User talk:JForget/Archives 10

Deletion of Steve Juon

I was hoping to talk to you about the deletion of the article for Steve Juon. It appears that this deletion was proposed and pushed through over the Memorial Day 2008 weekend, during a period when it was publicly noted on one of Mr. Juon's websites that he was going to be out of town, with almost no time to notify either him or the author of this article that it was proposed for deletion. I found an archived copy of the article, and while I do agree that it was very poorly written and cited, I do have to dispute the notion that he is not a notable individual. Mr. Juon has been published, quoted or interviewed by major media outlets included Rolling Stones magazine and NPR, he was the founder of one of the most popular music discussion groups on Usenet, and is generally recognized as one of the pioneers of bringing discussion of rap & hip-hop music to the Internet.

Additionaly, there are over 40 references to Mr. Juon's name or his music reviews here on Wikipedia, as well as 649 links or references to websites that Mr. Juon operates, which also includes his website (RapReviews.com) as part of the template for music reviews under the "Professional reviews" subsection.

It would appear to me that this would indicate that, at the very least, his works are considered significant to the Wikipedia community, and it makes little sense to not have an article available which goes into more detail about him. I would be very interested in seeing this article reverted from its deleted status (so that its history may be properly preserved), and then revised with the help of the Wikipedia community to make it compliant with community standards.

It should be noted that Mr. Juon did not write the original biographical article, nor has he ever edited the article, nor does he even have an account on Wikipedia. Upon discovering that he did have an article here, he decided against creating an account or making any modifications to it, instead relying on the Wikipedia community to decide what should and should not be included in the article. Kamnet (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions into redirects

Hello again! :) Last batch, but this one's the biggest. Not to say that I'll never again ask for more, but this should be the last of these "monster batches." In March, you deleted Ashen Husk, Bloodsilk spider, Buomman, Dromite, Gray Glutton, Landwyrm (Dungeons & Dragons), Neraph, Oaken defender, Rhek, Thrum Worm, and Wood woad as a result of AFDs. Would it be possible to restore the edit histories and redirect them to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters, please? Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again! Never let it be said that you are not helpful.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure you're welcome.--JForget 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The p

Hi. I see that you closed the AfD of The p as delete. However, it appears that you forgot to delete it. Is it because of your user name? hehehe  :-) --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for alerting me on that one.--JForget 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion at Andrew Fastow

In this edit you took out most of the references in Andrew Fastow, with an edit summary of "(rm deleted)". It looks like you were trying to remove Wikilinks to List of corporate executives charged with crimes but took out too much. --John Nagle (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is weird there may have be either a bug, the browser messed up, there was a mouse issue or a server lag. I have never remember touching those external links. Considering that two edits in the same minute was done and that on both of them See also was shown in the edit summary it may have been a bug and a server lag issue. Thanks for correcting it. That's the second bug in a week I've experienced while removing red links.--JForget 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Your Assistance

Hi JForget (Patriotic Songs) was deleted by you May 14 2008 I believe..I saw the discusssion, and you made your decision. That was a great theme on wikipedia..Anyways, is there anyway I can get a copy of that list of Patritoic Songs even though it was deleted.. thanks walter

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.33.209 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first do you have a registered account, since I see that this is a shared IP address (from Comcast) and not a personal home computer?. It would be much better to have this into a userfied page.

Or you can still access Category:Patriotic songs by country.--JForget 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi JForget. I'm coming to you in hopes that you will help with a problematic user. This user has been constantly changing minute details (such as dates, ages, etc. -- see Sally Lindsay for one example). He/she has been warned numerous times, and was blocked in mid April. Since their unblocking, I have again requested help from another administrator, but to no avail. AGK blocked him on 04/18/08. Just looking at his contributions will show that he's made numerous unconstructive edits. Please help, and thank you in advance. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've give him sort of a final warning for his troubles since no warnings were given since May 6. It is also a shared IP.--JForget 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:STO.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:STO.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

School is out

... and it looksl ike User:Ckimpson is back. [1] I've been following the edits of the new user name, and I'd be shocked if this wasn't the same person. Special:Contributions/LabradorLover456 WxGopher Here is the page for the EF-0 [2] (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lloyd axworthy article.

