User talk:Stephen/Archive July 2007

Hot Psychology Magazine

I've changed my article several times but each time it gets deleted. I've read the FAQ but it's not clear exactly what I need to enter to get the information I'm trying to convey out there correctly.

Re: Checking up

Regarding User:Librun's use of my image for a member of a band named Goblin's Cock, more likely than not it's the same user that's been harassing me for some time now using various IP addresses. Looks like he possibly registered an account. I don't foresee him leaving me alone anytime soon as no one seems to care enough to stop him, and this seems to fit right in with what he likes to do. Thanks for the heads up. LaraLove ^T/_C 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs and Turkeyfoot, North Carolina

Why do you like Cynthia Ozick? Or are you just protecting the concept of Wikipedia? What I do is art. Let that be known. Many thanks, 67.153.121.42 20:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CoWord

Please restore CoWord. CoWord page is not an advertisement. It provides useful information regarding a software. There are many similar pages in Wikipedia (e.g. subethaedit, gobby, writely ... etc). I don't believe it's fair that CoWord page is labelled as an advertisement while other similar pages are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchen (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 July 2007

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bloodbeasts.jpg

I have uploaded an image Image:Bloodbeasts.jpg to the site for use for the movie article Beauty and the Beast (2003 film) and I want to know if there's any problems with it. I just want to double check as I had uploaded this image previously (under the same filename), and it was removed after I procrastinated too durn long with creating the article in my sandbox. Is there any problem uploading it back under the same file name? -WarthogDemon 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Mate'

Thanks for helping with that, just to warn you they seem to have created about a dozen accounts in the last to days to vandalise that &/or revert my edits. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons Jones

This article was created and maintained by an employee of the UNC-CH Southern Historical Collection, the source of the finding aid cited in the References. No one holds copyright to these finding aids, as they are created by a state agency. Is the page recoverable? Miss Dark 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images from FDR article

What was wrong with the two images you've deleted? The photograph of David Warren with the original FDR, and the model made by Tych Mirfield, are both publicly-available historical images. They should clearly be in any article on the subject. surely. Garth M 02:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the explanation on your talk page? That explains how they were incorrectly licenced? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Harrassment

I'm not for certain that it's the same person. I was thinking that dynamic IPs only changed the last few numbers, although I could be wrong. The following IPs all harrassed me in a weeks time frame, and none at the same time. All one after the other. I could go find all the edits and discussions, but it would take quite a bit of time. One admitted to having a dynamic IP and using it to beat a block. Another admitted to being the fore-mentioned IP. I'm not sure that there's any way for you to tell. The IPs are User:72.128.81.50, User:72.128.88.130, User:65.30.177.4, User:24.160.241.190, and User:24.160.247.6. Possibly others. I'm certain the first two are the same and the last two are the same. I really think they all are the same person, however. LaraLove ^T/_C 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. After looking back over the talk pages of each, I am for sure it's all the same person. The blocks seem to be working, though. If not, s/he's at least left me alone. LaraLove ^T/_C 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mikkimoore2

I have been advised to let you know about this report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mikkimoore2. Mikkimoore2 is undoubtedly the latest active incarnation of an abusive sock who is evading blocks, harrassing, and vandalizing. You blocked one of these socks in the past few days. - Crockspot 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrento etc.

Thanks. just look at Amalfi, Sorrento and Ravello... almost all IPs beginning with 87.... adding to External links are from this guy (or firm?) trying to add ad-spam about room renting and similar. WHOIS identifies them as from Naples and Rome. Thanks. --Attilios 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article writing

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. Thanks, R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palm

Hi Stephen, I'm working on a solution, will let you know when I've got some pics for the article. Wiki Townsvillia n 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! it took a little while, but hopefully these are watertight. Would you do me a favour and have a go at placing them in the article, I'm a little beat from a hard week at work and not really up to high mind PI stuff at the moment :) Wiki Townsvillia n 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE R's RfA

