Here are my old discussions:

• User talk:R. fiend/Archive1: anything 2004
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive2: January – March 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive3: April – June 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive4: July – August 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive5: September 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive6: October 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive7: November 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive8: December 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive9: 2006 (things slowed down a bit here)
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive10: 2007

Everything else is below.

I used to do ping-pong conversations, but I don't anymore. Look for replies here.

If you have time read my talk page, read PI.EXE and if there isn't enough proof for you to be able to recogonize what I am saying about my copyrights, and you are quite welcome to consult with a copyright lawyer to check, but anymore deleting as I have done all I can to point out to you that these are not dan brown's copyrights I have no choice and will report this to wikipedia to cancel your account or have you blocked untill you can tell that dan brown AIN'T COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE BLADE AND CHALICE,

Don't care. The sheer amount of irrelevancies and non-sequiturs in your inane ramblings makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia. Have you considered purchasing some TV time? -R. fiend (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you delete as crap then you say "fraud-o", then you go on about something different again to delete this article, how's this? because that book/movie/author uses copyrights that belong to someone else if you/wikipedia do not want to keep it in articles, I will give DMCA notice and have all pages removed as it's promoting copyrights that belong to another person and can be taken down as that is a rights of the copyright holder, what's it going to be? So leave it in article or loose entire article that promotes infringement? Neights (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats will get you nowhere. Take it up with Danny and his publisher. Besides, you're about as coherent as that insane guy at the bus station. -R. fiend (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep thats me!! Take it up with wikipedia and stop vandalising, gotta go sing Elvis Presley songs to everyone down at the station with chewing gum and shoe strings as my instruments. Neights (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#Admin using his admin privilages to edit a protected article whilst involved in edit dispute. regarding your recent edits to Easter Rising. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm less than inclined to care about such inanity. -R. fiend (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I thread is continuing, and the consensus appears to be that you have misused your status as an administrator in this instance (and perhaps another noted by Alison). You may wish to participate if only to provide your point of view – otherwise it is possible that the issue could proceed to an RfC. ^Avruchtalk 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend, where you may want to participate.

-- Alison ^❤ 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the consensus of the RfC is to open a ArbCom case considering your conduct above, I have requested the Arbitration Committee review the issues. The diff of my request is here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed your essay for this RFC: Talk:List of Cuban Americans#Opinion by Uninvolved. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad you appreciated it. I wrote that ages ago; nice it's getting some use. -R. fiend (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, R. fiend, since you're not familiar with ArbCom, I have set up a section for your reply at this link.. just write your statement in that section. SirFozzie (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to follow through with resigning your administrator bit, see here: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. You will need to head over to Meta and post on a steward's board that you are resigning your bit, and they will take care of it. For what it's worth, I applaud your actions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To request a voluntary desysopping. leave a note on your talk page here confirming it, then post at [1]. Hope everything works out for you. Thatcher 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I want to make it clear that I am stepping down under the conditions that the Arbcom hearing be dismissed. I don't want to resign only to still have to go through an entire complex process just as if I hadn't; it would sort of defeat much of the purpose. It seems this shouldn't be a problem, but I'd like it to be official nevertheless. -R. fiend (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a motion on the workshop to that effect, R. fiend, I'm sure if everyone who was listed as an involved party (which is just you, me and Alison), endorses it, it'll pretty much be a fait accompli. SirFozzie (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As a clerk and long time Arb watcher I feel confident the case would be dismissed or closed rapidly, but if you want official confirmation of this before you post to meta, you should email the arbitrators yourself, arbcom-L at lists dot wikimedia dot org. Thatcher 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO get an official clarification on this before making the request at meta, so that whatever steward handles the request is not put in the position of having to decide if you "really mean it" or not, or if they don't know about the clause, turn you off and then you perhaps later turn up and ask a 'crat for it back because you decided you didn't get the clause you seek. I hope that's clear :)... (I won't be the steward handling the request, this being one of my home wikis) ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a motion (see the top of the proposed decision page) to try to resolve this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. So once 7 arbitrators sign off, I resign on meta and the whole ordeal is dropped, correct? -R. fiend (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the case would be resolved with the notes in the proposed decision. SirFozzie (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in this case. As you, the subject of the above-linked case, have indicated that you will resign as an administrator, thereby resolving the main issue raised by this case, if the case will then be closed. Accordingly, this case is suspended for a period of 72 hours from the adoption of this motion. If you are voluntarily desysopped during that period, this case will be automatically closed without need for a further motion or proceedings and with a pre-worded determination, viewable here in italics.

If you do not resign your adminship within 72 hours after this motion is adopted, the case will resume and this motion will have no further effect. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're having trouble reading Daniel's comment here: If your resignation is processed within 72 hours of the adaption of the motion, the case will automatically close with a pre-worded determination. The case is suspended for the time being; if resignation isn't processed within that time frame, case will resume. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this motion resolves the ambiguity that would have given a steward pause in accepting a request from you that was conditionally worded. For reference, you can ask for permission removal at m:Requests for permissions. You will need to provide crosslinking to identify and validate yourself, filling out and using the template at the top of the page to set up your request will do it for you. (a statement here on your own talk page that you are doing the request on meta would suffice as the "local request link" that you need to give the diff of over there) Please advise if that is not clear or if I can be of any assistance. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the arbitrator who made the motion, I confirm the above. If you resign within 72 hours, as you had indicated you were ready to, the case will close automatically; otherwise, the case will resume and be decided on its merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You will note that I have never contributed to Conspiracy Theory articles but please consider Sony Youth's comments. Why was the RFC shut down so quickly afterwards? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm – because an arbitration case was filed?? This was never a "troubles" issue, and this was repeatedly pointed out throughout – Alison ^❤ 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison – what happened to this ANI Thread? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was eventually closed by User:Violetriga and an RfAr was opened, as suggested and as agreed by many others. Details here – Alison ^❤ 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must respect your decision but take heart from from others comments. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser case of which you know nothing is not germane to the topic at hand here. Please try to stay on track and refrain from the snarky comments – Alison ^❤ 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your not above snarky comments yourself. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's snarky about that? And why are you bringing it up here on User:R. fiend's talk page? This is my last comment here. Feel free to bring it to my talk page or yours – Alison ^❤ 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apology to R fiend ^{❤. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Per agreement at Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Proposed decision, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop), I wish to step down as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Thank you. -R. fiend (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by m:user:DerHexer 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) – diff ... You have my compliments for having resolved this in a much more seemly and gracious manner than I feared would be the case. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was one of those who expressed my concern at your RfC, I, too am impressed with your gracious response. After a suitable perood of reflection, I would be willing to consider any new RfA with an open mind. I wish you the best. Ronnotel (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm that's tough mate. I remember you from when I was a fresh outta the oven n00b. You were a good admin imo. We all make mistakes and we all take controversial actions. The next time I speedy a vanity substub I'll think of you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, though you seem to be breaking with general consensus when dubbing me a "good admin". Oh well. A bit too rouge, I suppose. Looking back on your noob days via the link you supplied, I'm curious as to what happened with the article in question. it made me realize one thing I am missing about being an admin and that's seeing deleted articles. So it goes. -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still around—Naomi Long Madgett—the deleted edit was at "Naomi Long Madget" and simply said "Naomi Long Madget, was born Naomi Cornelia Long in Norfolk on July 5, 1923, the daughter of a Baptist minister. She spent her childhood in East Orange, N.J, and began writing at an early age."

