User talk:Padillah/Archive 2

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note about your RFA. Unfortunately I had to oppose it based on your edit count, I'm sorry to say. You should probably know, though, that according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics, the success rate for editors with >1000 edits is less than 50%. You may want to consider withdrawing and gaining more experience in the meantime, as the RFA is likely to be snowballed. It's up to you, of course, but withdrawing before a snowball looks quite a bit better if you decide to go for adminship in the future. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your request at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and would be happy to provide some tips and pointers if you like. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol is a great place to start. Patrolling recent changes usually means looking for vandalism/spam edits to articles, reverting them, and warning the user appropriately (or reporting them to WP:AIV). Sometimes you do come across pages that are receiving a lot of vandalism that you can report to WP:RPP. New page patrol is another good one. In doing that you take a look at new pages and try to determine if they are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, and if they need any maintenance templates. If the article isn't appropriate, you can nominate them for CSD, PROD, or AFD. If you decide to do either of these, you may want to check out the JavaScript tools Twinkle and Friendly, which can make these tedious jobs much faster (and even enjoyable). Participation in article deletion debates at WP:AFD is also a good area of experience. Those things are how I got most of my experience with WikiPolicy, so I'd definitely recommend looking into them! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I second what Ioeth said. Patrolling recent changes is a way you will get familiar with the policies faster. And AFD, there you can get an idea what it means to be objective. Feel free to ask when you find yourself unsure how to act. Greetings. --Tone 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually, its better to archive conversations more than a week old, resolved matters or off-topic discussions. As you archived a conversation that took place less than 4 days ago, someone might call you on it. Just something to keep in mind to prevent having an archive undone (which is a clusterfucky mess). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you wikified the new article Sephius. Do you know anything about this topic—in particular, whether it's legitimate? There are no Google hits to speak of for Sephius Leviticus, which suggests that Sephius is at best a misspelling and at worst a hoax. I was going to list it on AfD, but I wanted to check with you first. —Caesura^(t) 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll go ahead and nominate it for deletion. I just wanted to get a second opinion before doing so because I have zero knowledge of Bible stories. :-) Thanks, and happy editing! —Caesura^(t) 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself a couple key questions, Padillah: first, is it possible that the person is making good Faith edits, and just disagrees with you? I know you always AGF, but if they are repeatedly adding the same edits without discussing them, that is being a dick, not vandalism. Secondly, ask yourself if everyone else - I repeat, everyone else - could reasonably see the reverted material as vandalism. If the answer is no, don't call it vandalism. When in doubt, revert it once and ask them to discuss their edits on the Discussion page. If they blow you off, take it to an admin or AN/I. AN/I is tedious, but it resolves the situation in such a way that folk have your back.
I looked over your edit-history, and I don't see any notes left on the User Talk pages for either Twinkle or Friendly. Usually, when reverting vandalism, I take a look at their contributions. If they are new, they get a basic vandalism template. If they have say, over 50 edits, I give them a personal message (since treating someone like a newbie when they aren't is simply bad form). I've learned through hard experience to make a solid attempt and talk to the person. if that fails, post your concerns on the Discussion page and bring more people into the loop. If this doesn't affect any change, talk to an admin or go to AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Nannie Doss: (Undid revision 176982134 by Tom Carey (talk) Actually, "family" is a plural unit - "were" is, in fact, correct.)

Actually, you are wrongly imposing British English on an article about an American. See WP:ENGVAR and American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.

In this case, there probably aren't any hard and fact rules in any version of the English language, but the "was" for actions taken as a family unit seems more correct in American English. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the IMDB. She's been in about 4 films. Admittedly I've never heard of any of them. Delete her if you feel strongly about it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I am not Tori King nor in any way a fan of hers but she's been in four films so seems reasonably noteworthy. Famous enough to feature in a crossword clue in The Independent anyway. :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Marlith ^T/C 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hiya. =) There has been a decent amount of discussion on the Heroes talk page since you last commented in opposition to adding an external link to the Heroes wiki. In an effort to reach consensus I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the recent discussions so that you could check them out and further contribute to the discussion if you're interested. =) --Centish (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to thank you for your civility and open-mindedness. I've watched a lot of discussions sour over time because people take things personally instead of just considering the issues and helping to improve the site. It's examples like yours that will encourage me to continue contributing to Wikipedia rather than reverting back to being solely a reader. Thank you again. =) --Centish (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently sought a 3O and noticed that... "Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work."

To be frank, I was quite disappointed with the 3O you offered on the SL-1 page recently, as you seemed to misunderstand the situation and didn't seem to realise the need for a "citations needed" tag at the top of the article. Thankfully another editor has since added the tag again.

Also, you said that requesting a 3O was simply lazyiness on my part. You are incorrect and in any case I don't see that a personal comment like that has any place in a 3O.

I also notice that you have done few edits and have very limited experience with Wikipedia. My humble suggestion to you is to try to get some WP:GA and WP:FA articles under your belt, as a way of gaining essential experience. Johnfos (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You asked for some suggestions about becoming an admin. I have checked your recent contributions and my ideas are:

• reverting vandalism and tagging for speedy deletion is good. Keep up with it.
• 3O is good. But as you see, sometimes people disagree on the topic so make sure you know enough about the topic.
• you have really lots of edits to Heroes-related articles. No problem with that but some editors may think that your experiences are not wide enough. Try plunging into some other topics as well, the show is not airing at the moment anyway... :-(
• AfD. This is far the best place to get a great insight into what may await you as an admin. Different opinions, discussions about notability, dealing with problematic users... These are all the things you will need to handle as an admin.

So much for now, I think it's enough. Give it a few month's time and you'll be fine. And feel free to ask me any time. Greetings. --Tone 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. Given your fine efforts at Talk:Palestinian people, I'd like to encourage you to look at and hopefully join Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I mentioned your efforts but not yet by name, feel free to specify. Be well, HG | Talk 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think your effort has paid off with a small yet heavily dispute edit, which now appears stable. Assuming you won't mind, I'll say something about this in the new WikiProject. Meanwhile, I truly hope you'll continue working with these parties, either on Palestinian people or one of several others they debate. Congratulations. HG | Talk 02:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Bringing you in turns out to be one of the actions on my part which i can honestly say was an unmitigated good thing. (hopefully there are others too! :-) ) anyway, thanks so much for all your efforts. i think you've done rather well. hope you'll remember me as someone supportive, and also remember my own small part in bringing you in. i think it's been good to see your manner of playing a positive role, and also your manner of providing some fair yet firm and yet objective insights to this process. so thanks for all your inoput. i have enjoyed watching your comments, and look forward to seeing more. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you re-activated your request for an admin coach. I am currently available as a coach, and would be glad to help you out. I do, however, have a couple of conditions:

1. watch your coaching page closely, and reply to every post there in a timely fashion.
2. fill in all of your edit summaries (if you find yourself forgetting, there's a setting in "my preferences" that will remind you).
3. complete all the assignments/readings you are given to the best of your ability. If you have trouble with an assignment, by all means, let me know, so we can discuss possible solutions and alternatives.
4. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination except from me - I will nominate you when I believe you are ready.

