User talk:MrScorch6200/2014 February

Ryan Allen Carrillo

Clearly I have no idea how to edit / make a page? Is there a company that does this regularly that i can hire to do this for me. I am not he most tech savy individual. Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanallen11 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Stale

Seahawks logo

Hello MrScorch. I noticed your welcome box contains the Seahawks logo in it. However, the logo is a non-free file, and userpages (or talk pages) aren't allowed to use them, so you should remove it. Congrats on making the Super Bowl and being up 22-0 by the way. ZappaOMati 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Bitcoin, intrinsic value debate

Hello, I'd like to get in touch with you again.

• You had asked me if any editor in our "debate" had been warned for edit warring, etc. I replied on your Talk page (22:30, 31 Jan.), saying, yes, there were some warnings against the user in question (L.M.). I didn't hear from you since then, so I assumed that in your perspective this was a non-issue.
• Also, you had mentioned that my DRN was closed by mistake. I thought that meant it would get re-opened... or was I supposed to do that?
• This is the first time I've ever been involved in a contentious edit situation and I feel lost in this process, and overwhelmed by the contentiousness (although it has calmed down recently, but still no consensus). For further questions, I'm not even clear on whether I'm supposed to contact you, re-open my DRN, or use some other resource. Or just wing it.
• Regarding the conduct issue, I'm not necessarily asking for anyone to be "blocked", unless that's what's warranted under Wikipedia standards. All I know is this person has done some amount of disruptive editing, has massively exhibited WP:TEND (matches many of the listed traits), has not been WP:CIVIL (main problem: "ignore the positions and conclusions of others"), and, after my "strenuous objection" to a disruptive edit, he falsely claimed on my Talk page that he didn't do it (I had to waste time setting the record straight on his Talk page, listing edit timestamps, etc.). Most of this stuff is just a huge inconvenience, but on that last point, I felt personally insulted. On the conduct issue, all I want is to make sure I'm doing my part as a Wikipedia community member to pass along this information to those who manage these situations, with whatever result (e.g., if the person gets "points" on his record, then, the next time someone complains about him, they get the benefit of there being a record of the pattern). On the other hand, if all this is seen as a non-issue then I don't want to waste anyone's time (and wind up being seen as the troublesome one!).
• Regarding the process underway: I did put in an RFC(econ), and only one new person (N., see below) commented (once) since then. Here's a recap of what's happened since your intervention:

• L.M.'s proposal continues to be the "live article" text (due to his unilateral edit before your intervention). I "strenuously" objected and gave reasons. No update since then.
• F.'s proposal drew a lengthy list of objections (with reasons) from both me and L.M.
• I have posted 3 versions of my proposal, only the 2nd version drew objections (from N., a 4th editor, 07:07, 3 Feb.), so I posted a 3rd version to address his concerns. My 1st and 3rd versions (which are the most similar) have received no negative feedback.

• Ever since my "strenuous objection", neither of the other major 2 parties has given me any feedback at all (positive or negative) on my proposal, on my rationale, or on my critique of their proposals. I'm not sure whether to conclude, "I'm being ignored", or "nobody disagrees" (I prefer the latter interpretation!).
• Note that my proposal is the only one of the 3 that has no issues against it (and I believe the only negative feedback, from N., was addressed in my 3rd version).
• L.M.'s proposal (resulting from his unilateral edit), which I disagreed with (and gave reasons), has had the unfair advantage of being the "live content" for several days (giving it more visibility, propagating to mirror sites, etc.). Since my proposal seems to be the least controversial (been on the Talk page for several days, no outstanding issues), I think it would be reasonable to put it in the live article. However, we're under a "no edits" understanding.
• Therefore, out of fairness, I'm considering editing the article on the basis that my proposal has been out there long enough and lacks opposition (or is being ignored, but that's not my fault). I don't know if unilaterally editing the article in this situation would be considered "disruptive", but I think it's better than allowing the contested edit to remain in the live article for an excessively long period when less controversial material is available (and that's what will happen if I don't act unilaterally).
• Please let me know if you have any opinion or advice in this matter. If I don't hear from you by 00:00, 5 Feb., I may edit the article on the above basis. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I edited the article, as per the above, along with explanation on the Talk page (under "Status Update"). -- HLachman (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To clear this up first: two of the DRNs were closed (there are 3), it is just the second one that I screwed up on (I believe it had the same name as the previously closed one so the bot closed it by mistake..... on second thought let me go back and review that). If you feel your proposal as been on the talk long enough (personally I would say 1 week) then by all means edit the article to reflect that proposal. Sorry for the short response I haven't been around lately and right now I'm tied up in a game of Madden :) The disputes are starting to get a little hard to follow because L.M. is involved in so many of them. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's what happened:

