Jump to content

User talk:East718: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Linesnewly username (talk) to last version by MER-C
←Replaced content with 'OK. What do you want to talk about?--~~~~'
Line 1: Line 1:
OK. What do you want to talk about?--[[User:James458|James458]] ([[User talk:James458|talk]]) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
{{/New comments go at the bottom; please do not edit this line}}

== Funny! ==

Thanks for stepping in that DarkFalls issue. It's that kind of contention that made me drop out of this project for the long term on more than one occasion, but I have to tell you, you made me feel better. Reciprocating with a cookie! --[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[Image:Choco chip cookie.jpg|100px|left]]

[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! <br />

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{tls|Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div><!-- Template:Cookie -->

== Images uploaded by Mr. CF ==

Could you please research this a little? I notice that you deleted [[:Image:Mormeck.jpg]], and in researching the image [[:Image:B-Pac.jpg]] I discovered that it appears on [http://www.fightwriter.com/?q=node/1294] with the photo credit "CHRIS FARINA, Top Rank Promotions". Can you contact [[User:Mr. CF]] to verify that they are in fact the same Chris Farina who took the photo, and if they are it seems likely that the Mormeck photo was also legitimate, but just not properly licensed. One question to ask, is even if he took the photo, does he own rights to it or not? [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.57|199.125.109.57]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.57|talk]]) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi! You're right about the questionable source and the issue of it possibly being a work for hire, so I've deleted the image. I've sent Top Rank an email asking them to get in touch with [[m:OTRS|OTRS]] if they'd like to donate any photos to us. Thanks for the tip, anon! [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 19:06, May 10, 2008''</small>]]

==Flowing Hair Dollar==
Why did you delete the images from [[Flowing Hair Dollar]]? Is there any way to get them back? I am not going to contribute to Wikipedia if you are going to randomly delete stuff. --[[User:Freshmutt|Freshmutt]] ([[User talk:Freshmutt|talk]]) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:I think there are special rules about photographing coins and paper money. The rules can be confusing, but although I am not East718, I want to encourage you to continue to contribute, especially because there are so few images in Wikipedia (partly because of the strict copyright requirements). From the stated reason for deletion "(CSD I6: No justification given for fair use for more than seven days)"[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3A1795+flowing+hair+dollar+obverse.jpg&year=&month=-1] it looks like there was not a proper copyright notice on the image. In the case of a 1795 coin there would possibly just need to be a notice that it was so old that any copyright had expired. I would suggest looking for some other articles with coins and see what license notice they used, such as [[Indian Head nickel]], or [[Seated Liberty dollar]]. I think all you had to do is under the license section choose <nowiki>{{money-US}}</nowiki>. Please also check to see if it is ok to upload to commons instead, as all pd images are being moved to the commons. see [[commons:dollar]] [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.104|199.125.109.104]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.104|talk]]) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
::Again, the anon is right - the real issue here was that the image was mistagged: they were actually free. I've restored the images, put them back in the article, and filled out their information pages correctly. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 19:06, May 10, 2008''</small>]]

Super. If you know all about tags, and I obviously don't, why didn't you just fix it in the first place? I had the same problem with an album cover I uploaded to [[Skynyrd's Innyrds]]. Is there any way to restore that with proper tags?--[[User:Freshmutt|Freshmutt]] ([[User talk:Freshmutt|talk]]) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've restored that image and fixed it up too - it was deleted by another admin for a really silly reason. The reason why I delete images rather than fix them is that there is a very serious and perennial backlog with regards to copyright infringement; it's at around 10,000 images right now and over 100,000 a couple months ago. Most of these images are very problematic, and [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|the task has been laid out]]. It is far faster and safer from a legal perspective to slash-and-burn through these backlogs and accept the 1% of good images that get deleted as collateral damage, rather than spend far more time tirelessly applying potentially baseless fair use rationales. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 21:40, May 17, 2008''</small>]]

