User talk:CycloneGU

This user has recently added a Canadian flag to this page, as well as a local time userbox. Look at my Wikicode if you want them for your page. The animated flag can be for other countries, too. Please feel free to suggest further ideas for creative content.

This user has recently started a Twitter account. Please feel free to follow me for random useless non-Wiki tidbits. I also try to be funny.

Userboxes vn-2 This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times. It is approximately 8:34 PM where this user lives.

Archives

Thru 2008 All of 2009 January 2010 to May 2010 June 2010 to December 2010 Signpost Archive

Nice updating of the Lambton College page. How quickly the rot occurs since I helped maintain that page. Just for reference you changed 'armoires' to 'armories'. The former is a cabinet for clothing, the latter is a place with weapons. You also changed the spelling of 'centre' to 'center'. Because the original was 'centre' and it is on an article about a Canadian College, I have changed it back.

Iæfai (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. But I think there are very few images of Bieber available in the commons. Candyo32 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, that was ages ago, LOL. I was A Step Into Oblivion, and this is my current account after WP:CHU. And yep figured that out eventually, heh, also figured out I was trying to talk to a bot. No worries and thanks for the offer to help, anyways. :) --Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the latest absurd 'Pending Changes' poll. I agree with your edit summary 100%. Jusdafax 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the note, I read your comment before seeing the new message here as well. =) I remember last time supporting that user's poll, but despite my somewhat praised efforts to turn the poll into something salvageable and much more useful, it instead turned into a bunch of bickering that even a 60-65% yea vote could not overcome. A lot of bad things were both therein and later said, including on Jimbo's talk page (I think even I might have offended someone) and I think a couple of people flat-out quit Wikipedia over it (hopefully returned since), with many others making the same threat. I happened to think about Pending Changes myself at just the right time and came along right after the poll was created after not thinking about it for a few months. I was just in the right place at the right time to squelch the absurdity.

As an aside, Off2riorob has yet to comment on my remark on his talk page asking him not to create any further polls. I will be watching his page (and maybe more) for a little while. Jeremy and myself have since replied after you on Jimbo's page. CycloneGU (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that some sort of resolution should be attempted with Pending Changes, and that another hasty poll is not the way to go. I dislike PC and as I have commented elsewhere that I think a partial answer to vandalism is required registration. But that approach is currently not in favor with many of the people that matter, so we are left with a stalemate at present. PC was touted as a great solution, but I think it raised expectations that could not be met. As someone who has spent a great deal of time considering the problems Wikipedia faces, and how to solve them, I've now taken a couple steps back from devoting multiple hours daily to the encyclopedia. This could change, but for now I try to keep it light. Again I thank you for your fair but firm actions. Jusdafax 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my way to bed now, but I was thinking of joining IRC channels about this in case any discussion came up. Maybe Wednesday or Thursday. CycloneGU (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I archived your discussion as I don't understand what part of "Any continued discussion would be better on the pending discussion page, thanks." you are unable to understand - also , your article contributions don't explain or demonstrate why you should be interested in or have a deal of understanding in this issue anyways, as your comments are a bit aggressive and attacking in nature, please do not post them on my talkpage anymore, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this discussion will be deleted after it has run its course; it will remain in the history.

Deleted Posts at Off2riorob's Talk Page[edit]

Since your poll started the whole mess last time, I have removed it this time. It's not appropriate at this time. Please do not add it. I've left a note about the poll's removal. I will later remove it. CycloneGU (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mess, its working and protecting articles as we speak. The community needs to be allowed to add their weight to the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I presume good faith, I believe you don't get it. Seriously. The poll you created before was a malformed mess. Badly worded, and created an even bigger rift between all involved on opposite sides. And now seven months later your tactic is to issue ANOTHER badly worded poll yourself.

I am not arguing to having a poll. I am arguing to you administering a poll. We need an uninvolved administrator to create a fairly worded poll at a unique location, not a poll by a heavily involved user that may not be 100% clear and may be slanted in its wording towards one result, and thus has no actual usage in the proceedings, and further will have no effect on the outcome. This is why I removed it, and I've already been backed on this decision by a couple of our peers. So while I have no qualms about your participation (you are fully welcome to do so as is anyone else), I say again, stop pushing to have your poll included. It will be discounted for the above reasons.

And note that I still say this as a supporter of PC. I just want everything to be fair for all involved. Yes, your boldness (as Jimmy puts it) is appreciated, but it's not helpful here. CycloneGU (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original poll had issues, the main issue was a very vocal minority of users that just reject the tool completely, as is occurring now, the same users are simply attempting to turn off the tool without allow the community the opportunity to comment. Any continued discussion would be better on the pending discussion page, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I am sure you will agree that a poll from anyone like you or me would have little to no effect on the proceedings. What we need is a properly administered poll from an uninvolved party. As you and I are both involved in our own ways, neither of us is suitable for administering a poll and neither of us has any business creating one. So just promise you will keep your hands out of that venue. I would hate to have to suggest further action against you if you try to revisit that at your own creation, so please respect that the community is against a poll from someone who has a history of controversial edits and is biased towards one side. I won't comment further as it would be a waste of my time. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Comments[edit]

My comments are aggressive and attacking in nature? Meanwhile, you have on multiple occasions attempting to create a poorly worded poll that has absolutely no relevance as it will have no impact on what happens, and you get offended when people tell you that? I posted that as a final comment and was going to leave it alone, but an incidental refresh of your page showed me you deleted the conversation. I am asking you not to create the poll yourself any further as you have a slanted interest one way over the other, and I also will not create the poll - even though I would do it fairly, it's not my place to do so, it's the place of an uninvolved administrator or perhaps even a higher level (a bureaucrat maybe).