• I had already edited the article (and its Talk page) prior to your above response (see my comment of 02:24, above).
• Regarding your comment "personally I would say 1 week": it hasn't been a week. My original proposal was initially put up 4 days ago and never got any opposition. Then, I posted a 2nd draft that drew one objection (from a new participant). Addressing that objection, I wound up with a final draft (basically the same as my original proposal, which was never opposed) that was up for over 36 hours (also unopposed).
• I don't know whether it was unopposed due to agreement, or just ignoring me (edit: maybe they just thought "this doesn't add anything new"). There is discussion on the thread, but not about my proposals.
• I believe my content is a "minimalist subset", that is, a "least common denominator" of noncontroversial material (while the other participants seem to be discussing ideas on how to expand on the topic). I put it in the live article not to say, "this is the final consensus edit", but just to have the live article reflect the non-controversial subset while the discussion proceeds (as opposed to what was in the live article for several days -- the unilaterally-placed content that I had "strenuously objected" to). This is explained more fully in my "Status Update" on the Talk page.
• You had already suggested that if I were to revert the strenuously-objected-to text, "an admin would consider those types of reverts from you as AGF". Please note the content of my edit today is nearly identical (with only wording and sectioning changes) to what would have resulted from that revert (as my proposal wasn't much different from "go back to what we had before the strenuously-objected-to content").
• I'm 100% open to continuing the discussion. I updated the RFC text on the Talk page to give a clearer description of what I see as the main point of disagreement. Now that there is more appropriate "interim text" in the live article, my main interest is to see that the final result, whatever it is, has the blessing of people with more substantial economic expertise. If that can happen, then I'll probably have no issue.

If you see any value in me re-opening the DRN, or doing anything in particular, please let me know. Thanks again. -- HLachman (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I want to turn your attention to the latest disruptive edit by HLachman. The result of his edit is that one of the editors did not have a chance yet to express his opinion even on the section title. The contents were totally destroyed, leaving only the minotiry opinion in the section, removing all mainstream contents from it. My proposal on the talk page was to immediately revert his edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to respond on the above user's talk page on conduct issues that concern me. As for content, "mainstream" position was not deleted, just moved to a different section ("Monetary economics considerations") -- just as my proposal said it would (did anyone read it???). The only deleted text was from a non-consensus unilateral edit (from the above user) that had significant unaddressed issues (and I had been advised that it may be OK to revert that unilateral edit, see "AGF" above). The Talk page is an ideal place to work out those issues. I believe that my reasons (stated in my earlier posts on this page above, and also on the "Status Update" and my subsequent response in the Talk:Bitcoin page) strongly support using the "interim text" I provided as a non-controversial "least common denominator" of content on the live article while the full solution is hashed out on the Talk page. I have responded in more detail on the Talk:Bitcoin page, and will provide further comments on the above user's talk page. Thanks for your time and attention already paid to this matter. -- HLachman (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a brief comment on the page protection request, if I may:

"Until the multiple content disputes (I believe 4; at least 3)... HLachman and Ladislav Mecir are the major parties in most of the disputes".

I'm aware of being a party to only one of them (the one I filed), not most of them.

"they are constantly accusing one another of unconstructive editing".

I'm pretty sure I did that only once (not repeatedly at all)... the one that resulted in a Caution. After the fact, I did point it out... but only because I was placed in a position of being so accused.