==Rogue Images==
You wrote:
<blockquote>There is no evidence that Rogue is licensed under the GFDL. </blockquote>east.718 at 15:24, May 9, 2008
::From the uploads contribution log....
::# 00:35, 26 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot Thumb.JPG‎ (<tt>{{</tt>Information |Description=Rogue (computer game) Unix Screen Shot |Source=self-made |Date=2008-04-25 |Copyright (c) 2008 |Copyleft (cl) 2008 GFDL |Author=Arthur_Transformation |other_versions=None. |Note:Parts of the software used to create this image are) (top)
:hmm.. What does it say there? Looks like it has both a copyright, a copyleft, and a creation source as well as GFDL. Hmm.. Some other policy yould like to quote? [[User:Artoftransformation|Artoftransformation]] ([[User talk:Artoftransformation|talk]]) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::You cannot make up a license of your choice for screenshots of a game, only the person or company that holds the intellectual property rights to the game has the authority to do that. And since myself and ^demon seem to be on your "assholes" list, I don't want to discuss the issue further. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 04:13, May 11, 2008''</small>]]
:Sweet! You have just invalidated a large number of images, both of game screen shots, but of a *lot* of other works, in terms of IP. Are all the Disney/Star Trek images here also invalid? [[User:Artoftransformation|Artoftransformation]] ([[User talk:Artoftransformation|talk]]) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
:Once again, a tiny amount of reasearch ( like actually READING wikipedia ) would have helped you a lot. To wit: [[]] "

This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

* for identification and critical commentary on
o the computer or video game in question or
o the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
* on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Wikipedia:Non-free content."
:Did I put you on any other lists? [[User:Artoftransformation|Artoftransformation]] ([[User talk:Artoftransformation|talk]]) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

== Bobby Pacquiao ==

Was the image on the Bobby Pacquiao article really copyvio? Didn't the uploader provided sufficient information? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.130.128.115|71.130.128.115]] ([[User talk:71.130.128.115|talk]]) 05:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The uploader falsely claimed that the image was self-authored; a little investigation by a different user found that the image was actually taken by Chris Farina for Top Rank Promotions. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 17:35, May 11, 2008''</small>]]
::I see the point. However, that user managed to add information such as telling where and when the picture was taken. Also, part of the uploader's username might be an acronym of the copyright holder. [[Special:Contributions/71.130.128.115|71.130.128.115]] ([[User talk:71.130.128.115|talk]]) 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, but we can't just take the word of some anonymous user as to their identity (ostensibly, this is to protect the copyrights of the people whom the uploaders claim to be). There's also the issue of the image possibly being a work for hire; either way, I've shot off some correspondence to Top Rank asking them about the copyright status of the image and whether they'd like to donate some images to Wikimedia by relicensing them as suitably free. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#008080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 07:04, May 12, 2008''</small>]]

== unprotection... ==

Hi - Your note [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APro-pedophile_activism&diff=211361123&oldid=211046923 on the PPA talk page] indicates you were going to unprotect the article, but it's still locked. Did you change your mind or are you still planning to proceed with that? Thanks --[[User:Jack-A-Roe|Jack-A-Roe]] ([[User talk:Jack-A-Roe|talk]]) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

==AN/I reverts==
I saw your comment, Beta rolled over both our edits with his latest revert though.. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:Fortunately, you've both stopped. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#008080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 07:04, May 12, 2008''</small>]]

== Lady Pearl Photo and Article ==

I'm wondering why Image:606 LadyPearl2.jpg and its accompanying article, "Lady Pearl," got deleted.

I don't know anything about copyright law, all I know is that I got verbal permission from the person who took the picture (who was also in the picture) and tried to note that: "This photo was taken from the following MySpace site with permission from the subject. It was taken at home with a digital camera and The Lady Pearl gives permission for this photo to be used. http://www.myspace.com/theladypearl" Is that information not relevant? Does copyright law really apply to personal photographs? Is someone who takes a family photo considered an "artist"?

And how about the article? I've tried searching the February deletion log for my login, "lady pearl" and "ladypearl" and I'm not coming up with anything.


I'd also like to know more about why you (East718) felt justified in deleting the photo, and, if it was you, the article, and how it feels to be, in many cases, something of an arbiter of pop culture. How do you decide what's too provincial, too unimportant? How is this forum different from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if entries have to prove national or global importance to be included?

Thanks
[[User:Csflannery|Csflannery]] ([[User talk:Csflannery|talk]]) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== Rfb participation thanks ==

Hello, East718.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion|bureaucratic discussion]], the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==RfA==
Was there supposed to be a !vote to go along with this?[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCoppertwig&diff=212024106&oldid=212004327] If not, you might consider putting it on the talk page to avoid confusion (or maybe putting it under Neutral). [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] ([[User talk:Raymond arritt|talk]]) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

== Award ==



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #EEEEEE;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:Dykbb.png|80px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The [[Wikipedia]] [[Wikipedia:Creating a bot|Bot Builder]] Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your image query bot that introduced me to BOTing '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
|}




</noinclude>

==uh==
"[edit] Re: Dear Bonehead
Your entire contribution history over the past four years amounts to nothing but an amalgam of self-promotional spam, vandalism, trolling, and harassment. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Can you think of any reason why we should keep you around here? east.718 at 10:06, February 24, 2008"

No personal attacks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/138.163.0.41|138.163.0.41]] ([[User talk:138.163.0.41|talk]]) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== {{user|Trip to Sunderland}} ==

Hi. Can I ask if there was any particular reason motivating your blocking of this user at this point? I'm not disagreeing with it in any way -- it would just be useful to understand why the action was taken at this point.