Let me know if you are interested and we can get started. I will have limited on-line time for about the next week, so my response time after today may be a little delayed. Best, Pastordavid (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, if you'd like to join in as a party and such, feel free. I'd welcome it, as long as the others don't mind. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO you are not close to being ready for admin coaching because I don't see any way that you will be realistically ready for an RFA in 3 months (which is one of my criteria.) But if you want specifics as to why I say this:

1) Your edit count is too low. See discussions elsewhere on the coaching page, where we're discussing this. IMHO, it should be around 2500 or more when you start admin coaching. It should be at a minimum 3000-3500 when you run for RfA (and even that is considered by many to be on the low side of things.) The exact number needed varies from person to person. The key, is how long will it take to get to those numbers? You're at 1608. As you are making about 200 edits a month, it will take you 4-5 months to get to 2500 edits... and another 3-6 months to get to 3500---almost a year. If you doubled your monthly output, and continued to make meaningful contributions, you could surprise me.

2) When I reviewed your edit history, you have only taken part in 4-5 XfD's. While this is fixable (and what coaching is for) XfD's are a key part of RfA's. They show an understanding of WP policies and procedures, lacking XfD's you have to look at the users other contributions to see if they have a solid foundation for policies and procedures---but your edits don't demonstrate that background. Coaching is just that---coaching, it should be a place to start from the ground up. Currently, your edits make me think a person would be starting from square one.

3) When I reviewed your edit history, almost all of your mainspace edits center around one subject: Heroes (TV series.) If you want to be a viable candidate diversify.

4) The diversity of non-mainspace areas where you participate is very nominal. I think you've made more edits at coaching than you have at any other administrative aspect of wikipedia. This strikes me as overly eager. This is particularly true when you consider the fact that you made your request 3 months ago---when you probably had under a 1000 edits. Being overly eager is a red flag for many people.

Again, my comment was not a personal attack, but rather a statement of my opinion. Unless you double your monthly output (which would never be an expectation of mine) you are probably a good 8-10 months away from being a viable admin candidate. Your edits are good---from what I've seen your help would be great at peer review/league of copy editors/GAR/etc.Balloonman (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Padillah, I posted an idea for managing expectations on the coaching page... I was hoping to get your input on it.Balloonman (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Since you gave a 3O POV on the Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Talk page, I have compiled new information based on additional research that might change things. I'd like to ask you to take a look at what I prepared on that page to see if it makes a difference in your stated opinion. Thanks for your help with this, and notify me on my talk page when you've looked at it, what you think, and if there's ever anything I can do for you. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I forgot to update my status on the page. I don't want to take on more than 1 coachee at a time because of my university and work commitments and User:Jamesontai asked a just few days ago (link). I'm really sorry to turn you down as it looks like others have also. I can however offer some advice on participation in XFD (i.e. articles, redirects, categories or misc.) debates. It was also suggested that I participate more but I didn't know how either. What I did (and it worked ok for me) is look at what other people are saying and in particular, read the policies/guidelines that they linked to. It's important to provide a valid reason when participating in an AFD because the closing admin will weigh up the arguments each way, not just count the number of people as if it were a vote. However keep in mind Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This isn't a policy, but it is a very good read if you participate in deletion debates. Most AFD debates are about notability which requires multiple secondary sources (a newspaper article about the subject of the article would be a good example of a secondary source). Various more specific guidelines exist such as notability for companies which isn't any different to the overall notability guideline but explains it with more relevance to companies. I think the best course of action would be to read a few debates and check out the arguments to avoid. Again I'm sorry to turn you down but I don't think I have the time to advise 2 people. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be an admin then nominating clearly notable English footballers for deletion isn't going to do you any favours. I'd withdraw this if I were you, otherwise it's only going to be held against you when you run for adminship again. Nick mallory (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just putting a note here as well... I just warned Nick on his talk page for failure to AGF and for making a veiled threat.Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• What other recourse do I have? My original account was indefinately blocked by the same two or three people over and over again. With an indefinate block how am I ever going to get this taken seriously. Since you asked, I couldn't care less if the "safeguarded" info gets on the page or not. What I care about is that it not be censored from the page based on the unilateral decision of a group of admins with a clear conflict of interest. I am happy to take whatever help or advice you can give me. I just want to make my case.--Ahoalton1 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you’re going to bat for me. I can see you really want to be an admin, and for the sake of the project I hope you do. If a Wikipedia entry is going to be the top hit on every internet search I do for the rest of my life it would be nice to know the entries are being monitored by evenhanded editors like yourself. Anyway, I’ll shut up for a week and see if these people can put their house in order.--Once,Twice,ThreeTimesAhoalton (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to help here, but you're mistaken on a key point, [1]see this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I did not realize the on-going conversation. The user was recently blocked and was sockpuppeteering, so I reverted all changes made by the sockpuppet as evasion of block. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I "don't have a clue about Wikipedia policy." --EoL talk 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I respect your enthusiasm to defend this guy. He really needs to stop using sockpuppets to communicate, though. --EoL talk 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can go around on that one forever and not really get anywhere.  :) Most of us have given up on that one. Of course, you'll find that most editors don't have as strong feelings on that topic as someone you've encountered. Of course, he believes otherwise, but wikipedia is based on consensus, and unless I'm mistaken consensus is not as with him as he seems to think. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that, I couldn't figure out how to remove it. SteveCoppock (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't given up on Paladine yet - the difficultly seems to be that we'll need to rely on print publications more, and they take longer. Unfortunately, once it is tagged it is almost impossible to remove the tag without entering into an edit war. But I've found that you can win, given time and an understanding of what is expected. And I finally understand what is expected. :) (By that, I don't mean what is expected by everyone, nor what is expected by one person, nor even what should be expected, but simply what is expected at AfD). So I figure I just need to work out where to look, and it will be cool. That can take awhile, though. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove properly added tags on articles. 2005 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Padillah was right to remove it. You added the tag without explaining what needs to be corrected on the article's discussion page. Please see Template:cleanup for the appropriate usage of this template. --Centish (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's a small debate going on in the article The Company (Heroes) about Donna Dunlap's power. Do you mind giving your opinion on the matter there?

