CycloneGU (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine it would be fair use to use it in the staples article, but it's not being used with a fair use rationale currently - just under the incorrect license it was originally uploaded under. I'll see about fixing the licensing in a bit, I guess it's probably about time I finally figured my way around licensing/media stuff. Kevin (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I see why it is noted as self-published. They pushed the EASY button and recorded the audio snippet, then posted it online. However, the same argument for a 2 second "THAT WAS EASY" are the same for a 30 second snippet of Grenade. It really should be under a similar license as a recorded work. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix licensing for images already submitted; I can only figure then out when uploading. We could reupload a new version to that filename and set it that was if nothing else. CycloneGU (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I get surprisingly easy distracted, sorry for the delayed reply. That's the only easy fix that I've been able to figure out also, but the older (incorrect) licensing information would still show up in the history which could lead to later issues. Maybe we should reupload it with correct licensing information and attribute the original upload to the original uploader and then have an admin revdel the bad licensing info? I know this is in the scope of things a hilariously minor issue, sorry for bugging you about it :p I just noticed it and wasn't sure what to do Kevin (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible for one user to upload something and make it look as if another user uploaded it. Unless you have the login information for that person's account, but that could involve hacking. Besides, does it matter? The clip is not his copyright work; it's the EASY button recording. You or I could record the same snippet. Heck, we could probably find another version online. CycloneGU (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea of these editors inclinations, or whether they would want to comment, but some of the editors I can think of who have been involved in situations where they should potentially be able to comment are:

User:Atama

User:AGK

Both have knowledge of the background of the situation and how it led to me getting a 2-week ban for posting the Houlding comments. I asked AVG for help to try to bring the matter to private arbitration so that the censored comments could be considered in a way that would not put me at risk of breaking the outing policy - he never found time to look into it (it is complicated) so not sure whether he will want to comment, but he can attest to the fact that I tried to seek help on how to bring this to arbitration and cease the harresment that the editor was directing towards me (and my fears that it would continue).

User:Tomwsulcer - witnessed and responded to the statement by Houlding (although I see his comment has since been removed by Makesense64.

Others editors I don't know, some of whom I have had minor content disputes with, but who have independent awareness of debates where the editor has tried to paint me as obstructive, but where I think they should be able to clarify that he was the one being disruptive and that I was the victim of his aggravation.

User:WhatamIdoing

User:Gerardw

User:Dmcq

There are many others but they might be suspected of sharing my content views. These six can in no way be suspected of that and are truly independent witnesses with nothing to gain one way or another (for which reason they may not care to comment anyway).

I hope you noticed that I put Houldings email address into the discussion so you can contact her. Thanks for suggesting this to stop me overstepping the line of what's appropriate. When I posted the Houlding statement I had no idea there was a strict outing policy and that I might be the one who would get pulled to task for that. I'm still struggling to take in all the WP policies and that's why I can hardly believe that someone with only a few days editing experience could know them all as well as this editor does ZacΔ talk 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Notifications sent. I don't know exactly what the situation is off of Wikipedia, but I think it might be best for an administrator to make the e-mail contact. If no one else does, I may do so simply to get some information, but an admin. would be better to make that contact. CycloneGU (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we are not here to investigate and I personally think there is enough on WP anyway for the problems to be seen for what they are, with or without the vendetta and conflict of interest. Thanks for your trouble here ZacΔ talk 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say that the editor Makesense64 has now implied reasons to doubt your neutrality because you helped as you did. I have replied and explained that we have had no other interaction and you were only ensuring fair play. I won't be contributing to that discussion further unless asked to do so, but if you want to read the comment that mentions your name, it is here (placed by Makesense64 at 10:15 today). Cheers, ZacΔ talk 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I have indeed not been involved the last few days (haven't even looked at AN/I, I've been busy in other threads), but I will respond to this comment. I'm laughing at how the editor is connecting something on my userpage suggesting that I have a COI here. CycloneGU (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be more vandalism to the Harold Covington talk page by GuyFawkes1603 and 4.243.49.168 which I have reverted. It might be wise to keep an eye on these two accounts also.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented at the talk page. Typically, you only need to put the message in one place. =) CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes add them on other users' talk pages if I think they might be logged on, just to make sure they see it. But from now on I'll just add them on the talk page. Noted--SlapChopVincent (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You can still notify me here, that's appreciated in fact. You just don't need to post the full message. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You asked to get shown the consensus to not use country in article names for Indian localities. It is at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state at least latest perma for security: rgpk, Crusoe8181 and me agreeing. No opposition. Also discussed on the WP India Noticeboard. I moved the little town Banga, India from an ambiguous name, back to using district dab as was done the original creator. State level wouldn't have worked since Banga, Punjab is ambiguous. 1) There was project consensus. 2) I disambiguated. ... The consensus on the page was not in NOT using the district. The vote was on something different. Well, if one wants to vote again, fine.