The point about UAA was a side point. I mainly found your oppose unreasonable because you seemed to be saying that he was too careful in his answers about following policies. It's quite usual for an RfA candidate to be opposed for lack of awareness of policies; R, knowing this, was probably especially careful to show that he understands how things work around here. So I found your criteria a little unfair, but I apologise if I misunderstood what you were saying. Walton^talk 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd Convent

Hi - I saw that you deleted this. There's still a redirect at Good Shephard Convent (article's original title, I moved it because it offended my sense of spell). You may want to get that one as well. pablo :_{: ... talk ...} 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FYI

Thanks for the heads up. But it's all heat and no light, I'm afraid. Hesperian 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Blocked

It wouldnt let me email you so I'll tell you here. I do not like how you banned my user name Spunk Mouth 69 by no means does the name ofend anybody I do not know who made you an administrator but you should be taken for acount to be fired. My name isnt even close to being the names "Rapistatlarge" nor "Mattandrewsisgay" this may be hard for you so read it carefully heres the definition of Spunk(noun Definition: courage, nerve)Before I could apeal the block you deleted my acount and please have a nice day!:) really it said before i loged out on my home page that it was deleted and supened indefintly and now i tried to log back in it sais there is no username under Spunk Mouth 69

It was User:Spunk Mouth69, no space --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help request: The Academy Is...

Hi Stephen. Could I ask for your assistance with The Academy Is... as I am unsure if what User:Talktotai is doing technically counts as vandalism and I do not want to break the 3-revert rule. Thanks! --Paul Erik 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Paul Erik 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DG

Hi, I see you blocked him :). I added a section about his behavior (especially his vote on an RfB) to WP:AN, you're welcome to drop a comment there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't worry :). To be fair I was willing to wait more before blocking (to see if the vandalism stopped, since for me it was the same user: he reverted an edit on his talk page), so my toes are fine ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletation of my article " EgyptNetwork "

Dear Stephans ,,

Yesterday u deleted the page of the company " EgyptNetwork " and untill now i don't know the reason .. This comapny is a big one that had a big work stuff , like TEData and LINK.NET . also it's one of the 10 biggest companies in middle east.. We made a page for it before named " egypt network " . but i'm trying to put it in the Egyptian Companies . so i tried to make a new page and delete the other one . so please help me to create this page again to enrich our encyclopedia with the latest updates . I didn't mean any advertisement by my article .. so Please i'm waiting ur answer

Zeitgeist The Movie

A few weeks ago you deleted my entry for http://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Zeitgeist_the_Movie Zeitgeist The Movie. After I placed a 'holdon' tag you continued to remove the page with 3-4 minutes (thus violating Speedy deletion rules).

Furthermore, the page is now currently REmade up going strong in near full force. Zeitgeist The Movie I just wanted to thank you for not responsing to my inquiries on my page, and for violating speedy deletion rules, and for deleting a page, that is in fact relevant and useful. Thanks!Squarepush3r 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously missed the rather obvious comments posted by myself and others on your talk page. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I see that you have again deleted the http://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Zeitgeist_the_Movie Zeitgeist The Movie wikipedia entry... I've read all the talk and don't understand why this article was deleted? It references "real" sources, is notable, and doesn't seem to violate any rules. It should be reinstated immediately. - User:Trekerboy

The article was deleted as the result of an WP:AFD --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to that conclusion when most of the entries on the discussion page were "keep"... I know the discussion is not a survey of whether or not the article should be kept, but clearly there was/is some interest in this topic. Again, I will gladly provide any "real" sources needed (again) and contribute to the administration of this entry. I've added to the discussion page on the Zeitgeist the movie entry (again) but someone will probably delete it (again) but I think it's important to continue discussion on this topic especially since Wikipedia is supposed to the be the amalgamation of human knowledge and there is a lot of knowledge to be shared about this topic. --Trekerboy 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One day you may get around to reading our guidelines and policies. But in the meantime I'd like to point out that User:Krimpet closed the AfD and deleted the article, not I. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines and regulations, hence my confusion about the deletion of this article, especially about how it "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Thanks for the information about another user. Also, according to the logs of the Zeitgeist article "09:09, 29 June 2007 Stephen (Talk | contribs) deleted 'Zeitgeist the movie' (It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. (CSD A7))". --Trekerboy