Thanks Ophois (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you again, lol, but since you're used to editing TV pages, would you mind taking a look at the discussion on Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles about the new cast member Shirley Manson, and give your opinion? Ophois (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not trying to canvas. As you can see from the list you made, I began with the two editors who were already involved, one of whom (as you can see above) was until then quite hostile to me. To get more people involved, what could I do - since I did not know of the method that you have kindly used on the article's Talk page - but get some Talk links from my Talk page, starting from the bottom (the most recent)? If you look at what they wrote, you will see that not all of them have always been in agreement with me; but I thought that, in this matter, the more, the better. I felt sure that scarcely anyone would support the claim of the "owner" of the article to control the gateway to editing it. If one of those I contacted is the editor who has since attacked Sherurcij anonymously, I was and am quite unaware of any previous conflict between him and Sherurcij. Lima (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I am going to be either entirely off-wiki or very limited in my online time for about a month or so - so I can't really pitch in at this time. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the article I've weighed in and will keep it on my watchlist if any dedicated cruft-eaters come around to shoot up the town. In that sense, I've got your back. At another angle, I've been managing to learn that kicking the crap out of people with my rather sizable (and of course humble) wit and intellect almost never makes folk fall at my feet in worship. Being nice - which I am going to qualify this entire post by stating that you are almost always nice - tends to get your point across more succinctly. WP:SARCASM almost never does, and only serves to make one feel as if they were legend in their own time. This is a lesson I am still learning, as I am tempted to school the living shit out of folk so desperate for an editorial enema that their stink crosses the internet boundary into smell-o-vision.
The people who have been adding cruft to the article can just as easily be diverted into contributing appropriately with the right sort of encouragement. There isn't a lot of that in the article discussion, I think. Encouraging these people to create and craft the supplementary articles will inevitably help them learn the lessons you and I have already largely learned. And without a snarky remark, to boot.
I respect your edits and your common sense. Take my proffered two coppers how you will.  :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you mind giving your opinion on whether the stuff about Future Peter should be in the article? Since I provided a reliable source that confirms Meredith and because of Elle giving present Peter his electric powers, I think it should stay in the article. Seeing from the Doctor Who articles that Arcayne can be difficult on the simplest of matters, I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my change regarding the fact that PortableApps.com has a version of Notepad++ saying that it is "not special - all versions of Notepad++ install to a portable drive".

1) If Notepad++ (the generic version - not Notepad++ Portable Edition that has a SourceForge project as well) can be installed to a USB drive (I didn't see that listed as a feature on their web site) directly and run anywhere - that is special. That is not a normal feature for a Windows application, so it should be noted.

2) If something can run from a USB drive, that is different than running from a USB drive as part of the PortableApps.com menu system. They have a version that easily installs into their menu system that is available when you insert the USB drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Notepad++ is a stand-alone C++ application which does not even need to be installed much less installed into a particular place. This is not special, any application can do this so long as the platform already has support from the OS (i.e. If you already have .NET 3.5 Framework installed you only need to copy the files to run an app written in .NET 3.5) Quite a few applications are written poorly and thus require an install package to test the environment for them, not Notepad++.

Determining if running Notepad++ from a USB drive is "special" requires examining whether or not most applications can do that. The answer at this point in time is no - they cannot. They install themselves to the hard drive, updating the Windows registry and sometimes Windows directories on that specific hard drive. Regardless of how difficult it is for them to rewrite their software to be able to run from a USB drive, the majority of software authors and companies have not done that. USB runnable Windows apps are still in the minority. And two commercial editors, MultiEdit and UltraEdit, that have a USB runnable version, have made it in addition to their regular hard drive version. So if Notepad++ has come out with a single version that runs either way and has superceded another SourceForge project - Notepad++ Portable Edition, then that is also special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickorama (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then make a note regarding Notepad++ Portable Edition. But that's not what was done. What I removed was a statement that was at best superfluous and at worst misleading. If you want to mention Notepad++ Portable Edition by all means go ahead. But the mention of PortableApps.com doesn't belong in the Notepad++ article. A mention of Notepad++ may be appropriate for listing what can be run from PortableApps.com. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2) That difference was not explained in the entry you made. It simply extolled Notepad++ for running from a USB drive. I would argue, however that this is more useful to the entry on PortableApps.com and not Notepad++ unless it was specifically written for PortableApps.com. This is more inline with trivia for Notepad++ "Other ways to run Notepad++". padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I just took the speedy delete tag off H. Tomàs Padilla - I was under the assumption that the article was incorrectly tagged by an overzealous editor. But then I saw that you (as the article's author) tagged it for removal. I didn't quite understand why you did this, since the article appears to be well referenced and the subject was notable. If you wish to delete the article, I might recommend just blanking the page and then putting the Speedy Delete tag on it. I hope I didn't create an inconvenience for you. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no. That's a good point. That particular page was a userspace page that I was using to get everything right before moving to mainspace. The mainspace article is alive and well so I can get rid of the userspace one. Thanks for the tip on blanking first. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On second look thank you very much for your good eye. I hadn't noticed but the userspace page redired to the mainspace article. So in trying to clean-up my userspace I inadvertently tagged the mainspace article. I meant to get rid of the userspace article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that means I did the right thing and saved the article? Wonderful! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In violation of his parole DG has just written a new version of his attack page which adds two other editors to his list of 'enemy editors'!:

Ah. Well, then that's even more bizarre. The rewrite was in response to a couple of admins complaining that the one that is there now was too vague and showed bad faith against editors in general. I changed it to make it more clear, and everything in it was factual -- Elonka and Arcayne have both been described by admins as having harassed me. Elonka additionally has been blocked for said harassment in the past. I don't see how it at all violates my arbitration parole, and certainly if someone objected to it a more reasonable response would be to explain the problem and ask that it be changed, not just take it upon themselves to delete it permanently from the history and block me. The two admins in question probably should have left it to more impartial people. Kbthompson is directly involved in the conflict in question, and this is not the first time Jayig has blocked me for a reason that had no policy basis. But hey, it's a longstanding tradition here that certain admins seem to treat policies as things they are freely allowed to ignore in order to strike out at people they don't like.

To summarise, the 'enemy admins' are now: Arcayne, Elonka, Kb Thompson and Jayig. Their crime was making judgements which didn't support Dreamguy 100%. Therefore they will now be dragged through the mud on every available occasion and the other admins rather than supporting them will take the side of Dreamguy. If they don't their name will be added to his attack page as an awful warning that Dreamguy can defy wikipedia admins with impunity. Colin4C (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a very rough idea of a possible path forward on stopping the fighting and personal arguing on the JtR page and JtR talk page. If you see possibility to the idea, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Please do not clutter up KB's talk page with discussion of this. If all the major players see potential, I will start up a page and talk page in my user area to flesh out the idea with all involved. If anyone wants to reject any possibility of the idea, please say so also, so that time is not wasted on something that will not work. This is an idea that can only work with the acceptance of all the major players at the JtR talk page, so if anyone rejects it, the idea is pretty much DOA. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial, rough draft of the agreement is up at User:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground. It is availible for editing, and the linked talk page, while not currently in existance, can be created and used for discussions on the agreement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

the anon has been stalking my edits since April. He's been blocked for it repeatedly. I can only ignore a gnat so long before seeking to swat it away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My first barnstar!! Thank you very much. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. I updated the barnstar, that one was a bit silly. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. For more details, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anything important, but I just noticed your username is almost the same as my last name (Padilha) and you speak Portuguese too! :D Que legal! --RazorICE 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My dad is from Puerto Rico (Padilla is like Smith over there), the H is for "Henry". And my wife is from Inùbia, Bahia, Brazil. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, I'm also from Brazil! Small world, huh? :) --RazorICE 12:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm continuing our discussion from WT:N here, because I don't think it belongs there. WT:N is about improving WP:N.

Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to your concern. It seems to me that Ludwig von Köchel did some research to derive the composition dates for those musical compositions. Now, if the alphabetical list uses Ludwig von Köchel's research, then that is closer to redundancy. But, is that the case? I don't know, since I'm not that familiar with the facts. The point I tried to make is that making your case solely on redundancy puts you in a weaker position than you can be in. As I mentioned on WT:N, your big arguments can be:

• Challenge the notability of the Köchel catalogue itself. You are probably more knowledgeable about that than I am, so you can assess the truth of the Köchel catalogue's notability.
• Challenge the necessity of the Köchel catalogue list in order to describe the notability of the Köchel catalogue.

An analogy: In the article 120 Days of Sodom, we do not reproduce the entire manuscript of the story, even though the author has been dead for almost 200 years and the story has passed into the public domain. Though the story and the topic of the article are identical, it is not necessary to show the entire text of the document in order to reveal its notability.

Similarly, reproducing a composition list is unnecessary to describe the notability of the Köchel catalogue. —Kanodin—VENT— 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You requested feedback regarding your pronunciations of the actors' names. Most of them sounded correct, except for Masi Oka. You pronounced it Mah-SAI, when it should be MAH-see. (See this YouTube clip if my attempt at transcribing the pronunciation was not good.) Thanks for your hard work; keep it up! - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1. How did you get the image:   on the bottom right hand corner of your user page?
2. Is it possible to di it with any image on WP?

Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I shamelessly ripped off this userpage from an editor I can't even recall anymore. It's based on templates to keep things as clean as I can. What you are looking for is in the User:Padillah/Scroll page. And I imagine it can be done with any gif that fits in the page. Padillah (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I see what you did. Thank you so much! Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if my post offended you, that was certainly not my intent, which was only to advise you that arguing at length on a Talk page is not regarded well by those who choose admins. I'd be happy to delete that portion of the post! Just let me know. I'm sure it was written in haste and it was not worded courteously for public view. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you mind giving your input on the discussion on Peter Petrelli about his power name? Because the Primatech files online say "Empathic mimicry", but Arcayne keeps removing this, claiming the source isn't reliable. Thanks Ophois (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No strong opinions here, Padillah. I simply think the readers, many of whom were born after the 1986 film "The Fly" was released, should be allowed to know of the prior source from which this plot line derives and is so heavily referential. Is it essential for a reference to a "blog" or other such "source" to exist before a connection of this sort is allowed to be raised to the reader's attention? I don't fault the role of the fact checker, however, and will leave it to another editor to find an expert on such things and try again....

Ricegator (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Annoyingly enough, yes. We are not allowed to add any intelligence to the articles by ourselves. We are not allowed to make connections or draw any conclusions, all information has to come from somewhere. But, for what it's worth, the question has already been asked and answered. Look in there and search for "Fly". you should find what you need. Padillah (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and quick research. One blog-style source, made to order! "Inspired" indeed!

Ricegator (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Padillah,

I see you've been around a long time and have contributed a lot, but this really, really has to stop. Perhaps you're so worked up that you can't see you're being disruptive, but you are. Please consider this a final warning. --barneca (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Warn away. At this point I just don't give a shit. If you feel this user is allowed to treat me this way then ... I have no idea how to finish this statement because it is incomprehensible to me that this is acceptable behavior. I see no indication whatsoever that Softlavender will even be spoken to about this. Boy I've got to find out how I can plug my ears to discussion and make attacks on someones mental state and get away with it. Block me, ban me, whatever. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As you seem to be unable/unwilling to discuss the issue with the offending editor as you are supposed to do, I have placed the following on their page in order to initiate the dicussion on your behalf: "Softlavender: as there seems to be some issue as to some of your commentary towards the above user, I would recommend that you try to politely and patiently discuss the matter with the other editor, clarifying your words and intent. I recommend using either your talk page or theirs (not both so that the discussion can be kept together), or if you would prefer neutral ground I can make a space on my own talk page for more of a "unofficially mediated" discussion." Your call if you decide to participate or not, but talking it out 1 to 1 is ALWAYS your first step. BMW(drive) 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And my apologies for not having done this sooner but it got to a point that I didn't know if contacting Softlavender would make things better or worse. Again, thank you for helping move this forward. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(reposted from ANI) It's incredibly obvious that the mental health statement violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am sorry you had to be on the receiving end of such a statement, Padillah. I am not an admin (which they claim is not a big deal) so there isn't much I can do other than sympathize with you. I am sorry, also, that there are some in this thread whom are belittling and discounting you. I wish that would end. Bstone (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Bstone (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been on a long wikibreak but while doing some casual reading here on wikipedia, I came across the above incident and feel obligated to say something. Quite frankly, I am astonished at the treatment you received, Padillah. While your behaviour on the original talk page might not have been perfect, as you yourself have later realized, I find it incredulous that only one other individual was able to see clearly that the mental health statement was anything but civil. I guess the problem is that we live in a global society that is largely and overwhelmingly oblivious and insensitive to the issues of mental health. If the statement had instead been "cause many people to question your sexuality" or "cause many people to question your age" or "cause many people to question your purity", then I imagine many more people would have agreed that such a statement is uncivil (being homophobic, ageist or racist respectively). Just as the word faggot is an insult whether applied to a homosexual or a straight man, so too is the word retard whether applied to someone who actually has mental health problems or not. Just as one does not need to use the word faggot to be homophobic, one does not need to use the word retard either. It really should have been obvious to anyone that questioning another's mental health is an insult. I just wanted to let you know that you were perfectly right to object to such an uncivil statement even though you should have done it first at the talk page of the discussion or the user. --Bardin (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only thing noisy about the band named after the manifesto was the name as their sound (if I remember correctly) was on the slick synth side. Therefore they do not warrant mention of the page. Other opinions? Valueyou (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From what you say about their use of sampling the group, perhaps, is best suited for the musique concrète page. But let's go onto http://www.deezer.com/ and refresh our memories. I did and found mostly slick material, of interest yes. Their sound lacks the atonality I associate with noise music, but perhaps I did not hear the relevant cuts. If you feel strongly that they should be under noise music, I would not object if you decide to add them to the list of noise artists. And if you might, we could use a hand with some page #s, as you might have noticed. Thanks for your interest. Valueyou (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a source that says Empire Mall is the biggest tourist attraction in South Dakota. Surely that's a valid claim to notability. I don't really feel like writing right now, but I will expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

please see Talk:Dania Ramírez Rosenbluh (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padillah. I thought I would point out a couple of things you have done there which aren't very helpful and are in fact strongly discouraged in this on-line community.