You feeling the need to standoffishly delete my comments suggests to me that you have no interest in other users' opinions despite the innocent nature of them. I removed your poll strictly because you created the one seven months ago that caused a HUGE rift between editors. I am asking you not to create polls any further regarding this issue noting clearly the reasons why. You delete my comments without even providing an answer to this statement, saying "the same users are simply attempting to turn off the tool without allow the community the opportunity to comment". I think the opposite; you are trying to force a judgment agreeing with your opinion in the middle of a very heated community discussion, and the discussion page itself is not a proper place to hold a poll when it would take two days to review everything on the page (plus subsequent edits) to have a full understanding of the situation. Further, you have a large history of controversial edits; I noticed this in your history. I understand you've also been blocked from editing in the past. Even the person who agreed with me within minutes of removing the poll, when I suggested he comment on your page to my post, said he won't waste his time because of your "combative nature and unpleasant demeanor". Editors who act like you have been are not people who make the Wikipedia experience in any way enjoyable; this is an encyclopedia, not a contest to have your opinion counted more than another in random and useless polls.

While I mean no harm nor to attack you through the Wiki in any way, it seems to me it's no wonder you are feeling Wikibonked lately, because it seems from the history that people are questioning your edits and you are disagreeing with them, sometimes by deleting them and acting like they didn't happen (as you no doubt intended to do with my comments). If I am by any means mistaken, please correct me. But otherwise, why should anyone give a crap about your feelings? Also, I have deleted your posts from my talk page in much the same fashion as you have mine from yours. CycloneGU (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't post talkback templates on my talkpage, I am watching your talkpage and will comment when I am able , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken, I did not know if you were watching or not. CycloneGU (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy in general, please don't take an aggressive attacking position against me, I assure you I have the best interests of the project at heart as I am sure you do to, the way forward is through agreement and understanding, lets try to move towards that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of what's keeping you busy. I am not trying to personally attack you or anything, I just want your word that you won't take such extreme measures. Your polls have a history of crashing, let's say. CycloneGU (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for the way Off2riorob operates as a Wikipedian and have noted such previously at various pages. Now this latest... In my view, this editor attempts to manufacture drama, then tries to evade the consequences, with mixed success. As noted, currently he is having what I'd call a mini-meltdown at the Wikiquette alerts page. In my opinion this is all an absurd waste of everyone's time. Jusdafax 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, already saw it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "I'll take a look at what you're drafting" - sure, that'd be great. Just bear in mind, it is absolutely a draft of a maybe-proposed proposal to possibly show somebody...etc. -ie, it is my own notes. It isn't anything to be taken at all seriously, and I would not have mentioned it, except for wishing to show you that "people were thinking". I hope that makes sense. Thank you. of course, comments are still very welcome.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have asked you not to continue posting on my talk page in this manner, perhaps when this issue is resolved but for the time being please do not post on my talkpage again - I am watching your talk page and associated discussion pages and will comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my last post I must apologize for. You copied Chzz's post to his page and did not indent your comment, and I mistook it for a post you made complaining about me on his talk page, which I now know is not the case.

Further, what is your issue with me posting on your talk page in general? If I have a concern, I'm going to post on your page, not mine. I don't start discussions with another party on my own talk page. In this case as we have an ongoing discussion this is an exception, but in the future after this discussion is completed I would start a new discussion on your page since it's senseless to start a conversation with myself.

As a side note, deleting posts doesn't make the issue related to you go away. You're treading a fine line now. Just my observation, I still assume good faith. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he deleted your last post again. Like you said, no point in talking to him.EkoGraf (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you now Cyclone, would this be ok to add to the infobox in the Tripoli clashes article? 275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim)[1], 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim)[2] I noted the figures to be claims for the sake of neutrality. If you think it's ok than add them or that guy while bite my head off.EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the noticeboard here [3] to see if I followed proper procedure.EkoGraf (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added an additional note at the noticeboard in regard to the breaking of the Wikiquette rule.EkoGraf (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added my own note as well. CycloneGU (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need to sleep, it's seven in the morning where I am, will see what the situation is when I wake up. Thank you for your help in the attempt to try and resolve the issue.EkoGraf (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Hang around a moment, one more post coming on your page. CycloneGU (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am not able to add the 275 figure in the box because it would be an additional violation of the 3 revert rule and also he would just revert me stating that humanitarian group is not reliable and is only claiming and not stating facts.EkoGraf (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you use this phrase at BN. Is it commonly used in Canada? We have an article on sticky wicket! --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I think it is a British saying, and it's not a saying that is often used in Canada (not as much NEway). Canada came to be as a colony of Great Britain and became an independent country after WWI, but we still honour the Queen and anytime a member of royalty visits it becomes a huge deal around here (the upcoming visit of William and his future wife is causing quite a stir). The beauty of the Internet is that you can find sayings from all around the world (crikey, mate) and can learn them before you ever set foot in the country. =) So I know the reference that "sticky wicket" implies (a situation that is difficult to get out of, or a bad decision that is going to be difficult to get away from, etc.), but TBH I think this is only the first or second time I've used the term. =D CycloneGU (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glee: The Music, Volume 5, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Glee's newest album includes two original songs that appear in the Glee episode "Original Song"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just wondering what pre-fill text you've been using to create the daily log pages for DRV these past few days. They have been missing the navigation header, which isn't a big deal but does help for navigating between log pages. The regular preload text includes it, so I assume you've been using something else. If you wouldn't mind either using the regular preload text (there is a small link just above the log transclusions on the DRV main page which creates logs with this preload) or updating your preload to have <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> just above the date subheading. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hurriedly created the two I did because I noticed no one had created the one for that day (March 20), and I based the setup on the header of the March 19 one. If I did something wrong, please go ahead and correct it. I was wondering why there were no entries for today, but then, there were none for the 19th either.