Wikiality123

My contention was not the usage of "Wiki". I clearly stated "non-Latin sig that has nothing to do with his username", because the sig looks like it says "wiki san rose" in closest Latin equivalent. MSJapan 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think #1 here applies pretty clearly as obscurity of identification? MSJapan 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Zemanek

The article itself (had it been read) states clearly Stan called viewers "left wing loonies" and "typical Labor voters." If he despises the left and Labor, that, by elimination makes him a right wing supporter. But, for the sake of argument, I've referenced a newspaper article that labels him as right-wing. [1]McDanger 10:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference

Whoa, I believe that the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference is a notable organization. They are active, and interact with elected officials such as the aldermen, Jesse Jackson Jr, and Senator Obama. Take a look at their website. It was most likely nominated for deletion by its political enemies. Could you please put it back and list in on AfD instead? Speciate 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnraisers

This article was recreated and was listed for review, however two other editors decided to remove those tags as they decided the article was worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. If you had read the history or discussion log you would have seen the reasons why this article was reposted. This article warrants an unbiased review and clearly meets several of the criteria of WP:Band.Dajbow 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnraisers Deletion

As one of the creators and editors of the Barnraisers page, I think I am owed an explanation of exactly why the page was deleted. I think it was more than clear that the article satisfied at least two of the criteria for notability (of which only one is required) and, despite all the good faith pontificating, I feel that the article was attacked under the pretenses of not fulfilling some subjective level of notability to which the editors do not hold themselves accountable.

The article presented facts about the band, their repertoire, their influences and their connection to a specific musical genre. As I stated in the discussion for deletion, two of the main references for the article were The Wilmington Star-News which has a daily distribution of 50,000+ and is owned by New York Times Company, and Encore Magazine which has been in publication for twenty-two years and has a weekly distribution of 20,000 copies. These are the sources considered "trivial" by the editors. One of those editors who challenged the articles notability was User:17Drew, whose major contributions to Wikipedia are lightly referenced articles about individual No Doubt songs and the band King Changó, whose article consists of two sentences and a single reference which is the band's own website. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Although I am dismayed, I am not surprised by the eventual deletion of the page. Over the past few days it has become clear that despite all its self-satisfied moralizing about good faith and neutrality, Wikipedia is a cadre of overzealous nerds who delight in the glib dismissal of anything that does not interest them. And once their minds are made-up, their decisions are indisputable.

I am, however, supplied a bit of solace in knowing that this sort of tenditious policing will either lead to the discrediting of Wikipedia or the instituting of restrictions on who may call himself an editor, which will mark the failure of Wikipedia's goal of consensus reality once and for all.

This is not a case of sour grapes. Rather, this is the discouraging realization that under all the cant, Wikipedia is nothing but a glorified chat room where, as in the real world, power corrupts and once it is seized it is bunkered away from those who might challenge it.

I am under no delusion that this letter will have any effect or be responded to seriously. As I said, I have become accustomed to the smug disinterest that editing 'power' engenders in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, thank you for your time.

Emerson1975 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought both of you (Emerson and Stephen) would like to know I've opened a deletion review. Pan Dan 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krzysztofgajewski

Whoops. I've been up too long. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Here.

Thanks Steve - Yes most of the time I use the pre-loaded delete tab but sometimes I cut and paste part of the reason into the edit summary (especially where the pre-load is not particularly civil or NPOV) - as you picked up at the ANI comments they were all expired prods. I appreciate your comments in support at that page - thanks for your advice also. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_the_Movie

logs

Hi, could you tell me which version was deleted where I was discussing the deletion outcome? If the talk page of the deletion discussion is not the proper place to discuss it, where is ? Thx  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any text from you that wasn't posted on the deleting admin's talk page? The best place for further discussion would be WP:DRV if you haven't started this already. DRV will establish whether the AfD close was handled correctly. --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am interested in text from others. Perhaps you could please copy the entire deleted text onto my talk page?  Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackp

Ah – the checkuser result was no surprise. The socks are as clear as day. Lol Do you remember his efforts 12 months ago on Sydney? I don’t know that his film efforts are as bad as that, but he doesn’t provide references. I also spent months reverting his first post-Jackp sock as a matter of course but tired after a while. And it seemed kind of mean just reverting him months after he had exhibited the behaviour that earnt his ban.