Regarding this - I never advised acting against consensus. I only rejected that a user comes to my talk and commands me to do what consensus dictates. Let's assume consensus dictates to stick red banners on all pages - I wouldn't do that - I would leave WP. The difference between my ", India" related moves and those of SpacemanSpiff are: Mine followed consensus, his not. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't argue in reply against anything you've said, I will merely read further into this. However, I did witness on the one talk page a consensus to move to a location ending in ", India" and can only assume (which I hate doing in general) that it was a "consensus" for the opposite of what you are arguing a consensus for. My other concern is that if only two people agreed, I wouldn't call that a proper consensus; I call it getting a second opinion. In such cases, I would go to talk pages for articles you want to move - not a thousand, start with maybe a dozen, and watchlist every talk page - and see how those moves so. There is no deadline to get work done; Wikipedia will NEVER be finished. (There could be a bombing in Israel or Australia 2morrow, just like the one in Norway last week, and we'd be busily putting together an encyclopedia article for that, for the bomber, adding info for the group he represents, buildings destroyed in THEIR articles, and so on.) NEway, my point is see if there is a wider consensus for your view, and then depending on how those go decide on the rest. My other concern is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India) was created on July 5 and is not widely known by the community, so it does seem you are pushing your own views citing one editors' agreement with your ideals in naming conventions, completely forgetting that other editors are needed. I may in fact go to some India pages and Wikiprojects and ask for wider input on your "convention", or if there is another page listing such a convention.

I don't blame SpacemanSpiff for moving pages back; he knew nothing of what you point to. Similarly, I won't say he did wrong; same reason. Just remember he's trying to do exactly the same thing you are; improve the encyclopedia. As am I.

I'll read further into this and comment further, go ahead and watchlist my talk page for a reply. CycloneGU (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was up for talk for a long time at WP India. At first no one acted, then the talk on the NC page started. In that very section the last comment is from 21 July 2011 and it contained no opposition. Banga, India is an ambiguous name, since there are several Banga in India. It is common sense to resolve ambiguous names. One more person told me that my SIA pages are much appreciated. They are named "X, India" for ease of use. I really did not see that the Banga move would be of any problem to anyone. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've decided to reopen the thread at AN/I. This might be better discussed by a larger group of editors, not just between the two of us. I've also asked an administrator privately for his opinion, and am merely providing that tidbit for the sake of disclosure; that appears in my contribution history as well. CycloneGU (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_Yogesh_Khandke. I did not spot the Resolved tag and am heartily fed up of Thisthat2011 being tendentious here, there and everywhere. This series of events involving that user, MangoWong and Yogesh Khandke (+ some occasionals) has been dragging on for weeks now and I can only agree with Boing! said Zebedee that the increased number of eyes watching over events via WP:ANI can only be A Good Thing in bringing the disruption to a close. So, my apologies, but also my thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you weren't the only one who commented there. I believe four other people commented between my placing of the tag and your comment, so I'm not upset at anyone - I just was enforcing the point that it's resolved and there is no further action needed via AN/I. My closes may be somewhat suggestive of being upset, but I really am not. I'd let someone know if I'm upset. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm upset, but not about the closure. Just letting you know. ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stay of my talkpage for a while I am not in the mood for interacting with you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

