User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive22

This is an archive of past discussions with User:UninvitedCompany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It'd be nice if there were an automatic approval process. Anyway, confirming the account "Random832" is me. —Random832 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There have already been an number of disingenuous registrations which the manual checking has caught. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like I'm not the only one visiting your talk page for this. :) In any case, when you get a chance, GlassCobra is me. Thanks! GlassCobra 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

that's good, Just let me know when you're set. I'm "Wittylama" on Skype too. Best, Witty Lama 07:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I signed up under my regular username, "xDanielx". Thanks for setting up and hosting this. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have registered under my usual name. I'd be happy to help, time permitting. >Radiant< 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, I believe you meant "to whom", not "who whom". Jouster  (whisper) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You write Though I would like to point out that Tony's recent participation reflects considerable improvement, even if the problem is not "resolved."

I only recently realised that even what I regarded in all innocence as reasonable comments on the conduct of others involved were a large part of the problem in this case. This really means that I cannot trust myself to state my opinion on Wikipedia matters (I have little insight into what will and will not cause offence--I'm sorry if that sounds like a wet excuse). See my discussion of this here. In retrospect, I can see a pattern of similar problems going back to some of my earliest interactions on Wikipedia, mainly from my lack of insight into the effects of what I say. You may laugh, but this comes as a shock to me. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello UninvitedCompany,

I think its a wonderful idea, and I wish I could be of help, but unfortunately there is nothing I can help with. I don't know how to use LilyPond and I live in a country where anything organ other than JS Bach is impossible to find (and so nearly all my sources, including articles and books used for Wikipedia articles, are found, one way or another, on the Internet).

I'm sorry I can't help, but best of luck with the project! I hope it makes pre-Bach composers a little bit more known; at least that - to make them more known, as they most definitely deserve - is one of my reasons for editing Wikipedia.

Regards,

--Jashiin (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please answer. Abridged ^talk 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) all set Abridged ^talk 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you invited comment on your talk page, I did have a few questions about the Matthew Hoffman case. I have pretty strong opinions about it, but I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something important here.

1. You mentioned that you voted to accept the case straightaway, without an RfC, because most of the affected users were "new and occasional editors" and unlikely to participate in an RfC. But the goal of the RfC would be to get feedback from the community as a whole about Vanished user's actions. At the eventual RfC, not only did every active user Vanished user had ever crossed paths with show up, but all of Vanished user's actions (including those involving new and occasional editors) were scrutinized in depth. I'm still not entirely clear on why the case was accepted without a preceding RfC - this was a major departure from both prescription and common practice, there was no emergency, and this decision handicapped the case from the start. Is there something I'm missing?
2. You describe RfC participation as "sparse". I'm sure you've seen well more user-conduct RfC's than I, but I think this is way off base. Some specific views (Durova's and B's) were endorsed by as many as thirty-six other users, including many established editors and admins who had not been active in the ArbCom case. Even a relatively harsh view, that of Professor Marginalia, was endorsed by 20 users, with (at a quick glance) no overlap. There was significant participation from well more than these 56 users. If this is "sparse" participation, then what would have been adequate?
3. The case opened at 17:34 on 2 December 2007. By 06:20 on 3 December, you had voted to desysop Vanished user and bar him from ever standing for RfA again. Also within about 12 hours of the opening of the case, you proposed a finding of fact censuring User:Chaser for lack of due diligence. This was the state of evidence page at the time. Chaser had provided no evidence when you proposed the finding; once he had the chance to do so, it became apparent that the finding was erroneously phrased. This haste seems unusual to me for any ArbCom case, particularly for one involving desysopping an established user and admin with extreme prejudice. As evidenced by the community feedback and the apparent divisions within the Committee itself, this was hardly an open-and-shut case. The resulting impression, at least to me, was that in the haste to sanction Vanished user, careful discussion and consideration of the situation and evidence was lacking. I won't speculate on the reasons for the haste with which this case was accepted and sanctions proposed, but am I off-base in feeling that things proceeded with atypical speed?

You're welcome to respond to some, all, or none of these questions as you see fit. I realize they come across a bit aggressive, perhaps, but I'm really just trying to see a different perspective here, and figure out what I'm missing in looking at the case. I do appreciate your comments on the case talk page, and your willingness to discuss the case. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The case is not entirely unique in having no predecessor RFC, and we accepted despite one because there was evidence of serious misconduct and because we thought there were important principles at work.
2. My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Vanished user but did not wish to so state publicly.
3. The Chaser finding was a mistake and I later withdrew it. The haste was in part because there had been considerable internal deliberations since the RFAR was made, and in part because we had just completed an internal discussion where we had emphasized the importance of wrapping up as many pending matters as possible prior to January 1 to allow the newly elected arbs to start with a clean slate. I note that during the subsequent delays, Vanished user did not provide any substantive evidence or reasoning to us despite repeated promises to do so.

I note your disappointment in our handling of this case and in my leadership on it. For my part I have found the extent to which the community is willing to circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct to be troubling. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you do excellent work on the Committee in general, though obviously this particular case still troubles me. Regarding your first point, it's interesting to compare this case to the handling of another sysop who is famously quick on the trigger with indefinite blocks, often without even the limited WP:AN/I feedback that Vanished user solicited. Despite a much longer track record of concern and much greater potential damage in terms of WP:BITE, this sysop was afforded an RfC as a first step in dispute resolution. In the face of the concerns raised there, the admin in question was willing to change his approach somewhat. A subsequent RfArb based on the same concerns was rejected; you wrote at the time that "the RFC shows that the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing." (The RfC in question had participation as sparse, or sparser, than Vanished user's). That's how the process worked (and it did work) in a case where there was far more theoretical urgency and damage to the encyclopedia.

Obviously I can't weigh privately submitted commentary in regards to the RfC. Certainly "hard-line SPOV proponents" were well-represented among those willing to comment on-wiki. Perhaps you count me among them. Still, the views from B, Heimstern, and Durova drew support from a large number of experienced editors and admins with no irons in the SPOV fire. The views favoring a harsh approach to Vanished user were endorsed largely by partisan editors of a different stripe; discarding the input of such editors on both sides, it seemed there was still some usable feedback there, and it dissented from the path taken by the Committee. The Committee is privy to information submitted privately and perhaps has a better perspective on the problem as a whole. At the same time, it is a bit bothersome to have an RfC convened, to develop some useable feedback, and then to have it disregarded without comment. In that regard, again, I do appreciate your willingness to share your thought processes, and I realize you opposed the mid-case RfC to begin with, so I don't mean to put you in the position of defending something you disagreed with from the start.

I simply cannot let the irony of your final comment, about the willingness of the community to "circle wagons when well-liked editors engage in misconduct", go unremarked. A member of your Committee, a person occupying positions of great respect and responsibility, engaged in conduct that ought to be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, much less in front of ArbCom. His comments remain unrefactored and, so far as I know, there has been no apology to those attacked, all of whom are easily identifiable in real life by their usernames incidentally. Yet when this issue was raised, the response was, precisely, to circle the wagons. You said "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this" (despite the fact that he initiated the case). Paul said that "The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him." You added that any evaluation of Charles' behavior would be a "distraction". You and Paul then both suggested that, despite Charles' role as initiator of the case, anyone thinking his conduct during it should be examined would need to bring a separate ArbCom case. This is actually relevant, though: an editor being attacked in the terms used by this Arbitrator, and facing a proposal to desysop him with extreme prejudice within 12 hours of a case opening in the absence of any prior dispute resolution, will be hard-pressed to stay cool and respond constructively. In the end, Vanished user didn't, but that doesn't mean that looking at other aspects of how this case was handled is a "distraction". To me, at least, they send a much stronger message than the fate of Vanished user's sysop bit.

I think there was some wagon-circling going on with regard to Vanished user's defenders. I don't subscribe to that, and I haven't defended his blocks, which were bad ones. But concern about the irregular aspects of this case and the hasty and harsh response to Vanished user's misdeeds is not the same as excusing his actions. And if holding people in positions of responsibility accountable, rather than making excuses for them, is the message behind this case, then it would be more convincing were it applied more evenly and closer to home. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany, I have some questions about the MH ArbCom case and your comments on the talk page. I have posted them here, and would appreciate a response. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your post there to be more of a piece of criticism than a list of questions, and I'll decline to respond to most of it. There are two factual points however which I would like to clarify:

1. There were at least three requests for delay from Vanished user in addition to the request for an RFC. These were emailed to us.
2. The committee negotiated a voluntary settlement with Vanished user which he ultimately declined to accept even after we modified the wording several times to address his objections.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany, in point two (above) you refer to negotiations between the now-vanished user and ArbCom. Are you referring solely to off-wiki interactions (email or otherwise), or does this negotiation also take in on-wiki communications through the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages? EdChem (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this point is covered here: Following discussion, Vanished user has requested the case be suspended indefinitely, with his adminship being waived pending resumption.". See also FT2's comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems that the committee took this as an invitation to close the case with a 6-month desysopping (instead of suspending the case) - in addition, the vanished user objected to the wording of one (or more) of the Finding of Facts, and things went downhill from there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Carcharoth. I would, however, still like an answer from UninvitedCompany. He has not posted since before I posed my question, and so probably has yet to see it, and I am content to await his return. We do, after all, all have to work in RL as well, and UC has ArbCom email etc too, so I am sure he is busy and will be back here when he gets the chance. Best, EdChem (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to off-wiki discussions that led to the posting of the remedy Carcharoth identifies. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware of my post on User talk:Jimbo Wales, as it arises in part from your actions as an arbitrator. —Random832 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Minnesota is at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates if you can find a minute to vote. From memory, you have both knowledge of Wikipedia and of Minnesota. The most recent portal promotions had only a few more votes than Minnesota has now. Thank you kindly. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Sorry to have bothered your talk page last winter if I did. Hope to meet you someday. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi UC. I already posed this question to Newyorkbrad, but if you have reviewed the oversighted edits, perhaps you can clarify whether WB readded his allegation to GW at 21:49 on July 7, 2006. This is important to the basic chronology of what he did to get blocked, and is something I'd like to resolve. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The log shows WordBomb edit warring with others over edits that purport to identify the Wikipedia identity of the article's subject. I think I'll decline to comment on the particular dates and times. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand; I only ask because SV stated in evidence that WB added the allegation at 21:49. This is important, because it would be after the time he had conceded not to add it again. I discussed this with SV on our talk pages before she put up the evidence, in trying to straighten out the chronology that led to his block. That is why I am asking just for that particular edit it to be confirmed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could simply clarify whether WordBomb repeated allegations about the editor's identity to the article after he conceded not to at 20:28. Considering this was raised and addressed in evidence, and discussed in other places, I'd have to think that point could be confirmed. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll decline to provide this information because I do not believe the line of reasoning to which it relates is important to the committee at this juncture. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And if it's relevant to the community? There wouldn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep the information secret, since the timestamp _itself_ has already been publicly stated, and all you're being asked for is to confirm the truth of that statement. (It's not that we don't trust SV, it's just - first, she's involved, and second, since she doesn't have direct access to check it for herself, she's relying on her own personal recollection of events of over a year and a half ago) —Random832 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, UC. I don't want to make more noise at the Proposed Decision page for the Mantanmoreland case, but I'd like to inquire a bit more into your view of the evidence. First, thanks for stepping up and explaining your position; I appreciate your willingness to do that in the face of obvious unhappiness over the direction Arbcom is taking.

You said (forgive the paraphrasing) that the statistical analysis needed to be sufficiently well-controlled that it could reliably identify sockpuppets out of a large sample of editors. My question is, how well do Checkuser and the goof-up test meet your standards for well-controlled tests? (Do any known tests for sockpuppetry meet your standard?) What do you see as the distinction between those methods, which you seem to trust, and the ones I and others employed in the analysis of MM-SH (VSM, timestamp patterns, shared terms)? And, do you feel that the evidence we have compiled leaves room for a credible alternate explanation of the two accounts' seeming similarity? If you had to put odds on it, what do you think the likelihood is of MM and SH being independent accounts? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think those are insightful questions. Your line of reasoning is substantially more useful to the community than the overall discussion has been.