While I understand how/why people were upset with your actions, it doesn't diminish the fact that you did do a lot of good, at least from what I observed. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove ((fact)) tags from Bruce Vilanch? oops, I forgot to sign --Thinboy00 @813, i.e. 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this has been removed from Conservapedia, and the lead is still too short. I hope you can provide a good reason for removing it, because I'm getting pretty sick of this. Richard001 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no shorter than a billion other articles. Why do people think no article is complete until it has an ugly, obtrusive, nitpicky template at the top shouting out its minor flaws? -R. fiend (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles have a lead that is too short is no excuse. Try telling a cop that all the other cars were speeding. If you're going to remove the template, put it on the talk page. I put it there myself but another guy removed it, thinking it isn't a 'talk page' template. I'm going to put it back there, and if someone removes it this time I'll cut them open and eat their entrails. Richard001 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are much better places for these things, if they have to exist at all (which this one really doesn't, as the reader is 2 seconds away from discovering that for himself; I see little point in telling someone "hey, dude, what you're about to read isn't very long"). Talk pages are where discussion of how to improve an article takes place, not at the top of the article itself. -R. fiend (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it these sorts of notice should go on the talk page is just your opinion piece on a controversial issue. I just took it to the talk page, and once again someone's removed because it's 'not meant to go on the talk page'. Clearly, you're both wrong, and you're both damn annoying. We have these things to note problems with articles and improve them. It's obviously not to tell the reader that it's short, it's to record the fact that it's shorter than it should be by a fair bit for the editors to fix. Sadly, most editors, even experienced ones who do GA assessments, haven't got a clue how long a lead needs to be. Richard001 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major problems with Wikipedia is that people constantly forget that articles are written for readers, not editors. Notices to editors about how to improve articles is exactly what talk pages are for. I really fail to understand the recent movement to make sure the first thing any article says is whats wrong with it in a big colorful template. Deletion, cleanup, and NPOV are about the only ones that are very significant, as they warn readers that there are significant factual content issues with the article. Really, who gives a shit if an intro is short? Back before Wikipedia got template-crazy, if an intro was short someone would say on the talk page "hey, this intro is a bit short, can someone work on expanding it?" (or, maybe the person might even expand it themselves, imagine that). Why such a discussion was ever taken from the talk page to the article itself is totally beyond me. -R. fiend (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beseech you to explain this to Wisdom89. Richard001 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend, you are a sensible person ;) Ceasefire joanne (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. -R. fiend (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with most articles, there's always a few things need ironing out. But if you check the history of the article, very few of the so-called "Republican" editors have ever really done much to it. I added plenty of sourcing a while ago, but it's an article that's edited by quite a few British editors like Nick Cooper who don't let anything slip past them. Twobells has previously done the same thing on another article – see here. If there's anything that needs sourcing, tag it. But I think it's dubious to repeatedly claim an entire article is POV and yet be unable to produce a list of reasons why and say what can be done to fix it.

Other than providing sources on request, the article is pretty much on hold right now. Everyone seems to be waiting for the Inquiry to finally report before doing anthing major, as that's when the major work will need to be done. I don't think anyone sees much point in doing loads and loads of work that could become redundant in the space of a week. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Gore receive the award. He may have been a co-producer. I will be getting my facts checked. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, Gore was on stage and made a speech, but his name was not read as a nominee or a winner (this is of course just my recollection, and not worth a damn in terms of WP:V). I know he's often referred to as an winner, but my recollection in the discussions beforehand was that he was not actually in the running to receive the award. I admit I could be wrong about this. -R. fiend (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I sorted this one out for you. Silly bot :) – Alison ^❤ 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R. fiend, I had a look through some of your contributions, and it seems you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like to have rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? I understand you were an admin, so I assume that you know both how to use rollback, and know it's for reverting vandalism and not to be used in content disputes or to revert good-faith edits. Acalamari 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if it's that easy and uncontroversial. I'm not exactly rearin' to go through any sort of RFA-like process at the moment. -R. fiend (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) There isn't an RfA-like process for requesting rollback: just Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. All that needs doing there is to place a request, and then an admin will review some of your edits. No "supports" or "opposes" there. Of course, you don't need to file a request, because I've granted you rollback right here. Good luck. Acalamari 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. Admittedly, it's less important to me now that we have the relatively new "undo" option, but still nice to have. There's no non-admin delete function now, is there? ;) -R. fiend (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) No, no non-admin delete, though. :) Acalamari 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend, I have not reverted your edits. I've just reverted one of your edits because I was working on that article for a couple of hours (18:30–20:30). I just wanted to save the source and the contents until I was working on it. So I placed an ((Underconstruction)) template, and then I found your gift with the ((AfDM)) template. I'm going offline now! Have a good sleep. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that we were on the same article at the same time. When you redirected that article to the Sandinista! page, I was just trying to put some info on it. I'm really sorry for this. Anyway, there are 150 articles related to The Beatles (excluding subcategories) that have been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. For example, "12-Bar Original", an unknown song by The Beatles, has the same rating (B-Class) of The Clash and London Calling articles!!! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there is some overkill on Beatles articles, but lets face it, the Beatles are an exception. While I think 12 Bar Original is not an article-worthy song, and I'd be all for a redirect to the album or such for that, it has little bearing on Charlie Don't Surf. When it comes to Beatles songs, there is really plenty of extensive reliable sources on each and every one. This is not true of the Clash. For Charlie Don't Surf the sources we have are tracklistings on a couple albums, passing mentions in reviews of the album, and blogs. None of those mean much, and you can probably find equivalent coverage for just about every song that's ever appeared on any significant album by any significant artist. If we start making articles for every song by the Clash (with very little information on them), soon we'll have articles for every song by Sugar Ray or the Spin Doctors. Wikipedia has more than enough pointless articles; we don't need a million more articles on songs. For a peek inside my head, you can check out this, which I wrote about 3 years ago. Since then it's become de-facto policy to have an article on any single that any band has released. This has led to thousands of articles which do nothing but take up space, but I've resigned myself to tolerate that. Extending the criteria to regular album tracks that have no greater significance is too much. -R. fiend (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in two separate RfCs I've had to submit (one Sunday, one yesterday) on account of two separate editing disputes I've had with User:Domer48 and others. If you have a chance, you might take a look at RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? and RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names. Thanks.--Damac (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the RfC on the JFK O'Brein talk page, but didn't have anything to add that hadn't been said (to be honest, I don't really know anything about the ODNB). It seems like that matter has been pretty well settled in any case. I'll check out the other, but I have to tell you I know even less about Irish names. -R. fiend (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[2] accessibility,[3] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[4]--Damac (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey R.fiend, hope you're well. I'm glad you're a Clash fan, I am too. Can you tone down edits like this one please? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not to be taken seriously, but I find these new footnote methods to be very irritating. Where a simple ref, /ref would do, we now have huge sections with large quotes, making it almost impossible at times to find the text of the article itself in the edit box. Making it worse is Pjoef's overuse of them, and inclusion where they have to relevance. After stating the straightforward intro to Sandinista, saying the basics of what it is (something that hardly requires a reference) there were 8 footnotes which we largely nothing but quotes of record reviews. Why are quotes being included in footnotes? I don't know of that being standard style anywhere. Well, that's my two cents. -R. fiend (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and I agree with you. Just tone down the edit summaries a little, if you could. --John (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend, using multiple citations, it makes sense to put the citation point at the top of the page (mainly in the lead section and in the most obvious point). You removed "irrelevant snippets" such as Gilbert, Pat. Passion Is a Fashion: The Real Story of The Clash; Gray, Marcus. The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town; Green, Johnny. A Riot of Our Own: Night and Day with The Clash; Gruen, Bob. The Clash; Needs, Kris. Joe Strummer and the Legend of the Clash; Topping, Keith. The Complete Clash; MTV Rockumentary; Levy, Joe, Rolling Stone The 500 Greatest Album of All Time; and many others for a total of 22 footnotes and 82 citations plus 2 new sections, some paragraphs and four hours of work! Can you please revert your edit on that article? So, I can remove all the info and cite templates you don't need on it. I'll try to make that article more accesible to all. I've no problem with wikicode because it's very simple (for me). I can understand that it should be cumbersome/irritant for many other editors, but it could be not a good reason to do what you did. If you want to change the citation style format, replace the cite templates and other things on that article please send me a message and I'll work for you, so, when you'll be satisfied, you'll be able to work on it again (and without irritation; I know you created the article). Wikipedia (IMO) must be a collaborative place and I don't know why you have a personal problem with me and why you must be offensive with me (horsewhipping and more)! Please, revert that edit and send me a list of unneeded or unnecessary things that you want to change or remove from that article. I remain at your disposal and thanks in advance. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need me to revert to earlier versions. If you want to edit and simplify/clarify the version you last edited, just click here: [5]. But my advice to you is to cut back on excessive footnotes (82 citations for such an article is well beyond excessive), and put the sources being used (at least the book ones) in a References section at the bottom, instead of introducing them all in the opening paragraph. Then you can cite them, when necessary, with with simple <ref> Gray, p. 3.14159 </ref> . I think I've stated on the talk page what should be changed. On another note, I have no personal problem with you, I just think some of what you're doing here is more suited to the The Clash wiki over at Wikia. It's in pretty sad shape and could use some dedicated editors ([http://clash.wikia.com/wiki/The_Clash see for yourself). The "horsewhipping" comment was a joke, and not directed at you, unless you made that footnote template, in which case I implore you to use it sparingly, if at all. -R. fiend (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I did a first step removing all the quotes in those templates and moving the bibliographies in a new section. Right now, I start to replace all the citation templates (it will be a hard work). For every question, send me a message and I'll reply here. Thanks again —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Looking much better. Thanks. I'll take a thorough look at it later. If I think any major changes should be made I'll say so on the talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's looking like the Charlie Don't Surf article will likely be deleted. If you have any desire to move its contents over to Wikia (which I think is a good idea), I advise you to do so now, or copy it to a user subpage for future transwiki. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news! Thanks, I've a copy. (IMO) cleaning that article, for example deleting the list of concerts and leaving just two or three of the most important performances... It was not worse than other song articles on Wikipedia. About Sandinista! I'm not so sure that the templates were so bad.
Westway REF code now look like this: <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">[[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]]. (2001). [[Westway to the World|''The Clash: Westway to the World'']] [Documentary]. New York, NY: [[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films. Retrivied on [[2008]]-[[February 6|02-06]]. Event occurs at 55:00–63:00. ISBN 0-738900-82-6. [[OCLC]] [http://worldcat.org/oclc/49798077 49798077]</ref>