1 You inaccurately characterized my single edit to the article as a revert and as edit-warring. It was neither. My reputation is important to me and has taken almost three years and over 60 000 edits to build. Therefore I will not leave such baseless accusations unchallenged. I would be grateful if you could strike out the mistaken comments you made there. An apology is not required, but it would be helpful if you could agree to be more careful in the future.

2 You then deployed sarcasm and enjoined me not to join the discussion. This is not a private forum, and as an editor with a long-term history of editing that article, I don't think you have the right to exclude me from the discussion. I also think that per WP:SARCASM, this way of interacting with others is unlikely to foster a productive atmosphere.

Thanks for your consideration, --John (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Are you going to strike out your comments to both MickMacNee and me regarding our NON-edit-war? The first contribution you made was insulting and derisive, so I suggest that if you care so much about your reputation you discuss more and deride less. Calling peoples discussions lame and unproductive is not as supportive as you might think. I may have misrepresented what you actual action was in a coding sense but the end result of what you did was just as unhelpful. Editing content that is under discussion is just as much an "edit-war action" as 3RR, and if you are half as knowledgeable as you say you are it's even less forgivable. When there's a discussion going on you don't edit the content being discussed.

2) First off you don't "deploy" sarcasm, you use it. And second I wasn't using it, I was honestly urging you to not participate if the only thing you are going to do is insult and deride the other editors. As for being a productive atmosphere, you weren't being productive from the get-go, your first statement was derisive and insulting and you never contributed to the actual discussion at any point. How could I quash an atmosphere that was non-existent?

In other words - no, I will not strike out the comments I made. I stand by them and would like you to take them to heart. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothin' at all. Padillah (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out, since you are so up-in-arms over my misrepresenting you as having done a revert how do you feel about removing the warning on MickMacNee and apologizing. He did exactly two reverts (one because you were editing content under discussion), the other edit he did was a change in content. If you're gonna threaten someone with a 3RR block it's probably best they have violated 3RR first. Padillah (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I note you are standing by your rudeness and I see your many misconceptions and misunderstandings of the way we work here. I wish you well in your future edits and I hope your stay here is long and productive. Happy editing. --John (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually going to let it drop this time? Inasmuch as you are avoiding any of my concerns I can only wish you well and hope the rest of your encounters as an admin are less filled with WP:LAME-calling and derision. Thanks for your lack of input. Padillah (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Gadsby (book)#Requested move you made a comment on the proposed move from "Gadsby (book)" to "Gadsby (novel)". In the Discussion sub-section I have proposed a compromise: "Gadsby: Champion of Youth". This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles which suggests using subtitles only if it avoids a disambiguation and if the subtitle is short. In this case, the 3 word subtitle can be considered small, it avoids a disambiguation title, and it keeps the lipogram. Is this alternative ok? Please note that this option applies to the title only and makes no comment on the remainder of the article. --maclean 06:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Still on the same subject, so no new section. If you don't want people to improve the article, perhaps people that ARE allowed to edit it should place a <! comment in the article to that effect. It's kind of annoying to try to make writing not suck hard, only to have my edits be reverted for sake of an in-joke. 76.22.79.109 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you are preaching to the choir. Read the talk page for even a little bit and you'll see how hard I'm fighting to get the stupid lipogram out of there. But to remain true to the Five Pillars we need to discuss it. Your input is more than welcome on the talk page. We need more people expressing this sentiment to show just how ridiculous the lipogram constrain is. Please go to the talk page and let them know how foolish you think this is. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who agrees with you that this position on the lipogram in the article is untenable and anti Wikipedia's policies I regret your decision to back out of this debate. Anyway, I wish you well. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) I'm rather confused. If you're referring to this, you'll note I wasn't reverting your edit. I do marginally disagree with your edit (that section *is* in fact a Bibliography), but I've given up doing anything about your contributions precisely because, as here, all I get is grief and stalking. Please stop! Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are accusing me of stalking my own edits! Never thought of it that way. But I must ask you to consider the rationale behind asking someone who has sworn off contacting you to swear off contacting you. You may want to lookup "irony" as long as you're online. Padillah (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had been involved in discussions prior to his Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but removing non-disruptive, good faith, civil comments from an experienced editor is just dumb, demonstrates that you're not assuming good faith, and that you're here to edit only on your own terms. We don't get to pick our terms, we don't get to pick who blocks us, and we don't get to pick which rules we abide by. Thinking that you do for any of those items is a sure, generally quick path to a permablock; he may be pissed off at me and think I'm unreasonable for pointing this out to him, but it's the reality in my experience. But as you've a point, and I'm trying to stay away from being a stubborn douchebag, I've redacted and will try to leave it be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And if this guy wasn't a ticking time bomb I'd let him figure it out on his own. I have this innate ability to pick the most lost cause to help. I've tried once and the guy ended up getting permblocked for socking. Maybe this guy will be different, thanks for letting me try. Padillah (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope your holidays go well, and here's to a happy 2009! Randomran (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Padillah. Hope you have happy holidays, too! Ophois (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the card. :) I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the page about adoption. It would have probably been the greatest thing to start there, but now its probably not the best option. I am having a problem assuming the good faith others. I even considered making a sock puppet to post here, but it just seemed too juvenile. Do you have the time to show me the best way to address some negative things I have said to people? If you are working on something, I totally understand. I can wait. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to help in any way I can. And don't sell yourself short, you've taken a big step in AGF by taking me at face value and accepting guidance. My first task would be to ask you to setup a page in your user space for us to communicate without the clutter of talk pages (and, hopefully, away from others but there's no guarantee). It's pretty easy to do, either make a link to a page under your userspace ( i.e. User:Jeffrey_Pierce_Henderson/Adoption) It'll show up red at first but when you click on it you will be taken to a blank page ready to be setup. I'd create it myself but I'm not too keen on messing with other users UserSpace. Let me know when you've got that setup (or if you want me to maintain a page in my UserSpace, let me know that as well) and we can talk more openly there. Hope to hear from you soon. Padillah (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to move it (the other link wasn't under your UserSpace, sorry about that). The link above is now correct and I've posted there. Padillah (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) Thank you for the well wishes, and I hope you're enjoying the season. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just put some stuff at User talk:Padillah/Editnotice, and it should work the next time you edit the page, or anyone else does. Enjoy! :) — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome! Where do you learn this stuff? I'd love to get deeper into the markup but it's a bit obfuscated from where I'm at now. Is there any way to look this stuff up? Padillah (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is under the MediaWiki namespace, if you dig around in there there are all sorts of things that can be found - it's mostly a matter of trial and error. And thanks for the compliment, you're pretty awesome yourself! ;) — neuro^(talk) 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Your dad was Hector Padilla? I believe a colleague of mine once did a talk on him and the efforts of his wife Martha (might be wrong about that name, if so sorry) - a coincidence and a half, really. :) — neuro^(talk) 20:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, with my life, you're probably right. Hailing from Pontiac, MI. Got pretty big in the civil rights scene back in the day (before me, I'm only 40ish). Ran into a bus to move it away from others that had been set fire? Yep, that's him. My mom has recently put effort to get the Hispanic history of Pontiac documented. It's housed in the Burton Collection in the Detroit Public library. Your colleague may be interested in the results. Lots of data on Dad. Padillah (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your user page, and clicked on the first article I saw in your 'current projects'. Have you had a nice Christmas? — neuro^(talk) 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Had a great Christmas! Thanks. 68 degrees down here, can't complain too much about that. Padillah (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Quartet is stalking Jeffrey? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are, based on this. [2] I wouldn't exactly call it "stalking", because there's no "privacy" about that sub-page. However, Quartet needs to be sensitive to the fact that you're trying to mentor Jeffrey. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know whether to go that far. I'm not trying to accuse him but the ONLY way he could have gotten to that page is by looking up Jeffery's contribs and following them around. What should I do? Or is the request to respect our privacy enough? Padillah (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment to that page similar to my last comment above. You're right that that's how Quartet would find it, but histories are also public knowledge. Stalking is a pattern of harassment. I don't think this would qualify. But let's see how things go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I have not caused you too much trouble. I watch your talk page because we have had "back-and-forth" from time to time and I simply haven't removed it. I didn't mean to intrude on your discussion (and, honestly, couldn't even if I tried) aside from the editorial correction I made. I hope it's obvious why I replied here. Padillah (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, I appreciate your reticence, but you need not have worried. Some people are unwelcome, especially those who I don't know and seem both unfriendly/all-too-friendly or just plain odd. You, I've worked with before and concur with on lots of issues and interests. You are always welvome to stop by, say hello, ask for help or simply shoot the breeze over a new beer on my back porch (yes, i am building one now). :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered but no, I'm not Dennis Miller. He's American, I'm British. I am thus superior. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Superior at cooking a good cut of meat into shoe leather. Don't even get me started on their interpretation of pudding and Chinese food. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...or Pizza, Ugh! I was there about 10 years ago and... it was just sad. Padillah (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the pizza was okay, so long as you didn't ask for anything other than cheese or pepperoni. the special pineapple and feta cheese was horrific. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, what's that old saying... if your guests are Italian, serve French; if they're French, serve Italian; and if they're English, boil anything. As a counter to that, someone once asked John Cleese why the English never took the time to develop great cuisine, and he answered, "Well, we had an empire to run, you see." Priorities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The Americans however had plenty of time to enhance their culinary skills as they only had a colony and we ran it for them. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you "ruled the world through the cunning use of flags". So I've heard. Padillah (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The sun never set on the British Empire. That made for some long days. We do have some English restaurants in America, though. Well, actually Scottish restaurants. You know, the one named for the McDonald clan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See, the flaw in that is that there really isn't such thing as an English restaurant; they are all pub-type venues. ;) It took an enterprising pair of Irish (not Scots) lads to cook up fast-food.