Please unprotect the article so that people can improve it. It reads like a list and should be totally re written into paragraph format. If you feel it needs to remain protected, please make the following edit for me: Add a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag to the beginning to bring it to the attention of registered editors. Thank you.67.71.95.177 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reply here since the IP is a shared from Bell Canada

I've unprotected the article for now just to give it a shot (it has been 2 month since the semi-protection was placed), but I am not confident that the serial Republican/Conservative Party militant vandal who is using hundreds of AOL addresses will stop vandalizing any articles hostile to the Conservative and Republican Parties any time soon. I would have preferred that you create a registered account for that matter. Anyways, you can make the changes needed and I think I agree that it needs a better prose then that.--JForget 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that the vandalism went so far back (I thought it was just over the past couple of months until I saw the history farther back), I've made some changes for now, but you're probably right to protect it. If I have to I'll register to edit it. Thanks for unprotecting it anyways. 67.71.95.177 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's just the same individual basically who has been doing this for over 18 months, not just here but articles like Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and articles related to Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama - which clearly indicates that he is probably a Republican/Conservative militant. I'll keep it unprotected for the time being - until he strikes again.JForget 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I have just reverted your archiving at Talk:Barack Obama. Archiving on that talk page is done by an automatic bot, and in this particular case you managed to archive several current discussions. Please don't do that again. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Student Approaches to Learning

Can you explain to me why you thought it necessary to delete this article and what you would not mark as an essay according to Wikipedia's terms?

I am very angry about the removal of my entry about student apporaches to learning, what is the point of wikipedia when there are endless articles on inane rubbish and any academic subject is deleted as original research essay? It was an objective statement that sumamrised the views of a number of authors. That is what an encyclopdia entry does. It was not personal opinion and if that is defined as an essay then all of the articles here would have to be reomoved.

I am a senior UK academic and I have been a long term supporter of wikipedia amongst colleagues who treat it with the utmost contempt. I am beginning to agree with my colleagues views.Ardalby (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please can you send me a copy of the removed content so that I may improve it and return it to wikipedia.Ardalby (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Hey, I will revert to graham without losing the bot edits. Just give me some time. CIao, Brusegadi (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, thanks for your help. I wasn't too sure about a couple of your edits, including one that reverted bot edits--JForget 23:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after that edit I was going to pull it back and then undo my undoing of the bot edits. Since they happen in different sections of the article, I thought that would work, but it did not, so I just did what you did. Frustrating. I think I will ask for semi protection if it goes on. Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the content added by the bot remained, but I think only one link was lost in the complete revert move I've done. I'll check back and see.--JForget 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I compared the versions and the one I was aiming did not save well, so I just did yours. I cant add the characters bots add, so worst scenario we will just wait for another bot to come along. Have to go now, but thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Brusegadi (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan

Hi. Maybe you should protect the article because the vandal is most likely going to create an account and edit it in a few days. Maybe you should block the IP also because obviously everything he's doing is disruptive. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.113.163 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it is a sharedIP, the best solution is to protect the article for the moment. If blocking him, he will likely use another IP. But I've blocked the last IP for edit-warring anyways even though it didn't seem necessary considering the article is now locked for 48 hours. If he continues after that the semi-protection will be longer.--JForget 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gears of War Weapons List

Hello! Would it be possible to userfy this article? Some new reliable published secondary sources have come up, such as Evan Samoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 48-49, which actually has game and military experts discuss the fictional weapons' practicality and historical precedents. Obviously if you notice the date of the article, these sources were not available during the AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Alice in Chains' fourth studio album

Just out of curiousity, why did you delete this article? Lack of information? Shaneymike (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Heather Dylan article

Hi there,

I hope I've reached the right administrator. My apologies, if not.

Thank you for deleting the Heather Dylan article. I'm wondering how we can request this article to be "salted"? I understand this means that the article would not be allowed to be recreated. According to AngelofSadness, this article has now been deleted 3 times. Any suggestions on how to keep this whole thing from starting over again?