...what did I do? CycloneGU (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that you don't (or didn't) know about Wikipedia review yet, eh? I'm not a member there, but it's worth keeping intermittent tabs on them if you're at all interested in the going's on within the Wikipedia namespace. (ps.: don't mind off2riorob; it's likely that his not wanting to talk to you has nothing to specifically do with you. He's anti-social like that, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that was my first look at it. And the way they were talking in that one thread makes me think it would be wise not to be a member there. It sounded like they were making a joke out of a person being banned from the site. That is just unbelievable. (As for Rob, this isn't the first time he's technically banned me from his talk page. I still don't know what I did.) CycloneGU (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's about as good of a description of WR as I've seen anywhere.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On behalf on my ANI report, I will declare our discussion closed... soon enough. Thank you for taking your time to resolve my discussion. I'll see you again soon. StormContent (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably best not to debate him on his talk page while he's blocked... can come across as bear-poking even if that's not your intention. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate - just clarifying what Hersfold said, but apparently it isn't working, so I'm leaving it. CycloneGU (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call. 28bytes (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Also my first time seeing WP:BEAR. Found a grammar error and fixed it. =D CycloneGU (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its also my first time seeing WP:BEAR as well. This page also linked me to meta:Don't be a dick, which I had never seen before. I just lmao'd at the meta page name. LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen "Don't be a dick" before. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't sure whether to re-use this old thread but wanted to ask you a question to make sure I get the procedure right. The problematic editor is still behaving disruptively even today - to get an indication of what I mean you can view my recent response to him here (the green section - I'm sure you know that :) - the post above is not his but another one directed towards him that disputes his argument). The actual edit he made, reverted by another editor, is shown here.

My question is whether it would have been approrpiate to post an additional comment that I was going to post (before I hesitated and thought I'd ask for your guidance on these things). I was going to add that this is exactly the kind of disruptive editing for which he claims pretence of consensus, when he is actually flounting consensus completely, that has led to the current complaint about him on AN. I would kinda like these other editors who are experiencing this for the first time to realise that this is part of his regular pattern of behaviour - but could that be construed as canvassing? He has already approached one administrator privately with his 'concerns', and that administrator (after admitting he didn't really know the correct thing to do) then came along and made the edit for him, so that I had to point out to the administrator that he was acting against a consensus too, and ignoring the fact that there had been collaborative discussion of various editors working on this from different perspectives (a point I think he accepted without rancur). So it would be good for the other editors to know about the wider problems, but I'm too involved to know whether it's appropriate to tell them.

Sorry to lean on you for guidance again. If you are busy or don't feel inclined to respond I'll understand, don't worry. Regards, ZacΔ talk 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some remarks. CycloneGU (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the time and doing that - and for the new 'for future reference' advice. Had to go out - so have just come back to find your note. Great - I wasn't sure whether it was OK for me to do that myself. Cheers again ZacΔ talk 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I also remarked here too. CycloneGU (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision is currently suffering from inactivity, despite having a large number of active users as project members. It is recommended that you add the project talk page to your watchlist if you have not already done so, since there are a number of proposals on this talk page which will significantly impact on the project that should be of interest to you.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Hi, I read your post on Elan of the Roads, talk page. I took a look at the page for checks and gulped - where to start? I'm not sure how to make the case but I noticed that when I worked on the Robert Currey page tagged by MakeSense64 that it had previously been tagged and questioned by a user called Verbal. Checking this editor's history, it shows amazing similarities. Same subject areas (mainly astrology - astrological software interest), same edit-warring history, exactly same turn of phrase and writing style; previously topic-banned, pseudoscience obsession, same inclination to use complaint boards and refer to policy - similar fingerprints seem to be all over the two accounts. I find it very strange that both were responsible for tagging the same page. That account breaks when the other re-appears, although there is overlap between them. I don't want to harbour unfair suspicions, but it would explain why this apparently unexperienced editor re-emerged all guns blazing with an incredible knowledge of WP policy and how to use it to a personal advantage. (I've been editing quite significantly over the last few months, and yet I am still needing to be told how to go about things - how can someone else with barely more experience than me seem so amazingly experienced proceedurally?)

I'm having a problem running behind on work deadlines and don't want to start a whole new complaint that could take up loads of time to pursue. How feasible is it to get this checked? Maybe you could take a look at that history yourself and see if you think it matches the pattern as closely as I do? Thanks, ZacΔ talk 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to start the investigation at WP:SPI and you need to collect your evidence before filing the report (I was going to start it for you but I don't think this type of report is advised to be started by a third party). Collect diffs. that are similar, catalogue where they both seem to edit and what types of pages each edits, and then go from there if you think there is reasonable cause for suspicion. I can give a couple of interesting details, however:

• MakeSense64 was dormant from January 18, 2009 to May 26, 2011
• Verbla has done very little editing in 2011, only on January 15 and 22 and April 24, and was otherwise dormant since September 4, 2010