There have been cases where the checkuser evidence has been conclusive in showing abusive use of multiple accounts, though they are not as common as they once were. Examples have included matters involving NSLE, Poetlister, Privatemusings, Henrygb, Eyrian, and several cases handled privately. These cases have not involved statistical data but rather specific edits that are indicative of abuse and for which no plausible alternate explanation can be found. There have also been cases where someone has clearly made inadvertent edits with the wrong user name, as when replying to messages left for their alter ego or refering to their alter ego's prior actions as their own. I consider such edits to be quite conclusive.

In contrast, it is not possible to point to a specific edit or handful of edits for MM-SH that demonstrate shared identity. Rather, you and others have pointed to a lengthy, ongoing pattern which you believe offers no other plausible explanation. I've fooled myself in the past with essentially similar analysis, particularly when looking at word choice, areas of interest, and so on. I consider such analysis to be inherently unreliable and prone to false positives for a variety of reasons that I can share if you're interested. That leaves the editing times analysis, and I don't consider it rigorous, although again it certainly raises suspicions.

Odds? I would answer that the odds are probably less than 95%, which isn't enough for me under the circumstances. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the response. So, if I interpret your answer correctly, you're saying that you'd expect greater than one out of any twenty randomly chosen pairs of accounts to show the same (or greater) degree of similarity in word choice, article interest, median time of editing, and scarcity of simultaneous editing? alanyst ^/talk/ 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized that my restatement of your response was in error. Here's what I really want to confirm you're saying: For all pairs of accounts that show the same or greater degree of similarity in word choice, article interest, median time of editing, and scarcity of simultaneous editing, you'd expect greater than one in twenty to be legitimately independent accounts? alanyst ^/talk/ 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that in the particular case in question, one might become convinced that there is as little as a 5% chance of error in the conclusion that MM=SH given the totality of the evidence and data thus far presented. That's a guess, based mainly on the number of times I've been proven wrong when seeing a similar preponderance of evidence. Part of the problem with your analysis of word choice, editing times, and so on is that the criteria you're using were chosen to fit the facts of the case, which rules out statistically defensible results -- for a result to be statistically valid, the test criteria have to be determined prior to examining the data. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what criteria you're referring to. My choice of what data to study was not based on any known facts about the editors at the time, but rather on a general hypothesis of what features might be more prominent in sockpuppets than in independent editors, given only what can be known from on-wiki activity and without checkuser insight. Those features are the timing of edits (overlap) and the verbal styles of the editors (document similarity). I could not easily examine verbal styles of the actual contributions, but edit summaries seemed to offer sufficient data (and, not being editable after the fact, are perhaps more reflective of an editor's raw style). I did not state at any time what threshold of similarity would be required to bring the margin of error below a particular level; perhaps this is what you mean by criteria. But I was ready and willing to publish findings that would likely have exonerated MM and SH, such as a low degree of word choice similarity or an average or high number of simultaneous edits.

It strikes me that your trusted standards are equally unproven, except by personal experience (which is not a controlled experiment). That's not to say they aren't reliable; I think they make a lot of sense. But, for example, you say "These cases have not involved statistical data but rather specific edits that are indicative of abuse and for which no plausible alternate explanation can be found." What are your criteria of plausibility? What is the standard for "indicative of abuse"? How statistically significant is a finding of x abusive edits over the total number of edits that the editor (or all editors) made?

Is it fair to state that your trust in the traditional tests for sockpuppetry stems not from their having been proven scientifically, but rather that you feel you have a good intuitive sense for when they give conclusive results and when they might be unreliable? And, conversely, your mistrust of these new approaches is due to not having a similar sense for their threshold of conclusiveness?

Finally (and I apologize for belaboring the point), it seems like you are treating each of the tests individually, mentally discarding every one that does not give conclusive results. I submit that even if the best that one can conclude from any one of these tests is "suggestive but not conclusive", the totality of the tests would strengthen the conclusion, if the tests are truly independent of each other. What cinches the conclusion for me personally is no single one of the tests either, but rather the overall implausibility of independent accounts managing to be so similar under several independent metrics (median editing time, editing simultaneity, topic of interest, non-topical word choice). You use a "no plausible alternate explanation" test for specific edits that suggest abuse; can you imagine a plausible alternate explanation for the accounts' overall similarity under these independent metrics? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking past each other because you don't have any theoretical training in statistics. If you do, I apologize, but my basic approach to the evidence is rooted in the science of statistics as it is typically taught, and it appears to me that yours may not be.

I discard the word choice analysis in its entirety because I do not believe that such tests have any accuracy to speak of. I'm born and raised in the rural Midwestern U.S., and have the sort of Swedish American accent that comes with that, but if I talk on the phone for an hour to someone in London, I'll start imitating their accent and adopting British word choices and idioms. It's automatic. We do it unconsciously in text as well, though the accent doesn't come through. And there are oftentimes similarities in word choice among people with similar backgrounds, even if they don't know each other. There's a whole field of forensic linguistics out there that tries to make hay out of this sort of analysis, and the only area where they have any real accuracy is in proving plagiarism. So I give no weight to that analysis, at all.

That leaves the analysis of editing times and near total lack of overlap, contrasted with the notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation, a relatively uncompelling motive, and the unlikely possibility that SH may be a third party construct built in a deliberate attempt to discredit MM. And it is the analysis of editing times, in particular, that I find to lack statistical rigor.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here Uninvited, but my question follows directly out of your exchange with Alanyst. In your penultimate paragraph, you say you give no weight at all to similarities yielded by word choice analysis; but then in your final paragraph, you indicate that you do give weight to "notably different writing style in offwiki (mailing list) participation." Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean that you do give weight to stylistic analysis, but that word choice cannot be a valid part of that analysis? I would have thought that word choice was a fairly important component of style; do you agree with that, but maintain that other components of style (cadence, tone, syntax, sentence architecture, etc.) can be reliably analyzed in a way that word choice cannot be? That seems odd to me; the factors you list for why word-choice analysis is unreliable (unconscious imitation between acquaintances, shared backgrounds between strangers) would seem to apply equally to the other components of style. Or are you not making that distinction at all, but rather saying that apparent stylistic contrasts should be given weight, while documented stylistic similarities should not be?--G-Dett (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

UC, I wasn't aware that MM and/or SH participated in an off-wiki mailing list. Which one(s)? alanyst ^/talk/ 13:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a few times without answer, but what exactly is their difference in writing styles? Cool Hand Luke 01:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed it appears that Tomstoner affected his style in the opposite direction,, while it appears that Lastexit did not, or used the same manner claimed of SH. If they seem more relevant, please see also a couple of additional points here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's really not very difficult for a professional author to change styles, but I'm still curious about what their supposed stylistic differences are. Word choice for routine expressions, on the other hand, are more subconscious. Alanyst did some work to show that these word choice traits were probably not learned from each other. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for these stylistic differences. Mantanmoreland claimed some differences, but they don't seem to hold up and/or are flatly incorrect. No third party has ever articulated how they differ. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

as when replying to messages left for their alter ego - do you NOT remember what gave the claim enough credibility to convince a checkuser to run it in the first place? —Random832 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that I've been sanctioned for commenting in the 'thought of the day' thread - sincere apologies if my post disgruntled you at all, I know we can discuss wikback related stuff in the wikback thread next week, but if you're minded to consider an 'appeal' at all, I'd love to be able to return to uncontroversial posting - thanks heaps, Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's of interest / would help any - I thought I'd let you know that I did drop a note to Marc / Michael offering apologies if he personally found my posts distracting or disruptive - I'm glad that he replied that everything's fine between us - and I also wondered if any clemency might be possible in the light of other recent posts in an arguably similar vein? I very much appreciate your work in maintaining the wikback, and look forward to re-engaging there when my ban expires - or maybe sooner with your good grace! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(final pester on your talk page! promise!) - I thought I'd just add one more small note that might be of interest - unfortunately the way the banning system seems to work (for me at least) at wikback - when you're banned, you're presented with a much reduced forum screen, with no links etc. - and importantly, no option to 'logout' which would allow you, as an anonymous viewer, to follow any discussions of interest. I figured out how to delete my 'cookie' in the end - but wondered if you might want to take a look and see if there's a way of allowing a regular 'log out'? Also - my initial confusion was sincere, partly because it wasn't immediately clear to me that the message was a personal note, and not a site notice - I wondered if it might be possible to display the ban information as well as the message? Just a couple of thoughts...! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw your vote, and just wanted to thank you for at least not letting one of the worst Arbcom decisions in history be unanimous.Kww (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm all for building consensus, but I still think independently and vote my conscience. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since FT2 posted a new Finding of Fact for consideration less than an hour before your motion to close, perhaps this close motion is a touch premature? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi "UninvitedCompany". I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support . Regards PHG (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you haven't missed my recent comments on the Highways Arbcom talk, but I would like to highlight them just in case, as I appreciated your comments in the "Target audience" section of the proposed decision. Geometry guy 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was notified to get someone to verify my picture - I don't have an account in wikimedia, but the permission letter was sent today, and I did cite a license in the page, so I'm not sure why I got the error, or how to find someone to check for me. Thanks for your help, the Hitochi Princess (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia

Dear UninvitedCompany,

I am contacting you to prove that this is my account on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Jennifer Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Owens (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I sent you one. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the ignorant question. I looked through Wikback and I've got an impression that this is basically a rival forum to WR with the notable difference on prohibiting to use the site to out editors and most of the rest being very similar. Would it be the roughly correct crude assessment? Thanks, --Irpen 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that it's a rival forum to wikien-l with better management of threads. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And besides allowing banned editors to participate as well as editors who want to take a public pose of not posting to WP at all (both legit reasons) are there other important reasons to keep this off-wiki. Of course it is open and all, but seems like having it onwiki would be more convenient even though keeping the disgruntled ones engage is an important consideration, I agree. Perhaps the forum's wikification is another option.

Another good reason to keep it within wiki is its more transparent (even if not always upheld) privacy policy as there is no clarity of who has access to the participants' IP's in Wikback and what obligations people who have such access are willing to take upon themselves. Just suggestions.

Disclaimer, I never took part in WR and I don't find it a worthwihle activity, so I invoked it merely as an example. --Irpen 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment on this requested edit? I don't want to stir up any old animosities. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please send me an invitation when you have a moment. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear UninvitedCompany/archive22,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. About a year and a half ago, you appeared to have been involved with deleting AlBaho Case. Apparently, it popped up again and I didn't notice it. I have created an AfD for it, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AlBaho_Case. Since some aspects of this appear to involve administrators, I figured you might be able to clear some of it up. Thanks Wrs1864 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill. Would request your vote/comments on it. Please also note that FloNight (and now) Jpgordan are reconsidering their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - it may be eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

Please note that Flonight and Jpgordan have now changed their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - the discussion there is eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You were the only Arbcom member that seemed to understand the underlying issues in the "Episodes and Characters" cases. I draw you attention to my expansion of my request, and plead for some resolution. We have an editor out on a two-week block when he should have either been not blocked or dealt an extremely short one. Ruling that a two-week block is unreasonable three weeks after the fact is woefully ineffective.Kww (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this has expanded into two arbitrators calling for an indefinite topic ban against TTN and myself, I repeat my plea.Kww (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic might interest you, because it's being said you added the exemption for 3RR to the BLP policy originally. I'm not sure either way, but here's a heads-up. --Faith (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to make the same invitation, but I see FaithF beat me to it. Bovlb (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the weekend, the three person threshold I had placed on the possibility of my seeking a review of beind de-sysoped was reached. I had stated that, when that threshold was reached, that I would request outside input to see if the claims merited the process. As a bureaucrat, I think you probably are among the most qualified to make such judgements. By the way, it might be worth noting that the two individuals who first came into the question have been active engaged in conduct others find troubling at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls, and that one of them, as per the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya, is one who has been involved in conduct which has been troubling for some time. In any event, I request review of the comments at User:John Carter/Adminship at your leisure. Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience. By the way, it should be noted that the Bus stop affair was mentioned in my RfA and that the name change was made at the time, causing the recent comments about how I "buried" it and had "hidden it from view" to be at best dubious. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable! This message is - in and of itself is clear cut evidence as to why John Carter is unfit to serve as an administrator. John Carter seems to invest a disproportionate amount of his time filing inappropriate and unsubstantiated complaints against long standing established editors, in what would appear to be retaliatory campaigns against anyone who dares to disagree with the POV he is consistently cramming done the throats of members of our community. I think a little investigation will demonstrate to you that the Sarvagnya RFC, apparently initiated by Carter, CLEARED the editor of false allegations of impropriety, contrary to John Carter's (very typically) misleading statement above. Cleo123 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page......Cleo123 (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, you seem to have done little if any investigation of my RfA. If you had looked at it, and it can easily be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Warlordjohncarter, you will note that the Bus stop incident was mentioned both my me and at least one of those who voted support, and that, in fact, my username was changed after the RfA had begun, so it could hardly qualify as "burying my record and hiding it from community view", as you said. In fact, such clearly unsubstantiated allegations might themselves be taken as being a form of personal attack. I would strongly encourage you in the future to at least learn something about the matters in question before making such clearly inaccurate comments. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact: you removed an entire thread from the talk page discussion here, shortly there after you archived the discussion against consensus. Fact: when questioned, you acknowledged and attempted to justify your vandalism of the discussion record here. When an administrator informed you that the removal was improper, you stated - falsely - that another unnamed administrator condoned your actions. It would appear that you then quickly archived that page. I well understand why you chose to ditch the name WARLORD JOHN CARTER in your bid for adminship, however, as the two accounts were linked that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The contribution histories are linked - this is about trying to bury information by deleting an entire thread from an article discussion page.