Jack is only indef blocked to my understanding. Can we keep reverting/blocking if it is not a ban? Should we go for a community patience ban? Is it likely to succeed?

In a way, I kind of feel sorry for him. I don’t know for sure, but I think he is just a precocious young kid. I honestly think that he is essentially a good faith editor who has absolutely no idea and has been unable to take on any advice. He thinks he is doing a good job and that others who challenge him are in the wrong. Ie, he is no troll. A couple times I tried to take him under my wing and guide him but I lost patience. But he is completely unrelentingly clueless and his contributions are of little value – or worse.

I still feel sorry for him – he obviously likes editing. Merbabu 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the note and thanks for your support at my RfA - much appreciated! --Melburnian 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lcnhop

Please block this user as soon as possible. He (or she) has been vandalizing pages on Wikipedia, including Matisyahu and Immortal Technique, blanking pages and just used a cuss word while editing as well. Alex 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

77.183.228.214 & 77.183.250.142 are all likely sockpuppets of the same user judging by their edits to the Immortal Technique page & personal attacks in edit summaries. Spellcast 18:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcast is right, please check out what I wrote at WP:ANI at the "User:Lcnhop" section, and check out all the other probable sockpuppets and all his abusive behaviour. Thank you for blocking him though. --- Realest4Life 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harrassment

I'm back... and so is he. Lara Love 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your good self

Have you noticed that you're a complete waste of space, who does not give anything worthwhile to anyone, unless you're paid? I hope you find that observation helpful. --Johnde517Mol 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock decline

Absolutely not, you did it all wrong! :P Actually, I think that was one of those edit conflicts that didn't manage to register that there was a conflict. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madras Bulls

Just wondering why you decided it was non-notable. I found those 4 english sources that were about the club and I'd guess that there'd be more in Tamil, which I dont know how to look for. Corpx 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Madras Bulls. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corpx 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

Please stop leaving harassing messages on my talk page, or you will be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. 72.128.82.211 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thank you for blocking Sportyplaya1188 I am trying to get reviews so do you mind reviewing me at Wikipedia:Editor review/SLSB? Thanks. SLSB talk ER 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 7 recent deletions

You deleted 7 redirect pages on the grounds that they were "implausible typos." This was not at all the case. They are commonly used (and correctly spelled) terms for the 7 Harry Potter books. They constitute abbreviations or alternate terms, which are allowed per WP:REDIRECT. Exploding Boy 02:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate that in the English language the expression "Book 7" is universally regarded as a synonym or abbreviation of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", etc. I had assumed that no one would think such a thing and therefore my impression was that your edits had been in some way unintentional. See also User talk:Exploding Boy#Redirects. Regards, High on a tree 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Google]. The first 3 pages of 865,000,00 hits returned in a search on "Book 7" are all regarding HPATDH. Exploding Boy 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your response. Exploding Boy 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue; I answer when I have time to respond. If you'd made them disambiguation pages, they would have been kept. To suggest that book 1 refers to Potter, rather than, say, the bible, or LOTR, or any number one in a well know series, is just a systematic bias due to the recency effect of release of the last book. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the reason you gave when you deleted the pages, and I'm not sure that's even a valid reason to delete redirect pages. Additionally, besides the Google evidence provided above the terms "Book 1, Book 2" and so on are widely used and understood within Harry Potter fandom, and also within the articles themselves, where they're used as a system of citation. I fail to see why disambiguation pages "would have been kept" when there's apparently no need for such pages--if they would have been kept as disambiguation pages, then they can be kept as redirect pages and become disambig pages if the need arises. I think that any suggestion of bias, "systemic" or otherwise, is hyperbolic. These are redirect pages we're talking about. Exploding Boy 23:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be quicker to restore the pages rather than continuing this trivial argument. Is that what you want? --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Exploding Boy 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate

