User talk:Notmyrealname

I think we should wiki spam. Since obviosuly what I am doing is not spam. But you erased a link I put on Los Cabos, and left a link above it that was obvious...real spam. I'm done adding any type of links to these pages, but seriously you should probably look up spam in the dictionary mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.227.242 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me send you urls of wikipedia pages with commercial outbound links I will. Who gets to decide what commercial sites are viable information? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.227.242 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how adding links that are relevant to the information on the page is considered link spam. I am pretty sure that any link not added by you or one of your mates might be considered as such. Keep in mind the "nofollow concept", so obviously link spam would be worthless. Show me an add or edit I made that did not fit the content of the page, and show me a spammy site I have added. I just made an edit to a page that had two spam links on it...actual spam links to affiliate sites, if you could tell me how those are ok and the quality info I am adding isnt I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.227.242 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--you're right. I deleted your link by accident--I was rolling back a couple versions, and your edit snuck in there, and I missed it completely. Didn't mean to imply it was linkspam--that was my summary of a later edit that didn't involve your link. Sorry for the confusion. · rodii · 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and addressed your concern about the reference to Angela Davis in the Oakes College article, on Talk:Oakes College. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the Chelsea Clinton incident? It is now under mediation. Eleemosynary 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but a quick look tells me that you need to step back and chill out a little. Can't fight all the wingnuts at once.Notmyrealname 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest you in enabling email via wikipedia? - Yellowdesk 15:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you said

1. As I noted on the talk page, the item has been widely reported in major media on all sides of the political spectrum (you can Google "Romney Grandfather Polygamy" for a quick list of links), many of them quite recent.
2. This page has several detailed discussions about policy decisions taken by Romney, and many of the news articles specifically cite this fact in reference to Romney's views on gay marriage.
3. Romney himself frequently jokes about polygamy while discussing the gay marriage issue, as shown in the Slate article that I use as the primary reference.
4. Mitt Romney has many blood relatives as a result of his ancestor's polygamy and it could reasonably be argued that this has some bearing on his current views (or at least opens some of his statements about the history of one man/one woman marriage up to question).

My thoughts

How was it reported? It was reported as an interesting fact to go along with his being Mormon and his same-sex marriage thoughts, so this should go with information relating to those items since those items are what make it relevant. It's not qualified as Trivia because its not relevant to the Governor, its relevant to his positions. Does that make sense? (Disclaimer: I haven't looked to see if you already tried this) \/\/slack (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is James Paul and I am the person who will be working on your case. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, its me again. Can you please tell me more about this conflict on my desk and anything else I should know. Also I think the best thing for us to do is to try to get this done by the 7 of the new year. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 12:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for taking this on. What's the best way to communicate with you -- on this page, on yours, or on the discussion section of the AMA request?Notmyrealname 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On my talk page. When you are talking with the other side about this talk on my desk. For the next week I will be talking with you and after that I will start to talk to the other side. The best thing you can do in this case is to not only be civil but be friendly, this will help make things better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles The pages above should be of some help. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the reason why they do not want Mitt Romney's family history of polygammy in there is because they like him. I think it is not only a content dispute but a POV issue. I will start talking to the other side soon. Just to let you know I agree with you. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling as well. Most of the editors that have weighed in on this dispute have a history of only editing that page. The thought that some may actually be working for the Governor and/or his political campaign has crossed my mind, but I don't know how one would check this or even if it is against wiki policy. Perhaps a topic for another day. In any case, I thought the discussion would benefit from some outside eyes. Let's see what they say. Again, thanks for putting your time into this.Notmyrealname 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please get back to me on my talk page. I will see your message a lot faster. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 11:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What have you tried to help solve this dispute? Have a nice week and god bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 11:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next week I'll be able to spend a lot of time on the case. My other cases are going to be closed and you will be my only one. God bless and merry christmas.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not being active in your case but I have not been active in wikipedia. If you need me I am usualy on the AMA IRC, my name there is Sir_James_Paul. Also of course feel free just to leave me a message. You can also email me. God bless. --Sir James Paul 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll start to become more active in this case again. --Sir James Paul.La gloria è a dio 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Badlydrawnjeff told me on IRC that he did not think there was a dispute going on. I think the best thing for both of you to do is just not edit that section of the article. If you want to get your way (Thats not the best idea) then I will try to get him to see it our way. Again, it is best for you to leave it alone. These edits have happened over a month ago, it is best to forget about it. Have a nice week and god bless. P.S, sorry for not being very active in this case. --James, La gloria è a dio 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you want me to close the case? --James, La gloria è a dio 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can keep on talking. Peace. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Start keeping a closer watch on my desk. Have a nice week and god bless. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging in personal attacks on other contributors (such as me) in the talk pages of articles: Talk:Lewis Libby. Your constant focusing on the contributor and not the content is tiresome and harmful to the editing process. And please stop deleting pertinent, properly-cited, reliably-sourced and verified information from this (and perhaps other) articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's guidelines: Wikipedia:Etiquette; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV; WP:AGF; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Cite, and so on. Reference: Talk:Lewis Libby. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is you that has focussed on the contributor and not the content. I have made reasonable challenges to the validity of your sourcing and the relevancy of your edits (as well as the edits of others). I have fully explained my reasoning on the talk page and on the WP:BLPN.