Tl orizontal form: <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">((cite video |people=[[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]] |year2=2001 |title=The Clash, [[Westway to the World]] |medium=Documentary |publisher=[[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films |location=New York, NY |accessdate=2008-02-06 |time=55:00–63:00 |isbn=0738900826 |oclc=49798077 ))</ref>

Tl vertical form (spaces excluded): <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">((cite video
| people = [[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]]
| year2 = 2001
| title = The Clash, [[Westway to the World]]
| medium = Documentary
| publisher = [[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films
| location = New York, NY
| accessdate = 2008-02-06
| time = 55:00–63:00
| isbn = 0738900826
| oclc = 49798077
))</ref>. IMO the templates, especially when there are a lot of datas/fields, are much recognizable than the other method. What you think about this??? I need your opinion before I continue this edit and I want to unify all of their articles. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have overstated my objections to the templates in question. While I find them kind of annoying, I shouldn't say they never have their place. My main objection was the overuse of them (and of footnotes in general, i.e. 3 or 4 on top of each other, particularly for a fact that isn't likely to be disputed). I see no reason to use them for books, but for websites and videos perhaps they may be useful. I think websites are best with a direct link and little else (though I guess retrieval date is standard now?), while videos are not ideal sources just because you can't pinpoint a page number like you can with a book. This is certainly not to say that videos are invalid, but maybe should only be used when there isn't a good print source that can relay the same information? I have to say, from a brief glance, it looks like my main objections have been addressed: the first paragraph no longer serves as a dumping ground for every source used in the article, extensive quotes from reviews don't appear in the footnotes, and there aren't single sentences of article text hidden away by being surrounded by 20 KB of footnote writing. Beyond that, I'm not going to split hairs over the exact way the footnotes appear, as long as everything doesn't get completely blown out of proportion once again. So good work, it seems. Sometime this weekend I'll go over it for some minor style and tone issues, and I think everything should be all aces. -R. fiend (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"retrieval date is standard now?" Yes, when a bot found <ref>[URL]</ref> in an article it automatically add title, website and retrieval date to the reference TAG <ref>[URL Title]. somewebsite.dom. Retrieved on...</ref>. "good print source that can relay the same information?" Sure! A well written book is the best source, but we must know the page numbers (I wrote the chapters' time of Westway in this section). Pay attention to the first paragraph and the whole lead section. The lead section should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, .... The lead should be no longer than four paragraphs (15,000-30,000 chars; 1-4 paragraphs). Wikipedia plans to publish the lead sections in static version of Wikipedia (ver. 1.0) distributed on CD, DVD, or paper. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend – I'm not sure why you keep removing the tag on the Taxation in the United States article. Per the guidelines for WP:LEAD, this article should have a three to four paragraph lead that summarizes the article. It neither summarizes the article nor has sufficient length for an article of this size. The purpose of the tag is specifically for addressing this type of article/lead, so I'm not sure why you think it doesn't belong. Like any article tag, it is meant to get editors to address the issue and improve the article. Could you please explain your reasoning for removal? Morphh ^(talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then hash it out on the talk page, that's what they're for. There's no reason to yell to a casual reader WARNING! What you are about to read is brief!. Probably 80% of articles have leads that are "too short" by the outlined criteria. Are we going to see that same stupid template on 80% of articles? Not on my watch. -R. fiend (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the nature of article tags on an encyclopedia that promotes reader editing. 80% of the articles do not have a significant article body that would merit focus on the lead. There is focus on lead in this article because it is much further along in development and article structure. Focus for this particular article needs to be given to summarizing the content (that is present in the body) into the lead. Morphh ^(talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All points that should be (and I see are) covered on the talk page, which is where discussions for article improvement take place. The articles are for readers; talk pages are for editors. People seem to forget about the readers pretty frequently here. -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you there, and if you want to form a consensus around moving article tags to the talk page.. I'm there with you.. but they are what they are and the tag applies to the problem. I think part of the reasoning for it being in article space is to draw the attention that you dislike. I dislike it as well, which prompts me to address it more aggressively and remove the tag. Morphh ^(talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck the one on Shadowrun back on. If you've got a problem with the template, take it to tfd. Don't disrupt other people's workflows by ripping tags (and hence cleanup categories) off of random articles. If you've got a problem with cleanup tags in general, they can be easily banished from sight with some user CSS edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks lol I knew I should have bothered to check the citation down there. I think the confusion, though, comes from the reader not necessarily knowing whether that citation applies for and refers to that whole paragraph or quite easily just that last historical sentence.
Take care ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, mate, you know better than to do that... I should technically be removing rollback because you've used it to edit war, but I won't, because you're not going to edit war anymore and will seek to reach a compromise with the other user in the future. Right? :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know what he was adding was totally crazy, but if he's just ignoring warnings then report him to 3RR or such. Don't keep warring. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From one "R." to another, in cases like this, let someone know, you don't have to go it alone. . . R. Baley (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you allowed to use rollback to remove vandalism? (And is hitting "undo" really that much different anyway?) And I considered reporting him last night, but it was 2 AM and 3RR reports are actually a pretty big hassle. I guessed, correctly, that someone would soon notice this guy's lunacy and handle it. I wasn't expecting an infinite block, but, hell, I'll take it. Problem solved. -R. fiend (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the category for an explanation of why these should not be deleted--as I understand it, they carry the article history whichis needed fro GFDL> DGG (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC). Right. done. DGG (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just noticed you've removed the list of popular culture references. this is all well and good, but it leaves a sentence saying that "Numerous songs and band names reference The Picture of Dorian Gray or its title character" without giving any kind of example. also, i note you've left theatrical and film references completely intact. Can i have your permission as it were to revert them?

O keyes (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No examples needed, and the ones that were provided were the textbook definition of tedious subtriviality. In fact, the whole sentence is unneeded, but it's accurate and does no real harm. The film reference could probably use pruning too. I'll look into it. -R. fiend (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I saw Izzard on Carson Daly mention it and actually beat the vandals to Carson's page. :) ju66l3r (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It was Carson's page they were going to. I was only half watching and didn't catch the details of the show. I was looking at Izzard and the topic of the discussion, which kept changing (Jam maybe?). It's generally pretty predictable. -R. fiend (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone did a pre-emptive protect on Izzard too. Good thinking. -R. fiend (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Carson was complaining that when he looked at his own page, it just said that he is "a tool and raised by wolves". So that became the predictable nonsense they tried to add to the article. Semi-protected now, same is Izzard's page. ju66l3r (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a crazy time last nite. Wish we had some reference to page views. I requested a protect for Brian's page early on. I guess it went through eventually. Seems like you and I were reverting over each other last nite. Thank God for Huggle. And good lookin' out on both Brian and Izzard. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I was looking at the edits further down and reverted without paying attention to more recent edits. That's what happens when I edit before I have had enough coffee. Thanks for the revert! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes. I'm glad, unlike the reactionaries who seem to dominate the page and discussions related to the Rising, you were able to see what I was getting at. One tiny quibble – could you change "lords" (see below) to House of Lords (so much more encyclopaedic looking and respectful).

"the Tories and lords were steadfastly opposed to home rule,"

Thanks lots. Auld Orangie (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I put in piped links to the House of Lords and the Conservative Party. That should probably do the trick. If you think the Lords link shouldn't be piped, feel free to change it. I don't expect anyone to edit war over something so minor-R. fiend (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the ((prod)) template to the article Rome Rule, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the ((prod)) template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey: I wanted to thank you for your (and User:Johnbull's) efforts regarding Rome Rule. I don't know if you have realized it yet but User:Domer48, and to a lesser degree, others who have relentlessly reverted most of your edits and whittled the page down to a stub, is a pro-Irish republican apologist. He has been since the first day he registered at Wikipedia. A review of his edits will prove/confirm this. You really should not let him get away with what he is doing just because it interferes with his political agenda. The notion that "Rome Rule" is a non-notable term is patently ludicrous.