I really appreciate you blocking User:72.128.82.211 for me. THANKS!! Vandalfighter101 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block. Was it just an IP block? Because he can get around that. He's harassed me with a half dozen or more IPs. He could be Vandalfighter101 for all I know. Lara Love 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gretel image needed

Hey ya Stephen! How goes it? We needed an image on the Gretel Killeen page and I uploaded one taken by a fan because someone emailed me about putting one up. You removed it for some reason (wasn't explained in the history page)? I'll email the copyright owner and ensure the permission is available to send you and anyone else that deletes images made available for this page so we can try again perhaps.

Your deletion of Fran Mérida

I think the result should have been no consensus, as per the DRV that overturned the previous AFD. It is clear that there is no consensus to delete, however many "votes" delete got (9-5 in the latest AFD, which is quite a low marging for a delete). Furthermore there seems to be evidence of canvassing, and some of the deletes had no argument, while most keep did. The nom itself was WP:IDONTLIKEIT! I am asking you revise and self-overturn based on this, before a WP:DRV is raised, as per WP:WMD. Thanks!--Cerejota 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article clearly meets a few of the criterions listed on WP:BIO and the article will likely be restored as soon as he makes his first appearance anyway. No point in clinging to a black & white rule that says any player who hasn't made an appearance is non-notable, while he has been the subject of multiple published reliable sources. Yonatan ^talk 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to WP:DRV --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, just following WP:WMD :D...Thanks!--Cerejota 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Tim Osman

This user posted an unblock request. I am, obviously, not too sympathetic given his behavior but I felt it was worth asking you about two things. First, a 3RR block is normally 24 hours, especially for users without a 3RR block history: this one is a week, so a bit extra explanation is required. Also, I'm quite concerned that your block of Tim Osman without so much as a warning to the other party (NYScholar) is not evenhanded. Could you please explain your block in a little more detail to Tim, and look into NYScholar's behavior in the case? Thanks. Mango juice^talk 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accept the false statements on that user's talk page at face value. He was blocked for WP:3RR violations for 48 hours already a few days ago now. The material that he wrote in response clearly shows his behavior to violate Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, along with WP:NPA. I was not blocked for WP:Vandalism, as he falsely states. I was blocked for reverting what I perceived as his clearcut vandalism (introduction of slanderous statements not supported by reliable and verifiable sources into the article's lead and main text, ignoring the fact that the matters that he was adding had full section and subsection devoted to them).

I have spent many, many hours trying to straighten out the problems that he caused when he deleted previously-updated reliable and verifiable notes citations in the article Joseph C. Wilson. The history of the problem is detailed in my own talk page, now in archive 12. I suggest that you consult it. In none of that new user's editing did he follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, despite clearly-tagged notices; he posted no editing summaries; he posted no prior comments on the talk page of the article and no subsequent comments on the talk page of the article; he refused to sign his comments with four tildes. I had simply posted a level-3 vandalism warning on his talk page (following several other complaints about uploading of images by others--mostly bots)--to which he had engaged in more shouting (all caps); no signatures. In reponse to my civil posting of the template(s), he engaged in more shouting and then personal attacks. He deleted my templates from his talk page (after I posted the WP:ANI following those templates when the slander to the biography of a living person continued through his reverts--which I considered and consider vandalism). A few days ago, he was blocked for WP:3RR violations; then the blocking administrator blocked me (without reading the article or checking the "diffs."), who was looking at what another non-admin. user claimed were "5 reverts" by me (I marked the 3 that were "reverts" of what he was doing as "persistent vandalism" and filed a report with WP:ANI. The 3 reverts that I engaged in were of potentially-slanderous material in a biography of a living person and exempt from WP:3RR--"remove on sight" was what I was following; 2 other edits that I made were not reverts of him; they were corrections to material that I had added to the article before he came along and reverted it--he had deleted all the notes citations, changed heading to POV headings, etc. In order to see this, one needs to consult the history of the article more carefully. More recently, after his 48-block expired, he returned to carry out his threat to re-enter all the same additions into the article. I filed another WP:ANI report and posted another level-3 template (Please stop) on his talk page; he deleted the template(s) and copied them and posted them with nasty comments on my talk page and kept inserting personal attacks against me first into Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and then, after I deleted them, and after he was blocked from editing other pages in Wikipedia, he posted them in his own talk page. I removed one egregious false statement about me, substituting the WP:NPA template (with ellipsis ...).