Of me and my edits, you have said on the Talk:Lewis Libby page: ""NotMyRealName" and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide," (completely unfounded and false on my part),

"No one has agreed with facts in your arguments. They have agreed with false presentations of facts in your arguments." (A weasely way of saying I'm a liar?),

"don't revert irresponsibly (as you have been doing)" (I have not been doing this, but thanks for the suggestion), "your stubborn resistance to sourced information and facts presented in them is totally wrong-headed" (glad you're not making this personal...),

"I'm tired of Notmyrealname (who may have previously posted in this talk page using an anon IP or another name) deleting pertinent reliably-sourced information." But then you later say that this isn't about me, it's about my edits. If you say so.

I encourage anyone else reading this to check out the talk page and decide for themselves. I suggest to NYScholar that you follow your own advice. Notmyrealname 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this user's constant violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia editing policies, I do not want to engage in any further interaction with this user. I have moved his comments from my talk page to this talk page (where they belonged, as they were a reply to my comments here); he has since deleted them. Notice: I remove what I regard as personal attacks from my talk page and elsewhere at my own discretion. My talk page has stated that for many months. --NYScholar 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way about NYScholar. I did not delete the comments that NYScholar posted here. I only removed the ones that duplicated what was already on this page (at my discretion). What I posted on this user's talk page was the following:

Please stop engaging in personal attacks on other contributors (such as me) in the talk pages of articles: Talk:Lewis Libby. Your constant focusing on the contributor and not the content is tiresome and harmful to the editing process. Notmyrealname 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked nmrn to stop harrassing me on my talk page. He is simply quoting the same tagged notice that already appears there in a manner of "tit for tat". I repeat: please stop harrassing me personally. Focus on the content of articles and not on the contributor(s). I strenuously object to this behavior and, I repeat, I will not interact further with this user and I will remove all further comments of this kind that he posts from my user talk page.--NYScholar 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was posting the message because it expressed my sentiments as well. I do not wish to have any further contact with you either. YOU are the one harrassing me, as documented above. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Any future comments you post here will be deleted. Notmyrealname 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/talk:Lewis Libby, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I've looked at it, removed the nonsense, and commented on the Talk: page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all your help. Notmyrealname 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Lewis Libby. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel Bryant