I'd also point out that the Chinese and Japanese all managed to churn out some fairly interesting dishes, all while conquering the world and stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Irish. Ray Kroc said they were Scots. He might have just been trying to imply they were cheap or something. There are so many Chinese, Japanese, and Indians that they've got time to open restaurants. And you're spot-on with this --> Q: What do you call a pub serving fish-and-chips? A: An English restaurant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Q: What do you call an English establishment serving bangers and mash, but no ale? A: Deserted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You wanna laugh, but you also wanna cry, too. Poor limeys, all bad teeth and sad food. I am glad that they have good Indian food, though. :)

That's the advantage of an empire - if you don't have it at home, go get it elsewhere. And while you're at it, take over that country, so you can keep the tea flowing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, they still don't know how to cook a decent piece of meat. I think its a commie plot.

Thanks for correcting the Irish Scotts mix-up. I didn't want this to veer into haggis territory. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Kerr on my mother's side. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think at this late date, that there are just as many Scots or Irish mutts out there to rival the Chinese (just ask any Irishman). Seriously though, those dudes appear to be everywhere, like Nestlé or ConAgra. Or McDonalds. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See, that's the American empire model. Don't take over the nation politically, just take it over economically. Maybe I should say the Coca-Cola model. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, you're being very unpatriotic given the fact that you claim to be from Oxford. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation. He's not from Oxford, he only wears Oxfords. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this true, Arcayne? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said I was from Oxford. I just fetched me up some edumikayshun from there. On a side note, I do own a pair of Oxford shoes. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I own a pair of leapard-skin shoes but it doesn't make me a leapard does it. So what is your nationality Arcayne? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page and added the hangon tag (I think I did it correctly). Please let me know if there is anything else I should do to keep this page from being deleted. Thanks! (G man 450 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