As you are well aware, I have left Wikipedia, more than once now, due to ongoing harassment from you, against myself and other Jewish editors. You have repeatedly been asked by myself and other editors to leave me alone. . The fact that you have the apparent audacity to leave, yet another, very misleading and IMO inappropriate message on my talk page demonstrates the fact that you are entirely unfit to be an administrator. I have substantiated my claims against you, and you should know full well that what I have publicly cited is only the tip of the iceberg. In the best interests of the project, I would strongly suggest that you resign. Your RFA may have slipped through the cracks unnoticed due to your very conveniently timed name change, but as you are well aware - there are a great many editors who have serious issues with Warlord John Carter. Indeed, many editors who were not even involved with those articles voiced concerns about your bullying tactics as seen here, here, and here Cleo123 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the smear campaign and voice concerns about an editor in the appropriate forums - this is not one of them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Smear campaign? Care to elaborate? And what makes you think Cleo shouldnt be posting on this page? Its certainly not your user page? Sarvagnya 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, this is the process and the forum chosen by John Carter. I believe that makes my response to his comments here appropriate. I could open an RFC, but I am respecting the process he has chosen and I am giving him the opportunity to resign per his request for feedback. Cleo123 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, yes. imo, John Carter has not only been exceptionally rude but also has on many occassions demonstrated a utter lack of comprehension of our most basic policies. Unless this whole exercise is a farce, I will be glad to explain in greater detail. For now, I must mention that the RfC he filed (and now deleted) was no more than a vengeful exercise and abuse of process in an attempt to browbeat me. It may not be a coincidence that it closely followed my call for his desysopping. An attempt was also made to game the system by selectively distributing invites to the RfC among people who have been in conflict with me in the past - Ncmvocalist above being one of them, whose POV-pushing I'd busted on a certain article and one with whom Carter himself had teamed up to edit war against me on another article. One of Cleo's links above reads "Ganging up" and I must say that is exactly what Carter and his friends attempted with me with the RfC. I could continue but I'll stop here. Will explain in greater detail if asked. Sarvagnya 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the history of Sarvagnya's talk page for the comments of Nishkid, the admin who deleted the RFC. It should also be noted that the second party, Naadapriya, has been described by someone else as seeing Sarvagnya as his "guru". John Carter (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And... exactly what does that have to do with anything? Sarvagnya 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If Nadapriya also shares my opinion that you're unfit to be an admin, then it must be for very good reasons. Somebody else thinking that he thinks of me as his guru surely has zilch to do with it. And fwiw, my interactions with Nadapriya have been very few and very far apart. If you're trying to suggest that Nadapriya called for your desysopping by taking a cue from me, I must warn you to keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. Sarvagnya 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Carter's "guru" remark is a very typical inappropriate strategy this user frequently employs. He attempts to diminish and discount the views of other editors often implying that they have some sort of personal relationship or conflict of interest. These veiled personal attacks are very often attributed to some other unnamed editor or supposed "group" of editors. He seldom if ever provides citations for these claims, and often references deleted pages that are no longer available for viewing. Think about it, "It should also be noted that the second party, Naadapriya, has been described by someone else as seeing Sarvagnya as his guru." Is the alleged personal opinion of some unnamed editor, who isn't even involved in this discussion, really the type of response one would expect of an admin? Cleo123 (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here he is again, up to his same old tricks - apparently trying to organize, yet another, of his notorious "gang" efforts against another editor only today. To be honest, I can't be bothered to plow through all the details, regarding Carter's latest target. I've seen Carter's song and dance too many times not to recognize the inappropriate behavior patterns. It seems to me that a responsible administrator ought to be encouraging editors involved in a content dispute to work towards achieving consensus. An administrator should be encouraging them to discuss content as opposed to contributors. Instead, Carter is apparently attempting to escalate conflict and further clog Wikipedia's bureaucratic arteries with yet another premature and seemingly inappropriate complaint, waged by an organized "gang" actively recruited for their "roles" by Carter himself. As usual, he casts himself in his latest drama as the master puppeteer and director, who pulls the strings from the sidelines. What kind of administrator coaches editors on RFCs and the like, while openly acknowledging that a Wiki-ettiquette alert notice might be more appropriate? Does that sound objective? Does that sound neutral? What kind of administrator is wasting everyone's time combing an adversary's contribution history for alleged possible incivility from months back and spoon feeding the "evidence" to a hand picked group, coaching them through the complaint process?

If the editor in question, is doing something egregious and/or disruptive, as an administrator- why doesn't Carter just block him? Perhaps that is because User:Zeuspitar, (who BTW has never been blocked for anything), has probably committed no other "crime" than having a religious point of view divergent from Carter's "Christianity Project" perspective? One has to wonder if personal vendettas do not figure significantly into the multitudinous complaints of Carter and his every changing "crew". It should be noted that I do not blame the pawns in these apparent schemes. If an administrator encouraged me to file an RFC, I'd consider it. It would never occur to me that the administrator might be working to escalate conflict rather than diffusing it. Most of us hold administrators to a higher standard, which is why John Carter needs to be desysopped. Cleo123 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a completely unnecessary and quite unsubstantiated suggestion. I suggest you withdraw it. Responding to a request for advice on how to pursue dispute resolution being grounds for desysopping?!?

John, I respect you for doing this, but I think this should be closed now. Clearly, nobody's bothered to turn up but one or two people who clearly don't represent consensus of any sort. I'd view that as stultifying lack of interest in desysopping you. In any case, if an average admin doesn't piss off at least a couple of people with strong POVs - the benefit of which they wish to extend to the rest of the world - then they should be desysopped. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My! Now there's a quick response! Watching this user's talk page, are you? Are you involved in this matter some how? How about allowing the actual owner of this talk page an opportunity to review the evidence that has been presented and allowing him/her a chance to respond. For the record, I have substantiated my claims, providing multiple citations. Here's another one for you. Please note that the user's post contains nearly identical language in his complaint to language used by Carter in a variety of messages I have received from him. My, what a fascinating coincidence. My complaint is valid and I withdraw nothing. Cleo123 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, well, well, what do we have here? It's a message from about a year ago, posted by John Carter. Please, note that the language is strikingly similar to the posting made by John's " new pal" Wikidās in an RFC filed against John's apparent adversary User:Zeuspitar only today. Anyone else see any similarities between these two postings? Reminds me an awful lot of some very dirty business that went on during Bob Dylan/ Converts to Christianity dispute over a year ago. It's a pity for Mr. Carter that I have such a long and precise memory when it comes to clumsy and/or contrived dialogue. Cleo123 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I watch all the arbs' talkpages. And this nonsense has been on for five days, so its hardly a quick response.

For the record, I do hope that you misunderstood my comment: I was suggesting you withdraw probably committed no other "crime" than having a religious point of view divergent from Carter's "Christianity Project" perspective, an insinuation that is unnecessary and unsubstantiated. Your diff above, of Wikidas to Zeuspitar, is even less relevant to Carter, this request, or talkpage. (Not to mention the fact that a look over Zeuspitar's contribs suggests that he does indeed really, really hate ISKCON people, which Wikidas self-ids as.) Take a step back, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if you take the time to review the history, you'll see that my statements, although on a superficial basis may seem inflammatory - they are not without basis. A number of Jewish editors involved in that Dyaln/Converts to Christianity dispute expressed concerns that they were being targeted by Carter based on their religious persuasions. The content dispute itself seemed to revolve around Carter's efforts to deny Dylan's Jewish heritage and dub him a Christian, all the while seemingly targeting Jewish editors for harassment. When this goes to the next level, which I suspect it will, I know that I can provide citations to demonstrate Carter's apparent bias. In the meantime, review the archive. It's all there. Right down to petty assaults like the removal of Dylan's Jewish name from his article. The Zeuspitar incident is germaine, not only as evidence of possible sock puppetry (which was a community concern in the Dylan matter), but it is evidence that Carter continues to encourage editors to rush to RFC and ARBCOM rather than amicably resolving content disputes. It is entirely relevant, as it is current evidence of an ongoing behavioral pattern that unrelated editors have complained about. As for "taking a step back" - I have - for many months. Cleo123 (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another one. Does this language sound familiar to anyone else? My, what a coincidence Wikidas, somehow managing to dig up the "something I've already sought once" jargon from over a year ago buried amid all those Carter edits. Quite a coincidence. Cleo123 (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC

I'm totally confused. Are you claiming Wikidas is a sock? Oh, and nowhere is there evidence that Zeuspitar is being persecuted because of his views on Christianity... --Relata refero (disp.) 08:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also think that the ongoing accusations here are meaningless. When it became clear that this editor was absent for a time, I contacted another member of the ArbCom, User:Paul August, here, and received the response that he saw no basis for saying that I should be desysoped. I also have to question whether my perspective can be called pure Chrsitian, as Cleo has implied. I personally have regretably come to the conclusion that Cleo's behavior in this regard seems to be hyper-critical, and possibly at least borderline harassment. I have restated the terms of my being voluntarily de-sysoped, as I am free to do, by indicating that if a formal RFC is filed and on the basis of the comments there, I will desysop myself. Alternately, if such is imposed from outside, I clearly would accept it under those circumstances. Otherwise, I believe that further commentary here might well qualify as tendentious editing or some other violation of policy and/or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might like to comment on:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blanking_user_talk_page Usman Hashmi

• Usman Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 23 August 2006-18 September 2006

13:15, 5 October 2006 UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) blocked "Usman Hashmi (talk · contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Deliberate privacy violation involving release of personal information regarding another person)

• U. Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 24 July 2007-30 July 2007
• Mr. Hashmi (talk · contribs) - 30 July 2007-31 July 2007
• Hashmi, Usman (talk · contribs) - 31 July 2007-current

Partial list of IPs used to evade ban: IP Net Range: (81.154.0.0 - 81.157.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 81.157.97.44 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.0 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.189 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.249 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.136.0.0 - 86.141.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.137.96.245 (talk · contribs)
• 86.138.153.211 (talk · contribs)
• 86.138.153.240 (talk · contribs)
• 86.138.158.94 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.88.65 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.28 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.59 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.91 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.124 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.91.165 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.92.33 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.94.55 (talk · contribs)
• 86.139.95.166 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.1.129 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.1.157 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.2.48 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.2.114 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.109 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.210 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.5.237 (talk · contribs)
• 86.140.6.162 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.142.0.0 - 86.144.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.143.139.71 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.139.130 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.140.117 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.164.99 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.164.128 (talk · contribs)
• 86.143.165.183 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.43.15 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.43.80 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.35 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.81 (talk · contribs)
• 86.144.244.129 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.154.90.41 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.111 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.183 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.217 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.218 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.90.235 (talk · contribs)
• 86.154.91.102 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.209.202 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.39 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.171 (talk · contribs)
• 86.155.210.184 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.83.186 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.85.36 (talk · contribs)
• 86.157.85.170 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.42.249 (talk · contribs)

IP Net Range: (86.160.0.0 - 86.171.255.255 - BT-CENTRAL-PLUS)

• 86.161.58.129 (talk · contribs)
• 86.161.61.99 (talk · contribs)
• 86.161.61.205 (talk · contribs)

Just thought you might like to know and disperse some words of wisdom. WikiDon (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Us clerks checking on if you're active or inactive on what cases. Please let us know at the clerk noticeboard. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Lieuofblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the Arbitration Committee that in August and September of 2007 heard the the this case, you assented to the following finding of fact:

6) Seven editors (Gzuckier (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs), and Tickle me (talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.