Good Luck and be prepared for the onslaught. Domer is an ideologue who seeks to twist Wikipedia, at least regarding certain topics, to his whims. He doesn't give up and has been banned thrice for his behaviour. Marinersrhymetime (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am very familiar with Domer, I can tell you (check out Talk:Easter Rising for details). I know what I'm dealing with. As for the article, it was actually me who removed the majority of its content, as much of it actually was unreferenced POV. What remains, however, is a perfectly valid start, and a useful substub in its own right. I don't see what the fuss is about it, especially as Scolaire, who I've found to be a solid, fair, and intelligent editor, is leading the action. Well, I guess I'll head over to the AFD and see what's afoot. -R. fiend (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the AfD is over, I thought I'd share my thoughts about quotes with you. Articles about quotes can be useful and informative. Read my lips: no new taxes is an example - it is 25 Kb long and none of it is dross. Another one I'm fond of, and one I've edited myself, is Vive le Québec libre speech – again, there is a wealth of solid information on the background to the speech, the circumstances surrounding it, the reaction to it etc. And I've even created an article on Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. My problem with Rome Rule is that there seem to be no sources (reliable or otherwise) that provide that kind of detail for this phrase; these two that Johnbull gave me are the only ones I've seen that go beyond "many opposed the Irish home rule bill of 1886 on the grounds that home rule meant Rome rule", and those two are the only reason I didn't vote delete. I still can't see how it can be expanded into an informative article but, as I said at the AfD, it is up to the "keeps" to show that it can by doing it. Tiocfaidh ár lá is another example of editors desparately thinking up something to say about a phrase just because of a feeling that "it should be there". No study that I know of has been devoted to the slogan, therefore no sources can be cited that give any insight into the use of the slogan. And here, your argument that "people should be able to type it and get some sort of result explaining it" doesn't hold much water – how many people who don't already know about it would be able to type that in the search box? Should we create a dozen articles with misspellings (maybe including "chucky our law") to redirect to it? And then, the question of A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people – should there really be articles on misquotes, just because the misquote is more familiar than the actual quote? I just don't see the use of it! To my mind, a stub is an embryonic article, and there should be a reasonable expectation that it will some day contain solid information that people will want to read. To have a stub there just for the sake of having something there is a waste of space.
Apologies if that sounds like a rant. I really only wanted to clarify my position. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thank you for your kind words above. I'm blushing ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, and while I agree with some of what you say, I disagree with other parts. I'm generally a deletionist here, but I know there are thousands of useful articles here that will likely never reach beyond the stub level, and I don't think that's necessarily a problem, as long as they convey a minimal amount of useful and accurate information. Rome Rule, as it is now might not be much more than a definition, but it's not something that one could find in a dictionary, so one couldn't really call it a dicdef, and as such should be given more leeway. It would be annoying for a reader, curious about what this term means, to basically be told by an encyclopedia to go to a dictionary, and by a dictionary to go to an encyclopedia. Quotes are a tricky thing in a project such as this, but Rome Rule isn't so much a quote as a phrase or a term. Quotes are especially tricky because something like We shall fight on the beaches is a lengthy and not well-defined (being a snippet of a much longer quote) thing to search for. Quotes can also often be redirects to the people who said them. Neither is true of Rome Rule.

Now I'm all about notability standards, but they're much more relevant to contemporary issues. If the term were used for the first time this month it would be a very different situation, even though, given the nature of the media today, it would probably have much more coverage. Something mentioned in historical writing with the frequency of this, more than 100 years after coming into use, is demonstrably more notable than You forgot Poland.

As for the other articles you mentioned, well, I don't have strong opinions on them. Tiocfaidh ár lá might not really be worthy of an article, however I do assert that it warrants discussion, and therefore is not a prod candidate. I'm not saying A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people is necessarily worthwhile either, or that I wouldn't vote delete at an AFD, I just said I wouldn't nominate it myself. Domer just seemed obsessed with it, so I thought I'd encourage him to put his energies into an article, rather than irrelevant rants on an AFD. Whether I would vote to delete such an article would depend on the article itself and the AFD debate. (And as for misquotes, we have Play it again, Sam, and, to a lesser extent, stinking badges.)

So that's my take, expanded slightly from what I've said before. The article meets my criteria of being notable and verifiable. Admittedly it isn't the most informative article ever, but it provides information that isn't all entirely apparent from the title. And I still believe there is potential for expansion. If we had only articles on things that were the subjects of individual studies we'd delete half of Wikipedia. Likewise I still think it could be a redirect, but I know of no better place to merge/redirect it to. Well, thanks for reading this. -R. fiend (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As so often when people take the trouble to discuss things calmly, we're not that far apart at all. My main concern, I have to say, was that I could nominate Tiocfaidh ár lá for deletion and not be countered with "we've already established that any slogan that people have heard of is inherently suitable for an article", so I'm glad to see that you're not wedded to it. What I'd ideally like to see for Rome Rule is to have it expanded to one or two informative paragraphs, then merged into Irish Home Rule bills under, say, Irish Home Rule bills#"Home Rule is Rome Rule"; then you'd have your redirect and everybody would be happy. I'd just rather not do it myself because I'd really like to get back to Easter Rising and put my energies into that. At least I've learned one thing from all this: until this morning I had never heard of "stinking badges"; now I know it's "one of the most frequently quoted, misquoted and parodied movie quotations in history." How about that? Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add something here. After a couple of attempts I decided it was actually easier to start the article. The point is that the curiosity was killing me and the red link was bugging me. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I remember looking for the phrase Chucky are la. I could not find it them. I think I would now! P.S. I do now understand the fada Aatomic1 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you did that! Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final points – though I dont make a point of helping Domer in his polemics, I have added Tiocfaid Ár Lá – regarding the mileage of that particular article, I had to learn Irish to find out, not only, what it meant, but how it is constructed. This is information I am keen to share with the wider world and Wikipedia would be a great place to do it. Aatomic1 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your needless merging. --Plate King (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "needless" is two articles where one is plenty. -R. fiend (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop. Several users are working on both. The consensus is to have one for the current plates, the other for the prior plates. What you are doing could possibly be considered vandalsism. --Plate King (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where is this consensus? -R. fiend (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious. If you continue you will be reported as a vandal and what you will be doing will be reverted. --Plate King (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no consensus. I thought as much. Report away, then. -R. fiend (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I will say is please stop. Your edits will be reverted. --Plate King (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend, while I agree the articles should be merged, I think it could possibly be useful to organize a centralized discussion to establish consensus to prevent an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While my actions were partly based on this brief exchange and the corresponding merge notices on the article, it's based much more on common sense. None of these articles are terribly long, and most are very short. There is absolutely no need for breakaway articles here. I'm happy to take part in a centralized discussion; is there one or a good place for one? I personally don't feel like initiating the whole RFC process. In any case, my actions now, though I realize they are being reverted, I figure will make the merges easier to perform later, assuming common sense does eventually prevail. -R. fiend (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my support for a merge to Talk:History of vehicle registration plates of Mississippi. Also, we could ask OhanaUnited's opinion about how to resolve this. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were the 2 article names prior to the merge? Normally, if 2 articles are short and share very similar topic (in this case, about vehicle registration or license plate), it can be merged. Nevertheless, the merge shouldn't be unilateral and should consult the community first. R. field, you stated that "there is no consensus". So where is the consensus to merge? I suggest you to read WP:KETTLE. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhanaUnited, there are several articles being discussed for a possible merge, all of which have similar titles to History of vehicle registration plates of Mississippi and Vehicle registration plates of Mississippi.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--- What we have here are 100 articles that can and should be 50. For each state we have [Vehicle registration plates of X] and [History of Vehicle registration plates of X]. There's no reason not to combine these. Most are quite short (see Vehicle registration plates of Iowa and History of vehicle registration plates of Iowa), and even the longer ones are not very long. While I'd hesitate to call it a consensus, I do have a brief discussion here, in which no one objected after a few weeks. I've been given no reason why there should be separate articles here, whereas a merge is quite intuitive. -R. fiend (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Citizen Fish, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Fish. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is sure a welcome sight! I too gave back the mop and bucket since I was tired of having abuse hurled at me. Nice to have you back. The former Lucky 6.9 in his new secret identity of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I remember you. As I recall, you were one of the only admins faster with the speedy delete trigger finger than I was. Anyway, the author of International Justice Network is a friend of mine, a newbie who called me saying he was having trouble. I told him about the copyright issue, ad cleaned it up for him. I think it should be okay now.