I presume you are referring to the deletion review log pages, of which I have only created the two; the one that was missing, and the next day's. CycloneGU (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tweet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nail Yakupov 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/Nail Yakupov 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. Onthegogo (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the one who opened the Glee 'Born This Way' for deletion, which was kept according to some snow-ball thingy that I actually did read, and agreed with. Anyway, I realized that I should not have opened it up for deletion, which I did even after SilverSeren suggested me not to. It was a bad decision! Thank you, I guess for 'enlightening' me. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I think I have a HUGE number of policies to read. It's all just so confusing! :/ :D Kanavb (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I responded on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL, I was eating dinner when you responded. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 last reply.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About as necessary as you reverting it! Made you look, didn't I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I was surprised no one else reverted it first. =P CycloneGU (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yair rand sums up my feelings on PC perfectly. And for that perfectly reasonable position in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, not to mention actual processes, we are accused of being hostage takers? Obviously the spirit of WP:PROVEBEYOND-ALLREASONABLEDOUBT-TOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERS-YOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH is in full play. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a poorly worded way of putting it, I was trying to introduce another angle on it and that crashed and burned very quickly when Kingpin commented on it. I have already apologized to Kingpin for the miswording in my trying to present another view, and I believe he now understands I was not trying to make any personal attack. I was trying to emphasise that some editors - not you or Yair rand, but basically those who comment in ways covered by WP:I don't like it - could be viewed as stalling the process, which...you get the idea, and I presented it badly. Never was I meaning to accuse any editors of being terrorists, or holding hostages. In a way, it could be boldly argued that PC is being held hostage by this eight month long debate over it (which I was trying to do), but my wording choice was poor and I made it sound like people here are terrorists - which is what Kingpin understood and not at all what I meant to say.

I'm sure others will be along to comment on this as well, goes with the territory I guess. Sorry for the confusion. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD isn't at all applicable here, that's for articles. See WP:CIVIL instead. It sounds like you still feel that the process has been held hostage through bad faith efforts even though we're not hostage takers. I argue that the supporters have held up the process through repeated polls and accusations of bad faith instead of consensus discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would concede that perhaps, yes. While I personally try not to assume bad faith (with exception perhaps to a very badly worded message - that to me now sounds like bad faith - in a discussion on a remote talk page that I now somewhat regret), and my only polling involvement was trying to fix a badly timed but already voted in poll that still meant nothing followed five months later by completely eliminating a very badly timed and also already voted in one, I can say regardless of all that that I still attempted many times getting involved in consensus-forming discussion. Yes, my opinion is slanted towards favouring PC and thus my consensus opinion is slanted as such, but I did keep running myself into WP:I don't like it and found some editors not really wanting to talk about it. At one point, I even found on a blog (in a Google search - don't ask me how it came up) an off-Wiki canvas effort trying to bring in more people to vote against Pending Changes in the October poll, which seemed to work based on my observations at the time when a sudden flurry of No votes came in. In such a case, it gets harder to assume good faith, and despite my attempts to always do so, I'm sure other edits of mine prove that sometimes even a general good faith presumption can come out sounding anything but. But again, I concede that there are also people supporting PC (I can think of an obvious one, think back to the useless polls) who are trying to force a decision now - and with something like this, that can't be done. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly users with extreme views on both sides who aren't at all interested in discussion or legitimate processes. They can only win by agitating everyone to the point that discussion can't take place, and unfortunately at the moment they are winning hands down. Please don't fall into their trap. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to. As Kingpin says, I think I am just becoming anxious to start moving forward. See the mediation thread that I linked to on your page, I have posted about eight minutes ago the copied results from Phase 2 and a suggestion for Phase 4 of the process, a process I can certainly manage to some extent if I am deemed capable to do so. CycloneGU (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought about it a little more, and I guess despite the fact that I was hesitant to have you waste your efforts, I figure that any effort to work on this kind of thing is a plus, so please feel free to be bold. :) Steven Walling at work 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) 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/Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya,

This may be an odd request...but still, hey, it isn't PC-related!

I am looking for a few random people to help me out with something.

There's a liaison project between Wikipedia and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.

Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Wikipedia community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!

The article Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was started by Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs),

The article California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, re. lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)

If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.

I hope you don't mind my asking. Any little comments to those users, and/or on the article talk pages, would be brilliant; thanks so much in anticipation.  Chzz  ►  05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yay indeed; in fact, other than by replying to comments for the next nine days, we're otherwise in neutral on the PC thing ATM.