With no editing on the latter account while MakeSense64 was active, it makes me wonder myself. Collect your evidence, and if you still need assistance starting an SPI, I may be able to help once I have everything to start it (I'll create a userpage for the evidence separate from my userpage). I will note that I'm filing on your behalf if I do this. CycloneGU (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi sorry I didn't reply to your message earlier, have just found it. I'll be burning late night oil on work commitments tonight so I'm going to gather what is necessary some time next week - should be OK for me to do this. I just need a little time to clear the demands of the day job. Thanks for the info. ZacΔ talk 21:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

• Template names have now been standardised, for example Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest have both been moved in order to be consistent. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind.
• {{WikiProject Eurovision}} now accepts importance ratings as well as quality ratings, and the project now has a formal assessment department which gives details on how to assess articles, and provides a place for contributors to request re-assessment. Feel free to add the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} template to the talk page of any new Eurovision articles you create.
• The Eurovision Song Contest now has its own stub template at {{Eurovision-stub}}. Please only use this on Eurovision Song Contest stubs, with {{Music-stub}} and {{Dance-stub}} being the appropriate template for other Eruovision contests.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Happens :) SJ (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your creating the Prelude to a dream article and your continued involvement. I just reverted a change in the title of one of the tracks. Only after I finalized the edit did I realize that the ref I added already existed; the disadvantage of editing by section rather than the entire article. I think it is unfortunate that so many people will be unable to have access to this beautiful album as a result of its retraction. I rejoice that I purchased an mp3 version of the album not realizing at the time how many others were doing it at the time. I am curious as to whether you were able to listen to the album. While Jackie is the most famous, there are three other young performers who I admire whose progress I am also following; Hollie Steel, Connie Talbot, and Almira Fawn.1archie99 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the other three (though I vaguely recall Hollie Steel, I'm not 100% sure), but I am fortunate as well to have located a copy of her album. Unfortunately for those interested, the only way they'll be able to find it is on a very lucky Warez search, as I am guessing without knowing that even there it's extremely rare. But having heard various tracks from the album, I really wish they did not retract the album. It is a wonderful showcase of a really rare and beautiful thing: the power and grace of an angel of heaven here on Earth. I get that they want to concentrate on her future development, but I am sure there were other reasons for pulling the album related more to the record label than to just Jackie herself; if the label owned it, they'd have kept it available, but in reality perhaps the label wanted it pulled because they didn't want it floating around at the same time as Dream with Me. We'll never know the real reason (this is all speculation, and I wouldn't expect Lisa to pop in on her Wikipedia account to address this either), but let's be glad we did find it while we could and have it to listen to now. Many will not have the opportunity (legally at least) to do so.

Regarding the tracks, her rendition of "Concrete Angel" is on my iTunes and has been fixed there. It keeps dropping down as I add new music (I sort it by Date Added), but if I let it run, it will play. CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We have similar feelings about Jackie Evancho and that album. Both Connie Talbot and Hollie Steel advanced to high positions on Britain's Got Talent and have Wikipedia articles. Hollie Steel is studying in a performance school and has been performing live, Connie Talbot has been posting frequent youtube videos. Almira Fawn recently, August 2011, performed in a Teen Hoot competition in Nashville which put her back in the national eye after not having a performance for months dated later than early 2010 posted on youtube. In early 2010 it appeared she had a bright future as a performing artist. I pray that she will make a comeback. You can see her also on the archive at WoodSongs.com.1archie99 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found an empty new section at the bottom of my talk page with this title Jackilion Evanchion Musiswitch Apparently you put this section when you alerted me to your earlier reply What is the purpose of this goblygook? Am I missing something here?1archie99 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was just me having fun. Note "Jackilion", first five letters of "Jackie", "Evanchion", first six letters of "Evancho", and "Musiswitch", first four letters of "Music". In all cases, I removed a letter and had a little fun changing it to something else. I like to do silly things like that.

