User talk:Pgk/Archive 5

why did you delete the blue demon (psychobilly) page?

Vandalism

Actually, Mr.Pgk, vandalism doesn't cost Wikimedia anything. When admins revert vandalism, it does not cost any money. Thank you for your time.

PlayRadioPlay!

Why did you delete the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russ is the sex (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about that. I forgot about what the notability standards were. Sorry for forgetting to sign my name before. I was in a rush. --Russ is the sex 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Cheers for the unblock :) Chrisbayley 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ophaned images and db-author tag

I appreciate your comments about the use of the {{db-author}} tag. No one ever advised me to recommend its use. The definition I applied to it was one that (a) was my liberal interpretation and (b) seen applied and used by other editors. In reviewing the template's talk page, I can now better understand the rationale behind the accidental creation critieria. I will change my preformed text to delete the db-author tag reference and replace it with IfD nomination information. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ufc-pride

Why did you delete ufc-pride und csd A7, it contained a lot more content than other irc serve articles and I feel it deserved notability simply because it is the only dedicated mma server in the world. Brettybabe 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article contained more notable information that some other articles out there of the same type Delinked for example. Brettybabe 15:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the article, and being diplomatic, am I able to add more information to it? Brettybabe 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can I ask your advice on how to make a citation for a fact about an irc server that are mainly held on the server itself, some are on the web but most are server facts, like many of the other irc server articles on wikipedia, are hard to prove. How would I cite this?

I cannot believe the attitude wikipedia's members have taken towards this article! The amount of self righteous people who love to see articles get deleted and make up unfounded facts about them is just astounding, I mean there is even an association of deletionist's. I am writing this here to ask you to delete the article. Thank you for being diplomatic, and reinstating the article so it could go through the full deletion process. I came on here to put a irc server I frequent on wiki since loads of others are on here, and I have left wiki full of anger towards people who use insults to describe articles and lies when referencing facts. There can be a lot of prejudice among the general public against MMA related material, I think this is partially the problem, hidden behind week break of policy referances. I didn’t know wiki was like this, oh well never mind, not the end of the world. Thank you again for being so independent regarding all of this. Regards Brett

I have blanked the page, if you want to re-instate it then that is upto you but it seems pointless since it is going to get deleted anyway. Feathers flagged it for deletion before it was even finished, he then goes ahead to start insulting it, then he lies about topics and server status, I have remained connected to this server for the entire time. I feel that liars and trolls are just a unwelcome on wikipedia as they are on irc. Others have flagged it for deletion based on it is vandalism?! truly amazing! You deserve to be an admin, your diplomatic and fair way of dealing with this issues has show you deserve the status you already have. Kind regards Brett

I attempted to connect to your IRC server three times both from 2 java clients and also from my own home machine. All three times the server was not found. Screaming that because I couldn't connect to your server makes me a "liar" is a sure way to make people think that you're a little too attached to your article for your own good. It's "Fethers," by the way. Fethers 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I was connected to the server the whole time, I could provide logs of server uptime if requested. If this isn’t enough or if I am not a reliable enough resource then I could have the server admins provide this information. But why? The article is going to get deleted anyway.

You seem to have a problem reading what others say fethers. Let me explain so you understand, ill make it really easy for you.

I said "then he lies about topics and server status". Which was in response to you saying "and overall the server itself is down and there's some notice that they're going down "and we're not getting sued, we just can't talk about it."

Firstly if the server is down how can you read a notice from a down server? I think you are quoting the channel topic from searchirc. The notice in question was never what you said it was when you quoted it verbatim, lie right there. It was never even a server notice, it was a channel topic (which you couldn’t see if you where not connected) so you copied it from a website.

Your entire statement is either a lie, or you are so new to IRC you are incapable of telling the difference between a channel topic and a server notice, which would explain your connectivity problems. You say you tried to connect via a java client, then when that failed you tried again from home with another java client I assume. It is clear you lack knowledge of irc. I would bet money you didn’t try to connect at all or if you did you didn’t try with the right port or server address. Even if you did try to connect (but how can I believe you, when you tell such obvious lies) just because you cannot connect with a java client, doesn’t mean the server is down.

My reference to you lying is clear, you lied about a server notice that you quoted when it was never a server notice it was a topic in one channel, hardly representative of a whole server. You also lied about what the notice said. You inferred we cannot talk about why we are not getting sued when you falsely quoted this message as saying “and we're not getting sued, we just can't talk about it” The channel topic never said that, it said “Before you ask, no we are not getting sued or threatened” which means quite a different thing, I am sure you are quite aware of this.

Fethers take a word of advice from someone a lot older than you, don’t call peoples articles crap for any reason, be professional when you criticize articles or other peoples work. The quote from your talk page “Wikipedia's not for spamming your crap IRC channel” speaks volumes about your level of professionalism. It wasn’t even an IRC channel, if you read the article you would see that. Also don’t quote channel topics as server notices when they are not and don’t quote something verbatim that isn’t true as if it was.