I don't mean to trouble you with pickiness... but I do prefer not to accumulate a "record" that wasn't for something I actually did (considering how everything in Wiki is permanent). Other than that, I see no current issues. It seems that things are quieting down (with Fleetham's help). Thanks again for your help. -- HLachman (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved

Puerto Rico status

The discussion is off the rails. My instinct is to do more research and return to the topic in a year, except other editors keep bringing it up on United States, Puerto Rico, Insular territory articles. When I suggested to Ahnoneemoos language be crafted for a RfC, he immediately declared the discussion was going nowhere, ran it to a DRN, said he would accept "unincorporated-incorporated" language, and no volunteer took it. Four editors showed up for unequivocal “unincorporated” without mentioning the controversy on the article page, including the usual TFD, older≠wiser and Mercy11. Three editors showed up for allowing a statement of the controversy without losing “unincorporated”, and the unreasonable IP who began the discussion to exclude "unincorporated" at Talk did not show. When Ghwillickers offered substantive language, he was simply ignored as was I.

At the article Puerto Rico it reports its status as “unincorporated”, which it is for some purposes, as sourced. I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article. To me, the issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative. -- Whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article introduction -- how PR is "unincorporated" and "incorporated" as alternately sourced. And the bias of WP should be to include sourced information. But I am missing something, it cannot be easy, TransporterMan recused himself.

The response of opposing editors is, there is no controversy but my original research and soapboxing. If I point out editors there have not supported the “unincorporated” with scholarly sources, -- including articles found in “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” -- the answer seems to be that scholarly sources have no place in the face of their individual interpretation of online “official” sources. At the basic level I sought to improve the article with a reliably sourced information, and I got my hat handed to me.

What is the maturing editor to do? Over the last year or so, perhaps a dozen editors have some understanding of "incorporated" Puerto Rico to "include" Puerto Rico in the United States. But it seems some can be bullied out of WP participation and their pages go dormant. And I understand collecting all those remaining editors at one time would violate WP policy. And some are unreasonable. The main "exclude" Puerto Rico actors over the last year have been TFD, older≠wiser and Mercy11. TFD also signs in as TheFourDeurces and older≠wiser as Bkonrad, giving the impression there are more "exclude" Puerto Rico editors than there actually are. Both TFD and Mercy11 have accused me of doing the same thing, but I do not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Stale

Musk Ming

hello I don't understand the message you sent me last time about the References... could you please help me to correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnberlin (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved

Proposed deletion of Harry Van Dyke

Hello, MrScorch6200. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Harry Van Dyke, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Harry Van Dyke to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not see the references for some reason-I just saw a Twitter page. Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

St. Marys City Edit

I'm not done with the edit that you reverted (no problem).

But I'd like to explain--

Part of the story of St. Marys City is that it was the first capitol of Maryland, but then it was abandoned-- and became a ghost town--

This is well known in the State of Maryland and nobody considers that to be an insult, it's just part of the story of the place.

Also St. Marys is known to (much) later have had a resurgence as a series of schools and now in the last 50 years as the site of a prominent College--

My point is everyone associated with St. Marys City knows it as a former ghost-town-- it is a part of the history and the mythology of the place, and is not considered to be an insult at all--

But is rather is the widespread description of the history and mythos of the area as is widely known in Maryland culture. I hope that helps. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a mistake! --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem! It would be easy to misunderstand if you don't know that part of Maryland history. :-) 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You know I think this was also my mistake-- I just added a clarification above the quote (so people who are not from Maryland will understand the meaning of the poem).

...This also refers to part of of the history and mythology of St. Marys City (in the State of Maryland) as a place where great things happened, but which then eventually became a ghost town. This was written long before St. Marys City became the site of a prominent college...:

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

G2000 Edit

Hi MrScorch6200, I just want to inform you that since G2000 is a Hong Kong company, it would be more appropriate to put Cantonese transliteration instead of the Mandarin transliteration in previous edits (Cantonese and English are the official languages of Hong Kong). Cheers. --42.2.243.55 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just go ahead and revert my edits because those were edits done with AWB. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

RFA

Hey Buddy. I'm sorry to see your RFA starting off on a bad foot. It happens sometimes and it's always helpful to have an existing admin review your account before going up for an RFA. Some advice, I strongly think you should withdraw the RFA. Take it as a learning experience, don't get too disillusioned by the result, and take a deep breath. I know it didn't turn out like you expected, but even without the issues listed, you have 6 months and about 6k edits. That's toeing the line anyway just on numbers alone. If you'd like an RFA review, I'd be willing to give you one in 6 more months. On another note, being a Christian myself, you can never avoid offending people. The trick is to offend everyone equally. :) --v/r - TP 23:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually wanted to RFA early. I wanted it to be a learning experience. I knew exactly would would be the end result: at least an 80% oppose. I will not stress over it and leave like my good friend Keithbob did. And don't worry, I'll be back here tomorrow following my usual routine. :)

P.S. I would like for you to review me on my Wikibirthday (which is 6 months). I also love that last line; it's going on the top of the page.