Now, your new identity isn't exactly a "secret" if you're announcing it on talk pages, is it? Did you resign amidst controversy like I did, or give up your powers more willingly? And to paraphrase LL Cool J: "don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years". R. fiend (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny.  :)) No, I gave them back voluntarily. Managed to stay away for nearly two years. Thanks for cleaning up the article. He was on a bit of a copyvio spree. Besides, I've never tried to hide my old username. I did a lot of good work with it, but that doggonned delete button was just too much. Too many bruised egos, too many threats, no damned fun. So, I do the tagging, let the admins handle the problem and do some occasional cleaning-up and I'll even add an article every so often. Just did one about the old Bert Kaempfert single, That Happy Feeling. Good childhood vibes.  :)--PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the section heading revert. You are of course correct and the WP:MOS says so too (H1 for auto generated page titles, from there on, H2, H3...etc).

For that, I'm sorry!

Best wishes –MDCollins (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't actually know what the MoS said, I just knew it didn't look right. R. fiend (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R., you have the best line of the whole trip:

its factual statements may even be confined to "Hi, I'm Ben Stein..."

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) wish kind regards[reply]

why did you remove the prod? WP:MUSIC states members of a band shouldn't have individual pages unless they're notable for something outside 1 particular band, which this guy does not appear to be. Ironholds 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, he's significant enough to deserve an AFD. All the other members of the band have articles which aren't being proded. -R. fiend (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, because they've done work outside the band, either solo or with other bands. I'll AfD it now, then. Ironholds 02:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Try to read more carefully in the future. And try to work on your grammar and punctuation." is, as you very well know, not how we work here. You have some good points. Please don't undermine your own arguments by ad hominems. Thanks, --John (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very annoying when, after clearly stating my view on something, I get it repeated back to me by someone who obviously didn't (or isn't able to) read it correctly, completely misconstruing what I said. Repeatedly, in this case. Especially when that person writes for an encyclopedia. If they are unable to grasp the crux of what I have said with a few sentences, how can I trust that he same person is not misrepresenting their sources when writing in the articlespace?

As for grammar, it was pretty atrocious. I was giving some advice. I'm sure you know as well as I do what a pain it is to have to clean up articles after people with poor writing skills have had at them. But I'll try to be more agreeable in the future. -R. fiend (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I get irritated too sometimes. Thanks for being decent about it. This situation won't be improved by more put-downs and thanks for realizing that. As I said, you made some good points. It might be worth a shot at WT:V at some stage perhaps. Take care, --John (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It was bad manners of me to change "Bounty (ship)" to "HMS Bounty" without allowing time for you and the article's other editors to respond to my comments on its talk page. The issue just seems cut and dried to me, for the reasons stated there. You might like to comment there yourself as to why you disagree with me and Sir John Barrow. He wrote THE book on the subject. Cheers. --Petecarney (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the article's talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right there with the redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making redirects, you cannot arbitrarily redirect a large number of pages without discussion. Please discuss here. -PatPeter 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will soon border the WP:3RR. Please stop and discuss at the link. -PatPeter 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Fiend; you and I have "met" (excuse the poor facsimilie, it is all I have to work with right now) on the CoP page, specifically the section detailing the alleged CoP surrounding Barack Obama. Before I go on, I feel the need to make something crystal clear to everybody who might be reading this: I am an American Citizen. Although I do not agree with Mr Obama, when he takes the Oath he will be my President.

If he calls I, on my Oath, am sworn to answer the call. And it won't be "Go away," it will be "Yes, Mr President."

None of that, however, is germaine to the discussion we find ourselves in now. R. Fiend, in looking at the past edits of the CoP page (specifically the parts as noted about Barack Obama) I am finding that it appears to be you who are doing the most re-edits to remove references to the alleged CoP surrounding President-Elect Obama.

If I am wrong, I am mature enough to formally to apologize not only to you but to anybody else who I might have offended. Nevertheless, I still find myself wondering about your motives.

Myself, I have strong political beliefs – none of which belong in a neutral article. My beliefs, although based on fact, are an opinion. And a single person's opinion does not a fact make.

Nevertheless, when several people hold to the same opinion, they could be said to share consensus on that particular issue. And there is growing consensus, among people in the news industry no less, that President-Elect Obama seems to be forming a CoP. Let us not also forget that the President-Elect will have his face featured on the DC Metro Card. SOURCE: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/11/20/obamas-mug-on-dc-subway-cards-for-inauguration/

This is a blog, but it contains information from an official source – a source that happens to be the Metro's spokesman. That also could be taken as an indication of a CoP forming.

R. Fiend, I really would like your thoughts on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Entropy (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is simply one of facts and sources, not opinions. We have had an influx of people adding POV to the article, based on original research. They have repeatedly put Obama's name alongside Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's, based on stuff like "look! a youtube video of some kids singing a song about Obama!" My political opinions don't matter. It is clear that there is a group of mostly anonymous editors who are determined to add Obama's name to the article, clearly as a smear, on the flimsiest of pretexts. That is what I intend to put a stop to. I admit, the more recent additions are not as egregious, as they use the semblance of a source, and don't try to equate him with dictators. But to include Obama in this article based on a passing comment by a single journalist (a journalist that specifically does not use the term to describe him, incidentally), still is insufficient. If people want to mention Obama in the article, I'm open to it, but it should be based on real, reliable sources, and should be part of an effort to expand the article to include democracies in general, not singling out Obama as the only elected official ever to approach this level of a cult. As for Chavez, yes, that was not well sourced either, and so I removed it; I probably should have done so earlier. I'm more than open to a discussion on the talk page about how to expand the article to potentially include other elected leaders, such as FDR, Reagan, Churchill, Kennedy, and even Obama (thought it would help to wait until he's actually President, as the article states the term refers to leaders). But this should be a discussion about sources, not a haphazard post saying "looks like a cult of personality to me...I'm adding his name now." -R. fiend (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say hi, for no reason. Good to see you're still around and all. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to hear from you again. Now you've gone and changed your name from something straightforward to this mess? Are you on the witness protection program? But yeah, still around. Never really left. You? -R. fiend (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waxed and waned. Waxing again. For a while. What's wrong with the name? It's necessary to maintain some measure of real-life anonymity! bd2412 T 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a perfectly good name...for a droid. Seriously, though, I did prefer the old moniker. And isn't a bit too late to strive for anonymity? The toothpaste is out of the tube. Glad you're still around, anyway. I should check up on the old gang. Not that there ever was an "old gang", but there was a group of 10 or so editors I had a deal of respect for, you prominent among them. Think I'll have a look and see if the Geogre is still active. -R. fiend (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give you a "heads-up". Currently, Sandinista! appears to be embroiled in an edit war. I'd like to remind that reverts are limited to three; and that we encourage talk page discussion rather than article reverts. Be advised that violations of the Three Revert Rule will henceforth result in a block. Most kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits by the anon in question seem to me to qualify as vandalism, and therefore out of scope of 3RR, however, I will try to get another party to revert if the same edit is made again. Some of us have been discussing this on the talk page; the anon vandal is not among them. -R. fiend (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I think the sections you worked on are improved by the reworking. See y'later. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad you think so. It's sort of annoying how that article seems to only be addressed by strong partisans on both sides. The pro-ID side seems to be right about one thing though, the article does appear to be largely written by people who haven't seen the movie. I just watched parts of it a second time (which I'd rather not have to do; at least it was free) in an effort to actually make the article address the movie itself, not only the critics' take on it. I'll probably be labeled as some creationist nutjob now. -R. fiend (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a terrible, unfortunate, history. The deletion was necessary so as to start afresh, not because the subject is not notable or the information easily verifiable. I hope you read the deletion logs before making up your mind.Likebox (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about this guy, or the article for that matter. However, I do think that whenever a deleted article is recreated, it at least needs discussion. I'm not one to adhere to policy to the extent that I would mandate a deletion review, but I don't think unilateral recreation is appropriate, even if the new content is substantially different. Discuss first. That's all I desire. -R. fiend (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Watson and Crick, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watson and Crick (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Firestorm (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why edit summaries are always a good thing. Garion96 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. -R. fiend (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on the number of articles is being discussed here:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Twenty five percent of wikipedia is fiction articles?

We would love your input. Ikip (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this placement of the new material brought over from Creationism and intelligent design is reasonable. It's generally agreed the article was stretching the limits of length for some time now. But a brief subsection about positions of OECs and YECs w.r.t. "intelligent design" seems suitably placed along with the "Religion and leading proponents" section. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're okay with the section, and while I agree that the article is pretty long, I don't think 2 paragraphs are going to break its back. If need be, I suppose that section could be put into intelligent design movement, although that article is very long too. I haven't taken much of a look at it yet, but I imagine it must have a deal of redundancy with the regular ID article. Well, that's a separate issue entirely, and one I don't feel like jumping into at the moment. -R. fiend (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Patrick Pearse article is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. —Eustress ^talk 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For helping to keep the 'pedia in tip-top shape. Cheers! —Eustress talk 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it. -R. fiend (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I like the opening statement on your user page, btw.)