I took great exception to this assertion at the time, but decided not to vigorously defend myself, as it seemed clear to me that the finding would not get the needed majority to be established by the Arbcom; and that my scarce time was better spent on other issues, on the arbcom case and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

However, your vote for this finding has now been used as an argument to discount my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination).:

This case eventually collapsed due to unresolvable divisions among the arbitrators, but the fact that four committee members were willing to endorse the aforementioned statement suggests that it wasn't a completely arbitrary charge. It's probably also worth noting that nine arbitrators agreed that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was the locus of the dispute. I would tend to think that these matters bear some relevance to the present discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have similarly raised this proposed finding of fact as a basis to question mine and others' vote on the AFD in question.

I am obviously not asking you to get involved in the AFD, but would like you to clear up the following:

If your vote in this Arbcom case can properly be construed as a legitimate argument for discounting my vote on any article that is related to Israel or apartheid, then I would like the chance to properly defend my votes on the articles in question and see if I can change your mind.

Conversely, if your vote fails to give the closing admin the grounds to discount my vote, then I would appreciate this clarification.

Just to be clear, this is the first time I have gotten involved in any "apartheid" related article since the Arbcom case. My apologies for having to drag you into this messy business again, and with thanks in advance for your consideration. --Leifern (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Alan Sun --Dralansun (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

---

You said you wished you could have made the last meetup, so I wanted to make sure you knew about this one. Hope to see you there. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First Paul, now you. I wonder what's going to happen to Arbcom :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You will be greatly missed, thank you for all the work you have done over the years, you have been an inspiration to many. MBisanz ^talk 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Used to enjoy reading through your unique opinions in previous cases, even where I disagreed. A lot of us missed out on those opinions in the more recent cases, but now in the future cases too? :( You'll be missed! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work you've put in. Much appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work on ArbCom, and wish you well on any future endeavors. By the way, is the Wikback coming back any time soon? bibliomaniac15 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sad...I have no intentions of joining Wikipedia Review, so the loss of this decent forum really sucks. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your hard work and dedication, and best wishes. Durova^Charge! 08:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote, UC, except that "new" contributors are so easy to manufacture, it is easy to get trolled and, on a much more minor note, I think you meant "flout" and not "flaunt"... see . IronDuke 03:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Town Hall Brewery
maps.google.com
1430 Washington Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55454
(612) 339-8696
October 11, 2008
Saturday at 12:00 noon (midday)
Meetup RSVP

Muddy Waters
maps.google.com
2401 Lyndale Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55405
(612) 872-2232
October 10, 2008
Friday at 10:00 PM (at night)
Alternate meetup RSVP

Just updating the calendar. Feel free to pass along these invitations. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In your eletion questions, you ask:

"Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?"

Could you please clarify what you mean by "non-routine involvement"? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Routine involvement in a dispute would include, for example: commenting on a talk page, voting at xFD, discussing a problem at AN/I, or making a comment in an RFC. Non-routine involvement might include such things as: being blocked, being a disputant in an arbcom case, or being formally asked to discontinue a certain pattern of editing at RFC or AN/I. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:UninvitedCompany/archive22 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as UninvitedCompany/archive22's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear UninvitedCompany/archive22! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed your oppose vote for Cool Hand Luke because you didn't sign, so I've restored it with your sig. ATren (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm such a flake. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was very confused at seeing an unsigned opposed so then I added the unsigned template but that was removed too. 96.232.11.55 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to spam you but I have (exceptionally) commented on your oppose. If you wish to respond, would you please do so on my election talk page. Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Steifer is correct, Burk's give the crest as: a naked cubit arm, supporting upon the point of a sword, erect, a moor's head, all ppr. Mottoes: Think on; and Superba frango; ref link. In heraldry the moor is a black man, see link hereto. The artist in heraldry often adds features and I see no problem with ear rings; I have seen versions with a head band. yours Czar Brodie (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly ^talk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Catherine Rodland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Black Kite 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This note is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee have resolved by motion (13/15 arbitrators supporting) to remove access to CheckUser and Oversight on grounds of inactivity from editors who have not used the tools in the past twelve months. Access may be applied for afresh via CheckUser and Oversight elections.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Január 6 1993 16 age (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am appealing an ArbCom case based on a principle you wrote and a clerk has asked that I notify you. The appeal is here. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hey, welcome back. -- Mentifisto 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi UninvitedCompany I undid your redirect on this article as it is about a band of the same name as the device you redirected too best. BigDunc^Talk 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The band isn't notable (if they were they would be hearing from the kind folks at Moog Music regarding tradmark law), and the article would otherwise merit deletion. I believe that redirecting it is the best solution. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are not notable thats why I placed a speedy tag on it. BigDunc^Talk 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

--JamesMchallem (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Can I ask why you felt that the Xtravirt company Wiki entry warrented deletion without any notice to make a correction to what was wrong with it?

Well, someone had tagged as being blatant advertising. I reviewed it and concurred, so I deleted it under CSD criteria G11. There wasn't any balance to the article and little detail. If you want, I'll undelete it, but I would imagine that someone else will just delete it again unless there's some context and balance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it be undeleted as it would have been easier to change the content to provide context and balance. In this instance the company is very much at the forefront of the industry and is helping shape the standard it operates under. It would be a shame for it to be absent from the site when other less notable companies in the sector are. Thanks :) --JamesMchallem (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to go and undelete it for you but I see that you recreated it, and it was deleted again, and you recreated it once more, and it is yet again tagged for deletion. I think I'm going to move on to other matters at this point though I will remain happy to answer any questions you may have that seek guidance on how to proceed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TNXMan 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This used to be User:aafoods, editing with a COI and posting an advertising article at All American Foods He was blocked, due to the username issue and the advertising/COI issue, and then promised to follow WP:BESTCOI as a condition of his unblock. He continued editing in a promotional way, undeniably an incautious way with edits such as . (Substantial ad-speak in there, such as "state of the art facilities" and "Products are developed to meet individual customer requirements by their R&D team", which all reads like some kind of advertisement. In addition, he created a sockpuppet, User:Endorean, or possibly a meatpuppet (they claim to be coworkers), who made further promotional edits. He's also posted a bunch of pictures off the company website to commons; I tagged them for deletion over there... I mention this because Endorean has also had some difficulty with copyrights. I don't like to unblock users blocked for engaging in corporate self-promotion without a strict promise to edit properly; Joplinfan1 gave that promise and broke it, so I revoked the unblock. Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going home soon so feel free to take whatever action you feel is appropriate; I think you have all the facts now. Mangojuice^talk 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, they're local for me, so I have some context that might make this easier. I'll unblock them and try to keep them on a short leash. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not willing to reblock him, but I've just  Confirmed that Joplinfan1 == Endorean (talk · contribs) (I've just reviewed their unblock request). -- Luk ^talk 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no surprise there, since they've stated that they're coworkers editing from a company network. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you UninvitedCompany for being so generous in unblocking. I appreciate your willingness to help and your sympathetic ear. As to the valid concerns about Endorean (talk · contribs), I cannot prove that we are separate individuals, other than we both work from the same IP Address as different individuals. You have already been so generous with assuming good faith. Please don't reprimand us for something that has very weak evidence (opinion). Two posts from the same IP 12 minutes apart under two different names should not automatically constitute sock or meat puppets. I'm sure you're familiar of WP:COWORKER and how this can happen. Any rules that were broken were un-intentional, and the purpose was not for meat or sock puppetry. I will talk with my coworker, and clear up the confusion and complex situation to cease his interaction on Wikipedia from work. Thank you for your help.

Also I have one more question. I can get the permission to use those pictures on the page. Would you be okay with me continuing to edit the All American Foods page? --Joplinfan1 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know which CSD bullet number to use to properly delete this. It's a copy of Foundry sand testing that's been modified to be an advert for http://www.sandtesting.com. I've been trying to get the user who created this page to stop adding his adverts and link spam to foundry sand testing, so it appears that he's just created a new article to circumvent me. Please tell me what I need to do to delete this advertisement. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize it was a carved up copy of something we already have. I'll take care of it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. You might want to do something with the images, too. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into the pictures. Wizard191 (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To Univited company & Wizard, I am quoting text from the answer for sockpuppetry Well, Wizard, I can understand what you are saying. Pushkraj Janwadkar is my boss and we both work together on research in the field of testing of foundry sands. We site references from sandtesting.com since its our own work and can authorize public usage from the same. We also share IPs since we work from same office. Your claim is obvious yet is most definitely is not correct. I hope you shall appreciate our sencere effort to dessipate knowledge which we have accumulated over the period of time. Well, please site me a site where the linked info is freely available so that the info can be displayed or referred to. Please also notify me when you tag for speedy deletion or atleast give me time of two or three days to work my way through to the notification. Since we are in technical industry its not often that we are connected yet make an effort to put up info whenever the time permits. It really discouraged me to find the charts which were uploaded are gone along with the article itself. Please note that, when editing sand testing equipments, it was noticed that, the article cannot provide support to actual testing technology and selection of equipment from a vriety of 95 standard equipments available with every manufacturer by generic names and thats when decided to create additional page on foundry sand testing equipments. You efforts are well appreciated to keep unwarranted stuff off the encyclopedia, yet on the other hand please also suggest alternative sources to sight if references that are give seem like spam to you. Please delete the page if the need be. Assuring sincere efforts always Kiranisht (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

GENTLE REMINDER of Kiranishts request
Pushkraj.janwadkar (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to have foundry sand testing deleted. Is that your request? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Been a long time. Welcome back. Will you sign up for the crat mailing list? bibliomaniac15 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'll sign up later today, given your urging. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for how you wrote this up. I've noticed two things- the intense nature and rising standards of the RFA process recently, and also how much less vandalwork is needed. Maybe it's me, but I find myself spending more time finding weird vandalism and sneaky edits than simply hitting the 'v' button. Cheers tedder (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if you're familiar with the {{CSD5}} template? You deleted the article Hasan (artist) right after I'd placed the template on it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I had several pages open in tabs and your edit must have been between my review of the page and my deletion of it. Would you like me to undelete it? The Uninvited Co., Inc.

No, I can undelete it myself if I want. It just gets frustrating to take the time to mark a page as being researched, spend the time doing it, and discover it was deleted a minute after I started looking into it. Hence the tag. (And the tag also lets others know that someone is looking at it, so they can move on to another page if desired).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just restored Powin Lau which you deleted after I put a {{CSD5}} tag on it. I declined the speedy because winning a national art contest is a good faith claim of importance (I'm not putting much stock in the badminton), and I've added a ref. Just an FYI.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I undeleted the page for the sake of history and license compliance. It looks like you just re-created the newest edit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone want to let blatant hoaxes slog through AFD for a week or longer? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but for myself I want no such thing, though I will note that a purported hoax marked prominently as such does little harm. To me, a blatant hoax is one that is either: a) self-evident or b) provably a hoax through contradictory information readily at hand. The lack of corroborating information where expected, as in this case, does not illustrate the presence of a blatant hoax, even though it may raise some eyebrows. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi UninvitedCompany, I'm new to the wiki and created the page Lancaster Middle School Debate League. At the time I left it this afternoon, I think I hadn't added relevant sources etc. There are pages dedicated to other individual urban debate leagues, and to the urban debate leagues in general, so I have a two fold question here: (1) should I re-create the page with more indications of notability (I have two mentions of the league in local daily newspapers as a starting point) and (2) if the answer to the first question is yes, what else can I do to make the article more 'encyclopedic?' Thanks in advance. HenScratcher (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(sig to force archiving) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You recently deleted Fake Games under speedy deletion criteria A7. I don't mean to be picking as the article was clearly going to be deleted sooner or later, but it didn't meet any of the A7 criteria and shouldn't have been deleted that way.