I've replied to the first, but the second is very well done; in fact, it's been around since last year and had many editorial eyes on it. I have little room to comment on a first read. I'll look again later when I'm more awake. CycloneGU (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work you did to resolve this issue. Maybe I will do more userfying in future if it can sort things out that quickly! Deb (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean step 6 of the steps to list a new deletion review. But either way, no worries. It's over; I didn't have high hopes for it in the first place, although I stand by my position. Re rolling multiple items into a single nom, I tend to think FRCP 23(a)(2) is a good reference. Class actions are appropriate when "there are questions of law or fact common to the class," and I think multiple nominations should be handled as a single nom when the relevant issues are common to all the articles. Sometimes that won't be the case, and I'll admit that I've previously welded together two noms that should have been taken separately, and even when that's the case, someone will always see it a little different and want to split up the nom up, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. And it's much more efficient than multiple listings where the differences in issues are trivial; people can always !vote keep some lose others. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at WQA (permalink), it's clear that you've been aware for at least an hour, now, since your WQA post at 01:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC), that you're obliged by WP:RTP to revert any talk page refactor - which includes collapsing comments - that another user objects to. To remind you, again, of the relevant passage of that page,

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. (emphasis added)

You were previously aware that Guy objected, and you didn't revert. He's not online currently, to ask you again, but there's no need for him to ask you twice. If there's the least doubt in your mind, I also object to your having collapsed his post in this thread. I understand how much you disapprove of his comments, but that's irrelevant to the point at hand; you have to abide by policy whether you like it or not, just as we all do. Please revert your collapse immediately.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at last check, he was online, but it seems he has not edited now for the last hour so must have gone offline. Per his latest post and my reply in a later section, I've asked him to visit this talk page to carry on the discussion as there is no point to having a public disagreement/fight/whatever that is in an RfC/XfD/whatever that entire page has turned into. Also, I was about to strike my comment regarding not removing the section, it seems to me that you feel this will not be enough to rectify this situation. I will post on his talk page and issue an apology, and attempt to carry out a discussion there. Will this be reasonable? CycloneGU (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sitting here, I think I just thought of a possible solution for all parties involved. Bear with me while I make a quick edit, which does involve uncollapsing. CycloneGU (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone, I've had Off2riorob's talk page watchlisted for a while; I posted there some time back, and just didn't take it back off. I went there just now, to remove it from my watchlist, and found you canvassing his assistance in this matter. I'm going to assume that asking him to jump in on your side of the conflict over this was just a moment of lunacy because you were upset about this. He had the sense and integrity not to do so, but please don't do anything like what you did here and in subsequent edits to his talk page again; I'm sure you have to know better than that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he and I have had disagreements in the past, but as someone who had participated at one point in the discussion that turned personal I thought he might be interested in at least knowing of the Wikiquette alert as I was already on his talk page previously; I welcomed his opinion on the matter one way or the other. It never was intended to be a canvassing attempt; I think I only notified one other user (which I later determined was not necessary) and neither user did in fact participate in the Wikiquette discussion. You will note I've participated in deletion reviews, AfDs, and such and in one case, it was my own article; in that situation when it went to deletion review, I notified all users, not just those I thought would agree with me (one in fact did Oppose the restoration). Off2riorob might have said that I was in the wrong if he participated, I had no way of knowing. I'll reread the post, but I don't think I just said jump on my side; if I did, then yes, that would be a moment of bad judgment in being upset about not having been notified of the Wikiquette alert after it was posted. Canvassing to me is not something I would consider, but I see no harm in notifying another user who has commented in the discussion. The second user I notified indeed was not necessary and I retracted that. CycloneGU (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to explain or defend your actions: If I'd wanted to make an issue of this I would have proceeded differently. You can take or leave the suggestion as you wish, but I think it could be to your benefit to ask an admin or other user you trust for an opinion about whether this, and your several subsequent posts to Rob's talk page were proper under our rules about canvassing or not. I think doing so could go a long way toward preventing trouble in the future. Heck, ask Rob what he thinks, whether he'd recommend that it's okay to repeat posts like that in the future. Perhaps he'll say, "Oh, yes; that seems perfectly fine to me," but I think it would be worth your while to get some outside opinions if only, as I suggest, to prevent trouble for yourself in the future. No reply necessary, unless you just want to, and no talkback necessary, either, as I always watchlist pages I've posted to. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your advocating for a fresh start and your positivity regarding User:DeadSend4. Before you even suggested that I apologize to him for suspecting that his admitted sockpuppet-user was ItsLassieTime as well, I had done so. He refused to accept the apology, as you might recall from his talk page, and continued to insult, belittle, scream and otherwise verbally abuse me and his other critics, never once taking responsibility for his own actions — at one point comparing us to Nazis. I find surprising that you believe this is OK, and that he not face any consequences for such gross incivility, though, again, I do applaud your other efforts in this case. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was all right for him to do any of those things - what I saw was a user who felt like he was genuinely hurt and felt like he had to do things to get someone's attention, because no one was paying attention to what he felt were legitimate edits, and were just reverting them. I haven't looked at the edits myself and will not, because it's in the past and we can't change it now. I did advise on a better way to conduct himself in such discussions in the future, and if he does get out of line, I have no issue advocating a block in the right circumstances.