P.P.S I will most likely withdraw tomorrow if I don't have a shot in Hell. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it's of course up to you. In the future though if you're just looking for a review, there is always WP:Editor review which is sometimes considered a stepping stone to RFA.--v/r - TP 00:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the Editor Review page... it has a year long backlog. I don't think I'll get responded to there anytime soon. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, just to expand on what I wrote on your RFA page, I am willing to help also guide you through the ropes, as I can relate to you in your editing experience here. Let me know if you would like some help, as I would be more than willing to talk to you via talk page, IRC, or e-mail! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for volunteering, MrScorch, and I'm sorry I was the first one to criticise your candidature. I'm very pleased to see you intend to get back to business as usual tomorrow (and that you aren't taking the result personally). If you require advice or assistance in the next few days, please let me know. Best wishes, AGK [•] 01:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus?

Consensus seems pretty clear to me on Shamar Stephen. The only people that seemed to care if the article stayed or was deleted was me (the nominator) and the other user who voted delete. How exactly is that not a consensus for deletion?--Yankees10 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There was very little discussion, and I closed per WP:NOQUORUM. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well thats ridiculous but alright.--Yankees10 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I just follow the policies :) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Constitution party of Massachussetts

You mean Constitution Party (United States), not the long defunct "National party". Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

IMSF-SOG

Do not try to remove pages that I own please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WK4FxNiko (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, it has already been deleted as "No explanation of the subject's significance" (A7). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Another "no consensus" close

Hello MrScorch6200,

I see you just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini-Cup as "no consensus". No one supported keeping the article, and two editors including me felt it should be deleted. Can you please point to the specific policy language that says that "no consensus" is the proper outcome in such a case, since that defaults to keeping the article? WP:NAC says that "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." I consider this to be a controversial closure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Cullen:! I closed per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures (and Wikipedia:NOQUORUM, which states the same thing): "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new [which it was twice], or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination." (emphasis added). With you as the only endorser, it is clear that there is little discussion. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that WP:QUORUM says that "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" is a legitimate option in such cases. That would have been the better outcome, in my opinion, in this case of an unreferenced stub about a topic lacking evidence of notability, with two policy-based recommendations to delete. I'm not going to fight about it, but I simply ask you to consider my opinion going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Doris Dana

Hi! I am just trying to translate the Doris Dana article, please stop deleting it, I am unfamiliar with the Wikipedia commands, but I am trying to do my best, and people keep deleting my article or saying that it is a bad article. I want to translate it, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamontoya (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Dhaneeshpvr

Hello MrScorch6200. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Dhaneeshpvr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is well within what is allowed on a user page under WP:UPYES. No reason to delete. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason to delete someone else's userpage, especially if it was made in good faith. If you would like to request a deletion of someone else's userpage, you can just get a hold of that user and letting him/her know about your concerns, and it is him/her to decide whether or not his/her userpage is to be deleted. If the userpage you would like to have deleted belongs to a bot, then you can get in touch with the bot's owner. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Whoops! That was an accident. I'm sorry for the confusion. For some reason I thought it was in the articlespace. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanked edit

I noticed that you thanked one of my edits recently...on my own userpage. At first, I was confused as usually, users thank my edits when I revert vandalism. Then I saw that you thanked me for commemorating Madison Holleran on my page. Did you know Madison? I knew her from high school. I went to Northern Highlands Regional High School (as you can tell by my username). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 12:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not know her. I just appreciate the fact that you would place that on your user page and in your signature, and you are a one in a million kind of person to do that (truthfully, we really don't have that many left). I heard of the suicide on 6ABC last month. God bless you.