I'm about to take a break from this whole Lewis Libby thing, as it's gotten a bit out of control. I would appreciate if you would weigh in on whether you think NYScholar's latest edits constitute original research. I'm getting the feeling that both I and NYScholar are starting to lose a little perspective on the whole thing so I'm hoping some others with diverse views will chime in. Thanks either way. Notmyrealname 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notmy, To be honest I haven't watched this that closely. I was just trying to add Libby's ethnicity to the article, thats it. If somebody is going to say that Libby's action's are effected by his ethnicity, they better have very good sources that say the exact same thing, or yes it is original research. My advice would be to not to take this too seriously or personally and to also step back and take a break. I know this is easier said than done. Also, getting other folks involved is always a good idea as well. Anyways, good luck! --Tom 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP states that

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"

Category tags that do not meet these criteria (i.e. case must be made in article text, subject must publicly self-identify with beliefs, beliefs must be relevant) should be deleted. Notmyrealname 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. However, despite the fact that he is getting no support on the Talk: page, he continues to insert the material, and post incredibly lengthy and bizarrely rambling supports for it on the Talk: page. The material obviously violates WP:BLP; I could block him instead, but at least I respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple page as well? I didn't know that. This WP:POINT needs to stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He started an RFC, which I re-wrote into English, and which you were kind enough to move to the proper place. The reaction so far seems to be in favor of WP:BLP; perhaps that will solve the problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am issuing a warning here to both the owner of this talk page and those commenting on me on it: See WP:NPA. You are all inappropriately engaging in focusing on me as a contributor, which violates Wikipedia policy. Moreover, you are engaging in libel. Remove your comments about me from this talk page and stop this nonsense. There is no consensus for what you are talking about. Conspiring to block another Wikipedia editor also violates Wikipedia policies. Consider this a warning prior to a report. --NYScholar 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy to block anyone here. All of the comments on the rfc were against your position. Please do not post any further on this page. To other casual readers, please note that the above post by NYScholar was made after his being warned by another editor for his threatening conduct towards me on the Talk:Lewis Libby page.Notmyrealname 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another untrue statement. I posted the comment before seeing the other user's remark. I noticed that my name is being linked to on this page. I object to discussions of me on this talk page. I removed the nasty comment from my own talk page placed there by this user. Once again, stop talking about me here. You violated WP:NPA. --NYScholar 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The sequence I describe is correct. As to the "nasty comment" the user refers to, here it is: "Please do not make unfounded and malicious edits and accusations on my talk page." The sentiment stands. I would welcome any reporting. I leave up these silly accusations for others to make their own judgments. Notmyrealname 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence is absolutely not correct. I posted the comment here before I saw and posted the response to the comment in the talk page of Lewis Libby: See Talk:Lewis Libby. As far as the word "malicious" and "accusations" go: in my view, those are "nasty" comments. This user has no business discussing me (another Wikipedia contributor) on this talk page. Doing so violates WP:NPA. --NYScholar 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. We were not talking about you. We were talking about edits that you and others have made. Notmyrealname 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors viewing this, please see the Talk: Lewis Libby page, and the earlier collection of personal attacks this user has made against me. Judge for yourself. The user has been blocked. Notmyrealname 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the correction. I was in a rather happy mood until I read that accusation, and understandably became a bit upset. We all do make mistakes from time to time so that's ok. Hopefully the arbs comittee will come to an agreement that is workable. Fermat1999 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --NYScholar 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted; that does make a difference.

(There's a reason we ask for links to everything in that section; unfortunately, we don't typically have the time to exhaustively go through the requesters' editing histories before a case is actually accepted.) Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me a template that when you add to the summary of a page when you are reverting vandalism to warn the vandal automatically? If so, send me it at my user talk. --Eiyuu Kou 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. I appreciate it :) Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Jbmurray 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, I visited the site through a translation service (Alta Vista Babelfish). It does not appear to contain any proper citations or provide any primary source material that could not otherwise be obtained through English language sources". Very well, find me something about Nepal, Ghana, Benin, Mali etc history in the English language sources online. Vladimir Nosov 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for blanking your comment. I don't know, that is forbidden. I give an explanation on my page. Vladimir Nosov 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three users have been blocked. Autoblock bits were set but the edits may be coming from a number of computers. If it resumes, let me know. --Selket ^Talk 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you reverted me, and then reported me for a 3RR? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my comments [2] and decide whether those Mitrokhin caveats should be in the article. [3]Abe Froman 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rue the day I stumbled on the Lewis Libby page.