Further, I agree that sockpuppetry is not all right, but the facts presented by other users seem to be forming the consensus opinion here. Part of that is that he only has one sock account, and another that he had been accused of - the Lassie one I think - has been deemed to not be him. All we can do from here is accept that he has served his block time and give him a chance to reform in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. I think that's the right thing to do here. Don't get me wrong, however; if he acts out of line and in bad faith in the future after I advocated giving him another chance, I will not hesitate to side with blocking him if I feel it necessary. I'm sure he knows this, too. CycloneGU (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to go back into this mess, but the comments and supposed 'screaming' was only done towards one person and I think we know who it is. No one else, becaues no one else has disrespected me to that level. The Nazi comment is being taken to seriously and it seems like it has been constantly brought up by this person, though it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. With that said, I think this individual should move on with his life and carry on. I've been editing and have contributed a lot since 2007, this event was very new to me, I never had someone have so much energy to have me banned. Therefore I retaliated. I don't think there's anything else to discuss. My thanks again to everyone who was helpful and kind to me. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to stay away and not comment, but this sockpuppet-using editor continues to behave in uncivil ways. The "comments and supposed 'screaming'" were done toward only one person, and that makes it right? I'm afraid I can't follow that "logic."

DeadSend4 blames everyone but himself — he refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. He edit-wars with several editors, and attempts to own articles, and thinks those are both fine. He disparages anyone who disagrees with him and falsely attributes sinister motives, never once examining his own behavior. He insults and uses schoolyard taunts, and thinks that's fine. (The Nazi remark was taken "to [sic] seriously"? Learn some history and perhaps you'll be ashamed at how blithely you throw the term around.) Someone who does all these things and spends so much of his own time writing walls of defensive texts clearly cannot or does not want to assume good faith or collaborate with others. Until this person learns to control this immature and passive-aggressive bullying, and accept that he has done wrong, he is not a constructive contributor.

We shouldn't be discussing this on another editor's page; if he wishes to continue, we can speak to each other on our own pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I think he was referring to you in the post above, something you've clearly seemed to acknowledge. I do not know his history, and from what I'm understanding much of the problem stems from what happened at Nicole Kidman, which he's said to me he's staying away from for the time being. I don't know if he tries to own articles, but yes, that would be concerning if true. I happened to find three small helpful edits at Christina Aguilera after this was all over (I also made an edit there), and I didn't see a problem with them. I'm not going to follow him around and check every edit for problems (that is Wikistalking to some extent, almost looking for a reason to throw him out), but if you feel the need to do that it's your choice, just don't involve me or come back here saying, "See? I told you so." I noticed the walls of defensive posts, but I think the reason he felt he had to defend himself is because he had accusations of all sorts flying around, including a sockpuppetry claim that had no truth to it at all. I think as a community we owe him a break here, and I think it wise to put everything in the past where it belongs and give him a chance to prove himself. Isn't this fair? CycloneGU (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I "feel the need to" Wikistalk him? Wow. I'll assume in good faith that you didn't mean that the way it came out. I wish you could do the same to me: I'm perplexed as to why you'd suggest I would say, "I told you so" — I've never told anyone that on Wikipedia, and I know that if you'd see the kind words and accolades other editors have given me on my user page, you wouldn't have made that uncalled-for remark.

Since you ask, "Isn't this fair?," my answer would be that it's not fair to editors who don't edit war, name-call, try to own articles (25 edits in a row at Nicole Kidman at one point, and reversions of editors who change even a few words of his), write walls of defensive and accusatory text rather than try to discuss things, and, yes sockpuppet: While one claim wasn't accurate, another one, Jane his wife, very much is.

I suggested that it would not be fair of DeadSend4 or me to use your talk page to air out our own disagreements; I'm only responding here since you asked me a direct question. I understand your trying to turn the other cheek with DeadSend4. Whether that's fair to the five editors with whom he was edit warring, and the one to whom he was, inexcusably, being verbally abusive, is another issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're right. Bashful look. That did come out sounding negatively and I must apologize for that. Yowch, not like me at all.

I will therefore better state my point there and let's be done with it, because we do generally agree on much of what we're saying. Yes, he got into what can only be referred to as an edit war with other editors who as a consensus disagreed with him. My point is that he's been editing for something like four years, and while I don't know his history, it sounds like this is the first time he's ever gotten into trouble for anything along the lines of edit warring (I will excuse the sockpuppetry as a case of not realizing he was breaking rules, though I think he might have known somewhat he was certainly bending them). Often in any editor's Wikilife, a mistake will be made that (s)he will learn something from. I think most of the warring took place specifically around the Nicole Kidman article. He has told me he's not going near there. It sounds to me like he has learned the lesson and taken my advice to heart, and is ready to move on. Let's give him an opportunity to learn for he has served his block time and there's no point in badgering him. Ignore the whole Wikistalking bit, except for knowing that I will not be going around babysitting edits myself; that's what I was trying to point out. =)

As for using my talk page, it doesn't bother me in the least. I just wish it didn't notify me every time. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a gentleman and clearly a kind soul. I will say that anyone here for four years ought to know very well about sockpuppet rules, and that he's shown own-type behavior at Cate Blanchett and other pages (which, like Nicole Kidman, I'm staying away from).