Again, many thanks. Daffidd (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Protected to prevent re-creation.--JForget 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I have another question to ask of you. While the "heather dylan" article was being disputed, the same parties were constantly adding this hoax information to Jakob Dylan's article. I was able to get the article protected. Now that the main editor and his sock puppets have been blocked, I think it would be safe to unprotect it. I tried to contact the administrator that originally protected it, but he has a note on his talk page saying he is away from the computer and to ask someone else. I'm a newbie and am not sure how to proceed. Help? Daffidd (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. We'll hope for the best now! Daffidd (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Idea4Idea

Hello JForget. I am sorry that I was not able to post a timely response to the proposed deletion discussion for the article on Idea4Idea. I had a family commitment that made it impossible for me to monitor the discussion from 6/6/08 to today (6/11/08). I read today that the article had been deleted. I read the "Deletion Review" instructions. As I understand those instructions, in some instances, if an article has been deleted and there needs to be some quick clarification, then you should contact the administrator that deleted the article. If my contacting you is inappropriate, I apologize. If so, please read below and let me know how best to proceed.

First of all, I want to say "Ouch!". I guess you need a tough skin to weather some of the discussion comments made about your article. Fortunately, I'm not too scarred :), however, I hope that all who submit articles in good faith to Wikipedia can be treated with genuine respect. I know that the editors and ultimately you, the administrator, have the power and authority to delete an article and I respect your right to exercise that power and authority as you wish. I am making some assumptions about the review process of Wikipedia. These are 1) that the judging is based on specified, measurable, and equitable criteria (to the degree possible) and 2) the process is based upon inherently democratic principles of fairness.

Having lost both my father and mother in the last year and a half, I have come to realize that very little, if anything, is absolutely certain in life. So, I approach my decisions with more humility these days. I sensed from the discussion on Idea4Idea that there were feelings of absolute certainty among the editors who chose to write down their opinions. I am assuming that absolute certainty comes with absolute criteria that determine rejection or acceptance of an article. If such criteria are not clearly specified and quantifiable, then the decision enters into more of a subjective realm in which varying points of view have a place.

So, I hope my perspective and logic have a place here. Also, in the sense of a democratic and fair process, I view you as a jury of my peers, judging the article to see if it violates any rules (breaks the law). As such a jury, I hope you act based on the assumption that the article is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt instead of assigning guilt without such a process. If the article is presumed innocent unless there is proof of violation (beyong reasonable doubt) and there is such doubt introduced, I hope you give the article the benefit of that doubt.

So, I offer my perspective in a respectful manner and hope that my comments introduce an element of doubt and result in a verdict of "innocent" (reversal of deletion) for the article on Idea4Idea.

I propose that the article on Idea4Idea is similar in nature to the accepted and posted article on the 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan. The recently introduced Tiguan is a model for a car, the car being a historically established method of transportation. Similarly, Idea4Idea, is a recently introduced delivery model for The Deming Cycle, the Cycle being an established method of quality improvement. The Idea4Idea model has uniquely designed features and attributes that make it more appealing and usable by different audiences, just like the Tiguan model car has uniquely designed features and atributes that make it more appealing and usable by different audiences. The Tiguan is on the initial upswing of being notable, as is Idea4Idea.

What constitutes notable in the evolving environment a newly introduced model? There is no guarantee that a newly introduced car model will be very popular, yet the Tiguan article is posted.

Notability is an evolving state. If you google Idea4Idea there are many sites with information on the topic. Many google sites refer to a website Idea4Idea.com, however, they also link to a background article that describes the Idea4Idea model. The model is not the same thing as the website. They are distinct. Just like the Tiguan model is distinct from the website that exhibits the Tiguan. The Idea4Idea model has many different modes of application and depends on the creativity of the person using the model. The name of the model is Idea4Idea. A website that exhibits this model is Idea4Idea.com.

What quantifiable degree of notability does a model need in order to be posted? How many google hits? How many referring sources? What are the exact criteria? I propose that the model, Idea4Idea, is "out there" and well noted on google, etc. It is all part of a continuum. If you read the elements of the model, I propose that the model has been adopted and is being used in varying styles and circumstances worldwide.

If the article is not accepted at this time, when in the evolution of notability of the Idea4Idea model would it be acceptable? Are there criteria that can define the quantity and nature of notability required for future posting? If not, I think there is doubt introduced in the judgment that Idea4Idea lacks notability.