I second. Too bad arbcom only sees the trees, and not the forest.--RWilliamKing 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! I still have hope that common sense will prevail. Notmyrealname 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not.--RWilliamKing 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they missed the forest AND the trees. Everyone is guilty, so no one is guilty. Glad I spent all that time collecting evidence. Sheesh. Notmyrealname 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an AfD is open. [4] Abe Froman 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Was going to fast and missed it. Thanks! - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The country studies by the Library of Congress are in the public domain.Ultramarine 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give any offical guideline, inside or outside wikipedia, stating that public domain material has to be in quotation marks.Ultramarine 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My intent, in adding the category, was to enforce the clear opinion of the ArbCom. I have never before, and never will again, edit the article in any way, more than likely. I would suggest that your note to me proposes a peculiar concern, of the sort that ArbCom wished to put to rest. There is no larger any serious question over whether it is appropriate to consider Mr. Libby an "American Jew" in the broadest sense of that category. Precise refinements regarding Mr. Libby relationship to his ethnicity and/or religious heritage are best left to discussion within the text of the article, but the category should be permitted to serve its intended broader purpose.

While your tenacity is to be appreciated, arguing these relatively minor points (and categorization, a reader-friendly navigational utility, is a minor point) in the aftermath of the ArbCom decision is likely not to yield much happiness for you. Some attention from editors previously uninvolved in the article, with no existing stake in these disputes, is certain to be drawn by the ArbCom case. "Fresh blood" is clearly a positive here, and you might consider the advantages of allowing these editors to work for a bit. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very good idea to throw links in without any accompanying text. Such links are invitation to spammers. A better way would be to add a sentence or two into the article and add the link as a footnote. In this way you do "two in one" (article missing!!) useful things. `'Míkka 17:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, but to tell you the truth, the difference is that Brazil has a lower Human Dvelopment Index and in the fact that if Brazil was considered as a world power, why Panama not, Panama is one of world's main ports, free trade zones and banks of the world, for nothing Panama is called center of universe, it doesn't matter the territory, or the money, if people close the Panama canal, the world's economy would be partly taken out, the example is that the UK is a little country or that Monaco doesn't have enought money!, these explain, a world power is any country with an status which regards it as important.

There is no way to cite this, but there is a way to test this.