But let me say I admire your qualities of forgiveness and generosity, and your belief in the power of redemption. That indicates the kind of grace to which we should all aspire. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are bitter because I am not blocked and you tried so hard to do so. So you didn't do what you planned and we can move on. I'm not going to address anything you typed above me (because most of it is false and I explained you're the only one that has gone to such an extreme) and no I will not comment on your talk page because I have nothing else to say. Move on, everyone else has.

CycloneGU I admire your class, understanding and helpfulness, people can learn a lot from you. :) I will continue to be a constructive contributor. DeadSend4 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly (edit: to both). =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since DeadSend4 continues to spread falsehoods on others' talk pages, rather than discussing things directly with me, I have placed this response on his talk page, where it properly belongs, and, in order to counter his untrue assertions on this page, I also place it here:

Your comments to me on CycloneGU's talk page are simply remarkable. First, I am not bitter because that would entail my taking this personally, which I do not. Purely in my capacity as a contributor to this wonderfully egalitarian, free encyclopedia, I do not believe that people who name-call, edit-war and use sock-puppets, among other bad behaviors, are appropriate here. To say that you did not do these things, by calling my assertions false, is demonstrably untrue. And telling another editor to "move on" because he calls you out on bad behavior is uncivil and not constructive. I urge you take responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming others for pointing out bright-line facts. You did do these things. All your denials and schoolyard taunts cannot change that.

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you closed two DRVs at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 14. Would you consider not closing any more for the time being? You had participated in both DRVs, and your closing statements could use some work. DRVs are usually closed as Endorse or Overturn. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CycloneGU. Non-admins should not close DRV discussions. Spartaz (talk · contribs) said it best in a recent discussion:

DRV closes are not subject to appeal. They are an appeal. It is for this reason that non-admins are not supposed to close DRVs.

I have asked Spartaz to review your closes to ensure that they are correct. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do want to learn, and so far that's where I'm most active. Problem is I always want to participate in everything I see, I should stand back where I'm not 100% sure. CycloneGU (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to want to learn, but you should learn through participating in the discussions, not closing them. Closing admins occasionally face nastiness because participants disliked their closes. See User talk:IronGargoyle#Deletion review for Debrahlee Lorenzana for example. The closer must then explain at great lengths why they closed as they did. See User talk:Daniel/Archive/79#Jon CJ Graham DrV for another example. Therefore, only admins experienced with DRV should be closing DRVs. Both of your closures are not uncontroversial. For Me at the zoo, comments ranged from "endorse" to "relist" to "overturn to keep". For The Writer (song), you closed the debate three days early. You also participated in that DRV. As S Marshall (talk · contribs) frequently says "It's not enough that we make the right decision: we must be seen to make the right decision." Because DRV closures are not subject to appeal, it is essential that process is followed. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The only doubt I had with closing both was the fact that I had participated in them, and in hindsight I am realizing that my having participated might give reason for someone to think it was a vested interest. The main reason I've really started getting involved, believe it or not, was when my first unique Wikipedia article (as in one I wrote the basis of myself) went to AfD, then to Deletion Review (April 9), then I objected to the close of the deletion review (which is/was on the closer's talk page). While my AfD participation is still somewhat minimal, I think I've chimed in on all but a few file deletion reviews (those on the 20th) over the last week or two, and THAT only because I started creating the log pages after I found one not created for the current day (apparently it was created incorrectly, again it was my first time and I was trying to get it posted quickly because no one had done so). Coincidentally, I found one review (the 17th) that led to me working on an article that actually has some interesting material about the park in question, and hopefully I'm ready to move it to the mainspace soon as a fresh article (might even try to put a DYK tag out for it). I think my interest is mainly in finding articles to save, but also putting in comments on reviews where a page isn't worth keeping; see my comments on yesterday's, in fact, where someone kept insisting his bibliography for an article deserved its own article space despite being 35 times the size of the article. I have a good common sense to know what's keepable and what isn't, and if not sure, I don't say or do anything.

So as I noted, I am eager to learn, and I've started my deletion review participation over the last couple of weeks. I can actually see this as an area I would want to work in, even more than AfDs themselves, simply because it's a very useful part of the project. If this is out of normal procedure (i.e. I should really start with AfDs), I understand that feeling; I strongly believe you learn by doing, and I wanted to try two uncontentious closes after doing my first snowball close at AfD weeks earlier (a nomination of a Glee article that had 7 or 8 keep votes by the time I walked in within 24 hours, and I realized adding another keep !vote was pointless and just ended it; that episode airs in the U.S. this week). I looked at the example discussion you gave (once I found the AfD itself) and, just from the AfD, don't think I would get involved with close something that contentious in my present role, but I am aware that is the kind of thing I'd be jumping into as I become more experienced; I'm sure I can handle it (see the barnstar below that Chzz left here, very nice of him). I'm eager for new challenges and when I'm ready I might be interested in trying some more contentious closes with guidance from an experienced admin. And even though I don't see myself right now in any such role, who knows if I might be deleting pages myself someday as an admin.? I of course don't want that responsibility now, I just want to learn and know I'm doing the right thing, and if after some time I'm not, I will simply limit myself to participating in reviews if I just am not learning. If you think I shouldn't close for a while and should only participate (say for three months, I pick that figure randomly as I'm not sure what the guideline is) before even thinking of doing closes, then I'm open to that suggestion too. I can withhold participation if you think it would be good for me to try some proper closing as well. Just let me know what you think. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to your participation at DRV, though I strongly discourage you from closing DRV discussions before you have passed an RfA. To avoid controversy, only admins should close DRV discussions. Many non-admins are frequent participants at DRV: 82.7.44.178 (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Reyk (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), and Tarc (talk · contribs). They participate but do not close discussions. There are numerous admins so it is unnecessary for a non-admin to close.