Granted, I got the idea from Chzz who did the same on my talk page some months ago. See item 26 in this revision. His seemed more random, however. CycloneGU (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have been working on Jackie Evancho's article. Her new album, Heavenly Christmas, was released exclusively at WalMart on November 1 and hit the charts this week. I have put the information about it in Jackie's main article, but we need a separate article for the album. I see that you did lots of excellent work on her previous albums. I'm good with prose but not very good with images and even worse with tables. Can you kindly upload an image for Heavenly Christmas and start a new article with the Billboard chart table like in Dream With Me? Thanks for any help. All the best! Also, do you know of any more free images of Evancho that could possibly be used in her main article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed all of your edits at Dream with Me myself earlier today, and I'm glad to see a fellow editor with an interest, or at least with the aptitude to add something additional to the article that was not there prior. Keep doing that. =) As for the main Evancho article, Evancho being the age she is makes it extremely difficult to get images of her that can be freely used. I won't highlight the specifics of an upcoming fact, and if you figure it out please do not bother this user as she is very rarely here, but her mother actually was involved with her Wikipedia article before she became, shall we say, well-known on AGT. She has provided a couple of images herself, and I think one media image found its way in here from somewhere as well. The article looks almost nothing like it did then (it is no longer of the appearance of being heavily promotional, for example). I will note that I did thank her mother (Lisa, by the way) for contributing the image.

Regarding Heavenly Christmas, check something before listing it as an article. The album is a Walmart-exclusive release, I believe (if this has changed let me know). Typically, Walmart-exclusive releases are not notable enough for inclusion as a separate stand-alone article in Wikipedia; I saw this complication with an album in the Now That's What I Call Music U.S. series, and an article I did some work on was actually deleted. Granted, there is still a way that it can make an article on its own; two, in fact. If the album receives multiple references in reliable third-party sources (WP:GNG), it might qualify; further, if the album charts in the Billboard 200 - especially in the top 100, but might be fine lower - then it automatically qualifies for an article with that being "the" way to determine chief notability. These things might help with determining whether to make Heavenly Christmas an article. This is why I have not myself championed the article yet; it's a special exception being limited to one store. (Further, note the current "album article" redirects right back to her discography at this stage.)

With that all said, keep up the good work. I'll try to provide what I can and may do some clean-up editing; I took it upon myself to create a couple of Evancho articles including her now-retracted Prelude to a Dream album, so while I may be the local "subject-matter expert", I don't have a lot to work with myself, and I'll work with you on what we can all (including others) find about things. =)

And yes, tables DO take getting used to around here! CycloneGU (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at what I have written about Heavenly Christmas *here*. You'll see that, yes it is a Walmart exclusive, BUT it *has* already charted ---> #16 on Billboard 200; #3 on Holiday Albums chart, and #1 on the Classical Albums chart! Don't worry about the redirect; I'll fix that. As I said, all the info and many of the refs you need for the article are already in Jackie's main article - what you really need to add is the infobox, image and chart table. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might hit the charts - awesome to see, so it gets an article for sure. Notability for the album itself easily established. Go ahead and create what you can for the new article (follow my link, look for "(Redirected from Heavenly Christmas)" at the top, and click the title there to go to the right page), and I can check in tomorrow with extras. I'm off to bed as I type, so I'll respond further when I get home tomorrow as well. If I may say, good researching. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I started the article: Heavenly Christmas (Jackie Evancho). Please see what you can do.  :-) Note that there are two albums on Billboard called Heavenly Christmas. Someone released an album of the same name a few years ago, although it doesn't have a WP article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Keep on adding if you find anything to add, also. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, CycloneGU. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 513,207,297) 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