I suppose I am expecting too much from you. I am expecting you to see things from a more mature vantage point when you are still a very young man who thinks that misrepresenting the truth is ok, it isn't. I suppose to be old and wise you must first be young and foolish? Brettybabe 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Pgk, please delete ufc-pride as soon as possible, it has only got keep votes from myself and a few others. After the way this whole issues has been dealt with, regarding lies and calling the content of the article “crap” etc. I now don’t want it on wikipedia. Again thank you for submitting it for the full deletion process. Wishing you the best in the future. Kind regards Brettybabe 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppsss sorry pgk this msg was to some on else i want to thank you again for all you have done , a nice life Shen420 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i also want to say that wiki is a great idea and could be a great site/resource for the world but as my mom always said "too many cheifs and not enought indians" Shen420 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy about not being allowed to link to external site

You aren't excluded, in order to maintain a focus on the goals of the project and integrity of those goals certain standards are demanded, if you can't meet those standards then we aren't going to waive the goals and integrity thus making it a free for all. --pgk 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia pretends to be a valuable resource, but the entries are often quite limited and sketchy, usually linking to other similarly limited and sketchy entries elsewhere in Wikipedia and thus creating a large cross-reference with basic content.

It discriminates against external sites that have more/better information on a topic on the basis that they might have opinions or be commercially based. I would say that rather than spend their time excluding people from Wikipedia and enforcing numerous elitist rules, the editors should be looking sympathetically at external sites that might add value to the Wikipedia knowledge base and to Wikipedia users.

It's also elitist in that it says it is looking for content from scientists and doctors and so on. There are lot of very knowledgeable and articulate people who aren't either of the above.

Who says I can't meet standards? Have you looked at my content? No. What you mean is I can't meet your RULES (or fathom them out because there are so many of them and they're so complex.)

Please keep your goals, integrity and standards. I'd prefer my quality award-winning content any day of the week.

You said: If you believe that your article has enough information to be of help to someone, then discuss it on the article talk page. (I'm going to assume that you did not know about this, please don't be angry if you do.) Similar to your user talk page, up near the top there is a "discussion" tab. Make a new section and provide an argument as to why your link should be included. Do not jump to the conclusion that we are exclusive. GofG ||| Contribs 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC) We are an encyclopedia, of course we demand a high standard of our contributions such as them being verifiable, not commercial biased or just personal opinion. Anyone is free to contribute to the encyclopedia regardless of being a scientist etc. We do however demand the information meets the required standards of verifiability, not just personal opinion etc. that policy applies equally to scientists. If you wanted a sort of meta fansite for dumping any and all "information" on a subject, then yes you are correct that is not what wikipedia is, but neither does it pretend to be. "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". --pgk 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, all I asked for was for someone to look sympathetically at my content and recognise its value and relevance. But as inclusion seems SUCH A CONVOLUTED AND PAINFUL PROCESS I am going to focus on my goals which don't coincide with yours. This experience today has left a bad impression of what Wikipedia is about and how it deals with positive contributions.

Thankyou

Thanks for answering.

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Tor list

I've updated User:Thatcher131/Torlist with today's list of open exit nodes. Can you run your script to prune from the list the IPs which are currently blocked? If possible, can you also prune IP's that have zero contributions? Thanks. Thatcher131 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 450 down to 122 is not that bad. It looks like only 2 have blue-linked talk pages, and of the first 15 or so, only 3 have contribs. I wonder if some that are labeled as exit nodes really aren't. I plan on blocking the ones with contribs but leaving the others alone for now. You are welcome to pre-emptively block if you think it is needed. Thatcher131 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for that. Mr. Garrison 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

You've been more than patient and helpful. Hopefully I am not alone in acknowledging and appreciating your efforts, but one of a vast company.—Chidom ^talk 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users pretending to be admins

What is Wikipedia's policy on users stating that they are Wikipedia admins when they are not? Is this allowed? Regards Brettybabe 10:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all users are expected to perform as if they were admins, but I believe that it is indeed against the rules for somebody to say they were an admin while they were not. Acting like one is OK, but explicitly stating that you are is not. I'm not going to block any offenders because I'm not an admin :) ~ Flame vip e r 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk It was related to somthing that someone said on my talk page, now before I go on, this isn't a personal dig at them, I have very little emotion towards him either way, (you might find that hard to believe, but it is true none the less) the last message I said to him was to wish him well, and I meant it.