Two exceptions can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 18. S Marshall closed two deletion reviews because one had no deletion to review and the second was cleaning up after an admin. If you come across DRV discussions like this, feel free to close them.

I am heartened that you intend to salvage articles at deletion review. Many times, a new or inexperienced user brings an article about a notable topic to DRV and is unable to demonstrate that it passes the notability guidelines. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 23#Starfall.com, I rescued Starfall.com after the article was speedy deleted. I was also able to resue Lucia Newman (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 9), Yogurtland (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14), and Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14). I have also been able to help a new user with Ambarish Srivastava at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14. If you would help out by rescuing articles and aiding new users, I'd be very grateful. I find that it is not necessary to close to have an impact at DRV. Participating in the discussions, rescuing new articles, and aiding new users can be more rewarding and more impactful than closing. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is most certainly good to know, and I will continue to participate. Now the obvious question that comes up is after participating for a while, might I later be encouraged as an active participant - while still a non-admin - to potentially trial close DRVs under an experienced admin. to get a feel for how it works? Or, if I want closing experience, would that be better handled in other areas? I ask this because, quite truthfully, I am finding the DRV section to be the most appealing place for me to participate and give an opinion in and, if I were to, say, two years or so from now be handed a mop by some strange chance of a successful RfA (which right now would merely be a train wreck as I am lacking experience), that would be the very place that I would participate in most as an admin. I know such a thing, if it even happens and I don't take another hiatus as in the past, is very far away, but I feel my mop would be best handled at DRV if ever granted. So would asking someone to provide coaching to me as a non-admin. be something I could do if I work in this section for a while and decide I like it and want to up my involvement? Obviously I'm not making that call today, that could be disastrous on many levels; I'm referring to in the future. CycloneGU (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The active non-admin participants have not closed DRVs, not even on a trial basis. Most of the DRVs are easy closes—a simple "closure endorsed", "deletion endorsed", or "overturn to no consensus". You do not need to have closing experience for these types of DRVs. The more difficult DRVs—for example, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 29#Bigoted woman incident, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards, Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27#Template:Expand, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 16#Gay Nigger Association of America—can only be closed by admins. If you want closing experience, you can read through a contentious DRV discussion, think about how you would close it, and review how the DRV will be (or was) closed. If you want feedback, perhaps you could ask Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), or Chick Bowen (talk · contribs), all of whom are experienced DRV closers, to review your proposed closures and closing statements. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, you must not close DRVs unless you are an admin. This is a hard and fast rule designed around maintaining the credibility of DRV as a final appeal. its must be seen to be fair not just be fair - and any procedureal impropriety - for example closeing something you commented on - unvalidates the general expectation of fairness that is implicit in DRVs function of a final court of appeal. I'm going to void and reclose your DRV closes - not because the outcomes are wrong but simply to ensure that process is seen to be followed fairly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		You've been amazingly civil in the midst of some heated debates; you've remained cool, and you're comments have been thoughtful and constructive - and, not just re. PC, but in general. Thanks, for being such a lovely user.  Chzz  ►  02:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Thanks! My first Barnstar. =D CycloneGU (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've accidentally removed my !vote when you added your comment. Don't worry, I've fixed it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional, the edit I made. As nominator, you are assumed to support deletion, so your vote is not needed. It could be seen as gaming the system. CycloneGU (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I did it is the way about 99% of AfD nominators do it, so it's not "gaming the system." Moreover, there are occurrences where the nominator is neutral, or wants an article kept but not without a discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think it could be seen as gaming the system is because another user could come along and claim you nominated and thus think delete, and then you added a bolded !vote also saying delete. The nomination of a page at AfD automatically says you think the page needs to be deleted. There is no other reading of it. Further, a quick perusal of today's nominations does not show 99% employ your method; rather, it shows 99% don't. Your two are the only ones that show it, and I also made the fix to one other nomination earlier. None of the rest show it (unless I missed one). CycloneGU (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stand corrected. I've been around AfD's for quite a while, and the way I do it is the way it was usually done when I started. I never looked back. In three years, you are the first editor to mention a problem. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a problem - most closing admins. probably discount the extra delete in any case. I just would hate to see you called out for gaming the system. =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb (talk · contribs)'s formatting of comments, though unconventional, is not problematic. See the exchange here on User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality (2nd nomination). I doubt that a closing admin would misread Blanchardb's bolded "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John James Nazarian as being a second vote. Cunard (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just thought for formatting purposes it was discouraged to have a bolded delete in the comments. I took this practice from when a similar promote comment of mine was removed during the FLC for Glee (season 1) (granted it might have had its own line, I dunno). I'm not going to edit war with the user regarding its removal, I just think it unneeded overall. CycloneGU (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the bolded "delete" is unnecessary does not mean it should be removed. FLC may have rules for nominators' voting for their own nominations (I don't know), but AfD has no rules prohibiting this style of AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • CycloneGU I left you a message on the Deletions discussion for this article but wanted to put this here to assure you I don't think anyone here at Wikipedia would ever stalk another editor... I go into that on the other page. What I would like to add here is that your suggestions today is what kept me going and looking for references and not just walking away. I greatly appreciated the pep talk and it made the difference today in what I then did. Thanks for that --JoeyD2010 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much in your suggestions to me as a new person lost in the maze of Wikipedia land. Thanks for the suggestions and the pep talks through my jumping in the deep end with a bio page and then helping me learn how to swim. I greatly appreciate your kindness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyD2010 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for my bad level in english.