One last request. As in the Tiguan, you should not judge the notability of the Tiguan without a test drive. The same goes for Idea4Idea. I propose that you test drive the Idea4Idea model as described. Use your own creativity to apply the model. An example would be to use the model to work with your child to help him/her clean up his/her room. The goal is to clean up the room. This total goal may be overwhelming to your child and, thus, may not be undertaken. You could help your child pick up their room in order to get it done or you could try using the Idea4Idea model of positive change. The Idea4Idea model would be to allow your child to come up with simple ideas or actions that help clean up the room. The child gets a visible recognition and honor for each idea or action toward cleaning up the room and progress is visibly tracked. He or she may pick up one toy from the floor and put it away. That action would get visible recognition and honor and the progress toward cleaning up the room noted. Over time, using such a stepwise progression toward positive change, will establish a new habit in your child for picking up the room on a regular basis. You may think that this model sounds very simplistic and unremarkable. In some ways it is, however, it is remarkable in its power for change and the ability for certain audiences of users to apply it consistently based on its design.

I request that my comments be considered. I propose that the Idea4Idea artcle is on as solid ground as the Tiguan article. I hope the deletion can be reconsidered.

Thank you. 66.69.212.14 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Kyapghia

Hello!. First of all, Sorry to hear about the losses in your families and let me offer my condolences.

As far as the issues surrounding the article, as you say I've just follow the vote. Now as for the reasons for the deletion, I've checked the article in question and noticed that two-thirds of the article - so basically what is not in the lead section - is used to promote the concept or looks more written like a research project or a guide or something with does not comply with the Wikipedia policies per WP:NOT.

You can ask me to send you a copy of the deleted article onto a userspace page in order to improve the article so it can pass notability and then after the improvements it can go to review. Maybe you can use those references (looks like magazines scientific articles for the most part) in order to improve it perhaps if there are stuff found in books as well. Only with the websites accessible from Google, I would be quite tough to do it since the vast majority of the returns are not reliable sources, I've seen some links to videos, YouTube, MySpace, other Wiki sites, Wikipedia itself, sites in foreign language, promotional pages, etc. So only with the Internet and 45 Google returns it would be very difficult, so books and published articles would be the key factor to help the article to pass WP:N.

I'm not familiar with the subject or term but if there is no possibility of meeting notability guidelines but if there is the need to mention it somewhere you can ask members on the related wikiprojects on where to put (if it is not there already). Not sure if it is in scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education or Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology (probably more likely the latter one or could be both, I'm not sure). But the W. Edwards Deming article could be one possibility if so..

Now as for your reference for the Tiguan, I don't see any notability policies in regards to automobiles specifically related to them, but I think basically all vehicules in circulation/on the road are notable even if are not that popular - I haven't heard really much of that vehicle in question since it is only the road since 2008. Often those vehicules have various reports or publications from many sources. Upcoming articles on cars may have already articles because there is enough non-speculative content with reliable sources.--JForget 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply and helpful comments. Yes, I would like to request that you place a copy of the deleted Idea4Idea article on my userspace page so I can work to improve the article. Is there a timeline by which I have to resubmit the article for it to be reconsidered or can I resubmit at any time? How long can the article remain on my userspace page? Will it disappear in a certain amount of time?

When I resubmit the article, how do I bring the article to your attention for reconsideration?

Will this discussion be archived for future reference? If so, how will I be able to find it?

Also, is the history of the article's initial publication, subsequent discussion, and recent deletion archived somewhere? If so, how do I find that archive?

As you suggest, I will explore editing other existing Wikipedia articles on related topics in order to add relevant information about the Idea4Idea model to those articles, such as the Deming article and others. I assume I can provide content and references about the Idea4Idea model in those edits.

I also am wondering what you think about WikiHow? Would the Idea4Idea article be appropriate for that venue?

Thanks again. Kyapghia (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Kyapghia

Hello again. Did you place a copy of the deleted article in my userspace yet? I can't find it. Thanks.