When this person said on my talk page "... I've been much more busy moderating servers on Undernet and even being a Wikipedia admin for a while (ooh, SHUDDER!)..." and they clearly are not an admin, it just made me think, "what is Wikipedia's policy on users stating that they are Wikipedia admins when they are not" so I asked that exact question, that is all. I did try to search for it before I asked the question. You responded on my talk page, but I still don’t know the answer to a policy question. Again this isn’t a dig at him, I don’t care if you make him an admin and give him root / owner access to all of wiki's features, really! I also don’t want him punished or even reprimanded, I am just wondering if it is ok from the point of wiki rules and politics, for a user to state they are an admin if they are not, that is all. A policy link would be great if you have one. Kind regards Brettybabe 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... You should probably report admin impersonation to the administrator's noticeboard. Also, I've found that the internal Wikipedia search is rather crappy. Googling for the policy may help (be sure to include "wikipedia" in the search terms). ~ Flame vip e r 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go away for a few days and I find reading comprehension is difficult for some. I didn't say that I am currently an admin on en-wiki, I was an admin on en-wiki. I hid my tracks as best I could, but enterprising people (probably the ones who caused me to resign and close out my account) could figure out who I am based on my editing history most likely. Fethers 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flameviper I am in the process of doing that, people should not be allowed to get away with inferring “I was an editor” then when questioned state “I meant under a different name not the one I use now and not the one I signed the post with” then not state the name they claim they had admin status with... So you fethers are not an admin and never where. If what you say is true, then you used another wiki username that you claim had en.admin editor status. That may or may not be true, but that is not what you said, you said "... I've been much more busy moderating servers on Undernet and even being a Wikipedia admin for a while (ooh, SHUDDER!)..." and signing your name fethers, the use of “I” means you, not someone else. You infer that you fethers where an admin and gave no reference or reason to beleive that you meant you where an admin under a different name. That is misleading at best. Being a former admin, you will be aware of the need for accuracy when posting articles or comments to wikipedia.

This is not a personal attack, I am trying to word this so it helps the wiki community so that people reading this do not make the same mistakes like the one your made. Your comments about your previous status are un-provable and are likley to cause people to :-

(a) Want to verify the validity of your argument regarding your claim of former en-wiki admin status.

(b) Not view you in the light you deserve, even if they are true, when they find out you where misrepresenting the truth when you referred to yourself fethers (which was a signed post) as being a former admin

QUOTE : "... and even being a Wikipedia admin for a while ..." This is not something an admin, current or former, would do / say as it is simply hearsay, misleading and impossible to prove without further information about your alter ego. Kind regards. Brettybabe 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep wikilinking my name? Fethers 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I think you need to see this, this is what i mean, Yetiman2200sam Just read the statement. it thakes the mick beyond belief.

Ring modulator 20:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpme!

Thanks for the advice on the helpme, pgk. Btw, is it a bot that takes notice of the requests or something?? --SunStar Net 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

well the way i c it is there will have to be alot of change b4 i come back i sugest that you just remove my acct b4 i make you have too it never was the size of the network it was what we premote on the network you guys have smaller networks then us on here its 100% BIAS and for that reason im am done with you i might check back in few years too see if you have "more indians then cheifs" but i dont see that happening Shen420 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think the one thing that up sets me the most is the fact that you wont even acknowage this at all well plz leave a respounce here for i will not be loggin back into my acct after this for a really really longtime Shen420 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, only coherent messages are responded to, so you may want to go over your spelling and mechanics before you leave a post. And also, the MediaWiki software does not allow accounts to be deleted, and there's no way to change that. Sorry, Shen. ~ Flame vip e r 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocking Tor nodes

Many of these are dynamic IPs right? The tor node is not going to have the same IP in a month, let alone 3 years. Someone is going to have to unblock these on the other end if there is no expiry. —Centrx→talk • 06:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until this system is implemented, these IPs are going to simply remain blocked, despite the fact that they will not be tor nodes in a month. The problem is the same with common open proxies, but the current wording of the policy is erroneous: The policy is that open proxies are forbidden, not that IPs that happen to open proxies at one point should be blocked forever. The current wording of the policy page and the general understanding by admins is erroneous here. I'm looking at a batch of open proxies blocked in June 2004, and none of them are still open proxies. Every indefinitely blocked IP is an IP that someone is going to have to spend time unblocking, or inhibits contributions to the encyclopedia. Semi-blocking diminishes the problem, but the same could be said for just indef-blocking any IP for vandalism; for many IPs, open proxy IPs are in the exact same situation as vandalism IPs. Please just block for a shorter period of time; even 3 years would be better than indefinitely, but for most tor nodes a month makes more sense. —Centrx→talk • 07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question would be what time limit to use, which can be decided based on what the IP looks like. If only 1 out of 10 blocked IPs are still open proxies in a year, the cost of blocking them indefinitely is much higher. —Centrx→talk • 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for that. LibLord 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NewLangEx.py

Hey pgk, I've posted a new version of NewLangEx.py that will now set the pseudonym when setting up new languages, per your suggestion. You can download it here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/pgkbot/NewLangEx.1.02.tgz. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance. I just didn't look down far enough.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with particularly long titles