An admin blocked him for a couple of days to let him ponder his behavior. You've tried to help and he stomped on you - kind of like the parable about "casting pearls before swine". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading his unblock request, in which he levels various accusations against others. Like that will help. All this drama over a power lifting record? Talk about "undue weight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padillah. It's obvious that you tried really hard to make the mentorship work; you were an excellent mediator and gave a lot of great suggestions, as well as assuming more good faith than most would. Not sure if you wish to comment or not on the current unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 7:6 - "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you." (Revised Standard Version) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padillah, It is not my opinion that I am trying to impose here, although it may appear to be so. I am just highlighting the fact that it remains controversial whether it is or isn't a Ponzi Scheme (even if a legal one), so you cannot state as a fact that it is not a Ponzi Scheme (I saw the reference, and the perpetrator itself cannot be treated as a "reliable source"). In fact, claiming it is not a Ponzi Scheme seems to be an opinion in itself. My point is that a claim should not be made either way, and the edit in question just accomplishes that. Thank you, Virat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virat1208 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The base problem with claiming it's a Ponzi scheme is the assertion that it's a "scheme". Social Security has never misrepresented it's growth system, and has never promised a "Return on Investment" that is what the references at the bottom of the article say. It's not just that they "claim" not to be a Ponzi scheme and use "no, really" as their defense. They present reasons and logic as to why they cannot be considered a scheme. Reliable sources have nothing to do with logic. It may operate using the same mechanism as a Ponzi scheme uses but, since there is no misrepresentation, it's not a Scheme. In short, it's the "SCHEME" part of the moniker that is refutable. Regardless of the mechanic of collecting monies. Padillah (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_Threat_in_9_Feb_DRV, the linked DRV, and Special:Contributions/Naegele. This user is using Wikipedia to promote himself by adding his own articles. Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true or appropriate for inclusion in an article, especially not when it is part of a spam campaign. Calling Greenspan worse than Obama is a potential libel and sourcing it with a column by a non-notable lawyer doesn't come close to meeting the threshold of sourcing. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --B (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That particular incident is what got me poking around that particular users contributions. I Googled the article and it has gotten mention in other, secondary sources. I agree the initial entry was about as self-serving as they come, but I tried to remove any author-centric POV I could while retaining the reference. The quote is there, it's real, it's sourced - it has nothing to do with us, or even the referenced article. It's a real quote. (And, for what it's worth, the quote says he hurt America almost as bad as Osama. It makes no judgment call on his worth.) If you had read the entry you would see it had nothing to do with the authors self-promotion. If you had read the quote you would see it was not comparing the worth of one person against another but the harm they had done. And since this is a content dispute I'd like to move it to the article talkpage where it belongs. Padillah (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just being a "real quote" doesn't make it appropriate to use. Just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it belongs in an article. There are many quotes from every newspaper in the country about Alan Greenspan. Wikipedia exercises editorial discretion in deciding which ones to use. Unless you can find multiple people with this opinion about Greenspan (including, preferably, at least one who doesn't think Wikipedia is free advertising), it is an extreme minority view and has no place in the article, especially not a biography of a living person. --B (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article talkpage like all content disputes. Padillah (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding defamatory spam to an article is not a content dispute. --B (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And if I were you might have a point. Please see the talk page. Padillah (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Need your comment on Black_Eyed_Husband --Bziona86 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page New Writings in SF 1 to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that source. I figured it was a bit BS when I saw the IP change "going to" to "gonna", and realized that they were the same ones that added the quote in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated New Writings in SF, 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/New Writings in SF. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork *^YES! 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How exactly has Daedalus969's incivility been dealt with, as you claim that it has?[3] --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the claim and you will see. Daedalus has been talked to on their talk page and has backed away from the conflict. There, dealt with. Padillah (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough. Not dealt with at all, just ignored, as usual. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What did you expect was going to happen? This is the resolution for civility issues on WP: Stop the incivility. That's all we can do. We made the editor stop being uncivil, what else could you possibly need from the resolution of this? Padillah (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What I expected to happen was exactly what happened. Abusive administrator is given a mild rap on the knuckles which he ignores. Those he abuses get threatened with blocks, called trolls, and much worse. You're welcome to your world; I'm just glad I don't have to live in it with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 isn't an admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not answer the question, Malleus. I am beginning to understand Bwilkins assertions of increasing the drama. I'm done. I will blank any further contributions to my talk page. Padillah (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do as you please, I really couldn't care less. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've had at least 3 Liebman socks to deal with today, so I'm getting plenty of AIV practice. Doesn't look like the admin proposal will go through, but it's been a useful exercise, and I appreciate your support. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope your faith in my usefulness has not been hurt too much by the way the RfA is going. My offline friend warned me of exactly this - that everyone I've ever crossed would come out of the woodwork. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually feel bad for putting you through this, now. I don't think I was clear enough but this is why I asked first. Lots of users take this opportunity to rag on you because "you CSD' my artcle!" Hope you're getting by OK. And NO, my faith in your knowledge and usefulness is not swayed one bit. I see through some of the users, posting the "don't go to AN/I so much" really means "don't take me to AN/I and get me in trouble". Padillah (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're both good with this, then all is peachy. :) My offline advisor said I should withdraw. I want to let it run its course and get a true measure of things. I think the voting reveals a lot about the voters, and the more of them show up, the more we'll know about them. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Or in Australia, they probably say "to-MY-toe". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have determined that "RfA" is short for "Request for Arrows". :) Thank you for your support. This has been a hard but useful experience (useful experiences often are hard) and whether I ever accept a nomination again or not, I'm willing to address the cautions of the sincere Opposers and try to do better. Lots of arrows coming at me, and I get the point. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I've removed the infringing material and your G12 tag from Patrick Jane. decltype (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Remember me? You participated in the discussion last time around and I thought you might want to pitch in. I've rewritten the article at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux and added reliable sources (the non-english sources are in the talk page). I also opened a RfC but so far no one has commented. Could you take a look and give me some feedback? Thanks! LirazSiri (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your question on BB's talkpage and I'll have a shot at answering. To undo a single edit, Undo is the same as Rollback (except Rollback provides an automatic edit summary), so if the history looks like

(undo|rollback) A vandal edit by 127.0.0.1
(undo|rollback) A good edit by Example

clicking on the top "undo" will undo the top edit (alone), as will "rollback".

However let's take

(undo|rollback) Yet another vandal edit by 127.0.0.1
(undo|rollback) Another vandal edit by 127.0.0.1
(undo|rollback) A second vandal edit by 127.0.0.1
(undo|rollback) A vandal edit by 127.0.0.1
(undo|rollback) A good edit by Example

If you want to revert that to the good edit, you have to mess about, for instance going to the last good edit, clicking on "edit", putting "rvv by 127.0.0.1 to last good edit by Example" (or similar) in the edit summary, clicking "save"...

Unless you have Rollback, when you can click on the top "rollback" on the list and have all consecutive edits by 127.0.0.1 reverted at once, with an automatic edit summary.

Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#How_it_works explains it.

Hope that helps. Tonywalton ^Talk 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to consider something along these lines at Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#How_it_works, this is much clearer, thanks. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padillah, thank you for your interest. I've left an answer to your query on the articles talk page. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for following up on the mess there that I posted to WP:ANI. I really appreciate your help with this as I am very tired do to major medical problems. I just think it is real important to stop this kind of behavior as quickly as possible which you did. Thank you again, I'm off to lie down for awhile, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Get some good rest. Padillah (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I copied it over from Soxred's tool. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing that last paragraph, sounds much classier now! Lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherDarksoul (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the hassles you are having do to my comments on ANI and your helping out. I am really sorry to have brought this to you but I do thank you very much for helping me with a bad situation that I accidentally came across. Thank you again for helping out, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand, I'm having troubles because someone out in the world refuses to play nicely with others and obey the rules. This has nothing to do with you or what you've brought up where. I appreciate the feelings and thank you kindly for the sentiment but please rest assured this is no reflection on you to any degree. This is the sole responsibility of one person and their attempt to run things their way. Happy editing! Padillah (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks your right but I still feel bad. You are a sweetie though for taking care of this with so much honor. It's a pleasure to see what you have said to me, thanks, I really appreciate it. Happy editing to you too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Padillah... I noticed the message you recently left for Popartpete and thought that it was a very well-written explanation that I though would be helpful in other situations as well. So, I, umm, stole it and made a template out of it. Unless you have objections, I'd like to use it whenever the need arises. Thanks —Travis^talk 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. No need to use {{talkback}}, I've got you watchlisted

I appreciate your candor and feel honored. I'm glad I could help. Padillah (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I started a thread on the admins' noticeboard that mentions your talk page. You may want to have a look. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 09:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, who steals a talkpage? Thanks for the heads up. Padillah (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I put everything I have to say on the discussion page.The article is garbage the way it is and you seem to be part of the problem.I gave my sources and the information was correct. (Ethan46 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