Having done tens of thousands of antivandalism edits, I make use of experience about how and when to stop vandalism. I usually avoid tracking individuals, but rather go for "the most changes in the shortest period". That is, some fish get through the net. In this case, I've put a watch on West Ridge Academy, and plan to go back and undo the vandalism. But in my time, not the vandal's. I.e., my object is to fix the article and to thwart the vandal. I'm not too concerned that they mangle an article for a few hours.

That all said, I don't know what your plan is for dealing with the vandal, but I'm happy to help. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I requested semi-protection for the page and two others, and we'll see what happens there. My main concern is that I'm in danger of 3rr (if I haven't exceeded it already, I haven't gone through all my edits to see which are edits and which are reverts). Some of my reverts are undoing obvious vandalism and WP:BLP issues, so shouldn't be held against me for 3rr violations, but others are less obviously so. In any case, this guy is being a dick and wheel warring, whilst refusing to discuss his edits. I'm quite sure he's broke 3rr. I guess I could just use help reverting his vandalism. -R. fiend (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll mosey on over to the page right now. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. You have new messages at Eustress's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to West Ridge Academy. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. —Eustress ^talk 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm sometimes bad about it, especially if I can't sum up an unimportant edit concisely. Rest assured all my edits are good ones. Besides, if you don't trust an someone's edits, why trust their edit summaries? -R. fiend (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reversion. I had no idea I was stringing a bunch of random quotes together there. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that this anon editing at West Ridge Academy is a banned person? If you can provide it, I have no problem with locking in your version. (And by evidence I don't necessarily mean CU-type evidence. Even ducky-type evidence could get us there.)

OK, yeah: User talk:Utahboysranchnetwork#User name reported, User talk:Good K Now that I actually research this better, it's obvious. I want to apologise to you, now that I've found out I've been dicking around with a banned user. I thought I was being balanced by not locking in your version, but I'm going to do so now after I block the anon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection's been removed and rolled-back to your version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no need to apologize. I actually don't have an issue with a few of the changes the anon made, I think, but others I did. I'll look into it some more when I get the chance. -R. fiend (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of your recent actions at WP:WQA Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is ongoing and your input is appreciated. Jerry teps (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease engaging in an edit war on Cult of personality forthwith, and take disputes to the talk page. Thank you, Steven Walling (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the site an encyclopedia is misleading because encyclopedias are intended to document raw information and include reliable sources. Since most of the criticism aimed at Conservapedia is that it is strongly biased and opinionated and uses unreliable sources, it doesn't meet that definition. Since it describes itself as an "encyclopedia" that's worth mentioning. But the article should refer to it by its content, not just what it describes itself as.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically preaching to the choir here, but it's been discussed on the talk page and it's pretty much been decided that to deny it is an encyclopedia (or "encyclopedia project") would be original research. Yes, it's basically Andy Schlafly's blog, but it is not Wikipedia's place to make such a claim. -R. fiend (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were being mentioned. See User talk:Edison#"Smerge". Kudos for introducing the term. Edison (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please watch how you express your frustration. Even when not directed at other editors, profanity should be avoided. Rd232 ^talk 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R.fiend. I don't wish to canvass, but I feel you should probably be aware that an interaction involving you has been cited at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Domer48#Outside view by Rockpocket. If I have misrepresented the exchange, please do let me know. Rockpocket 08:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you hve been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:R. fiend reported by User:BigDunc (Result: ) Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as you seem to not know what a revert is, you really should read WP:REVERT again. BigDunc 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Irish Volunteers. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below.

Per this complaint at WP:AN3. Any admin may lift this block if you will promise to stop warring on this article, and use formal dispute resolution instead. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

R. fiend (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is borderline ridiculous, particularly as the second "revert" was an attempt at compromise phrasing, while final "revert" was an attempt to reinsert only the uncontroversial part of a series of edits which was constantly being reverted by an editor who refused to discuss the matter on the talk page. To lecture me about discussing matters on the talk page when I extensively do so while other parties merely whine and post irrelevant BS is just mindless.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As someone who was involved in the previous discussion, please weigh in at the current move discussion at Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel). Your input is invaluable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, R. fiend. Unfortunately, that particular requested move discussion had been closed by the time you added your comment (requested move discussions are usually closed after 7 days). However, as consensus can change, you are welcome to informally continue the discussion with any new evidence and insights you may have. -kotra (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jealousy Curve. 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. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question for you. Can you tell me your e-mail?
Yours faithfully,
Russian participant Мичманъ.

I've noticed that a lot of OR slips into that article, particularly information from the site itself rather than any third-party sources. I gather you're an admin; what do you suggest be done about the situation?

ALSO, there's an article I WANT to write, but I'm not sure how notable is notable enough. Here and here are reliable(?) sources obtained from the relevant search term, and proposed article title, Conformal geometric algebra). To your reckoning, does this look notable enough?--Leon (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you gathered incorrectly, I'm actually not an admin, not anymore. But since nothing you're proposing requires admin tools, that isn't terribly important. As for Conservapedia, OR can be an issue, but the subject of an article is a reliable source on certain aspects, such as their stated purpose, and general, uncontroversial statistics. The problem with CP is they aren't trustworthy on just about everything, even who they are. There aren't all that many sources on the site except for opinion pieces (all universally negative), so there isn't a whole lot to go on here. I think the best we can do is say "Conservapedia claims these are its core policies:..." without specifically addressing the fact that they are largely ignored whenever it is convenient.

As for your proposed article, that is far out of any area of expertise on my part. I suggest you go ahead and write it. The worst that will happen is an AfD. -R. fiend (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's still attributing those acts to RW, meaning RW has engaged in those acts no matter who else has done it. If you and another person commit murders, does that mean that someone who is talking about you cannot say you committed murders? Seregain (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading, at least. It's like saying "Winona Ryder and other criminals have committed many crimes, including shoplifting, rape, arson, and murder," and using that to make it out that Ryder committed all those crimes, not just the first. -R. fiend (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what the referenced sources are doing. If Rationalwiki weren't engaging is such acts of vandalism, there's no way a reporter would write a sentence that way or an editor would let such a sentence through. If you don't like it, find a source to the contrary. As it stands, two sources make it abundantly clear that all the acts of vandalism mentioned have been perpetrated by Rationalwiki members. To claim otherwise is original research based upon your own personal interpretation of the sources. Seregain (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misreading the source. It says "The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire...". Who are the vandals? Rationalwikians and others. Attributing specific types of vandalism (porn, errors, etc.) to RW is going beyond what the article says. The article, as it stood before you changed it, gave a pretty fair summation; your changes do not. They are needlessly controversial. -R. fiend (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm misreading nothing. Both sources state that Rationalwiki members have engaged in vandalism and what types of vandalism they've done:

Unfortunately, RationalWiki admits it, and others, have engaged in "cyber-vandalism" against Conservapedia during which they've "inserted errors, pornographic photos, and satire".

And:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire

The sources make no distinction between Rationalwiki members and these nameless "others." I'm making nothing more controversial than it is stated in these articles. In fact, in the new source, the "and others" phrase is preceded and followed by commas, making it something that can be removed from the sentence leaving: "...Rationalwiki admits it [has] engaged in 'cyber-vandalism'..." Seregain (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That RW has engaged in acts of cyber-vandalism is backed up by the source, and that's what the article currently says. The specific nature of the vandalism is attributed only to "vandals", which could be anyone. That's the issue. You're taking the acts of people from RW "and elsewhere" and attributing them all to RW. "In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales..." The article doesn't say if the Gonzales edit was made by RW or other nameless vandals (of which there are plenty), so we shouldn't be attributing anything to them beyond one person's admission of very vague "cyber-vandalism". -R. fiend (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what the article says one way or the other, since wiki "vandalism" is hardly as objectionable as put-upon CP admin would have you believe. Nonetheless, I care about the truth and accuracy. The LA Times article does not say that "RW has engaged in acts of cyber-vandalism." It says that Lipson and his fellow editors at the time engaged in acts of cyber-vandalism. Minor point. Not that anyone here actually cares, but I'll write down here once: RW isn't a staging ground for wandalism. It's a place that gets deeply under CP admins' skin because they find true things and supportable opinions written about them they don't like. 98.226.15.58 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TK and I did exchange e-mails, he is misrepresenting what was said, and leaving out context for the dispute. As far as I am concerned it is resolved. If you want more specific details from me send me an e-mail. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was posting this on the talk page of Expelled and experienced an edit conflict with you. Thank you very much for your reasonable comments. I'm pasting in here what I was going to post there. Will you please vet it and advise me if I'm being unnecessarily defensive? I have no desire to engage in a battle of wills and words with Charles. I do strongly object to his words, to his refusal to discuss before editing, and to the mindset I perceive behind his actions. I'll be waiting for your counsel, here, I guess, or at my own talk page if you prefer. Thanks! --Yopienso (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have wildly misinterpreted my comment and revealed the personal prejudice that hampers your ability to collaborate on articles like this one. You inserted the word "only" which I did not include, imply, or intend. I have a sound understanding of the meanings of the word "theory" and used it advisedly. Please strike your assertion that I presented a lie.