P.S. I go to Washington Township High School, which is in South Jersey, probably about 2 hours away from NHRHS. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus? (2)

Shouldn't:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Committee (designer)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Applied

Have been deleted? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: See above and below. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be clear to you at this point, MrScorch6200, that these "no consensus" closes of yours are controversial. Non-administrators should not be doing constroversial closes. Please stop doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm only following policy as shown above. However, if you wish for me to stop making 'controversial closes', I will do so. Thanks for the concern. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not asking you to stop but I don't see where it is written that two deletion votes and no keeps is not consensus for deletion, though I agree it is a weak quorum. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Warm Welcome

Thank you very much for the kind advice, and the help on the Conflict Resolution page. --Sjmoquin (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Happy editing, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cecil Jay Roberts

Hello Mr Scorch Just a quick note to formally say I'm sorry. I know now that you were all trying to help! RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I deal with many, many new users with deletion issues and you were one of the nicer ones. I hope this experience didn't impact your ambition to edit Wikipedia. The article will probably get placed back into AfC and you will be able to continue work there. Regards and happy editing, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

'Sup?

		The Special Barnstar
		For giving me my first barnstar ever and being able to share in my totally-insane sense of humor! LazyBastardGuy 16:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I was totally expecting that question. It's perfectly justified. I have of course explained myself over there, which I would have sooner if I had been online by that time, but in any case, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to ask. Wikipedia can be a tangled web of process sometimes. ;) LazyBastardGuy 16:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true ;). Thanks a lot for my first Barnstar in awhile!

P.S. The reason I got defensive and angry was because I was accused of 'biting' you when I cleary was not. I don't know why that isn't my username :) but happy editing, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean in reference to the question you asked as the first response to my post, which I saw as something I was expecting and probably would have even covered in my original post had I been thinking about it. The conversation that followed did not concern me directly, as far as I'm concerned, so I don't have anything to say about that. In any case, I'm glad we've got something worked out over there - I'll be glad to not have to deal with that guy anymore (typically he edits in a really low-key way so as to evade detection, a textbook example of WP:DISRUPTIVE, so his edits go undetected and unpunished if I don't do anything about them myself). LazyBastardGuy 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Heartfelt Thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		Thank you for your continued kindness and friendship even through the toughest of times!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It's great to hear from you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your non-admin closure in AFD

Hello! I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamar Stephen was "no consensus" --Paul McDonald (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch, I think you should stop closing AFDs as no consensus if there are simply two deletes. Let an admin do it if they feel it is correct, or even better let it be relisted so that we can get three deletes or two deletes and one keep - then there would be a clear basis on which to make a decision. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: I have already stopped doing so; please see above. Thanks for the concern. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold and taking action! I think this was closed incorrectly, an unopposed AFD with an additional editor supporting delete is effectively a WP:PROD and would have also been deleted (in my opinion that is!). I'm going to take it to deletion review and have an independent person look it over. This is not an insult in any way, it's simply "due processes" and I would expect you to do the same thing to me if the roles were reversed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shamar Stephen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shamar Stephen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

please relect

whether you assumed good faith in making you addition to the ANI when you said "no evidence". I have responded. Accusing someone of a personal attack is viewed by some as a personal attack. I could go on, but it serves no purpose, the community has spoken and there is no consensus to stop my editing, so I'll be moving along past this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No-consensus close

Hi, I'm not sure why you closed this as "no consensus" when it did in fact have consensus by virtue of the two experienced contributors. FWIW, I was in hospital at the time but would also have !voted to delete. Can you revert the close? - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:  Done

Thanks. It got deleted before I had a chance to add my !vote. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Opus-CBCS. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This was partially intentional.

Just a little unimportant comment about your signature

I'm currently using this script that highlights the User and User talk links of administrators in (by default) cyan, which is the same color as the highlighting on your sig. Just wanted to let you know (please don't feel that it's necessary or even recommended to change it), so if some random editor thinks that you're an admin for whatever reason, this script or a similar one might be why. Cheers, ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Injustice

[1]. -- GreenC 07:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN template

Hey my friend I've made some changes to your template, hope they are OK. Please look at the talk page for a full explanation. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I replied to you on the talk. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad Guy

I AM reporting you to Wikipedia as a person abusing their power. You can delete all my pages I don't care anymore. I am switching to Wikia because they don't delete peoples pages for no reason. Thank you for being a fucking loser and asshole to the people on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WK4FxNiko (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I'll be sure to respond there later.

P.S. I have no power. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)