Hi there! I saw this got deleted as an R1, redirect to non-existant page. Do you know what page it redirected to that got deleted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with titles of twenty or more words. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for pgk

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your work blocking vandals, trolls, and your work reporting at WP:AIV, and the blocking of Tor nodes as well. Keep the good work up, pgk! SunStar Net 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You misunderstood me, I only meant that I did not want to burden other people correcting my errors or mistakes. I don't think anybody owns anything on the Internet, and certainly not on an encyclopaedia!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Lisa Lisa Irwin 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Thanks for helping out with the vandalism earlier! It's good, and rather uplifting to know the Wikipedia community will protect all your hard work with speed and diligence, even against a ridiculously persistant vandal. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Encylopedia Dramatica won two AFD nominations! Isn't running more than one the same thing as what you're accusing me of? BlueLotas 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the page "Christian Hessler"

WTF?

Re:helpme

That makes sense. Many thanks! Blood red sandman 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

It was my mistake creating Urbis ZX1 as an article. Sorry! --SunStar Net 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice, it was very helpful. I will keep that in mind. As it is now, I'm spending time making major edits to articles using the {{inuse}} template. If you want to help me get an article to meet WP:1FA I'd appreciate that! --SunStar Net 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetCricket

Why did you delete this article that I have just spent the last hour working on? Ever though of giving someone the chance to complete an article before deleting it?

"Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." - From Criteria for speedy deletion

As for not being significant it is the only large cricket gaming website and is mentioned in articles about several cricket games. How does this not make it significant to the subject of cricket games?

By the way you also ignored my challenge to the speedy deletion which I was in the process of typing before you decided to delete the article. Please restore it ASAP!

Sixer82 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond instead of just deleting this comment!

Sixer82 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as the article wasnt finished? If you gave me a minute to finish it perhaps then it would have had some assertion of notability. Please restore it so I can add to the article.

Sixer82 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Assume

Please dont assume that my intention to recreate the 53rd and 6th article was to advertise. Mr. moderator, if you look at the deleted pages, you will notice that I was the one who added the POV and original research tags. Some of the stuff on the article was foolish idoicy and nobody was cleaning it up. People wrote there own personal experiences in the article and their own feelings so I decided that I should tag it. Next time dont assume please. Bundis 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Chicken and Rice:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note RE CSD I7

Hey, just to give you the heads up I replied to your thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about CSD I7. I'm not sure if you were keeping an eye out on that page or not, but I see from your talk page you might be busy. No worries or anything, what you do or don't do regarding the dicussion isn't my concern, I just thought I'd let you know in case you hadn't noticed. BigNate37_(T) 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Tulkolahten 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert and aaaa[...]b

To clarify - I DID NOT make that edit. Can I ask for an IP check? I am sure the last version I did was the one BEFORE the aaaa[...]ab vandalism.

I'm a fan of the Command & Conquer franchise, and wouldn't vandalise it's pages.

Edit: Excerpt from contribution log.

18:28, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Command & Conquer: Red Alert (Putting the version before my account was hacked back.) (top)
14:46, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Command & Conquer: Red Alert (←Replaced page with 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...')
09:11, 23 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Technology of the Global Defense Initiative (→ORCA Aircraft) (top)

My two edits are separated by nine hours. I spent those hours away from the computer.

Mikael GRizzly 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpike Editor Review! 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your help, with the userbox. It is highly appreciated. I look forward to working with you in the future. Do you have any pets? Culv e rin ? ^Talk 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment...

I ment what is the code to recreate the box, on my talk page, I see that other users have it to display that you can 'Leave them a Message'.

1B6 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I'm curious if your view on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Long_Island_Music_Hall_of_Fame remains the same given the additional information I've added to the discussion. *Spark* 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my argument is on the subject, not the article as it was. My point is in the spirit of WP, the article should have been tagged with appropriate templates (references,etc) and not speedied. A simple google search would have shown notability of the subject, in which case tagging and giving the article a chance to be expanded is a better route. *Spark* 13:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick answer you provided on my talk page. Renrenren 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Thanks

Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page, as ever, it's much appreciated. Best Wishes and Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to list(s) of HL mods afd discussion

The link to the AfD is wrong, see my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29#Lists of Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits as a deletion criterion

I saw in many deletion debates comments of types "There are only XY google hits and that mean it is not notable" or "There are many many Google hits and it means it is notable". I would suggest some policy about Google hits not to be added or relevant as the deletion criterion. It is really irrelevant. Some kind of WP:GOOGLE policy or guideline. Tulkolahten 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thank you for clarification. I should search for WP:GOOGLE before I asked :-( Sorry for bothering. Tulkolahten 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Apologies for my suggestion about history-only undeletion; maybe this was a bad idea. I'm not really in favour of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages unless they're absolutely necessary, in the case of Primetime and JarlaxleArtemis, they're necessary, but for the average vandal, well, they're not really needed. --SunStar Net 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum-Touch

Hi, pkg. Would just like to comment that I see the Quantum-Touch page was deleted due to spam. That's a fair call, but I'd like to see the page unlocked for re-creation. While the content of the original page may have been questionable, Quantum-Touch itself is worthy of discussion due to its growing base of practitioners and instructors worldwide, books and DVDs available. It is a "healing system" similar to Reiki, which has its own excellent entry here. I'd like to see the QT page massaged until it meets proper standards of objectivity and informity. Trane Francks 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pkg, I would like to second what was said above. I'm looking forward to contributing to that page once it's unlocked/undeleted. Thank you.