Thanks!

[[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's a sleeper sock of somebody who creates hundreds of them to waste time; if you're asking about the timing, I think Dmcdevit found it when he was running an IP check or something for me. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 19:03, May 13, 2008''</small>]]
::I was just wondering if there was any particular reason given the block history. Thanks -- that's exactly what I thought was going on. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] <sup>[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]</sup> 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

== Deletion of my Userpage. ==

Has it ever occured that some userpages took ALOT of time to put together?!? If something on the page violates the policy, delete the damn part that violates the policy, not the entire freakin page. That took me over 5 hours to make. Sure, i'll remove all the personably identifable info. But deleting the entire page without first contacting me? Wikipedia isn't my parent and i don't need them for that. the main reason why most of that stuff was on there was a reference poiont, for me. I can't even remember my own ICQ number most of the time. Please consider others before following policy. Could the page please be recreated and i will remove any personal identifiable info. <small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:LukeTheSpook|The Spooky One]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> | <sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:LukeTheSpook|t]] [[Special:Contributions/LukeTheSpook|c]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/LukeTheSpook|r]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
*Just because I'm young doesn't mean i'm uneducated. There are some sick people out there. But thankfully, wikipedia is mostly a safe environment. I'll take your advice and remove some of the more personably identifiable info. I understand why people would fuss over it, but it's not like i'm a small child who doesn't know any better. I'm 1 1/2 years away from legally being an adult. I've registered my Email not and it can be sent.<small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:LukeTheSpook|The Spooky One]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> | <sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:LukeTheSpook|t]] [[Special:Contributions/LukeTheSpook|c]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/LukeTheSpook|r]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::{{Talkback|LukeTheSpook|Your Userpage}}

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for being overprotective... <small>- -<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:LukeTheSpook|The Spooky One]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> | <sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:LukeTheSpook|t]] [[Special:Contributions/LukeTheSpook|c]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/LukeTheSpook|r]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
|}

== Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg ==

Hi,

You deleted [[:Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg]] some time ago because it was unused for 7 days. The image was unused because [[UniModal]] was deleted. UniModal's deletion was overturned, and I was wondering if you would undelete the picture. Let me know.

Thanks [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] ([[User talk:Fresheneesz|talk]]) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks very much! [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] ([[User talk:Fresheneesz|talk]]) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== The Special Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:SpecialBarnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being way overprotective <small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:LukeTheSpook|The Spooky One]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small>
|}

== WBOSITG's RfA ==

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F0F0FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAACC;">
Hello East718, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WBOSITG 2|my RfA]] which was '''passed''' with a final tally of '''114/10/4'''. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
</div>

== Recall? ==

Hello sorry for my impolitness. But are you open to recall? <font color="Brown" face="Arial" size="2"> :) [[User talk:Save_the_humans|Save The Humans]]:) </font> 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

==Thank you for looking into our case==

I thought that I was doing the right by posting Vandalism Warnings on Panel 2008's talkpage.
I only did so because Panel 2008 was editing against consensus and he knew that.

I thought that repetitive edits against consensus was vandalism, am I wrong?

<span style="background-color: green; color: white">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">⇨&nbsp;'''EconomistBR'''&nbsp;⇦</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:EconomistBR|<span style="color: green;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</small> 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== Re: AN3 ==

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'm at a loose end with this particular editor. The underlying problem is that he just doesn't seem to "get" the concept of original research (or refuses to read the policy page on it) and fails to understand when he is beginning to engage in it, particularly when he is drawing his maps, which he does so like to do. He also, when challenged for sources, has a tendency to do some Googling and then cite self-published websites (ie personal websites uploaded to the web by "some guy") or another map uploaded to Wikipedia. How does one deal with someone who just plain refuses to change their behaviour here? And - worse - when it's at articles whose talk pages have very low foot-traffic and can often be weeks before someone else chimes in - if at all? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:I believe that [[User:Red4tribe]] is evading his two week ban by reverting at [[Italian Empire]] whilst logged out. [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Italian_Empire&curid=999988&diff=212747155&oldid=212688418] <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">[[User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="red">'''The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick'''</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick|<font color="blue">'''t'''</font>]]</sup></span> 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== Requesting deletion ==