Kyapghia (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Kyapghia

Thanks. I got the links to the draft of the article. Kyapghia (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Kyapghia

An Invite to join Canada Roads WikiProject

WikiProject Canada Roads
Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Canada Roads WikiProject! The Canada Roads WikiProject is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Canadian Roads.
As you have shown an interest in Quebec Route 191 we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism clean-up

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure you're welcome. --JForget 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for the very quick revert - even beat me to it! Dpmuk (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, you're welcome.--JForget 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hey, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my User page--I appreciate it! :D DreamHaze (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure you're welcome Dreamhaze.--JForget 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And for your revert on mine too! Thanks! --Kakofonous (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jason Naidovski

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Naidovski. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama anon vandalism

Although I can't be certain, you may be dealing with "Grawp" with all of those multiple hits all at the same time from different IPs. He's been known to do that sort of rapid-fire article attacking and he's done it a lot through Comcast. Just so ya know. The guy is totally unhunged and has been vandalizing this site through zombie proxies and possibly some help at 4chan.com for the last ten months on an almost daily basis; one Comcast IP recently issued me a death threat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Grawp may be the one behind this case - although I know he is the one who is doing the HAGGER? page move vandalism. Maybe he was the spammer of anontalk.com last week as well and also the repeated vandalism to Jimbo's user page. Then I may not be surprise he is doing all this hack of open proxies. Anyways, I'm blocking immediately each IP at the first occurence he is using the repeated pattern of vandalism. The talk page will get a break for this week even though it means lots of people won't be able to discuss - will also slow down the editing and maybe help decreasing the size as well. I have been quite critical lately of the size of this talk page that I had to reduce the numbers of days for inactive threads to be archived.--JForget 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive my encroachment

Feel free to restore your original block if you feel the need. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's okay, considering it has been a lengthy series of attacks to others. Sometimes I feel I'm a bit too light with some while the opposite sometimes for others. --JForget 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD relisting

When relisting a nom, please remember to remove the page from the original log page. For example, for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic Scooby-Doo episodes, the page should have been added to the June 30 log page (which you did), and removed from the June 22 log page. If not removed, confusion (both by the bot screening closed noms and admins closing noms) would result. Just a friendly reminder... —Kurykh 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that's basically the first time i've done AFD relisting.--JForget 00:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for removing the attack on my talk page. I had seen it but thought to leave it there until the user gets blocked or leaves (or repents, of course) :).
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, he just got temporarily blocked for his recent vandalism. --JForget 01:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

"Hot100Brasil" has been deleted per WP:AfD process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil. Thanks. - eo (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a dumbass

Left the above message on the wrong Talk Page. Duh. Please ignore! - eo (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag removal

As here:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

and probably elsewhere (I don't realy want to examine this editor's whole history) Lycurgus a.e.a. 74.78.162.229 removes tags as stale that I don't believe have shelf-lives. An article doesn't cease to need citations or clean-up simply because no one has cleaned it up! —SlamDiego_←T 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've flagged a couple of them with the more sources tag as large portions needs more sources to meet WP:V. Another I had no choice but to revert the tag removal as parts of it is messy and looks to be written in parts like a research project. I've put explanations on the edit summary, if he continues then I will mention it on his page--JForget 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gracias...

...for the page protection. APK like a lollipop 01:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome APK. --JForget 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović ‎

Just to let you know, you unprotected this article a few days ago but there's been a long-running problem with anonymous IPs adding unsourced BLP-violating material to it (see history) - I've therefore restored semi-protection. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.134.54.54

Just letting you know, this user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. I'm not convinced their edits were vandalism, but given how upset they seem to be at the moment I'm not sure how best to resolve this. I'm hoping I can get them calmed down. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see that you seem to be offline. I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#86.134.54.54 to avoid acting unilaterally. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, at any rate. :) Was a bit surprised nobody else did, but we can't have everything. Not sure, as far your question regarding Huggle. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Atucha_II_nuclear_power_plant

Hi, I saw you unprotected Atucha_II_nuclear_power_plant diff, with 'protected long enough'. Unfortunately, my experiences with the IPs mentioned as the protect reason, is that it is never long enough, they will return, and start all over again. I protected indef (after a number of shorter protections), to avoid that (though that did result in my being stalked etc.), since there are no IP-edits in the periods of unprotection (except for the IP-editor that results in the block), and no edits are requested on the talkpages during the protection. Although I hope it is now over, I am afraid they will return. Just a heads up, see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)