Hello pkg. I was shocked to discover that any page would be deleted and prohibited from being re-created. Could you explain the rational behind Wikipedia having a certain topic being prohibited when so many contraversial and extreme articles exist in it? (I'm sure you, as an administator, are more aware of these than I am). While you're at it, what other topics are taboo in Wikipedia, and where can one learn why these are taboo? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

141.154.246.102

{{Should someone protect User talk:141.154.246.102. He's been blocked an is trying (unsuccessfully) to grant his request for unblock... -WarthogDemon 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VideoReDo

Ack! Sorry for moving a deleted article into userspace. I knew it wasn't an especially viable article, but it seemed to be an earnest request from a confused newbie, so I was trying to help. Is there some way I could tell it had been previously speedied? Not to imply that I shouldn't have used better judgement, but I was trying to AGF, etc...Doc Tropics 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilotguybot

Freenode staff is saying it isn't /oper ing properly, which is why it's always excess flooding. Do you have any idea how to fix this? Supposedly it's trying to oper, even while it's quiet, and it's showing up on freednode logs constantly. The details are sketchy, but xyr or nalioth on IRC can probably explain more about the problem on their end. Maybe I need to modify one of the config files or something? Let me know if you have any idea on how to stop this weirdness. Thanks. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I repeat my comments from the RfA:

The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually, and may have now, too many edits to change my username, and I do not wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:CHU. Septentrionalis 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been marked for expiration shortly unless the trial is completed soon. Please see the request page for details. If you could post a short message what we should do with this request. -- RM 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The GodFather

Hi, I have noticed that you deleted a stub article I created a long time ago about this piece of software. According to you, this software is non-notable and does not assert its notability. I don't know how widely used The GodFather is now, but it was for a time the most used audio tagger in existence. However, this cannot go into the article because there is no proof (and cannot be) that it was very widely used. However, this can apply to hundreds of applications, which doesn't mean they are non-notable. At the very least, there should be an AfD. Please reconsider your deletion or at least create an AfD. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, you should know that WP:SOFTWARE isn't a Wikipedia policy, rather it is a proposed guideline (not even active) and discussions are still going on. There is for example no mention of numbers of downloads from reliable websites in that proposal. I'm talking about sites like CNet Download.com where one can gauge the popularity of software fairly well (at least better than people can gauge the popularity of websites using Alexa... and we've been doing that for Wikipedia for years). The software in question has just below 90,000 downloads and its own review on download.com, which isn't so much but also not little by a long shot. The text of the article may of course assert notablility, like what I originally said (it was once the most popular mp3 tagger), although that would be OR and at the moment Tag&Rename 3.1.5 has more than double the amount of downloads on CNet than The GodFather. Therefore, that assertion is not plausible. Also it's not clear whether having a small review on CNet counts as appearing in a reliable external publication. I don't pretend to say that there cannot be any doubt as to whether the article should stay, but it definitely does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Block o User:Embargo

The technical issues of this block, that is the time of last update to last warning do seem in conflict, can you review and respond on the users talk. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, though would likely endorse any blocks for future behaviour of a similar nature. --pgk 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again and having just seen the AN/I thread, feel free to ignore me. --pgk 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thanks for the note. -- Szvest

^{Wiki me up ®} 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

It may be true that my action was quick. It may be true that i was so lean with him as i explained to him the rules. But it is also true that i am the only one who still thinks he can get a second chance here. Have a look at other admins' comments who would support an indef ban. So let's see it chronologically again:

Revision as of 15:15, December 11, 2006 Me, blanking his userpage reminding him of what can you have on his userspace;
Revision as of 15:17, December 11, 2006 More explanation on his talk page
Revision as of 16:00, December 11, 2006 Him, asking why!
Revision as of 16:01, December 11, 2006 Him, challenging and threatening to add more quotes
Revision as of 16:03, December 11, 2006 Him, restoring to his version again
Revision as of 16:10, December 11, 2006 Me, reverting back
Revision as of 16:10, December 11, 2006 Me, leaving another note on his talk
Revision as of 19:30, December 11, 2006 Him, asking me to not tell him what to do!
Revision as of 19:30, December 11, 2006 Him, reverting back again
Revision as of 19:32, December 11, 2006 Me, giving him the last warning
Revision as of 19:33, December 11, 2006 Me, reverting back
Revision as of 19:34, December 11, 2006 Me, blocking him
Revision as of 19:38, December 11, 2006 Me, notifying him of the block