201.218.64.67 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw your thread on Raymond Arritt's talk page. A few moments of investigation make clear that User:Spartanad was indeed sockpuppeteering - see Kageki (talk · contribs), where he accidentally commented with his sock account as if it were his main one. I've indefinitely blocked both Kageki (talk · contribs) and Idpounder (talk · contribs) as obvious sockpuppets, and blocked Spartanad (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. No need to drag things out with a 3RR report etc in this case. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The whole thing was rather unfortunate. User:Spartanad pointed out a couple of edits that needed sourcing, but then just turned the whole thing into a pointless edit war. I was doing my best to keep it civil and keep everyone from going to the dark side. Hopefully a cooling off period will do some good. Notmyrealname 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back your edit to User Talk:Spartanad. It's generally within a user's rights to remove warnings or notices from their own talk page. They remain in the history, and of course in his block log in this case. But the user talk page is not intended to be a "wall of shame", and Spartanad is allowed to remove the block notice. Just a heads up. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I posted the links in the talk. At least one of them should say something good.Brusegadi 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think the semi-protection is good for now. The IPs are both from Atlanta, GA. I think its some guy editing anonymously from home and from his office. What are the chances that two different persons from that city are going to have the exact same views (a contrarian view for that matter) on a foreign president (Americans tend to not know the name of the current PM of Canada.) Let him get bored, I really do not want to go back to reverting his removal of sourced info. Also, he is ill intended. If he was legitimately concerned about the article he would just post the info on the talk page. I have seen anons do that because I am involved in editing a few controversial topics. He has not posted a single link. I think chances are he wants to be disruptive. Dont tell him anything about him having two IPs because he will just begin to preach on the talk page. Trolls like this get tyred so just let him be. Happy editing, Brusegadi 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete appropriate and referenced text from WP articles, as you just did: [5]. Such edits may be considered as inconsistent with several WP policies by administrators. Thank you.Biophys 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your statement [6], this warning is not a "treat". WP rules require that a warning be issued, prior to taking any further actions. Now you have been warned.Biophys 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all your edits to be treats. However, the edits of yours that I reverted were neither appropriate nor properly referenced. Notmyrealname 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete appropriate and referenced text from WP articles, as you just did: [7]. I have provided pages in the references [8], by your request, and now you have deleted them too, as well as two other portions of the text. This is my last warning.Biophys 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a follow-up note at User talk:BelizeExpert. If he tries to intimidate anyone again, tell me and he will be blocked immediately. I have little patience for single-purpose spam accounts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so incivility is another concern. However, I still will give him a chance after the warning (more to make sure I'm justified in a complete block). For the image, I've already put a {{watermark}} note; the best way to may him change is to say that if he wants to keep the image, he needs to remove the watermark (thus advertising). If not, his image will be deleted immediately. Sort of passive-aggressive maybe but still, whatever works. --

Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey I SERIOUSLY HAVE KNOW CLUE HOW I VANDALIZED THE GUATAMALA STUFF IM SERIOUS! i dunno if anybody has hacked into this comp but I swear i diden't go to those pages at all i don't even care about those pages. i rarely edit and ive only been messeged abotu vandalism once for Islam and Slavery. please tell me if theres some possibility of a hacker or something cus i swear i dident do any fucking guatamala edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.97.52 (talk) - (moved from user page by Onorem♠Dil 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Mitt Romney#My revision of Ferrylodge's re-wording - whatever your view of this is now. Thanks Tvoz |talk 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a world are we living in where Evel Kneivel dies of natural causes? Notmyrealname 03:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't seen this... Tvoz |talk 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure what the rules are on this. I just posted a notice on the admin board. Kind of funny when you think about it. Someone else is claiming to have a name that is not their real name that is close to my non-real name. Whew.Notmyrealname 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering what happened to 1-6. Tvoz |talk 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a protected edit request on the talk page pointing out that statement as a BLP issue, and it didn't seem to be related to the dispute that led to the protection. —Random832 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. My mistake. I should have looked at the talk page first. Sorry for the bother. Notmyrealname 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		For meritorious efforts toward keeping the Mitt Romney biography on track and within the policies of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and all-around gnomish efforts to keep the editorial acitivity sane on a controversial topic. And for the moment becoming the editor with the most edits on the article, surpassing the number edits of another editor that has more or less ceased actively editing the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On articles with re-visted issues, a great example of how to handle is the FAQ section of Talk:Hillary_Clinton -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just wanted to let you know that more references were needed. Toytown Mafia (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially not the Toytown Mafia ;) Toytown Mafia (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message. Be delighted to. I don't know much about the CERJ, but I remember seeing press coverage when his son was killled -- nasty. Aille (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, you created Jorge Carpio Nicolle! Shall take a look. Aille (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gives undue weight (two whoppping big quotes) to UF/American apologism while mentioning the large hatred of UF and the U.S. in South America virtually in passing. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Bernard L. Madoff, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NMRN,

Thanks for all the good edits on Bernard Madoff. It looks like it is pretty much consistent with Wikipedia's goals and policy now. Inevitably we must have clashed on something on the page, but it seems like everything worked itself out.