* 16:52, May 13, 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008" ‎ (csd g6)
You didn't delete the [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Uga_Man/presidential_campaign%2C_2008 associated talk page]. I CSDed it but the tag was removed. Shouldn't that be deleted as well? '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. IMO, it was a speedy candidate. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

==Regarding a decision in 3RR==
Hi, regarding your decision on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Panel_2008_reported_by_User:Buffer_v2_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29|this case]] - I would like to say, that while I appreciate the block against Panel_2008, I think you may have the wrong idea of the situation. EconomistBR and the user who posted with his IP should not have been warned/blocked. Panel_2008 is a vandal, who continues to violate consensus, who brings no reliable sources to discussion, and concentrates his edits on nationalistic, biased POV. Proposal II was agreed on, and stopped months of edit warring. It solved all problems between most parties, and the only person who is violating it is Panel 2008. A page like this cannot exist without a proposal reached by consensus - it attracts too many uses who have nationalistic goals (if you understand geography, you'd understand that Central Europe includes some Eastern European countries - and E. Europe still having a negative connotation to it due to the Cold War, is a less desirable term than C. Europe). What EconomistBR and the IP user were doing were simply enforcing concensus - trying to get rid of Panel 2008's vandal edits. Panel 2008 has also been asked countless amounts of times to bring his OWN proposals and the rest of the users would vote on it - he declined, and has never really shown any reliable sources at all. All he continues to do is edit the pages to suit his nationalistic goals. My question is (since I'm somewhat new to the whole behind-the-scenes issues on Wikipedia): how much longer will it take for this user to get blocked from editing? It's been 2-3 months and we're all pretty tired of it. --[[User:Buffer v2|Buffer v2]] ([[User talk:Buffer v2|talk]]) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

==Concerning unprotection of [[Pro-pedophile activism]]==
Although I was hoping that, once the page was unprotected, editors would edit in a gradual cooperative manner to achieve consensus and would be cautious about introducing significant controversial changes, [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] has decided that the article is his or her own to mold to whatever he or she wants. Since unprotection, this editor has [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=212521459&oldid=212436347 completely revamped] the entire article, without getting any sort of consensus or giving other users time to address incremental changes. The article is now nothing what it used to be, and there's far too many individual changes to address in a gradual manner. I'm not sure how to deal with this situation, seeing as reverting to the version that was under protection would remove all the intermediate edits (some of which may indeed be legitimate), even those by [[User:Jack-A-Roe|another editor]] who did not introduce any radical controversial changes. What PetraSchelm did goes way beyond being bold - this is down-right disrespectful to all the editors who contributed countless hours to making this article what it was before this unilateral day-long editing spree to completely alter the article.

Your assistance is requested in regards to this new development. I regret to admit it, but I would personally recommend protecting the article anew, seeing as the message clearly did not sink in for PetraSchelm, and there is no easy or accessible way to assess or undo individual edits by this editor, since so much information and so many sections have been altered in such as short time, some beyond recognition. If protection is viewed as unfavorable, please remind PetraSchelm that unprotection was carried out on the assumption that editors would seek consensus prior to incorporating controversial edits. Likewise, time should be given for others to respond to proposals on the Talk Page and to new incremental edits to the article. It is unrealistic for PetraSchelm to expect everyone else to spend 24/7 watching and editing pedophilia-related articles in the manner he or she does. Most users simply don't have that kind of time, and don't have the opportunity to respond to dozens of consecutive edits, all carried out within the span of a single day. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:Those edits look accurate and well-referenced to me. I didn't do much editing on the article today, but I did add several references and as I did so, I reviewed the changes and found them appropriate. Most of the changes appear directly related to the extensive talk page discussion that has been in progress during the time the article was protected. Petra has been asking for feedback on the talk page all along - the fact that others did not respond during the time of protection does not mean that the opportunity for discussion was not offered. Why did no-one respond and discuss while it was protected?

:Any information that's incorrect or badly-referenced should be addressed. But just because it's different than it was before does not mean it's wrong. Solidly-sourced accurate material is what the encyclopedia needs.