I don't think the controversy generated between Gould and Dawkins indicates they are (or were) a noisy bone-headed minority of religious nutters... Even if they were, your gratuitous casting of aspersions is unseemly. Were you calling me that? As for complicated, granted I'm no genius and a mere layperson, but I've been unable to grasp the role of Hox gene expression in the development of limbs.

Mindsets like yours and the habit of railing against imaginary or actual philosophical foes greatly hinders the work here. We're supposed to respect each other and cooperate for the good of the encyclopedia. For some reason you felt you did not need to engage in discussion but could cavalierly make a unilateral edit. I can only assume that's because since I'm a lying bone-headed creationist my requests and edits are worthless. Have I misunderstood you?

Changing gears here, assuming in good faith that you will retreat from your excesses, let's have a reasoned discussion on the sentence in question. First, sometimes RSs are wrong, which doesn't mean they aren't RSs, but that they made a mistake. This has happened quite a bit in the CRU article. Colorado Confidential (present footnote #6) claims, "You won't hear a coherent definition of evolution in the 'Expelled,' either, even though it bashes this scientific theory incessantly." Yet I find this direct quote from the film,

Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions,

perfectly coherent. Is that source good enough to stand in the article? Probably not, but it should be good enough to keep the sentence in question out of the article, since it's true. How do I know? I saw the movie! If you watched it, you would find it's true. I know you (the broad you--WP) can't take my word for it and going to the source is OR, but I firmly oppose using a source we know is wrong to try to prove something that isn't true.

Looks quite good to me. Some of it is a bit redundant with my reply to him, but that's not really a problem. Not overly defensive. -R. fiend (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope I'm not rushing in where angels fear to tread. --Yopienso (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

contains no info not already in both the article for Cash himself and for the film

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man in Black: His Own Story in His Own Words until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made here re: your 1RR violation

Hello. I am going though all files with names starting with DSC and where applicable renaming them, filling out Template:Information summaries, and/or marking them ((copytocommons)).

As part of this I have come across your upload, File:DSCF1427.JPG, which does not have description information on the file description page and is not used in an article. Therefore I cannot on my own identify the subject of the image.

Please insert a description of what the image is at the file description page (File:DSCF1427.JPG).

Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted the overlink that I removed once again stating that ABBA are not even linked in a text section. Did you miss the format section which has ABBA wikilinked, as well as the result table which also has them linked? I've delinked ABBA from the lead once more. Also note that ProjectEurovision are discussing all Eurovision-related articles anyway, including when to link and when not to link. Regards, Wesley♦^Mouse 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't rocket science. You link the first mention of any relevant proper noun in article. That's the one I linked in the second paragraph. Why you think it's preferable to not link the band until the third section is beyond me. In any case, repeating a link in an article is hardly the end of the world, and can actually be useful for long articles. Better to overlink than underlink. I'll be adding the link to ABBA's first mention in the article. If you want to remove the other link further down, go ahead; I don't see it as being anything worth the effort. -R. fiend (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the tone used by yourself there to be somewhat rude. And by reverting again you've now engaged into edit warring territory, something which you should be familiar with as you have already been blocked once for such actions. I would advise that you cease such disruptiveness and concentrate on cooperative editing with fellow Wikipedians. Also it may be worth noting once again that the community members of ProjectEurovision decided on the layout style of Eurovision articles, and we link the first reference in the article and not the lead section, unless the article is large, then we would double link. Many users have AWB, which scans the articles and removes overlinking. So at some point somebody would probably remove the overlink in the lead anyway. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please start a new thread at WT:ESC. Regards Wesley♦^Mouse 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking in which it says "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." Or just read any Wikipedia article and observe how it's done in literally every other article. Or just use logic. Any will suffice. If for whatever reason a group of misguided editors has decided to use a different system from every other article on Wikipedia and not include links in the lead, only the later parts of the article, then why are Brighton, United Kingdom, BBC, Luxembourg, Waterloo, and Katie Boyle all linked in that section? (On a separate note, why does the location section have a couple paragraphs on the history of Brighton? What does the Domesday Book have to do with the Eurovision song contest?). If you're so concerned about a link appearing twice in the same article that you simply need something to be done about it, I'll remove the link in the "Format" section as redundant (though I think it's fine that's there). In any case, I think this is my current record for minor edit to subsequent BS ratio in 8 years. -R. fiend (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will kindly ask once again that you refrain from using a somewhat rude and patronising tone in your comments to other editors. Civility is a preferred method around these parts. In regards to other articles, I am not sure why they haven't been updated accordingly, there are only a 100 or so members at WP:ESC, and we do have real-life to think about as well as voluntary editing on Wikipedia. A consensus was reached on layout style on Eurovision by Year articles, which also included adding a brief detail about the host location using the lead section from that particular article. This layout has proven to be a success in the fact that ESC 2012 reached GA-class using the same layout style. Discussions are already in mid-flow on the project to implement similar styles to other Eurovision articles such as "Country" in Eurovision. Feel free to participate in that discussion if you wish and maybe perhaps add some suggestions of your own to help improve the article styles. Regards Wesley♦^Mouse 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article on the 2012 contest it does look pretty decent, I guess. I do, however, notice that the winning act is linked in the lead. Honestly, you should try to use that article as a model for the other Eurovision articles, as glancing over a few random ones I see that many are terrible. Several don't mention the wining act or song in the lead. Many are formatted terribly. Lots of bad writing all around. -R. fiend (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the 2012 article as a model for the others ones. But as I have pointed out once already, we do have real-life beyond Wikipedia, we're not sat here on Wikipedia 24/7. I started to roll out the layout style across other articles starting from 1956, but as I was also a volunteer at London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic games, then I had to pause the roll out exercise as my time was busy preparing/working at the games. This last weekend I started a new job as Assistant Manager at a pub, so again time is limited and editing can only be done when time permits me to do so. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Cuckston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Alansohn. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Flemington, New Jersey without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of leaving generic irrelevant templates on people's talk pages, why not read edit summaries? It can do wonders. -R. fiend (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted material about the White Horse Circle with modified text and added sources into the article for White Horse, New Jersey. I think that few editors would agree with your stance that this is unencyclopedic and should be removed. Your stance that the White Horse Circle redirect should be deleted was also addressed eight years ago at User talk:R. fiend/Archive5#White Horse Circle and if you still believe that the redirect should be deleted I would suggest nominating that article for deletion. I hope that the added text addresses whatever legitimate concerns you may have, but I would otherwise remind you that you are already past a WP:3RR violation and i would suggest that you seek broader consensus before any further deletion of content here or anywhere else. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, you're not one of those people who thinks anything with a footnote after it is relevant, important, and set in stone are you? If your main argument here is that out of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors, you can find three who agree with, then I'm sure you're right. But that isn't a terribly good argument. If you're looking for consensus, I already showed you one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle. It's clear there is a consensus to delete the article for being subtrivial crap, not kept or merged (which is much the same as keep). 17 different editors (most of whom are still valuable contributors to the site) wanted to get that shit the hell out of Wikipedia, very few wanted it kept (almost all of them long gone), and no one favored a merge, probably because they rightfully thought it would make the article look like shit (and they were right). If you can't see how a plethora of irrelevant minutiae about a circle of roadway taking up a huge proportion of the article makes it look ridiculous, then I don't know exactly what to tell you. If you're really keen on improving articles like this, why not add relevant information, instead of reinserting deleted ramblings of some obsessive halfwit who left the project years ago? I'm sure there's relevant information about any town out there (even those in New Jersey), but exactly what roads happen to merge together at a circle of asphalt. We have many thousands of articles on towns and cities; can you find any others that are just census information, and then several paragraphs on a single street and what intersects it? Do you think there's a reason why we don't do that? Think about it for a bit. In the meantime, as I pointed out, we have a clear consensus that states, to paraphrase "fuck that shit". So don't be surprised if I remove it again. And if I'm crossing the 3rr line, you have one more than I do. -R. fiend (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your exegesis of an AfD from eight years ago is fascinating -- especially the analysis of how the participants in that long-past discussion would vote today -- but is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia allows content to be moved, redirects to be created and articles to be recreated, even after failing AfD. Your continued edit warring and threats thereof, pointy edits ("The only notable aspect of White Horse is a rotary" and "Flemington is also home to Allen St., which runs north-south, starting at North Main St. and ending at Court St. in the south.") and misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy only serve to further undermine your already tenuous position. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 people said they wanted it removed from Wikipedia. We call that deletion, and removal of said content. If you have a more recent consensus contradicting that, please point it out. Your assertion that deleted content (vanity pages, etc.) is perfectly acceptable in a page with a different name is a novel one. Maybe I'll go through all the articles currently being deleted on AfD and copy/paste them elsewhere. That's a great idea. I'm sure it'd go over well. -R. fiend (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said it quite accurately when you described on your user page your plans "to spend more time being an asshole." You have clearly succeeded. Consensus in 2005 was to delete the article for White Horse Circle. No element of that ancient consensus forbids creating a redirect, merging the content to another article or expanding the content elsewhere; the consensus relates only to that article and does not require that we -- as you have so poetically described -- "fuck that shit" in any form. You have removed material from the article for White Horse, New Jersey on ten occasions now. Bizarrely you respected consensus in 2005 from three other editors who stood up to your efforts to remove the content, but now you arrogate the right to remove this content in the face of further consensus / additional expansion from me and User:Tinton5. You are already on extremely thin ice at WP:AN3 and the community consensus is rather clear that we have no place here for an "asshole" like you. I have added sources and expanded the section, yet you still refuse to accept the changes and insist on misinterpreting the results of an ancient AfD. Is there anything that will satisfy your issues with White Horse, New Jersey or would it just be simpler to work to eliminate a complete and total "asshole" from Wikipedia and resolve the problem in that manner. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people wanted to merge and redirect it, they would have voted to merge and redirect it (which is a form of keep, by the way). No one said that. Doing so is therefore against consensus. Yes it's an old consensus, but it doesn't expire unless overridden by a newer one. 2 editors is not a consensus. If you can get enough impartial editors to agree with you then that's a different matter. Right now no one's looking at the article, and your attempt to make this into a 3rr issue has been met with a pretty clear silence. So here are my suggestions: do whatever it is you do to get more eyes on this article and see what the community at large thinks, and see if they disagree with what the community in 2006 said. Or, better yet, actually try to improve the article. You know, by adding relevant information about the town in question. I'm pretty sure there's more to White Horse than a circle of roadway, though you'd never know from the article. I bet if you put your mind to it you could do better than adding the ramblings of SPUI (who's best contribution to Wikipedia was abandoning it), and maybe make a quarter decent article there. If that's too much work, and inserting deleted material is really the best way to go, then well, good luck to you. -R. fiend (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello. though i would normally agree that the article is too short, your creating a redirect is causing a cascade of problems, including orphaned images and templates. inasmuch as it was the play that won several awards, including the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Comedy, i would argue that the article is ample enough (if barely) to stand on its own. if you don't agree please use the talk page for discussion. --emerson7 13:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R.,