..but as a general rule it's best to leave things like this alone—WP:TPO applies here, at least in spirit. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the format they are supposed to follow, however? I mean, other titles make it more of a talk page discussion than anything else. CycloneGU (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those things that really doesn't matter. Enforcing conformity is only likely to piss people off, while the inconsistency doesn't hurt anything and doesn't make the page less easy to follow. It's one of those things that's best left alone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the sections that you manually archived. Many of those discussions are relevant to the current discussions and archiving them is not helpful for readers. In addition, most are literally only days old, so may not be finished. As someone who has expressed a strong position in the case, I suggest that manually archiving discussions is something that you ought to be doing. The talk page may be long, but that is the nature of the beast. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My reason for archiving discussions is the same as for any other talk page; the page is long, load time takes forever, and the discussions indeed have not been posted in for several days. Since you disagree with that which is common talk page practice, I have filed a motion to archive older discussions. CycloneGU (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Those may be your reasons, but I have often seen manual archiving used as a tactic in disputes. I find it is best to avoid appearing to engage in such tactics by leaving such things to others if one is heavily involved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can assume with good faith that there are no "tactics", as you call them, involved. My motive is purely from an archiving standpoint (keep in mind I do not know the subject in any way; in fact, I'm Canadian and have no reason to favour or disfavour based on geographical location). With that said, if others disagree with me, I'll have to accept that. I just think the page, in its current format, is a strained mess, and at the very least discussions several days old could be closed, maybe even hatted, to make navigation easier. Typically if nothing is added to a discussion for several days, it won't be; also, a comment added to a discussion above five other stale discussions can be hard to find, and it's usually better to start a new discussion on the subject instead. CycloneGU (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Template duplications on the future use of navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how these templates are organized, named, and used in future, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, you had to go and ruin my nice shirt. CycloneGU (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you've been doing well. I've been updating Jackie's bio steadily; she's been busy!  :-) Do you think you could get Jackie's mom to release a nice photo of Jackie at age 8 or 9 that we could use to illustrate the "early" years section? All the photos we have of her are from 2011. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Recategorising on the proposal of recategorising following the rollout exercise of the new navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how articles are reorganized in future to provide an easier index system, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Hi. I don't mind leaving the concert info there, but just so you know, Jackie has cancelled some before. The reason given has been "scheduling conflicts". The only cancellation that I thought was a big enough deal to continue to mention in the article is the Carnegie Hall concert (cancelled only five weeks in advance), as it would have been an important world record. The Evanchos recently cancelled the Charlotte concert, which had been on her website and the venues' website, and all the ticket sellers, and they had been selling tickets to the concert for two months. Lots of ticket-holders were disappointed. They also had previously scheduled a Tony Bennett concert and cancelled it. So, my practice with all the events has been to wait until a month or so before each event and then list it. I think that the advice in WP:CRYSTAL is very good: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is ... almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." If you read the whole guideline, it really tries to discourage the listing of events that are so far out in the future. Don't worry, I won't let one slip through the cracks!  :-) BTW, per the previous message above, any chance that you could try to get a 2008 or 2009 photo of Jackie from her mom? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the blue bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

I was wondering if you'd seen Frickative elsewhere on the web since she moved back in March. I remember you said you'd done so when she took that break around her fifth anniversary here.

She thought she'd be returning shortly after the move, but hasn't shown up or replied on her talk page; her last activity was March 10. I imagine she's interested in other things at the moment, but I'd like to know she's safe and well, even if she's no longer contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually found her shortly after the Glee Graduation episode on Facebook and we chatted very briefly. I don't see her online much myself now, kind of unfortunate. She is a great asset especially to the Glee section of the encyclopedia.

I did spot her this morning and send a message but got no reply. I think she's just busy. CycloneGU (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm so glad she's okay, though I do miss her a lot here. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I only just noticed this today. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing RfC discussion taking place at the project talk page. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future manual of style and article layout in regards to Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

• Template names have now been modernised and/or megred into super-templates, for example Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest has now been merged into Template:Eurovision Song Contest making it even easier to find everything under one template. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind. Other templates have been modernised and a full list of them can be found here.
• The Eurovision Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles have now been standardised to keep a consitancy throughout the project and to the genral reader too. Skeleton article drafts can be found for Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Eurovision

Thanks for uploading File:Hoodwinked st.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Hoodwinked st.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Mini Memorandum 16 September 2012 A new RfC has opened at Project Eurovision in regards to how "Country by Contest" articles such as Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest, Denmark in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Australia in the ABU Song Festivals will be stylised. It is important that all members of this project participate in the discussion so that we can share our views on how these articles should be presented, what content could do with being added/removed. If a consensus is reached and you have failed to participate then you only have yourself to blame if you disagreed with the layout style that has been reached. To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This mini memorandum has been delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2013, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2013 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2013 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you kindly weigh in on this discussion? I'd like to hear your opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision Mini Memorandum 30 June 2013 There are a couple of discussions taking place via the project talk page that require urgent attention from as many members as possible. These are... A new RfC has opened at Project Eurovision in regards to how "Country by Contest" articles such as Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest, Denmark in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Australia in the ABU Song Festivals will be stylised. Also there is an urgent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Colour codes for last placings, which is discussing a matter in connection to chromostereopsis (blue text on red backgrounds). And finally, the newsdesk are looking to recruit a couple of project volunteers to assist in compiling the monthly newsletters, as one of the co-ordinators has taken an indefinite period of time away from Wikipedia due to personal reasons. For more details see here. To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This memo was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:PD-signature. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ten Years Of Gold.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest limit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jason Russell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Greenisblues 2003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Track listing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Imran Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)