:I support the improved version as it is at the time I'm writing this note; also, I acknowledge that others may see it differently. The way to handle that is to review and discuss the edits, like any other article. These changes are not sudden, they've been on the talk page for weeks. --[[User:Jack-A-Roe|Jack-A-Roe]] ([[User talk:Jack-A-Roe|talk]]) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::What [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] has done is pretty much contest everything within the article and delete (or move to the Talk Page) whatever he or she doesn't like. When an editor questions every single word, without providing much significant consensus-backed reasoning for changing something, and does this at a 24/7 rate, it's no surprise that other editors would not respond to every single thing he or she posts on the Talk Page. Besides, even if posting on the Talk Page in the manner that PetraSchelm does is a sufficient notice of an edit, it is generally best to introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually. Spending an entire day to revamp a contested article shows no respect to other involved editors, who may agree with some changes but not with others. Likewise, it's hard to keep up with an editor that lives and breathes pedophilia-related articles, when most users don't have that luxury of time.

::Lastly, PetraSchelm did not gain consensus on or even discuss all the edits he or she recently introduced. For instance, where did this editor see any consensus to remove the entire "Scientific claims" section from the article? Outside of the newly started thread on the Talk Page, the only other section that addressed the concerns PetraSchelm had to this regard definitely had no clear consensus. Besides, presence of what one editor considers weasel words is not sufficient enough of a reason to remove a whole section. If the editor is worried about some particular words, it's up to him or her to address this concern, especially when others have already expressed their views on the issue. Considering that this is one of the longest-standing sections of the article, and there's more than enough supporting evidence for the passages in question, there's really no excuse for acting in a unilateral manner as did PetraSchelm. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 04:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::The entire scientific claims section needs to be attributed (something even Daniel Lievre agreed with on his one day sojourn to the talkpage). I also noticed in the talkpage archives that this isn't the first time someone has pointed that out. Moving it to talk is a good impetus to get people work on attributing it/taking out the weasel words (We're not talking ''some'' weasel words--not once is anything attributed in that section, it's one "some argue..." after another.) And talkpage discussion was posted about that weeks ago, but not once did I see you address it or do any work on attribution...-[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Here;s the discussion--more than two weeks old: [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Weasel_words_in_.22scientific_claims.22_section] -[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]], within the very section you reference above, Daniel Lièvre attempted to find a way to address your concerns, but you would have none of it. Besides, you still haven't explained how moving the entire text of a long-standing well-sourced section is justified by concern over some possible weasel words. All the assertions within the passage are sourced, so I'm not sure what problem you see here. If you wish to improve the section, please do so, but there's no reason to completely remove it from the article and to expect others to do introduce changes on the Talk Page to address your personal concerns. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::The problem isn't "some weasel words," it's that without attribution it's a complete compilation of original research, as I stated in the discussion linked above (in which you have never participated, curiously enough). The onus is on those who would like to include information to show that it is verifiable. And I'm quite sure that if I went through the section, pruned it, and attributed it all to mhamic (which is the only source I know of that makes those arguments) there would be nothing but complaints. So if you know how to attribute some of those statements, why not work on that.-[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Homologeo, Daniel Lièvre was almost immediately indef blocked for engaging in pedophile related disruption, so hardly an editor we should be looking up to. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::That has nothing to do with this situation. Suggestions for the article have to be judged on their own merit, not based on who makes them. You surely know this by now. It doesn't matter what happened to Daniel Lièvre, because what is of concern here are his contributions to the discussion in question. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Er, you're glossing over the fact that even the immediately blocked pro-pedophile activist Daniel admitted the section needed to be attributed. Meanwhile, you seem to have done nothing on-wiki for the last 48 hours except complain about this in multiple locations, after never participating in the discussion, or doing anything then or now to attribute it so it's not original research... -[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I think you are msissing my point, which is that it was such comments that were, to my m,ind at least, part oft eh disruptive comments that got him blocked. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:Claiming that Petra thinks or acts as if she owns the article is an OTT reaction, IMO, Homologeo. Yes, she was being [[WP:BOLD]] butt hat is surely a good thing, and she has been trying to address the issues that have resulted in the totally disputed tag being ont he article for a year or so now. I strongly oppose re-protection based on what has happened to date, I am hoping to edit the article myself when I have a little more time over the next few days. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::I concur with SqueakBox and also strongly oppose re-protection. Protection was needed due to the wave of sock-puppets and that situation has resolved.

::For perspective: After protection was placed, it took a week or so to sort out the multiple sockpuppet issues. After the last sock was blocked on April 26, during the next 3 weeks there were around 110 posts talk page comments - approx half posted by [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] - that's a lot of comments offering opportunity for discussion of content. Of the remaining 50-some comments by others - a half-dozen were IP strangeness and several were about the page protection and not content related. That leaves around 40-some comments entered by 6 or 7 editors, including around six from me.