Again, i m still waiting to see him contributing here abiding by the rules. Otherwise, i'd surely follow the recommendations of the other admins at the noticeboard above. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Bot

Please see User talk:Ram-Man#WelcomeBot regards the failed app. Thanks FrummerThanThou 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hey, just FYI, perhaps you could do soft-blocks on username blocks, unless it's a clear vandal (e.g., User:Fuck your momma). Currently, User:MetricGuy is blocked because he used the same IP as User:Casino royale online gambling online casino. Part Deux 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

The message I left on NawlinWiki's talk page. The first warning was to some other guy who had the IP address, the second warning was given in error, so I'm deleting them as they're not pertinent to anything and just take up space. 24.199.116.137 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of such page says:

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address

so yes, that may be not you. But "blanking" does not save space, it adds new space (since every previous version is also stored) -- Drini 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit to being naive about space, but it at least causes clutter and confusion. First of all, the guy before me who had the IP address was a vandal, and he was warned for it. Then (perhaps because of that message), someone else mistakenly assumed I was a vandal. Then I tried to clear that page (and my name), but was rebuked for "more vandalism", when I hadn't done any vandalism in the past. And now I'm blocked; I can't even register a user name. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except people Pgk doesn't like. So now Pgk blocked my proxy, so I found a new one and registered a username. Let's hope Pgk doesn't block this one; hopefully he can see I'm just trying to explain. PleaseDontBlockMeWithoutAtLeastListeningToMySideOfTheStory 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies aren't permitted and blocked on site, I already unblocked the original IP address long before you created this account. --pgk 15:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...you blocked me

Boy, you people sure hate newcomers. I made a remark on my own talk page, clearly in jest, about how changing this page will be reported to the local authorities and they will come arrest you and send you to jail. Apparently, you took that seriously. So, please unblock me. I now know that sarcasm flies far beyond the comprehension of the brass here, so everything I say will from now on be perfectly sincere and earnest. 24.199.116.137 (via proxy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.144.249.174 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks very much for blocking this user because this user has placed threats on my page. B e arly 541 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Tank deletion?

Recently, Proto the admin used the proposed deletion template on Mammoth Tank, stating as reason that "No assertion of notability, utter original research, in universe in tone which couldn't be fixed without removing every word, please don't remove this tag and make me have to AFD this, as it will definitely get deleted - there are many many precedents for this". I removed the tag for now, but am surprised how an admin asks not to remove the tag to save him the hassle.

I've rpaired much of the article as far as I could, but had no response. Can I ask for input, help or advice? Mikael GRizzly 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAG

Hello. I would like to be on the bot approvals group, and since you yourself are in the group, it would be great if you can stop by and either support or oppose my request. Thank you! —Mets501 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block of FATSO_BIG_BONED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Clerk note • In addition to the well-placed username block you gave the user, I would like to inform you that a recent Request for CheckUser revealed this to one of many sockpuppets made by sockpuppeteer Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

A small favor.

Hello. Can I ask you to access the protected Temple of Nod and Obelisk of Light pages and send the raw text (just text) from the last versions before deletion to my e-mail address (mikaelgrizzly gmail com)? They are a good write, and I need them on the C&C wikia. I'd be grateful for help. Mikael GRizzly 14:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dos lingo

Pgk,I currently dial from Roanoke,VA my ISP is AOL the number used to dial is 540-725-9801.If you have AOL please check this for your self.You can also check my e-mail inmemoryofgrunt@aol.com. Dos lingo 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOG OF CICERO

NAME THIS ALLEDGED CONTRIBUTION! THERE IS NONE! YOU ARE UNJUSTIFIED! UNPROTECT THE PAGE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.178.160 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

#vandalism-en-wn

A few of us from wikinews are wondering what's happened to the bot in the wikinews channel, will it be back online soon? Cheers Brian | (Talk) 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Cooperation

About the Climate Cooperation page - I put a hang on tag on and left a message on the talk page.

I can't quite see how it can be more objective - perhaps you could give me guidance.

Will Howard 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this was or automatic but ...

Wooh - how come after I tagged the page "hang on" it was deleted within about 10 mins of creation without any discussion?

This just seems wrong and not a good way to treat well meaning people. At least discuss it!!

You must let me know the reasons as I tried to make it objective.