Thanks again,

Smallbones (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you had made some comments on Arnoldo Aleman so, you are probably interested in the topic. If you look at the history of the page you will see that there is some form of content dispute brewing. Do you mind providing some insight? I already tried ANI but no one responded to me, so I guess no one is interested enough in the topic to take a look, so I come to you. Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Republic Windows and Doors, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic Windows and Doors. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added the template back in the page, and I just wanted to tell you that If you're going to do so, please take a moment to discuss on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salvador_Allende#Alleged_Russian_involvement Likeminas (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compression09KingExtreme Wikipedian 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, Notmyrealname! Thanks for the support on the age issue and the compliments on handling it. My theory on this is that from a career standpoint (acting, in particular), it was more advantageous back in the '70s for her to be five years younger, and hence the revisionism. And I really wouldn't care except bios call for birth dates, and reporting demands accuracy. BTW, I'm certain we haven't seen the last of this. The current proponent of 1950 is bound to check in again, and given how muddy the water is, editors who are either new to the game or champions of the subject are likely to chime in with correctives every so often. But so it goes. Allreet (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make a comment about the state of the Chilean coup page which you occasionally edit. The editor who introduced the material the Resistance to the regime section is presenting the Pinochet regime and his illicit associations as victims of some “all empowering resistance” that seems to be a facet of the imagination of fascist groups such as Frente Nacional Patria y Libertad. I am going to prepare a more balanced content for this section which includes the principle form of resistance that the majority of Chileans opted for which was civil-pacific in nature. The editor presents the resistance not as a resistance but as Pinochet defending himself from “MIR Terrorists.” This loose usage of the term terrorist to describe the activities of the MIR is very misleading, there is a fundamental difference both in international, constitutional and even in military justice between breaches of state security (which the MIR may have committed) and terrorism (which was the policy of the Pinochet regime). Maybe you could give me your views on this particular change to this page contributed by editor 91.205.174.189 – which is a disgrace. Regards...Moshe-paz (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A major deletion of sourced material like this one needs at least some good explanation on the talk page. If something needs improvement, then please, take the time to discuss it. Maybe I can help. Likeminas (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material was 90% crap, poorly written, and completely irrelevant to the page. I have posted a response on the talk page. Sourcing isn't the only criteria for inclusion in an article. The burden is now on those who want to convince others that the material should be included, IMHO.Notmyrealname (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Notmyrealname, thanks for the compliment regarding Battalion 3-16 (Honduras). i meant to smile, but it's hard to smile at assassination and torture. i'm sure there must be a lot more work that can still be done to make the page much more solid. The NSarchive at GWU probably has a huge amount of useful info, but someone needs to take the time to dig it out. Part of my motivation to work on the page was that so many different sources frequently talk about the Honduran 1980's disappearances or specifically Battalion 3-16 by name that it was a pity that the article was in such an undeveloped state. At least this time around, many local and international human rights organisations are documenting the present repression. Feel free to help work on Human rights in Honduras, e.g. on the talk page i think i've got together most of the pre-Zelaya-return international human rights mission reports (+ 1 local), but that still needs to be summarised somewhere in the article, and some judgment on the most notable points should go into the article too. As for post-Zelaya-return, with apparently over 10 extrajudicial executions in barely 2(3?) days, hundreds of arrests and injured, there's plenty of (voluntary) work there for wikipedians with time on their hands... Boud (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across your name tonight - well, not your real name - looking for something or other and saw you were back, at least momentarily. So I thought I'd say hello! I'm still here, fighting the good fight, making some waves talking to reporters (my infamous WSJ quote was a recent high point...) - and generally doing my part to keep it real. Hope things are going well for you - perhaps we'll meet again over some controversy or other. I must say, old Mitt came back and they barely talked about his underwear this time, or his polygamous ancestors. Fun times. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 08:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]