::Those 55 or so talk page comments from [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] during 3 weeks of page protection did exactly what [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] wrote: ''" introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually."'' If other editors chose not to respond, what does that show? Lack of concern? Tacit agreement? A belief that it's not worth discussing protected pages? I don't know that answers, but it's clear on the talk page that most of the content and referencing concerns she expressed did not receive replies.

::While the edits were bold, they were not done without discussion or advance notice. [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] entered 55 or more comments discussing the edits in advance. --[[User:Jack-A-Roe|Jack-A-Roe]] ([[User talk:Jack-A-Roe|talk]]) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::As I pointed out elsewhere, what [[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] did is either criticize or remove from the article everything he or she didn't like. If involved editors have already established that something belongs in the article in its current shape, and the issue in question has been discussed a number of times before, there is no obligation for them to debate the issue time and time again. What's more, simply posting on the Talk Page does not equate to consensus. Likewise, it's quite likely that others chose to not respond due to possibly poorly justified criticisms the editor introduced. As for my own decision not to comment on much of the threads started by PetraSchelm - besides my lack of time to edit at this individual's rate, I do not have the necessary background to adequately address the technical issues presented. This is why I was waiting for individuals more versed in the research and texts to respond. On another note, a great deal of PetraSchelm's criticism is centered around his or her own discontent with particular sources, based on the claim that they are somehow inappropriate. Since these sources have been shown to be appropriate multiple times before by individuals who are sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject, my input would not have furthered the discussion that much.

:::Please also note that, even if some of the changes that PetraSchelm wanted to introduce were listed on the Talk Page in a gradual manner, there still has been no explanation for why the editor chose to introduce them all at once within less than a day after unprotection, knowing full well this would make it very difficult for others to judge incremental edits on an individual basis. What I'm concerned here is PetraSchelm overwhelming other editors and the article in general with his or her edits, making it hard for all of his or her changes to be properly evaluated. Truth be told, what matters is what happens to the article, not just what is said on the Talk Page, and PetraSchelm's editing conduct within the article is what I personally found disrespectful. Lastly, please do not assume my lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy or as something else of that sort, because I have never claimed to have specialized knowledge of this subject. Unlike several other editors, I do not assert to have read many research studies, or to have done my own research within this topic area. What I'm concerned with is maintaining NPOV standards, watching out for civility, and assisting with general quality control on pedophilia-related pages. This is why most of my efforts go into critiques, rather than direct intervention with article content. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::::You didn't want the article to be changed at all, so don't pretend that what you are objecting to is how it was changed, or when, or by whom, with what talkpage discussion-- you're on the record saying: ''Why fix something that's not broken?'' and ''Well, you're free to think what you want. I would personally contend that the article is doing just fine.'' As for your ''lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy'' and '' This is why most of my efforts go into critiques''--exactly. You don't edit the article, you don't discuss on the talkpage--you just complain. Sorry, Homologeo, but get over it. That article hadn't changed much in three years, it's had a "totally disputed" tag for a year, and it was about time for some changes. If there's some ''particular'' change you don't like, tell us about it instead of endlessly harping on the fact that changes were made and you wanted the article to stay the same forever. All articles change--it's called eventualism. -[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Many changes have occurred since I stumbled onto the [[Pro-pedophile activism]] page, and I have not contested edits that actually made sense, which were incorporated in a civil and respectful manner. As for my comment you mention - "Why fix something that's not broken?" - I still stick to it, and I honestly don't think the article was in that bad of a shape when you appeared out-of-nowhere and started trying to revamp it in its entirety. Next, please don't act as if I haven't contributed to the article over the time I have been involved with it - just checking the article's history or my contributions would suffice to demonstrate that I've contributed more than enough times. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, I tend to comment on the Talk Page on topics that I have some knowledge of or that deal with Wikipedia policies. When something is over my head, I don't interfere and never pretend to be any sort of expert. I think that's the smartest thing to do when an individual does not have specialized knowledge on a subject. Thus, what I usually focus on are the select areas where I am able to provide informative feedback and on critiques that center on Wikipedia policies. Sorry if you consider this to be "complaining." I simply do not intend to pretend to be an expert and to edit war in the way that you do.