Will Howard 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block threat from admin User:FayssalF

Dear Pgk, I am being threatened with a block by User:FayssalF on what I see as nakedly specious grounds. See User talk:Proabivouac#POV edits and deletions. My aim is to ensure that this situation does not play out in a "dark alley," as it were - I cannot imagine that FayssalF would act this way if he thought his actions were under review - and I wonder if you've any recommendations as to how I might proceed. (I have just posted an identical message to Tom harrison.)Proabivouac 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not nakedly specious grounds. Proabivouac was removing well sourced material on Islam page. Also, please have a look at the link Proabivouac provided.--Aminz 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this [2]. Please see the history. Many times, when I wanted to complete the section further, I had an edit conflict because Proabivouac had removing the section completely. --Aminz 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Earl moves

I didn't know. I apologize. I thought consistency would have been nice, but if it's a big issue, I won't press it. Evan Reyes 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I fixed the capitalization on a few of the pages, which I hope won't create any controversy. Evan Reyes 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've blocked me??

Dear Pgk

I'm new to wikipedia and I got a message saying that you've blocked for using the username "shitassfuck". The problem is that it's not my username. Perhaps there is some mix up with IP addresses, but my username is Petmal and I'm sure I've not done anything to warrant blocking nor have I ever used the username mentioned in the blocking message. Could you please check it out and get back to me. The blocking seems to be intermittent. Thank you. Petmal 13:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed your speedy of Stole Beer from a Golfer

You claimed it was an unlikely version. I disagree; it is capitalization following common rules, even if those rules are not followed in the series' title capitalization. We generally keep redirects from alternate sensible capitalizations and other easy-to-make errors, so I restored this one.

If you don't agree, we can talk it over or put it on Redirects for Deletion, whichever you wish. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked page with vandalism

I didn't know who to tell this to, but since I've talked to you before, here I am. The page Underoath has been vandalised after line 50 with the line "AARON GILLESPIE IS GOD" but the page is locked. Can you please advise? Thank you. Petmal 13:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK now

I think my IP address was blocked with a batch of others. I re-logged in and it seems ok now. Sorry to bother you. Petmal 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock...

Thanks for unblocking me man!! :-)EmoBasherX2000 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I have made a request for membership on the bots approval group. I have received only one response by User:Mets501, who suggested I drop the group a line[3] and let you know about my request. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tor list

I've updated User:Thatcher131/Torlist from the current blacklist. Can you run your script to remove IPs that are already blocked? Thanks. Thatcher131 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

singapore math

why was singapore math deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whatfg (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

69.113.27.205

I see you blocked them. [4]

I looked them up here at http://whois.domaintools.com/69.113.27.205 and it says the IP is blacklisted. Maybe Tor or Proxy. I don't know where to report that stuff. SakotGrimshine 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval question

Hey Pgk:

I've got a new implementation of my archive bot that I'm planning to bring online as EssjayBot V; it was requested to handle the archiving of the Village Pump. Normally, I would have done it under EssjayBot II's blanket authorization to handle projectspace pages, but this one is going to be a bit different because the VP doesn't actually have an archive, they just remove old posts and let the history be the archive. Since it's a different process than the others use, I want to put it under a different name. The part I have a question about is, the last two times I've brought new implementations of the archivebot online under separate names (III to do user talk pages, and IV to do article talk pages), I filed requests, but they were speedy approved. I'm wondering if I even need to file a formal request, or can I just get a "yes, this falls under the existing approval, carry on"? Thanks, Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what Superm was tryin to tell me

Can you explain it to me? Or perhaps do you have an example that I can refer to for reference instead of wierd instructions? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's it!!! I've done everything else. But HOW do I know if popups are even on or what is the link I have to click to activate it in the edit summary when I'm reverting edits? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have the box that appears. But where do I "add // User:Lupin/popups.js

importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js'); to my monobook.js?" Maybe that's what I'm tryin to figure out... I don't know. Isn't there a link that's supposed to show like "Use popups" or something? Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean. What are you trying to say? Ergo, where does it say something along the lines like: "click here to use popups?" Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!

FINALLY!!! This is the answer I was waiting for. Sorry for taking up your time, but I am truly grateful for your help!!! So, now I'm able to use this special revert to prevent spam, is that correct? Isn't that the purpose of using popups to rv something? Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's say I didn't want to rv with popups. How do I do "undo revisions" such as User:Recoome did here:[5]

And how do I revert like what you did here:[6]

Please teach me these too. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for fixing my attempted reversion for Euclidean Algorithm. (Firefox for Mac(?) doesn't like me editing long pages, and truncates.) Not-just-yeti 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:211.171.58.161

This user should be blocked for a heck of a lot longer than 31 hours. In addition to his extreme personal attacks (for example here and here), and racist trolling, he made what is essentially a death threat against another editor. If there's such a thing as a permanent ban on an anonymous editor, this one has certainly earned it. KarlBunker 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well...