• The table will be closed when he will finish his carrer that's why the bottom borders are missing.
• Naïl Iakoupov is the good transcription from the cyrilic in french so we have to keep this version for french wiki. It's the french proper name like Nail Yakupov is the english, or Nail Jakupow in deutsch.--Benj05 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, point taken on the name.

• As for the tables, I've seen other borders missing from templates on your talk page. I think it's more of a style problem on the templates, but that's just me. We always close the bottom of our tables at the end of current information, with no bias to adding to tables. Either way works I guess, it just looks neater with a closed table. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason not to do a speedy delete is that it sounds as if it could be a valid topic and the author could come around and add in an introduction to clarify the scope. However you are right as it stands it should be deleted, just not speedy deleted! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Villa Giulia (Palermo) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is probably running out of time for DYK. If you want to get it in, you'll probably need to improve the sourcing and reply at the DYK nominations page within a day or so. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your request for sources, try these;

• John Dixon Hunt, The Italian Garden: Art, Design and Culture, Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 0521033926. If google won't show you all the pages, try Amazon
• "The festival of Saint Rosalina", The Golden Rule, vol.4, no.11, pp.169-173, 14 March 1846.
• Patrizia Fabbri, E. Leckey (trans), S. Johnson (trans) "Palermo and Monreale", p.56, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 2000 ISBN 8847606721.

Hope that helps SpinningSpark 13:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment would really best be redacted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I don't want to draw his wrath, either. CycloneGU (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am, I did the first semi-final as well. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Villa Giulia (Palermo), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Villa Giulia is home to the Genius of Palermo, a city symbol and laic patron of Palermo? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you remember me, but if not, I was the one with the whole issue about me being blocked, editing Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, reverts, and so forth. Hopefully that rings a bell. ;) Anyways, I took the advice I was told and figured I'd go article by article collaborating with everyone. Well if you look at Cate Blanchett's discussion page you will see I've added several ideas, suggestions and asked for opinions. I did exactly what was asked of me and have NOT TOUCHED, that page since I want to respect everyone elses opinion before making any edits. I wait exactly ONE full month and I get nothing. What do you think I should do? Should I go ahead and make my own edits? I even had an admin tell me herself she would collaborate with me, weeks later, she's off editing other articles, working with others but me, and this person was one of the many people who had an issue with my edits. Especially that article specifically. What is your opinion in all of this? By the way, I already posted what I'm writing to you in the page in hopes to get a response (which I haven't to date).

Thanks in advance, really appreciate you offering to help me. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner - I have felt literally like shit the last few days and didn't do very much even when I was online. And yes, I remember you. =)

As for the discussion page, the "Can someone explain to me..." section comes across like pointing out flaws and trying to incite an argument. I get you were speaking your mind, but at the same time, if the page is rather dead already, it'll stay dead.

I'm going to take a moment and review the edits you are suggesting. Back in a moment. CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it looks good to me. I'd say go ahead and add it. However, in this instance, I've posted at Bigweeboy's talk page to ask for another opinion (since that user said [s]he'd be happy to review suggested changes). If that user has no problems with it, I say make the changes. If they then get reverted, approach the reverting user for the reason why. CycloneGU (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to apologize, just happy that someone actually got back to me and willing to help me out. :) Well, I'm sure you know the situation going on, I honestly think it'd be best to just lay off Crohnie girl for the sake of her health and just go ahead and edit Miss Blanchett's article (of course collaborating with people) and go from there. Again, thanks for your help. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your apology at my talk page. Thank you very much, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a lot going on here, I didn't pick up that you were hinting I should change the typeface to remove the section head aspect. I've done so. Thanks for the heads-up. Abrazame (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm about to go to AN/i and saw that you wanted notification if this happens so I need to ask you this, what is your involvement with what has been happening to me? I have done nothing to deserve all the incivility and attacks that I've received so please enlighten me and let me understand why you feel you need to be involved in this mess? I am still deciding whether to go to the board or whether it's just not worth the time. I would really appreciate it if you would explain your relationship with DeadSend4 and myself. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement with what's happened to you, I merely want to follow the event as I did advocate giving DeadSend4 another chance after his block as he came across to me at the time as an editor who just couldn't get his voice in the right place, and needed help doing that. So I'm merely interested in following whatever happens, not so much participating (though I may chime in if I have anything to add). CycloneGU (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, if this has nothing to do with DeadSend4 directly, I probably won't be as interested but I'll still see it as I do visit AN/I and watchlist it. CycloneGU (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CycloneGU. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Crystal Baller, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - I will add it ASAP. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cyclone G