His claim that I am vandalizing his material is absurd. He had clearly not bothered to read the whole article; it already develops criticism of Wilson and Wilson's reponses to it. It already cites fully the matter. He was inserting undocumented statements that former Ambassador Wilson and his wife have "lied" in the lead and elsewhere in the article in incoherent manners, not improving the article, but vandalizing it.

Please see User talk:NYScholar and also User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12. (I have worked very hard to correct typographical problems in that article; it was being updated and cleaned up when he came along and reverted the work of previous editors with no discussion on the talk page of the article. It is a controversial article and requires "full citations" according to WP:CITE and WP:BLP.) Thank you. --NYScholar 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HarrysCafedeWheelsLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:HarrysCafedeWheelsLogo.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Fran Mérida

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fran Mérida. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathwatch2006

You blocked editor Deathwatch2006 indefinitely on June 30, 2007. That editor's sock puppets have been busy ever since and I have recorded their activities on the checkuser page, as follows: Deathwatch2006

Warmaustunbridgewells (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Psychodadak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Parkstreet17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Wilhelm Keitel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
AndyArcher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tunbridgewellpsychopath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Roderick Dadak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
KarlDoenitz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Johnde517Mol (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RICHARD GEOFFREY ASHTON (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Deathwatch2006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sarahdarling (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Konalgia911 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Deathwatch2006 was indefinitely blocked on June 30, 2007 for continually uploading copyrighted images. Since then, that editor's sock puppets have been active disrupting, vandalising and generally edit warring, mainly to Radio North Sea International. Today, Psychodadak has uploaded another copyrighted image on Talk:Radio North Sea International. I think the time has come to block the IP address of Deathwatch2006, which I believe is 209.59.32.71. The latter IP address decided to vandalise my own user page yesterday (July 23)!

Grateful if you could block the appropriate IP address asap.Phase4 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warmaustunbrigewells vandalised the Edwin Bollier article on July 24, 2007 as well as uploading an unlicensed image. Also, another possibly related IP address, 67.55.18.209, has vandalised my user page.Phase4 08:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: trekerboy

Stephen, I don't understand why you are following me about wikipedia reverting my changes, deleting my comments, and effectively erasing all the contributions I have made to wikipedia, especially concerning Zeitgeist, the movie. You reverted my request for a new article creation [2], deleted my comments on multiple pages, and despite my best efforts I can't find your comment on why you think that Zeitgeist, the movie is not "notable". I'd like to know why since you cite it as a reason for the article deletion. I mean doesn't archived debate on this admin page [3] combined with the 20,000 words contributed to the debate [4] prove it's notability?

Please stop censoring me. By all means, if I am violating some terms, policy, rules or whatever please let me know, I will gladly augment my behavior if needed to be able to contribute to wikipedia, but to date I do not think that I have. --Trekerboy 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following you around "erasing all the contributions you have made to wikipedia". Zeitgeist was deleted at an AfD, and not by me, for the reasons outlined by the deleting admin. If you want the article so badly then you will have to file a request at WP:DRV, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions. You may want to spend a little time actually reading some guidelines about the content we allow here, rather than spouting daft conspiracy theories. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Sorry, I reported the wrong IP there. The editor was using a different IP to revert an older incarnation user page. Joehazelton sock. My mistake. Tried to put this on AIV, but too many edit conflicts. - Crockspot 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet article spammer back

