Hello WarthogDemon, I sorry to have to tell you I've closed your RfA as no consensus reached with (61/24/4). It was a close call but the main thrust of the opposition appeared to be that you needed a little more experience before they'd be happy to support. Work on the areas identified by the opposers and reapply in a few months time. Feel free to drop me a line to discuss anything, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that it didn't pass. If you work on the areas that were brought up in the RfA, I'm sure that you will pass next time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry see your RfA did not succeed. Sadly, these things happen. I still think you would have made a great administrator, and I hope you try again in a while. If you need anything, feel free to ask. SQLQuery me!08:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'heads up'... I'm going to watch it for a couple of days to see if that happens again. You're right, especially with minors, that type of info just shouldn't be out there for public consumption. I may ask for oversight on it as well, let them decide if it should disappear forever. SkierRMH (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was crazy. My computer would not load it, was having the same problem wizardman was having. You must have really pissed someone off... Tiptoetytalk03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the good news is you know what made people hesitant and it's not something you can't fix. I know DGG can seem a bit over-inclusionist for your taste (and often mine) but he does have a point when it comes to the need for careful speedy-deletion. Luckily, he's also a nice person (at least as far as I know) and I'm sure he'd be willing to give you a few pointers if you ask. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I've found Wikipedians to be a particularly vindictive breed with the collective memory of an elephant, but that's neither here nor there. What he did was transclude the sandbox onto your talk page around 4,200 times (content is here), causing Wikipedia to break the page in a rather interesting manner. Wizardman caught it and alerted the admins' IRC channel, Jeepday blocked him, and CBM filed a bug to sort it out. east.718at 03:20, March 31, 2008
I've protected your userpage indefinitely. Your user talk page will have to do without that love for now, since I am generally loathe to protect them. east.718at 03:34, March 31, 2008
I'd say you handled that about perfectly. It's arguably an A7 speedy candidate, but I think if it's arguable, then it's better not to tag it. However, the COI looks pretty clear. The article is probably heading for a prod or AfD, but no harm in giving it a little while.--Kubigula(talk)04:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your RfA
You're welcome for the support, and rollback: I'm disappointed your RfA didn't pass, but I'm sure that if you work on the concerns raised, and come back in three or so months time, you'll pass RfA then. Good luck. Acalamari16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.239.228 (talk • contribs)
Hello there, I see you are on the 24 WikiProject. It's been quite dead for some time now, and me personally, I intend to revive it. I considered maybe even a 24 Portal, i see the project founder hasn't been on Wikipedia for nearly a year. What are your thoughts on the project? Are you still interested in it? And would you help revive it? Let me know, I would intend to help out a lot, maybe "take over" the founders position, well not take over, but possibly help lead the project? Was just a thought and I wanted your input. My talk page would be the best place. Cheers, Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk)19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It smells of WP:COPYVIO, but cannot find the source - which may be the book cited passim. It also reads like an essay, take to AFD - probably not speediable without finding the source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm doing this right but here's the deal. I will leave the Tamara Witmer page alone since it has sufficient links. I restored the Mandy Lynn link since it only had two. I will add no further links to that site as I am not attempting to spam. I ask that in light of that the one on Mandy Lynn's page left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MParker (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About possible malware websites...
First, sorry if I edited your article and you don't like that. I think we should keep Wikipedia users safe. Even if it's impossible to scan ALL the external links, we should at least write a simple warning that the website may be dangerous. I visited the website from Wikipedia, and Antivir detected something (if I remember, it was HEUR/HTML.Malware) www.internationalbadminton.org/ is marked as dangerous in Google, so this is probably not a false positive. Sorry for inconvenience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.42.190 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re your message: I decided to just pile into an old topic since I was at the bottom of the talk page already. I have not a clue who that is. I vaguely remember running into some editor adding something or other to Canon camera pages that I reverted (isn't my memory great today?), but that was a long time ago. I don't think it was him either. Somebody's sleeper sock, but I don't know whose. Very weird selection of pages to move. Not sure if I should be honored or confused. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll put my name forward at WP:DESYSOP immediately! lol. Have a nice day (I put up that link expecting it to be red-linked - didn't know it actually existed until previewing this! lol) -Craigy (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Folded & Hung
Folded & Hung looks like a reasonable article to me. The company has been covered by the Philippine media, so it is verifiable. Thesetwo articles show up in a quick Google News search. Is there something in particular that set off your spam alarm? - Eureka Lott01:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a closer look at the article, and its tone is not right. It also appears to have some copyright problems [13]. I think that they can be resolved with a thorough scrubbing and that we can avoid outright deletion. - Eureka Lott01:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Annoyed
My John Haze page was deleted by you. It was NOT an attack page. It was a page about a fictional character i've been writing about in a series of shorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buntcakepan (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. With any username that seems like it might be role/promotional, I just put that on there as a matter of course. Sometimes they edit, often they don't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has degenerated into an advertisement. Is the company even notable? Sourced only to its website, created by Liebertwiki and added on solely by an anon - likely tied to the company - it smells bad. Feel free to nominate it for failing WP:CORP. I'll support that. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm new at this. The ownership issue is a big thorn for current owners. Herdon was part of the investment group but is no longer part of the group. There was litigation involved. The intention is to remove anyone's name as a "founder" of the resort as all feel they were involved and that Herdon is a self promoter. The other issues - soccer fields beaches and even middle school attended are accurate and current. Bwbmarketing (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider CCWWuss's edits to be vandalism. They may be misguided, but I do not believe they are an attempt to vandalize articles. Best, Gwernol21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I've deleted them as {{G6}} because the user has no more rights to them, and therefore they are just wasted space. Admins can restore if thre's a good reason. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™talk23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Organization should meet notable criteria under "Non-commercial organizations" - it is national, has over 30,000 active members, over 100 active volunteers, has been in existence 9 years, and has published 4 books which are commercially available.[1] Thanks for consideration. Thamangas (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overstepped your bounds when reverting my contribution to the discussion. Was I being a bit harsh, maybe. I never intended to be uncivil. Perhaps in the future you could just leave a warning without reverting unless the comment is a blatant attack against another editor. Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)O[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.239.228 (talk • contribs)