The subject under A7 is purposely narrow for a reason - namely there is no consensus that other subjects can easily be judged on a quick glance. A list of "fake games" (i.e. games that were never actually made/released , but are rumored to exist) certainly doesn't fit under "person, organization, or web content".

Again, I'm not complaining about the article being deleted, I just think the proper procedure should be followed and kindly ask you not to delete articles that don't actually meet the guideline, even if you (rightly) feel they don't belong on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to undelete it and list it at AfD if you wish. I can't remember for sure, but I think I had intended to delete it pursuant to the vandalism/hoax criteria which is what the tagger had chosen. That would have been pushing the envelope as well, I admit. I do understand and indeed share your concern about the importance of A7 having boundaries. Any "List of Fake x" article is inherently of boundless length since there is no way the depths of nonexistence can be completely plumbed, and in retrospect I suppose I should have marked it as IAR or left it alone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not an admin so I can't see the history anymore. I had tagged it for PROD which should have done the trick, but maybe the creator removed the tag while I was sleeping. In any case, I am fine with the article being gone so there is no need to undelete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone had changed the tag to a speedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, you will note further up the talk page where I am being taken to task for being pedantic about taking stuff to AfD that ought to be deleted straight away. Can't please everyone, I guess. I find it amusing. Such is Wikipedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you can't please everybody. However, in my opinion it is better to be "safe" and send junk to PROD/AfD where more eyes can confirm the article is junk than speedy something that doesn't actually meet the speedy criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed to note that you recently deleted the article Engineers Australia. The article had existed for at least 2 years, based on when I added a wikilink to it on my user page. You cited G12, unambiguous copyright infringement as the reason for deletion. It seems to me that the recent copyvio should have been reverted or perhaps those revisions deleted but I can't see any reason for the complete deletion of the article. The organisation verifiably exists and is notable. --Athol Mullen (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It looked like the copyvios were pervasive, but I'll check the revision history more carefully later on today. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've templated the offending user's page with template:welcome, template:uw-copyright and template:uw-coi and I'll see if I can get them to talk to me. --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you have determined that File:DFRLego 003.jpg is a fair use image; while removing it for multiple user pages, I noted that the uploader has several similar Lego figure images here that you may want to check out. — TAnthony^Talk 08:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged a bunch of them. I must confess that I didn't feel especially good about doing it. Of all the fair use abuses and problems we have on the project, this has got to be close to the bottom of the list in terms of egregiousness. Nonetheless, I can't fathom the courts seeing it as fair use, and we try to comply with the law of the land whether we like it or not. I'm off to commons to tag the one that was moved there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I'm not going to appear on the lists (at least the English department ones) because of a reason I can't talk about here. I'm happy to do it through email. But my completion and defense dates are on record. I successfully defended in November 2007. The diss has been turned in and I'm about to receive the degree. So, I have completed. I had anticipated much earlier completion. One could contact the registrar. About the nebula: I was recommended (never nominated) in 2008 by Jeff Carlson, a SFWA member. The other publications that keep being taken down either have verifiable acceptances or are already out and are published. I'm sorry for causing trouble. Didn't mean to. But somebody keeps going after me. I'm not exactly sure why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Doug Texter here.

A couple of things: The following are copies of emails from my editors. I've got the real mccoys on my email.

1. PIRG Article From: "Jack McKivigan & Heather Kaufman" <americanreform@gmail.com>

The above "From:" address may be forged.        Save Address      Reminder     

To: douglas.texter@att.net Subject: Re: Encyclopedia of American Reform Movements Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:46:03 AM

Doug:

Thanks. The entry will go back to FoF tomorrow, but I can't se why they won't accept this as the final draft.

Answers to to your questions:

1. Some time in 2010.

My bad on listing it as 2009. I didn't realize how slow the process was for the encyclopedia. They may be behind.

Administrator.of.University.of.Minnesota@cos.com, Graduate School <doctetd@umn.edu> 
The above "From:" address may be forged.        Save Address      Reminder     

To: douglas.texter@att.net Subject: Request for minor changes to your submission Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:52:15 PM

Dear Douglas Texter,

I'm writing you to request minor changes to your submission, "All the World A School: Utopian Literature as a Critique of Education".

1) submit the application for degree to the One Stop office-the form can be found in your graduation packet. 2) complete the survey at www.grad.umn.edu/umnsed 3) remove blank pages

NYRSF article. David G. Hartwell" <dgh@panix.com>

The above "From:" address may be forged.        Save Address      Reminder     

To: douglas.texter@att.net Subject: Re: Query Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:43:03 PM

Dear Doug,

Attached is our edited text of the Turtledove. Please review the edits and ok the final version.

Also, please send us your mailing address.

David

Attachment 1: Texter on Turtledove rev.doc (application/msword)

OK, for the record, I never made any claims about the nebula other than the one about being recommended for a Nebula. In any event, if you look at the site, a recommendation is a nomination. I received one that I know about. As far as I know, I timed out in terms of my eligibility. But it's pretty clear, I received a nomination/recommendation. I never said I made it onto the ballot.

Second, as to the degree, I never made any claims until June on Wikipedia that I had completed. Defended yes. Somebody else said after the chronicle article that I had. In June, we did an update. My claims are accurate. The defense date is verifiable by contacting the director of graduate studies of English. As far as I know, I am currently registered under dummy credits. You have to be to get the degree. There is no separate Registrar for the Graduate School. I'm done with the degree. Was done with the diss over a year ago. I didn't turn it in for a couple of reasons. Just waiting for the piece of paper now.

Third, you have copies of emails from editors. I don't know who this person has been talking to, but clearly, I am a contributor to the above places.

The JFA article was published last year. Jeffrey Weinstock was my editor at Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. You can find it in most college libraries.

If you want me to forward the emails off page, I'm happy to do it.

DT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The University of Minnesota Graduate School Registrar Office says (via phone) that no one with any version of the name Douglas Walter Texter has defended his thesis (and they are well aware of who he is as I am not the only person to ask about him and this claim in the last few months) nor completed the PhD program and awarded degree. He is not a Doctor now, nor in 2008, nor in 2007. As the school itself says his claim is not real, it cannot be listed on the article under the rules.

Above he clearly admits he is not a real Nebula nominee, therefore it cannot be listed.

I have only been able to confirm an extract of the Chronicle article. Despite the first paragraph being a lie, it can be listed.

As to the rest, the sites for confirmation listed on his talk page either: are not real sites, the site response email says this guy is not one of their writers/contributors, and/or he is not listed on the site as a writer/contributor. Outside of real independent verification, these cannot be listed.

I am copying this section and his IP talk page responses to the article talk page. ~~User:72.24.147.197 05:07, 19 June 2009

The problem I have with that is you can't add a claim to the article stating that he has no advanced degree unless you have a published reference that states that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I wrote that one paragraph in my last edit specifically to get attention. My position is not that Texter has no advanced degree (he really does have both Bachelor's and Masters), just that he has not completed the program to claim PhD/Doctor status, not in 2007, 2008, or yet in 2009. This guy was being heralded by a conference I attended yet he was off in answers and repeated details, so I asked for his CV. As its turned out, most of his so-claimed resume has checked out as either blatantly false or deliberately misleading. That Texter was editing his own article unchecked while proclaiming it gospel really irked me.

Now his article is being monitored, and more people can see wh he really is. Take his recent edit above--since when does claimed copied email text qualify as proof? One would know that if One read Rules and Guidelines before fingering their keyboards. Alas, keeping up his facade is more important.

Do edit his email address out from above. For all his claimed computer expertise, he really is clueless.

Doug Texter here one last time. I don't have any computer expertise. I think I've supported my argument as well as I know how to do. If I've violated policy, please let me know. I'll abide by any decision Wikipedia makes. But, my degree is done, the work was done a long time ago, the diploma should be in the mail, my publications are legit, and, I've never been asked for my CV at a conference. I'm not heralded by anybody right now. Thanks. DT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:72.24.147.197 07:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand why people would rather let something rot in AFD for weeks. That article is clearly an A7 and there're no sources at all to be found. And someone is apparently allergic to speedy deletion. Oh, and I've switched to organ. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa. I'm not THAT advanced of an organist yet! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i take it this new source and the rewrite minimizing the quotations, were not a sufficient change for you? how much change would it take to be acceptable for you? do you want to destubify and start again? (i am genuinely curious, i see little rationality aside from the mediation, which i am attempting to follow). btw, thanks for not saltingDogue (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy on reliable sources and policy on original research both discourage articles that rely solely or primarily on primary sources (such as the fruits of FOIA requests). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As much as they might like the world to work otherwise, FindLaw does not hold copyright on opinions issued by the courts. Other content of the web site may be subject to copyright, but if the only portion copied is the opinion itself, there is no copyright violation. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent catch - my mistake. I only skimmed the page for copyvio indications, and (incorrectly) concluded i was dealing with a research piece regarding a court case - as opposed to a summary of that case. The copyright notice on the bottom on the findlaw page didn't help either. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I see that sort of thing all the time. The FindLaw people want you to be confused, which certainly doesn't help. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Uninvited, thanks in advance for helping me understand all of this. Obviously, I am a very new user to the site, but I will eventually learn the subtleties are this submission process. I feel like I addressed each "complaint" systematically and I hope that you were able to actually view the changes. For instance, I added legit references, links, and "noteworthiness" with respect to genre of music. And finally, after the last post, I went and read the policy and I seem to easily meet this criteria:

"Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. " AND "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Keithlarson (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And now that I know what "salting" is, I clearly don't have any mechanism by which to add additional credibility to the article. I am hoping then, that this forum affords this dialogue the needed detail on my end. Keithlarson (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

--

Hello again, thanks for the time to explain. Let me first say that I completely understand if this doesn't seem to fit with Wiki criteria; I am asked so often about this band and this time period that it seems to me Wiki would be a much better place for this new-found interest to draw from. That said, maybe this has a place here...maybe it does not. This group was one of these "starter groups" back in the early mis-named "Chapel-Hill Scene". They were an important catalyst of the place and time-period. To answer your specific question: YES....many of the people mentioned associated with the article (probably most notably Urge Overkill, Polvo, or Ryan Adams more than meet the aforementioned criteria.

I suppose most important (at least in my opinion) to the credibility of the article is that there is no potential capitilization of the past...none of these guys really care to, nor could ever agree to. This isn't about promotion as it is about the history of creative movement.

Now that I re-read my post...I think there is some irrelevent stuff, which clearly reflects my own sort of absurd recolection of what this band was...and less about how important is was to that scene. Ego aside, I still think it deserves an entry for others to connect the dots and legacy of music North Carolina. Can't I submit an alternate, more efficient version? Yours... Keithlarson (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithlarson (talk • contribs)

You said that in order to include an article on one musician, the independent notability of the two groups he is involved in would have to be established, and that then, that person would be included in the band websites. Justin Winokur's most notable recent music career is through his solo work -- although he was involved in numerous touring bands, entering his information into the band entries would not allow discussion of his solo albums, produced on an independent label. It was his SOLO work that got him collaborations with Brainpool, Christoffer Lundquist, Mark Mazzetti and several television appearances. So he's notable not just for the BAND appearances but for the solo work. So while he might be entered under the band listings, that would not allow entries for his solo work. Which is notable.  :) I guess I'm just trying to understand the notability guidelines which, I notice, are much-disputed.Safadancer (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