Thank you for 'de-listifying', earlier today, the short sentences I had initially included for the first three albums by Patrick Street (there are a few other, similar short sentences lower down in the article).

My plan was--and still is--to expand these short sentences by highlighting the songs that Irvine contributed to each and every Patrick Street album, as per the approach I adopted when describing his solo albums.

Therefore, these short, seemingly list-like sentences were temporary place-holders for me to return to in the near future, when I have the time to apply these updates for *all* the PS albums in a single editorial session. I agree these short sentences seemed odd in their previous form but, as you know, one can't apply all the intended updates at once, and more's the pity. ;-)

When I apply these updates, though, it is quite possible that the text you have recently 'de-listified' might end up showing as a single paragraph for each album again (though with added text), as I daresay the reader(s) would probably welcome this approach, simply for readability.

I wanted to send you the present note to inform you of the above plan, out of courtesy, so that you knew in advance that any future changes I will apply to these Patrick Street sections were not intended simply to undermine your recent improvement.

Thank you, by the way, for initiating the article in the first place.

With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Long jump may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• event <ref>Stephen G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004, p.66)</ref>. The jumpers would land in what was called a ''skamma'' ("dug-up" area) <ref>Stephen G.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This is excellent! Rudiedirkx (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd stop by and second that. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks. To what do I owe this honor? -R. fiend (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the other guy was thinking, but I'm just happy to see you still plugging away after all these years. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steven Mackintosh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis Belle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Boris the Sprinkler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear R. fiend,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 03:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Foster (doctor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sterilization. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barefoot Sanders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had placed the info in the entry Barefoot Sanders based on publicly known information via the Dallas area as well Dallas media references and research books courtesy of SMU's library. Yet, you keep reverting my edits, not based on content but it seems based on a personal vendetta. Or is there another reason? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enzo Cilenti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Theory of Everything. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A great fan of your photo, R. fiend. But was it not a cow? Yours in anticipation.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm far from an expert on animal skulls, but I was told it was a horse when I bought it. I hope it was, or I'll feel slightly miffed. I'll take a closer look and compare internet photos when I have a chance in the next few days. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? You bought it?! Good job it wasn't a pig! Well, here's a horse and here's a cow, so I think you almost certainly safe. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Men Without Hats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Datuk Huseein bin Onn. Since you had some involvement with the Datuk Huseein bin Onn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Little Magician. Since you had some involvement with the The Little Magician redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 05:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect [[:]] Little Magician is also being discussed in the same discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Irish National Volunteers, R. fiend!

Wikipedia editor ThePromenader just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Redirect seems reasoned and in good faith, although it is hard to judge because the sources cited in the National Volunteers aren't accessible (for verification of occurances of 'National Volunteers' or 'Irish National Volunteers').

To reply, leave a comment on ThePromenader's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It's good to see you're still fighting the good fight at Easter Rising. I thought I should let you know that there's still a wikilink to Gerald Bostock at Thick as a Brick#Track listing. That was a bloody great album! Unfortunately, I no longer have a working turntable (or rather, I have a working turntable but not a working amplifier or PC hardware/software), so I'm reduced to listening to it on YouTube. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Still trying to keep an eye on The Rising and related articles. Got so much easier after Domer left/was banned/whatever. God, that guy was a plague (honestly I still check his contributions every now and then to make sure he isn't editing again). Anyway, I was never a really big fan of Tull, but I always liked Thick as a Brick, and I've recently started listening to more of their stuff. "With You Here To Help Me" is a current favorite. Well, thanks for the heads-up and keep up the good fight. -R. fiend (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Everything but the Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BPI and EMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of edit warring over at No intelligence allowed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I know. -R. fiend (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:3rr and wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He called me childish; I returned the favor. You gave him a warning too, eh? -R. fiend (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who called you childish? I certainly didn't, but you called me childish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the other looking like they only care about this film and engage like children." Unless you meant that to refer to yourself, in which case you really hit the nail on the head. -R. fiend (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, WP:NOTTHEM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Curse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princess Aurora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Corbblah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wheel of Fortune and The Chase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Cover, Protective, Individual, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((proposed deletion)) template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Evan Farmer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Had his fingers in several pies, but sourcing is nowhere to be found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from [[:Lorna Nogueira]], which you proposed for deletion. Redirects are not eligible for PROD. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thanks!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Megalomania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect User:R. fiend/Redirect test and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 17 § User:R. fiend/Redirect test until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 12:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, please review MOS:CITELEAD. Information in the lead typically does not need to be cited as long as it is detailed and appropriately sourced within the body of the article. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the statement that "this movie might have almost been nominated for an award" does not really belong in the article, and certainly not in the lead, even if it is cited. -R. fiend (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have an opinion on whether the statement belongs in the lead on that basis, but that wasn't your claimed rationale for removing it to this point. I'd recommend starting a discussion at the article's Talk page rather than simply removing it, just so there's no question regarding your motives and so that you can hear what other editors might think, but it's your call. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I see you already went ahead and removed it, so I guess we'll see where the chips land... DonIago (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to summarize the important parts of the article. That it was on an alleged "shortlist" for a technical Oscar (a fanciful way of saying "this film received no Oscar nominations") is simply not an important fact that should be mentioned right off the bat. I don't really think it belongs in the article at all; the "article" cited is 3 sentences that basically reads like it's saying "hey Academy, think about including this movie in your nominations." But I didn't remove it from the body where one could, I suppose, argue it's slightly relevant, albeit adding more clutter to an already bloated article. I don't think it should be a terribly controversial edit. -R. fiend (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really the one you need to persuade here, FWIW. I don't know whether anyone else will care either, but as evidenced, when you were removing the statement using the argument that it was unsourced you raised some eyebrows. I don't know whether anyone will object with your current rationale. DonIago (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sukarno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter the Painter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter the Painter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]