:::::Moving on to the "Totally disputed" tag - the reason this has been attached to the article is because a couple editors have been bent on ripping the article apart for quite some time now. One editor in particular has refused to follow consensus on countless occasions and has made it amply clear that he intends to get rid of anything he considers to be so-called "pro-pedophile propaganda." However, despite his exaggerated concerns, time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter. This is partly why the "Totally disputed" tag has remained on top of the article - to appease this individual. Granted, he probably honestly believes what he says, so he should be treated seriously, thus the tag legitimately remains. Furthermore, once in a while, some editors do come around (much like yourself) who do not like the way the article is structured. This is yet another reason the tag is there. However, since up to this point, most involved editors have concluded, on a number of occasions, that the select users who find the article problematic are mistaken, the article has kept more or less a consistent shape, while keeping the tag on-top to recognize that certain parties disagree with its content. Howbeit, presence of disagreement is not sufficient justification for completely revamping the article.

:::::Finally, when I personally have the time to look into some of the multitude of edits you recently made (if I'm actually able to distinguish individual changes among them) and to research the issues on my own, I will indeed comment on, respond to, or possibly undo some of your contributions. All the while, my analysis (elucidated above) of your editing behavior since the unprotection of the article remains the same as before. ~ [[User:Homologeo|Homologeo]] ([[User talk:Homologeo|talk]]) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, what I "consider to be complaining" is these ginormous rants on poor East's page. (Instead of editing or discussing on talk if there's some edit you object to). It's hard to tell, but the gist of the most recent rant seems to be that it's all one person's fault (Squeakbox, I presume?) that there's been a totally disputed tag in the article for a year? When I read through the talk archives, that hardly seemed to be the case, nor did it seem to be that "time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter." Maybe you should lay off the peevish book-length ad homs for a while and go have a nice cup of [[WP:TEA]]. -[[User:PetraSchelm|PetraSchelm]] ([[User talk:PetraSchelm|talk]]) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::While Petra has far from resolved the problems on the PPA article she does at least address the real issues and in a way that tends towards NPOV, and that is to be commended, especially in the face of such persistent opposition. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

:My talk page isn't dispute resolution. I don't have the time to sort this out now, but will hopefully get to it in a few hours. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 00:14, May 16, 2008''</small>]]

==Deletion review for [[:Image:Jersey £1.jpg]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Image:Jersey £1.jpg|deletion review]] of [[:Image:Jersey £1.jpg]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.196.212|81.157.196.212]] ([[User talk:81.157.196.212|talk]]) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I would have restored this image, but another administrator beat me to it. If you need help writing a fair use rationale, please see [[WP:FURG]] or model it off another coin's; [[:Image:20pesos.jpg]] seems like a good choice. Don't hesistate to get back at me if you need any help. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#ff8c00 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 23:42, May 16, 2008''</small>]]

== Doctor Wikipedian ==

Hi, you tagged [[User:Doctor Wikipedian|Doctor Wikipedian]] as a sock of [[User:Dereks1x]]. I don't see where the a checkuser has been done though? I saw a page full of Dereks1x checkuser requests, but not with Doctor Wikipedian's name. As I wasted a lot of typing on that user, I'd like to look at the right confirmation - could you point me toward it, please? [[User:Aleta|<b><font color="#990066">'''Aleta'''</font></b>]] [[User_Talk:Aleta|<font color="#0095B6"><sup><small>'''Sing'''</small></sup></font>]] 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for filling me in, East. The ironic thing is that Doctor Wikipedian was practically begging everyone to do a checkuser (which I'm sure you know if you looked at his edits at all, since that's almost the only thing he did). [[User:Aleta|<b><font color="#990066">'''Aleta'''</font></b>]] [[User_Talk:Aleta|<font color="#0095B6"><sup><small>'''Sing'''</small></sup></font>]] 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

==[[Central Europe]]==
You know, it's a minimum requirement before undertaking administrative action that you have some actual idea of what's going. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, you ought not to be giving out advice and/or blocks, nor blindly supporting other admins' actions.

I am reverting a long-running unilateral edit-warrior's tendentious edits, in the aftermath of mediation case worked out without the slightest assistance from said warrior -- and your only worry is about which 'i' is dotted and which 't' is crossed? That's there's some sort of equivalence here between one edit-warrior and 16 opposers?

There WAS no 'edit war' -- there was an upholding of a literal consensus. There was no call for blocks and no call for uninformed warnings. The slightest skim of the evidence would have told you otherwise -- yet, you couldn't be bothered. This is NOT the standard one expects from an administrator. --[[Special:Contributions/221.114.141.220|221.114.141.220]] ([[User talk:221.114.141.220|talk]]) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:If there really was a solid consensus of "16 opposers", you shouldn't have to edit war. The correct way to go about things is to seek assistance from other editors, or in the case of a single disruptive editor to seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring only escalates the disruption and will do nothing except get everybody involved blocked.