His solo work would be considered notable if he has released two or more solo albums on major labels (or prominent independent labels with a roster of multiple artists, many of them notable), or has had an album certified gold, or if he meets one of the other WP:MUSIC criteria (which is relatively rare for present-day performers working contemporary rock-type idioms). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're going in circles! He DOES meet one of the other WP:MUSIC criteria (that of belonging to separate, independently notable bands). Aside from Spitkiss and Professional Murder Music, he also played with punk band The Blamed and industrial band Mortal. So the bands ARE notable. Which means he meets the WP:MUSIC notability requirements for being entered as a SOLO artist. His original music has been featured in television shows and commercials, and one song was a hit single on Playground Music Scandinavia. I realize it's Swedish, but it's still kinda relevant. What this sounds like to me is: he's not notable because he's been in bands, which means he should be in the band articles, but he IS notable because he's been in bands, which means that he fits the WP:MUSIC independent-artist criteria. It's contradictory! Safadancer (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What has to be established is which of these bands are independently notable. If he played with one band that was independently notable, and did not engage in any significant solo work, then he should be covered in the article on the notable band. If he played extensively (e.g. on one or more major recordings or on a continuous basis over the course of a year or more) in each of several bands, each of them independently notable, then an individual article might be warranted, in which case it should begin by highlighting the reasons for his notability (which would, in that case, be the bands he's played in, not his style, history, or technique). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Excellent improvement. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it had been refactored since before we added the CSD for non-notable bands. I'm working on the criteria themselves now. I'm trying not to change the meaning, so please take a look and check up on me. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Some of your changes seemed not to be substantial in terms of meaning but removing the "important note" at the start certainly was, and this addresses a common problem with speedy deletions - the guideline as it was before (including this note) was consistent with WP:CSD. Some of your other changes also could potentially result in major changes in the way the guideline is interpreted. Can I suggest that you propose new wording on the talk page and gain consensus before proceeding. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to un-revert the changes that you don't believe are substantial, first, to help focus the discussion on the actual issues? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven, I say this with complete respect for your creativity and your good intentions. I'm asking that you consider changing your signature. Users who are not familiar with you may misunderstand the Inc. as a corporate or group account. Just something to think about. And I respect your decision either way in the matter. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How long has UC used that sig, and how many problems has it caused? Majorly talk 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly's point. As well, Steve has an user page that clearly explains who he is. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was UninvitedCompany for a while, but I changed it to its present form when it became customary to link both one's user page and talk page from the sig, in some fashion. Since there is in actual fact, so far as I know, no corporation so named (though there are a few bands and theater troupes that use it, none of them either notable or related to me in any way), I didn't think there was much potential for confusion. The "Co., Inc." was chosen in part to make the self-parody crystal clear as this duplicative form has never been used by any actual companies and was frequently used in 1930s-1950s American humor . As Majorly implies, no one has complained before. I'm not sure I see it as more problematic than someone believing Majorly is a military figure of some sort, or someone believing that Kingturtle holds regal authority among certain reptiles, but hey, if there's really a problem, I'll change it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I respect your decision either way. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Doug Texter. My entire page was just speedily deleted.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you think that's bad? Why?
2. The reason the article was deleted was that much of the content had been removed leading to an article that said little and therefore did not establish notability.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

i am the webmaster of the page http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com and was using the materials on that site to build this wiki page as per the suggestion i wrote on the talk page and will send a e-mail tomorrow from the site to permissions-en@wikimedia.org permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL,

As Such please reinstate the page.

Thank you for your time and effort ensuring that wikipedia remains a true source of information.

Please note that you must have the original author(s) email permissions-en and state that they irrevocably release the page under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Once this is done, the permissions team will restore the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you what do you mean by original author

Whoever originally wrote the words down. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK i have done as you instructed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.27.96 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

can you reinstate the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.206.53 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to writing on wikipedia. My 1st article was G8 Business. I thought I referenced everything and where I used statements by others they were footnoted and the site referenced. The site was deleted with notation G12 for copyright violations. Can you be more specific? I certainly had no intention of doing this. Thank you. I believe the page should be reinstated to give me a chance to correct what you think was a copyright violation. KEA65 (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of the material was copied verbatim from bdi-online.de, and the article was therefore deleted as a copyright infringement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the article be reinstated so that I can fix it? I can move it to a draft page/sandbox/underconstruction perhaps. I didn't realize it was copyright infringement if the source was given credit. But I can rework the article and put it in my own words only using the joint statement (found in many sources) as a smaller reference point. I just hate to lose it all without a chance to fix it. KEA65 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can email a copy of it to you if you want. You would have to set up an email address in your preferences first, then leave a note here and I'll send it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. Do such sources need to be provided in the article, or on the afd discussion page? Simon311A (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's best to provide them in the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted the NCover page twice on the basis that it is advertising. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that assertion and give suggestions on to how I can make a wikipedia page describing a type of software that thousands of .NET developers use. Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aislingdonnelly (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. First of all, the subject must be notable, and this must be made clear in the article, ideally in the first paragraph. Second, reliable, independent sources must be used as references to support the claim that the software is notable. Third, the article must be neutral in tone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Im working on a site that should prove NCover's status as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aislingdonnelly (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"no evidence that the user is banned"? User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji - banned as a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the user may have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Unless HanzoHattori is the object of a community ban in addition to a block, it wouldn't make sense to mass-delete or mass-revert Hanzo's edits. Now, the article may be deletion-worthy for other reasons, in which case it should go, but I wouldn't think the fact that it was created by a sock would in and of itself be grounds for deletion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my article called "IndieShows". Just wondering what was wrong and what could be done to improve it? I've showed importance and used references and read the WEB guide. Any help would be appreciated. Whats funny is in the deletion review area some admins say my article shouldn't keep getting deleted and some say it should. No one seems to agree on standards. Lennonno9 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not your article but the subject matter itself. Generally we do not cover web sites unless they have received nontrivial critical coverage (full policy) in independent media that has editorial oversight (that is, reliable sources). Further, this coverage must address the impact of the web site in the wider world rather than just provide a summary of the content. Of the references you specify, the press release is not independent, and the other two lack editorial oversight. None of the three addresses anything other than the content of your web site -- there's nothing about its influence, nothing comparing it to other similar web sites, nothing commenting on the quality or depth of the material the site offers.

Regarding your last comment, Wikipedian admins frequently disagree. In this regard they are no different from attorneys or luthiers. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not to be elementary about it, but the way wikipedia works then is not fair. The website "SoundClick" has an article on wikipedia and the article is just about what the site does. It's references come from a blog, itself, and something else. I also have a friend who has an internet radio station (I won't name it because I don't want his article to get deleted because of me), but his article has been up for months and it is simply about an internet radio station (his internet radio station) and he has no critical coverage. In fact, one of his very few references is from IndieShows, the site I'm trying to write the article about. In short, I'm done trying to make this article on IndieShows, but, you guys aren't really fair because there are TONS of sites with wikipedia articles which are nothing more than advertisments. Lennonno9 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, and I don't like it either. If you want to help make it better, you can list SoundClick for deletion yourself. You don't have to be an admin, and there's no club you have to join. Just follow three easy steps and you can make the project more consistent. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to delete anyone's article. Might come back to haunt me ;). I thought about it, and even added the delete tag to the above mentioned article, but then I chickened out and removed it. You should check out that article though and let me know if it is compliant and if it is, why is it compliant... maybe that would help me in creating my article. Lennonno9 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it. The difference is that they have received coverage from the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, even if only in passing. Either would be fairly significant by itself, but coverage in both would be a solid indication of notability. Again, these decisions are more about the subject than about the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess the bottom line is I need to wait until a "notible" site references IndieShows, then I can make this article. I think I'll start e-mailing these sites and ask them to mention IndieShows ;) Lennonno9 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic - it's a new radio station and I have sources to prove it. Jonny7003 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then put them in the article and update the article to say what they say. Be aware that we expect to see coverage in reliable sources beyond mere substantiation of the station's existence. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's usual in this sort of instance to replace the page with a regular copyvio notice and give the uploader seven days to send in permission, simply because we don't want to be responsible for propagating copyvio text. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I have cited a source within this article which you tagged as hoax. Please look into this, if you agree then please remove it from Suspected Hoax list. If you still believe it to be hoax then please take it to AfD or PROD.

Thank you.

Hitro 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I need some help setting up a company page on wikipedia. You deleted my first attempt and I would like your guidance in getting them an acceptable listing.

I'm a marketing consultant from Louisiana. My practice is very specialized. I work only with cpa and accounting firms.

As part of my program I require all my clients to get a website, and yes... CPA Site Solutions is the firm I recommend. Three times in the last two months I have had trouble with clients trying to look them up in Wikipedia. They have no listing, so of course when a search is done for "CPA Site Solutions" what comes up in the #2 position instead is Emochila, one of their competitors. Accountants are really not much more sophisticated consumers than anyone else. More and more my clients are confusing Emochila with my recommendation. This is a big problem, as their sites are very limited and cannot be properly optimized or marketed.

I do not begrudge Emochila their listing. They are a major player in the industry, but this confusion must stop. Once they buy an Emochila site my clients have not only paid out about $200 in setup fees, they are locked into the service for a year, and I simply cannot optimize the sites properly. Their templates are not flexible enough to allow me to change the Meta Tags on the individual pages.

This situation is generating significant monetary losses for my clients.

CPA Site Solutions is also a more important company in that industry. They have more than twice as many clients (3000 at last count) and they are older (by about 5 years). In fact CPA Site Solutions is the second largest Website Provider in the world for US Accounting firms today (The largest and oldest is called Accountant's World). They also own Complete Site Interactive, another website design firm for accountants. CSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPA Site Solutions since 2007.

While I realize I cannot say this in the article, the real problem I'm having is that CPA Site Solutions offers a much better product. They are the real leaders in the industry. Emochila's entire business model is a weak copy of CPA Site Solutions, and they just can't keep up. CPA site Solutions is much less expensive, has better tech support, and also has a better Content Management System. While CPA Site Solutions is dedicated to programming and development and has a philosophy of superior sales through a superior product, Emochila really doesn't innovate. They wait for other companies to do it then they crank out the cheapest possible copy.

On a practical level, CPA Site Solutions can integrate custom site styles into their CMS with a minimum of difficulty (and expense) and more importantly their pages can be individually optimized with unique Meta Tags for SEO. Lastltly they are designing content with a very real understanding of Marketing and Networking. I suppose if you like I can get into the intricacies of network marketing with you but I guess at some point I just need to ask you to accept that as a marketing professional I know what I'm talking about.

Anyway... I used the Emochila page as a guide, and was very careful to maintain a neutral perspective. I will be reposting the article soon. Please contact me via my talk page to let me know specifically what you found objectionable about my article so I can make sure the next version is up to Wikipedia's editorial standards.

UrKnightErrant (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've undeleted your article and listed them both for a more complete discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emochila (2nd nomination). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I need some clarification. There were numerous links, independent sources, that make reference to the company I am trying to list, but I did not include them because they did not contain any factual information worthy of a footnote and I was afraid including them would change the articles Neutral Perspective. This seems to be hurting my article's case in the AfD debate. Should I be including these links in the "Links" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrKnightErrant (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My view personally is that at this point neither article should be kept (but this is Wikipedia and other people involved may see things differently). If you have reliable, independent sources that have something non-trivial to say about your company, they do belong in the article, and the article should be updated to include whatever it is that they have to say. If the references don't really say anything about CPA Site Solutions, but instead just mention the company in passing, then I myself am not going to pay them much heed. Others may consider them if you list them in a "links," "further reading," etc., section rather than using them as footnotes. I would caution you that if the topic isn't notable, no amount of work is going to save the article -- some people get mad at me when they feel they've put forth considerable effort at my behest only to see the article deleted anyway. The rest of this page contains examples of that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done what you recommended. I was careful not to go overboard and did not include every passing reference to their company, but I included several highly relevant links from well respected outside sources that I originally chose to omit because I was afraid it would hurt the neutral perspective of the listing. Please review the content an let me know what you think?UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised. Are these AfD's always so quiet? Aside from some sock puppets Its almost a dead calm. Is there any way I can drive some more neutral traffic to the page? UrKnightErrant (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The absence of neutral third parties at AfD discussions has been a problem for the last 1-2 years. I have no idea what to do about it in your case in particular. Solving the broader problem involves understanding the sociology of the Wikipedia community and the psychology behind individual editor motivations. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello UninvitedCompany. Regretfully, I have to express my disappointment with your comment here, which seems to imply that in general, articles lacking English-language sources are not worthy of inclusion. My impression has always been that the creation of articles on topics of note from all over the world (not just the English-speaking parts) are not only welcomed, but encouraged.