You deleted the template I created couple of minutes ago. Fair enough, seeing that it does include the some of the stuff you mention. But, it is really frustrating to see idiots loitering around this place generally degrading your hard work for what they see as fun. I really wish you'd've left it for at least 24 hours just for my satisfaction, but hey... CheersStress causes Stomach ulcers 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP1.0 bot

Hey Pkg. Just wondering, why did you block the User:WP1.0 bot account? I plant to use is at as a bot to update Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index instead of User:Mathbot. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a username block, it's potentially a confusing username if it isn't a bot account, and bots need to be approved. There was no edit to the bots talk page indicating who was creating it, I guess you logged out to create it as the log doesn't show it as being created by you, and I couldn't see a request for it on bot approvals. It's not a problem to unblock it, just a precaution. --pgk 21:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You were so fast (I had barely created the account and had no time to update it). I will ask the bot to be approved before I use it. I'll unblock the bot too. Thanks for keeping watch on things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McAuliff

Who the heck is Kate McAuliff anyway? I've never heard of her until the related vandalism started on the Wikipedia a few weeks back. --Yamla 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I have no idea, I've only seen it today when I blocked some nonsense username creations earlier. Seems to ip User:216.220.101.115."

It's not just today, I reverted a few back around Christmas time. Very strange. Normally I have some vague idea of who I supposedly have a crush on. But there you go, live and learn. --Yamla 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Welcome messages

check this Out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suprah%E2%84%A2 i am trying to cover new users with welcome page Yeah i am having copy page. Khalidkhoso 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for fixing artilces i am little old user here But new in Welcoming new users

Khalidkhoso 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check this link.lemme knw if it is ok so that i can go ahead with my Job. [[7]]

how can i track those users? do you have any idea?

Khalidkhoso 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the revert on my page. - Denny 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just saying thanks for reverting my user page, you might not need another message on your already huge talk page but i just wanna be polite.DxPatxb

I know it's not essential and I would of course do the same for anyone I see but I'm just sayin'DxPatxb 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...From Martial Law for helping me deal with a weird autoblock. Place yourself in my Favorite Admins list. Martial Law 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited articles

We don't prohibit articles, however we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to be a dumping ground for anything and everything. In order to meet that goal articles as written have to meet our standards such as neutral point of view, no original research, notability, verifiability and biographies of living people. Some articles fail to meet those standards and are deleted through one of the various deletion processes. Sometimes there are some individuals who are unable to accept the deletion (or in some case what wikipedia is not attempt to continually recreate those articles. In order to prevent such disruption the pages get protected. If an article on a given subject is writeable which meets the standards you can do so, place a copy in your userspace and get it reviewed. If it is suitable it can then be moved to the main space. (That doesn't stop it being deleted later or even very shortly) through the deletion processes. --pgk 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

pgk, what it looks like to me is that you have decided that because there is one (or a few) unruly individuals, that the rest of the world cannot know about, or edit, this subject. Regardless of what you might call it, this is censorship. Censorship is not NPOV, in fact it is the very opposite in the extreme degree. (See also Wiki policy about censorship)

Because I've been around wiki a little while now, I know enough to do things such as you've suggested but there are probably 1000 individuals for every person like me who have no idea about this kind of thing and wiki accepts articles and edits from them every second or every day. They don't have to go through a pre-approval process to have the censors (and it might seem that we could add the prefix "self-appointed") accept their articles or edits.

I don't doubt you when you say that this might have been a problem article, but I would ask why one article in particular gets blocked when there are many other very controversial topics which have survived?

I'm no expert on the topic Quantum-touch, but I have some knowlege of it, I've seen published books on the topic and perhaps could contribute to fixing an article on the topic, but I'd like to see what has already been done. This is what your "protected deletion" prohibits me from doing because I'm not an administrator (or a member of the elite few).

Show me the article history together with the page versions, add it to one of my user subpages if necessary, and I'd be happy to see if it is fixable. IF I do, I'll take it under my wing for awhile and that might help to calm down some of the more exhuberant spammers, but I won't make any promises until I see what I'd be dealing with.JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel ranting about censorship, or trying to label me as an "evil censor" ....--pgk 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

pgk, I'm suggesting that you are practicing censorship because you won't let me (or anyone else) see what has been written on this topic. You may not like the implications of the term, but the description of your actions is correct. If you think that means that I'm calling you "evil", you're mistaken.
It's possible that I might agree with your position, but showing me the logs isn't sufficient to convince me that you (and possibly other admins.) are taking the position that the readers of Wikipedia are not intelligent enough to reach their own conclusions about this topic; that it is so "evil" that to even view the article is going to permanently and irreparably damage them. Isn't that the main thrust of all censorship?
As I requested earlier, let me see the article in question, even if in "private", by putting it on a user's page (you might even email it to me if you think it is that dangerous). JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoohTheBear (talk · contribs)

I reported him as violating the "Unique trademarked names" section of WP:U. Cheers, Random Hippopotamus 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, any chance of archiving this talk page. It took quite some time to load over this connection. Random Hippopotamus 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]