== Derek's Laundry ==

Hi East718. The sock of Derek that you blocked ([[User:BVande|BVande]]) did apparently [[User_talk:Art_LaPella#Need_your_help|actually mail a copy of a drivers license]] ID'ing himself as a B. Vande to an admin. Given the history, I'm inclined to think forgery, but I was wondering if this is something that needs to be listed over at [[WP:LTA|long term abuse]] or somesuch place. Best, --[[User:Bfigura|<font color="Green">'''B'''</font><font color="Blue">figura</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Bfigura|talk]])</sup> 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi East. Thanks for taking care of the socks. I still do think it's odd that he keeps obtaining random licenses and using them to impersonate people: largely since I can't think of a legal way to do that. Has anyone considered forwarding this on to local law enforcement or postal inspectors? I know no one's really being harmed here (yet), but given that he's used multiple real or fake licenses, the potential seems to be there. (That said, I can't see what anyone would really do, other than file a report). Best, --[[User:Bfigura|<font color="Green">'''B'''</font><font color="Blue">figura</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Bfigura|talk]])</sup> 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

==Joelster==
ANI thread you might be interested in.[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Krimpet_for_blocking_User:Joelster.27s_IP] --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Mass deletion of talk pages... ==

If you're going to mass delete article talk pages that contain the genetics tag, please make sure they're not also tagged for other projects as well. Would you mind helping me by restoring [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team%2FMCB_articles_by_quality_log&diff=213128604&oldid=212218075 these] articles that you deleted? Many thanks. &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry about that. :-( I was mass deleting John Bot's new pages only and must have hit some without the little "N" tag. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 22:54, May 17, 2008''</small>]]
::No harm done. It's a good idea to take a look at pages before you speedy them though. :) &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Image deletion ==

Hello!
You deleted the image "BMP-1 03.jpg" ‎and wrote "no source, no license".
There was a source as well as it was a free public domain, so the image will be uploaded again!

Regards, Vladimir--[[User:Vladimir Historian|Vladimir Historian]] ([[User talk:Vladimir Historian|talk]]) 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== ANI review of one of your blocks ==

[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_block_reviews_.28Betacommand_and_Locke_Cole.29|ANI thread]] about one of your blocks. I think last time this happened you unblocked with unblock summary of ''"other participant in edit war has been unblocked"'' - since it has now been conclusively proven that Betacommand was the other participant in this latest edit war, and he has been unblocked, I suggest you do the same here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

== Olga Lehmann image deletion ==

East718, I noticed that you deleted, or commented on the deletion, of an image I uploaded to illustrate the Olga Lehmann entry. I would like to undo that deletion. As I'm the owner of the image, and have no copyright axes to grind about it, I shall attempt to reinstall it. However, I am not expert in the intricacies of this process, so my efforts may be a bit bungling, for which I hope you will forgive me, and if necessary, help me.

Thanks. [[User:Pahuson|Pahuson]] ([[User talk:Pahuson|talk]]) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.164.189.135]] ==

Follow up... :) --<small> [[User:White Cat/08|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:White Cat/08|chi?]]</sup> 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Nothing444]] block decrease?==
You may have remember the block of the above user. Some users are asking on his talk page that he be unblocked in a year instead of indef. I don't know what you I can do but it would be better if you took care of this. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, [[User:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Two people have said it as a "perhaps down the road..." kind of thing. But as far as I can see, there is no real desire to have this reduced. And this discussion were a few weeks ago. If there was a real desire, it would have been brought up vocally. [[User:Metros|Metros]] ([[User talk:Metros|talk]]) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::I personally agree but I would like East's opinions. Thank you.--[[User:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]''''') 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite." We can always revisit blocks sometime later, although this one was supported by the community they'd have to consent to an unblock. If Nothing444 wants to be unblocked, there's several different avenues of appeal for them to take alone, but I think it's telling that instead of doing so, they went directly to Commons, where there contributions have been of similar quality to those here. [[user:east718|<small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''east<big style="color:#090">.</big>718''' ''at 09:18, May 19, 2008''</small>]]

== Void title ==

Let me know when you are online and plan to be that way for awhile, because I need to have a word with you. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''[[User:Basketball110|My story]]'''</sup>/<sub>'''[[User talk:Basketball110|Tell me yours]]'''</sub> at 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== Thankyou ==

If I have no reason to apologize to you, then I should at least thank you. [[User:Joelster|Joelster]] ([[User talk:Joelster|talk]]) 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:04, 19 May 2008

OK. What do you want to talk about?--James458 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:East718&oldid=213443974"