While my own article work is so modest that it doesn't really matter one way or the other, there are many, many editors who, based on foreign-language sources, have contributed immensely to the sum of all human knowledge. If I were one of them, I believe I would find it hard to not feel a little bit slighted by that comment, especially coming from someone like yourself. I hope you understand. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say and found myself wondering about this for a while after leaving the comment you mentioned. I am of two minds. The problem we have is that there are not enough ENWP editors fluent in any but the most common foreign languages to police such articles. In areas prone to abuse, especially BLPs, corporations, and products, this could become problematic and indeed already is to a degree. On the other hand, from a standpoint of goals and mission rather than pragmatism, I agree that lack of English sources shouldn't have to be a barrier. One possible guide is how the Wikipedia in the language used by the bulk of the available sources treats the material. Another is the willingness of the page author(s) to supply translations of the sources upon which the article relies. At one extreme, it would be nearly impossible to fact check an article based solely on sources in Guaraní as there are at most several hundred people worldwide who could translate between Guaraní and English reliably, none of them Wikipedians.

It's late but I'll try to write more on this another day. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am happy with the clarification, and agree that ideally, all information should be easily verifiable. But I can't help but wonder what the encyclopedia would look like if we were to limit ourselves to online sources written in English. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that editors truly fluent in languages other than English usually prefer to contribute to a non-English project. It's difficult to generalize because of the considerable differences in various language pairs. There are many ENWP editors who have at least limited fluency (to the point where they could perform some basic verification of a source) in German, French, or Spanish. There are a handful who can read and write in Nordic languages, Portuguese, Hebrew, Russian, or one of the Eastern European or Baltic languages. Virtually no one editing ENWP with any regularity is fluent in Japanese, Chinese, Farsi, Greek, etc. Where we get in a jam is when someone posts a hatchet job on some Saudi Arabian prince citing non-English sources that no one can verify. Then we dither until some fancy New York law firm sends a letter to the foundation. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia official policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Wikipedia policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you offered to send me my G8 Business page that was deleted by email once I changed my preferences and allowed email. I have set up this preference - can you now send me the page that was deleted. Thanks, KEA65 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Uninvited. It's your southern MN buddy. I've been doing some digging on All American Foods and I have found a few articles from the Free Press in Mankato that I'd like to source. The issue is, most of the articles are between the years 1989 and 1997 regarding company expansion, size, and success. I think they'd be great to improve notability. The issue is that I only have the paper copies, and the Free Press archives don't go back that far online. I'm just wondering what I should do with these sources. Do I scan them? email them? post them somewhere else? I appreciate your time, and I hope you avoided some major hail last night! It'd be a great day once that notability tag is off that page, lol. Joplinfan1 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to provide the sources themselves. All you have to do is provide references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mark Prindle. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That editor was me. I'm new to the behind the curtains part of this site. Actually, I think I made the Mark Prindle page, but it ended up being a recreation, but now it's in the abyss somewheres. It may have been just an IP. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I inavertedly deleted your userpage (and promptedly restored) it a couple of minutes ago. I was cleaning up some broken redirects to the Lord Abbett article that you deleted and must have hit the wrong link somewhere... Apologies again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Update: the meetup will be at 1 p.m. Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul. Click here for more details and to R.S.V.P. Jonathunder (talk)

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello UninvitedCompany! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 27 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Marie-Claire Alain - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Catherine Rodland - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just sent Ladue Yacht Club to AfD, after you removed the speedy deletion template. Did you read the article? "The man-made Ladue lake is well hidden. A genetically altered algae which grows like grass on top of the lake hides the lake from aerial photos." --John Nagle (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I missed that particular gem. Even so, I think that AfD is the right place for it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's on its way to being flushed via AfD. I know, we have to assume good faith, but cleaning up plausible hoaxes chews up editor time better spent elsewhere. --John Nagle (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello UninvitedCompany, just in case you were not watching the crats noticeboard in awhile i wanted to give you an update on the request, so far people are agreeing that the usurpation request should have been allowed. You can see more at the crats noticeboard if you'd prefer. Thank You, ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 04:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I left my reason for a usurpation. Mikemoral♪♫ 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's been a week. Do you think it'd be fine to rename? --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for changing username! Regards, TR (my talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TR (talk • contribs)

could you consider again this archived request? User dosen't know English, so that I'm trying to help him. Iwould be greatful. Maikking (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

there was a Polish movie Kiler in 1997. From that film a word "killer" or "kiler" is a part of a common language in Poland as well. I suppose, that his name is from that film exactly , including the year of it's production (user is eighteen). by the way, how does this name violate your username policy? mine is neither a Polish word, trully said i can't clearly understand that according to the SUL rules. But if you have any more problems, after my explanation above, with this username, I can ask him to change it. Maikking (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In general we discourage usernames that evoke violent events or actions. I'll check with the other bureaucrats here, though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

aside the usurpation request - wuold you accept a name "Kiler97" (with single 'l'). Just asking, because, as I said, username is coming from the movie title. Maikking (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have trouble with it. Others might not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

have you already decided about this username? Maikking (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to fulfill the request. You can check with another bureaucrat if you wish. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... Why? --Dweller (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I started checking them and realized they were badly out of date and being updated inconsistently using varying criteria. I'm not sure the information was all that helpful, but I have no objection to it being there if someone wants to update it regularly or write a bot. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not transcluded on anyone's userpage anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Would you like to delete User:Spin_Boy_11/Userboxes/WP_Flips? Same reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I never realized that Wikiprojects were subject to deletion, but then again I never realized that the flaming lips needed a Wikiproject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I stuck this one in the correct place - it should be at the top of the list (watch for the comment in the page as edited), not the top of the page. Careful, there. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the case has been quite the opposite to the one you fear. I know there are people who genuinely drift into other projects or other languages, for whatever reason, and forget about the English language wikipedia completely in the interim, to return later. I am not one of those.

I have kept a very close eye on the English Wikipedia, even though you may not see but the thinnest activity by me in it. My activity in the Finnish Wikipedia though fun and engaging it is, is also very much to be considered as a "tour of duty" in the sense that I do think serving that community through it's most sensitive and vital growth phase is rewarding and genuinely fulfilling in the sense of doing something a person "should" do, for ones own language.

A less "fun" thing, but more of a drudging "duty" or chore sort of thing I have also done with a sense of gusto, has been customising the ever bloating number of system messages in mediawiki code to my own dear language of Finnish. (I think GerardM can testify I have not let the positively wrenching difficulty and tediousness of the translation job deter me from doing it with some regularity and volume -- though I should add that the job has become much more amusing lately, due to code that drops in the often ludicrous, but regularly useful google-translated "suggestions".)

Even so, I *have* kept an eye on the Wikipedia, and to the extent that any one person can do, know roughly what is going on with it, and hardly a week goes by that I don't consider issues that concern it, and its future. The fact that I don't actively get involved, I find, lets me observe it with a bit more detachment, though I can't say whether I see it more clearly than those do get deep into it. It is after all a different thing to observe than to live the life itself.

And, btw, I do regularly scan CSD's, but since I tend to be one of the most merciful admins, my deletion log may not be as fat as if I was a bit more ruthless. But in terms of involving in "communiteish" affairs, no I don't do that, unless I think I can contribute something I think nobody else could contribute.

I know I need to address the separate issue which prompted you to your comment on my talk page, but I need to think a bit to compose my thoughts about it, though on the issue itself, I do know where I stand. Watch this space. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to thank you for taking the time to facilitate the move of the Droid Incredible. It's always great to see someone as involved as you still willing to help out with the little things that make it all tick! --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the note. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to ask that you reconsider your recent deletion of my article about TFG Trading Matrix. This company is a significant on in the financial world. It is the first company in the world to broadcast from inside a real hedge fund. Hedge funds are an important component of the financial industry, and as recent events have proven, they are very secretive, sometimes even violating the law. This company is changing that by broadcasting a hedge fund and making it completely transparent to investors and the public. If you visit www.tfgtradingmatrix.com, I believe you will see how real and important this company is. Thank you very much. SamProducer (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Best Regards, SamProducer

+++ oops done it again wron? trying again...

Hi Uninvited inc 'co (etc etc) ...? ... /

Look an explaination comes 1st OK? Ok sure - ? I know that at 1st _ I was just hitting a double "enter" to get my texts to a NEW LINE paragraphing break - & then found this delightfull (thingie shortcut) 4WD_arrow(p)back_arrow & thus am using this frequently (as U will C :- (((oops))) Did the colon/hyphen thing again / but am starting to RELEARN - I can't use a colonhyphen still eh?)

-

Hi .. My username Roxburgh NZ (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) isn't related directly to my NZ entity - nor to my so called "NZ" legal Trading Enterprise (not exactly "actively" trading - nor even "in" profit for 11yrs? NZ Registered Company) But.. just somewhere close eh? Rox...oh hangon - i'll just use the 4waves... things= that I've discovered DON'T actually NEED the Open Closed "brackets" either side of - (___) even though that very confusing "instruction is everywhere NEWBIES like myself - will "use" as per instruction ... ? (Before) I spotted NOT to take the litteral "instruction" WITH BRACKETS...? See how those ((((( quickly add-up ... to become rather messy?

()(Roxburgh NZ (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC))()?. Ok? oops drifting again - usually do ?

I have a funney UNUSUAL request? Well for me - it actually IS "un-usual". <MP> oops

(But whilst running through the talk page of the 1st Beau ?raquat? (Ok got that spelling wrong - I'm certain 4sure?) ... Anyways - (just tried a preview & still cannot spot the "name & I don't want to go offpage & lose anothe rtwo hrs typing? Cirio ... or something - joined in 2002 hasn't recently been active - YOU thought - & As I spotted that YOU seemed to have more "clout" than Cireo? ? ((( ? ... I'll re-edit later when I get his "correct" username from higher up the page ... anyway - EITHER (of you) can possibly answer this...?

I would like to KNOW - if it's POSSIBLE (well - sure - everythings pssible - it's just that some take way more time ? ) .. to actually BLOCK not just myself "from" .. BUT any PERSON - "from" registering any one (or more) - of my MANY (too nummerous to mention them all) BASIC "numerous" - ACTIVE TRADE NAME / TRADE MARKS & keywords... ?

such as:- Ooops - did it again ? I must remember to "stop" using the re/things of COLON/Hyphen (as that does funney things "HERE")

Ok ... these few ? are...

QUIX4U = google results = About 1,180 results (0.33 seconds)

QUIX-NZ = google results = About 21,100 results (0.24 seconds)

QUIX_NZ = google results = About 114 results (0.32 seconds)

3D-TRIPELLO = google results = About 204 results (0.21 seconds)

E_Flowers4U = google results = About 135 results (0.24 seconds)

&

(yes ? EVEN "this" - funny looking "keyword" - which is actually - ?)

VERY "HIGHLY" RELEVANT (?) ... see a colon does funny things - as do two of them >?

K_RAY_Z = google results = About 114 results (0.26 seconds)

And (yes) a simple "google" - will reveal just - EXACTLY how "quickly" they all LINK back (to me) - to actively IDENTIFY - with a ?- (unwikipedia-able) VALID "living" person - AND a (non-wikipedia_able) VALID 3rd ch QUIX-3D "TRIPELLO" analogue surround sound system - (capable in the extreme - to achieve in the order of 64.77million chs of individual speakers - from STOCK STD "raw" 2ch steroe information- however sourced- recorded , played - or just LIVE FED -? And possibly IS - the best analogue system ever - that blows the wind, water & entire sails OUT of the water - for "all so-called ((((HD)))) DIGITAL QUALITY surround sound systems - based upon SO_CALLED ? common sense "speak" that OLDER 2ch analogue stereo is inferior? Oops - cannot say THAT here- as I am NOT allowed to VERIFY my own 45yrs worth of secretive R&D ? Something I find extremely astrange - as ALL my "brain knowledge - of HOW this works .. will be utterly useless to obtain - WHEN I'M DEAD?

So? DOES ONE ASK _ BEAUROCRATS ? (I phonetically spelt th@t - this time? + think "eye" got it ryt?) Ok - it'l do... Anyway - DO ' I ' ask (either of) "you" .. to simply BLOCK those (trademarks)- from ever "becoming" a dopple ban ? ergh ? D_O_P_E_R_L_E_R ? somtheing account?

Or ?

Do I simply register them (myself) - and NEVER ever use them - ie ... simply SQUAT on them? so / (((HELP ME PLEASE)))

I think I did that ryt? (possibly didn't) Cheers...

` Roxburgh NZ (talk) ` Oh - & P>S .