Thanks for protecting the Usenet article from a repeat spammer back on July 13th, however the protection expired today and the spammer immediately came back and re-added the link as 86.108.68.17 (Talk). I undid the spam again and posted a warning on the IP address' talk page, but it looks like that probably won't stop him. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Hi Ev 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you suggested blocking each IP address individually as he spams again, but I don't think that will work. He's put the spam back in the article four times since the article's protection expired via. four totally different IP addresses. The IP addresses are from all over the world too, so he's probably using some kind of anonymizing proxy. In order of use he's spammed from: 86.108.68.17 (Jordan Data Communication Ltd., Aman, Jordan), 221.140.39.78 (Hanaro Telecom, Inc., Seoul, Korea), 201.92.173.35 (Telecomunicacoes de Sao Paulo - TELESP, Brazil), and 71.239.84.13 (Comcast Cable Communications, NJ, USA). It's a shame there isn't some way to automatically block edits that contain some specific text for situations like this one. (Or is there is a bot for this that I'm unaware of?) Unless you have a better idea, I think the article is just going to have to be protected again, and this time for a longer period. Thanks again. -- Hi Ev 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's RFA

Stephen, it was a support, because I placed it under the Support subsection. It doesn't matter what is placed in bold text, it matters what subsection. Sebi _[talk] 10:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Please

I am not familiar on what to do when reporting vandalism for I have not yet focused on this much. I di notice not a couple weeks back some vandalism on Kottonmouth Kings members Johnny Richter and D-Loc by a user with the IP address 70.128.112.10. These are the links to the changes the user made; Johnny Richter and D-Loc. Besides just showing these links I'd appreciate knowing the link to learn more about vandalism. Thank You. Apologies2all 12:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Spreading its wings

According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, "pages in the User and User talk namespaces" "may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia."
Do you have a specific objection to the proposed deletion of this particular page, or was your removal of the template purely procedural (based upon the belief that "talk pages don't get deleted")? —David Levy 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misread the dates, now deleted. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 11:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) —David Levy 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and Enemies

Hi, Why was this article deleted without answering the existing talk first? Leondz 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't a notable book, as outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (books). And reviews at its Amazon or B&N page don't count as they are not the mainstream press. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply me with a copy of the deleted page please?Leondz 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see your talk --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:12.144.5.2

Is there a precedent for deleting userpages of inactive users? I thought that principle only applied to temporary Wikipedian pages, of people who have been indefinitely banned. I was not aware that the same was applied to users who had just merely left. If so, WP:MW has a lot of pages to delete. hbdragon88 06:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages of editors who made a few edits, and mostly to their userpages, are prodded, usually to stop MySpace type pages, or some free hosting. I don't see the need to delete the pages of those that made a significant contribution, even if they've permanently gone, but others may have a different opinion. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the user in question, and his page seemed to have been usurped by someone who had posted a technical manual or somesuch in its place, over 30 edits or so, probably as a free web host. --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, i know about those users (I've prodded quite a few of those), but this IP address has quite a contribution history. hbdragon88 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:24.218.46.142

Hi Steve, just for future reference, and just in case you didn't know, the said I.P. address is also User talk:DivineprimeTTn. Apologies if you already knew! All the best. Scarian ^Talk 07:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YahELite

You've deleted this article apparently under the presumption that it is spam or advertising. It is not, at least not any moreso than the YIM article or Windows Messenger article. It is a very popular chat client, and is worthy of an article. Please undelete it (and possibly allow discussion on how the article could be improved). Wakandas black panther 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YahELite --Stephen^1-800-STEVE 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was for the old article. It's dated Feb,2006. But since there's no one around to debate the point of keeping a new one, you might as well leave it deleted(yay for the opinion of one). ~ Wakandas black panther 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking usernames

I just saw you had blocked one, so here are a couple more that may need at least a notification for change (I really don't know the policy, but these stood out):

EDIT: More

— Bob • (talk) • 01:38, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Stephen, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]