As you acknowledge in your "about page" - you yourself -are actually quite "clued_up" in the audio realms yourself... SO .. maybe you (yourself) can verify in your own mind at least - WHY ... Why I would feel the need to "unviel" my knowledge - BEFORE I DIE ... as it actually is rather relevant - in todays society... PLUS .. unlike MOST digital (I call it rubbish) analogue provides the purest "transfer of information - as it's totally synosidual in its wave forms - as is the WHOLE of the Electromagnetic spectrum - which is WHY - I actually do know exactly why - 3D "analogue" (audio) SOUND & (electric) 3-Phase POWER & 7 "colour_rainbows" (3_for_TV's & PC's) LIGHT ...

ALL

interelate - AND SHARE - all of their individual "characteristics" - whilst maintaining segregation - and even (profoundly) "adding" to each others abilities - (when correctly "linked_intrinsically" into the same project) ... and even a PIANO player (such as yourself - whom still uses a dial telephone - HUH whats that - i still use sign launguage & wild waving arm semiphore?) - YOU will "know" a keen note - is all the "keener" - if the audience CAN ONLY HEAR THIS - just as you do - at the left rear of the stage - JUST as the drummer BELTS all the cymballs & his drums - and the singer screams a yodel - AND everything else - just happens to be "louder" than everyone else... at that precise (same) time - that you "do" the ONE & "only" truely brilliant slow release of a chord... ? WOW - that was good? & Oh - no-one heard it? That was a lovely fadeing tone...(?) - WELL - I "always" hear it & have done - since 1965 .. (but) DO YOU HEAR "that" - when "you" - are "away" from your piano? Give me a long piece of single core "insulated" speaker wire, a pair of side cut pliers a handfull of strip connector terminals & a wee terminal screwdriver - PLUS - NINE individual speakers - and YOUR oldest stereo_gramaphonic_valve ampp'ed turntable - with say a 1958 "STEREO" LP ... & (in about as LONG - as it would take YOU - to wire those speakers - ALL as mono - to ONE ch - I will give you - NINE CHANNEL (fully segregated - individually ch'd yet total interconnected )... PURE analogue 3D surround_sound. PLUS all the interconnectiable -virtuals .. between those NINE (300 in all) ... And - with the "addition" of filtering CROSSOVERS - could easily "open" them OUT - normally at five "splits" per ch - plus a summation "centre of room" ch ... ... and instantly GIVE you a system of ? 1501 speakers - ALL on different frequencies .. & "played" FROM & over TEN chs... (NOW - even I know - a piano player does NOT need to validate their OWN eyesight .. so? go watch this - TEN LIGHTS - driven just like that - off an old compact cassette TAPE - via two speaker wires - from a SHARP CD_S370 amp....? & The "link" - google it yourself - OK...? (As- the SAME video - is on both Youtube AND on Xanga)

Here's the link to (my) youtube ... QUIX4U - 10 ch demonstrator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKTtqizj-bk

& (on my) Xanga...? TRIPELLO - 10 ch demonstrator

http://tripello.xanga.com/audio/5107d3517230/

Cheers .. have fun? Roxburgh NZ (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) P.S... additional info - small edit? re - the user I was ON the talkpage "of" - before i spotted your "thing" saying you were removing "so' I cam ehere instead... . -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) Cheers - didn't want to "leave" this - until I had correctly "found the right info for that user.. Roxburgh NZ (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Oh -

Oh - & pp.ssps.sps.? or whatever it is supposed to be...

Just done a quick "calculation" of the total google results above -

almost half a million page hits (thats "HITS" at 20/page_result)

and MOST lead "directly" (back) to ME...

not bad for an 56yr OLD kiwi "fodie" - with "just" over 3yrs on a working INTERNET PC?

(been on_line for google searches & email via cellphone since '99 - but that didn't do anything usefull eh > ? and >>> NONE of "that" is included above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxburgh NZ (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC) oops - "eye" 4got this Roxburgh NZ (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) WAHOO - i knew if I scratched my head hard enough - i'd remember where I posted my "name" earlier - instead of a non-de-plume (before registering) ... Here's the linkback IP address - that'll help you (a BEAUROCRAT - to "find & hide my legal name - where i'd {{dumbl-oversighted_that}}

Huh? what'd i dodwrong/ oh - I used the squiggle brackets ... um duh? My mistake...

it's NOT "supposed" to be SHOWN as this {{dumbl-oversighted_that}} \?/

but as ((dumbl-oversighted_that))?

Thus this small re_edit? Roxburgh NZ (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Someone from the IP address 125.239.181.132 has registered the account "Roxburgh NZ" with this e-mail address on the English Wikipedia

see - saving emails DOES help eh? Cheers. Roxburgh NZ (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC) again ? Roxburgh NZ (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Irrefuitable Proof (that I'm a) "totally" K_RAY_Z (kiwi) K_RAY_Z "songs" via 2chs 4p2 6p3 (& a 10ch "LIGHTBOARD")

FOUR_CHANNEL_AUDIO

WIDE_MODE_MONO

Triple Dual Twin Quad "MIX"

Vid 0200 - ONE VID (this K_RAY_Z "Kiwi" got wrong info onto- as it's a) Triple Dual Twin Quad "MIX"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csE7_ALKgZo

Um - NO WAIT - that is the wrong "vid" - (but the correct info) - U need vid 0201

& "whois" this K_RAY_Z "kiwi" (well ? wonder no longer - here he is) Go_Watch - & "see"

... THE BIG PINK BUTTON - (Of_My) - Wonky Honky Everyone knows... that - (this) ... "it_happens"... No - not that... This.! ? THE BIG PINK BUTTON - (Of_My) - Wonky Honky - "snozzle" ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKSHs_Gi4Wo

Toodle Uwwwuuuooh? Roxburgh NZ (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with any Wikipedia-related concerns you may have but find your request difficult to understand. Can you give me a short summary of the help you're seeking? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for questioning your judgement, but we don't speedily delete articles that are technically within the criteria if deleting "doesn't improve the encyclopedia"? Not heard that one before... – ukexpat (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are intended to be discretionary. I looked at it, and saw a carefully-written, well-illustrated article about a nonprofit, and couldn't think of a good reason to delete it. The reason we have the notability criteria is that articles on non-notable subjects almost always:

1. Fail to meet basic quality standards.
2. Have no real hope of improving.
3. Are divisive and distracting.

This article doesn't pose those problems and is unlikely to do so in the future, and I'd like to encourage whoever wrote it to contribute in the future by leaving it up. If you want to tag it again, fine, and perhaps the next admin who looks at will feel differently.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Tagging for speedy again isn't an option as it has already been declined once. Thinking about PROD. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new. This is like my fourth or fifth article. As you can see from my tag I'm trying very hard to improve wiki's treatment of accounting professionals and accounting technology. I was very surprised to see a large and influential company that I want to do an article on has been previously deleted by you. It's not like them to spam. These guys wear hats so white you can't see them in the snow. The name of the company is CPA Site Solutions. How can I find out what the previous article said? I'd like to see it before I add mine.--Cpatechnut (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed you the text of the article that was present at the time it was deleted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you that it should never have been removed in the first place. I'm going to relist it. They don't have a sales department, so they don't get a lot of press, but they're quite large and (more importantly) the most exciting innovators in their field. It'll be shorter than the one previously deleted, with fewer links, but they really should be included. Accountant's World is the only competitor they have with more clients. BTW I have attempted to contact Accountant's World about an article too, but they haven't responded yet. --Cpatechnut (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have an article on Emochila, who may be one of their competitors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've renamed my account and all my editing history between yesterday and Sep 6, 2008 has disappeared? Pcap ping 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that I my editing history has been split between the old new account name, e.g. . Can this be fixed?

Hi Steve,
I would like to ask you for a dump of the deleted Astaro page (maybe also the history) to see who added (when) marketing blurb. The Wikipedia article about Astaro should be of course not include any advertising or promotional material and if it did we would like to change that (and then more carefully watch what happen on it).
Thx in advance, Astaro (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Steven. Discussion of a 2010 Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup has begun. Please see the talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44°56′57″N 93°15′40″W / 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

Hi, Steven, do you have any suggestions for a next date or place for a Minnesota meetup? I was disappointed to miss last Sunday's meetup once a work meeting coincided with the time announced for the meetup. I would be happy to arrange a meetup soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi UC,
When re-starting this talk-page, this message came up:

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 05:16, 30 August 2006 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Regency College" ‎ (talk page of deleted article)

I think this is pretty uncontentious. Just doing the right thing by letting you know.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

The Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians are invited to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm
10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection
11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon
Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions
Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave

For more information see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#2012. —innotata 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear uninvitedcompany,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the inquiry. I do get a number of requests to participate in such studies and decline in most cases, as I will here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		To UninvitedCompany, for comments at RfB. Axl ¤ 23:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like he's going to pass. Anyway, best wishes. Axl ¤ 23:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. On the other hand, the RfB is yet young, and the standards are higher than for an RfA. In any case, we did our part. Thanks for the kind words. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: near Minnehaha Falls at Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2012 (rain date July 8)
Time: 12–3 pm

• Accessible from the Minnehaha Park light rail station, bus, walk, bike, or car
• If driving, free parking available at 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
• Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

See the meetup talk page for more. —innotata 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.

There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. —innotata 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetups.

To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!

Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.

Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
Dates: Saturday, June 1
Saturday, July 6
Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: north of Minnehaha Falls in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, June 22, 2012
Time: 12–4 pm

• Accessible from the Minnehaha Park METRO station, bus, walk, bike, or car
• If driving, free parking available on 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
• Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

For more, and to sign up (encouraged, not required) go to the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 02:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota monthly meetup on August 3.

Place: Lavvu Coffee House
813 4th St SE, Minneapolis 55414
Date: Saturday, August 3
Time: 1:00pm-3:00pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.

—innotata 00:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetup in commemoration of Wikipedia Day.

• Place: Seward Cafe
  

2129 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55404

• Date: Saturday, January 18, 2014
  
• Time: noon

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Perhaps one day I'll find myself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed your name, since you're not missing and most likely will never be ;) Cheers! -TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I miss you, UC :) – SJ + 07:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Xeno. While I am not in a hurry to be involved in the daily work of the bureaucracy, it is my long-term intention to be a part of the Wikipedia community and to be involved in all aspects of its work, including an eventual return to bureaucratic tasks, when it makes sense to do so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Certainly the proposal was not intended to devalue anyone's past contributions or to suggest they no longer hold the trust of the community; I hope it does not read like that. It is more to bring the permissions more in-line with other advanced permissions such as steward, checkuser, oversight, which do have some minimum activity guidelines. (Even a check-in comment like yours above, or your welcome contribution to WT:BUR in response to this thread is enough for me.) –xeno^talk 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The checkuser and oversight permissions are different because they provide access to confidential information which, if disclosed inappropriately, could have serious, irreversible real-world repercussions. While the handling of the steward permissions has, overall, worked out well for all concerned, those permissions are granted and revoked according to a meta policy that is promulgated by an international, interlingual community quite different from the English Wikipedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xeno^talk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

“

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship. ^ Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or subscriber to the bureaucrats' mailing list or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks.

”

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xeno^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon

Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015, 12pm–4pm Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art Friends Community Room, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis Sponsor: Minneapolis Institute of Art You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists. For more information and to RSVP: → click here ←, you may register online for the event or call (612) 870-6323 --gobonobo + c 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center Hello UninvitedCompany! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided. For more information and to RSVP: → click here ←

We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi UninvitedCompany.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Here's an event happening soon. Might you be able to make it? Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to a
Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup
	Saturday, December 17, 2016
	Meet in the MIA Main Lobby at 1 p.m.
	2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

WikiLove for You!

Just discovered you via a maze of twisty passages, all different, and wanted to say Thank You for all the work you did to make this incredible wiki movement real! I've been on since 2004, and am now deep in the thick of organizing. It's crazy in here, but wow! We're having big parties for Wikipedias 16th here in San Diego, and we are inviting all past, present and future WikiFans to come play. More details at www.meetup.com/WikiSoCal. Or ping me! Thank you for your awesomeness! DrMel (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please come and join if you can!

In the area? You're invited to
Wikipedia as Social Activism
	Saturday, April 15, 2017
	St. Cloud State University Library at noon
	720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud

Shaded0 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---