First you may want to calm down, maybe take a day off or step away for a time. This isn't personal... no one is "against you". Secondly you were stating information from the article but you were cherry-picking that information to place a slant on the point of view. For example you mentioned that a detective said it was unusual that three teens drowned so close to each other but you neglected to add that he also said there was no real evidence linking the deaths. Those types of edits are called POV and they are frowned upon by the WP community. The article is not "garbage", it may not communicate what you feel it should but you must keep in mind that there are more people than yourself that have viewpoints on this subject and it's in our best interest to represent all those views. Padillah (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The graffiti I left info about does not prove or disprove a serial killer exists.You are not making any sense.You allow a statement of Pat Brown and don't allow more complete information about the graffiti ,yet you think I should add that there is no real evidence.Ample space was already allowed to make points about the rejection of the theory.I would just be repeating the same message but maybe in a slightly different way.I never left information that there was or was not real evidence in the first place.All I did was leave more information and I was not leaving information that there was evidence.You are cherry picking information.I do not feel that the graffiti proves anything. I don't even know where you are coming from.It seems to me you made false assumptions.What you said above is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan46 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I left my POV on the discussion page.That I believed the article is one sided.I did not leave my POV on the article page.I have no objection to to the addition of a statement there was no real evidence.In fact I welcome more complete information but it did not seem like it was necessary to bring up yet there was no evidence once again. It should not be my responsibility to add information you feel needs to be added.It is you that are keeping the article slanted.You can not make a case for anything you say.The rejection of the theory takes up more space than anything else on the article page.Who are all the mysterious unnamed people calling deaths accidental drownings?The officer I talked to that investigated a drowning was not one of them.You seemed to be confused with the difference between rejection of a theory and the belief by some Law enforcement agencies there is no evidence.There is no source left for the statement below.

While the majority of these cases are believed by local authorities to be the result of accidental drownings

The detectives believe serial killers have murdered in at least 11 states.Where are the statements made by all the law enforcement agencies in those states that they believe they were accidental drownings?

This edit summary seemed a bit harsh and out of character - is everything all right? --RobertG ♬ talk 12:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point but at what point do edits like this, and this, and this become vandalism? You'll notice two of those edits are during times the article was protected so even that is starting to loose it's importance. I can't imagine how any sensible editor could not see the POV in that sentiment, and because of that, and the frequency and fortitude of the edits, I went the "vandal" route. You are probably right, I should have told them that edits like that could be viewed as vandalism if they keep it up. Thanks for the poke in the ribs. I'll go apologize. Padillah (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the POV in those edits seems obvious, but on the other hand such a large quantity of drive-by adulation is perhaps explained by the apparently universal popular acceptance of the concept of Amadeus-Mozart as wronged god-king! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact your reversion was unreasonable but your characterization of my edit as vandalism was incomprehensible. I merely added that Mozart is considered to be one of the greatest composers of the classical era and fully explained my edit by saying that it could be helpful to readers in putting the greatness of Mozart in context. Is the statement false or overly enthusiastic? Perhaps this was just some random opportunity to flex some new editing privileges you just acquired? Gomez3000adams (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, my revision is not what was called into question. And the characterization of your edit as vandalism, in light of the mess we've been putting up with in that article, should not be that difficult to comprehend. The issue with your edit is that it does not inform the reader who considers this. And without that there is no measure against which to compare and contrast the accomplishment. Lacking these essential criteria you've basically said someone thinks something about Mozart, which is not as helpful as you might think. Why do you feel there is a need to put "'the greatness of Mozart into context"? 600+ works in less than 30 years isn't a good enough measure? Greatness is a subjective term and has no business in an objective article. As such your edits were at the very best, unhelpful. As for the response to my apology, I'm almost offended. To believe this is my first trip to the pool is laughable. You may want to find a nicer way to be indignant. After all, I did apologize. Padillah (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You previously helped out on this article when someone was pushing a POV onto it, and now someone else is doing the same thing. They are adding a whole lot of text about what a bunch of nobodies claim and trying to underplay what all the police and FBI say. If the person comes back (which I assume they will based upon prior edit warring), your assistance in sorting out what to do there would be appreciated. Perhaps some of his text may be salvageable, but overall it's clearly to advance his personal view (and it may even be another case of an individual using himself as a source). DreamGuy (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the phrasing in this edit at Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard.

--Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with Godwin's Law in that it takes a situation to an absurd extreme, of comparing a finicky and particular shop owner with a Nazi. Seems like a good "see also" entry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably better with your qualifier. It's just a well-known pop culture example of an absurd extreme. I was also thinking of a scene in Field of Dreams where Annie refers to a local parent as a "Nazi cow". However, since that parent was essentially talking about book-burning, the comparison is not so extreme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated User:Padillah/Peter Petrelli, 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/User:Padillah/Peter Petrelli. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Padillah (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to nominate a page in your own userspace for deletion. Any admin can take care of it by request, and I have done so for you. :-) Dominic·t 12:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quite know which way to go with that: Speedy, AfD, just ask someone...? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The tag {{db-author}} puts a page in the categories Candidates for speedy deletion and Candidates for speedy deletion by user. These categories get checked and cleaned out fairly regularly. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what your note on my talk page is about. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the AfD template on the Le Zombie article. I was always told not to remove those templates since they did more than just subst in content. There is supposedly a whole series of pages that get created (like the delete discussion page) and if you remove the template that doesn't stop the AfD but it could complicate it. Now I'm seeing, in the template itself, instructions to delete the template if you have improved the article and feel like the template should come down. So now I'm confused, do we not discuss AfDs any more? Is this left up to the discretion of the editors on the page whether it gets deleted? This seems a little one-sided since I can't think of any editor that wants their article deleted. So I register confusion. Padillah (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There was not an AfD template on Le Zombie; there was a "prod" (proposed deletion) template. Prod templates are removed if the problem is addressed; AfD templates are not. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Clears up quite a bit. Padillah (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If they are really persistent, then post them anyway, with clear explanation of the pattern. Also: mention the pattern in the talk page of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padillah,

The sockpuppetry comment (with no evidence to support it) seems rather unfair. Any chance you'd consider removing it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

hi could you please help. Kurt Adkins is back editing again this time under User:Fred_the_Oyster 149.254.217.8 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same person from earlier this year is back using anon IP's to add unreliable sources to the Smiley face murder theory page. (The location of the IP is identical) I'm sure you remember the fun we had with that. And just when I thought we were done with drama with that article... Angryapathy (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that you should really be prod-warning User:TheThomas (who wrote the whole "woo-woo" article in one go yesterday), rather than User:Antmusic (who created it as a redirect back in January). I've already given him an explanation of why it wasn't great content for Wikipedia, so it'd be good to show another editor formally backing that up. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't really PROD-warn anybody, Twinkle did it all (and I guess just took the earliest editor from the history). I'll drop in on both and explain a little. Thanks again. Padillah (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now nominated the article for deletion, as it doesn't seem to be heading anywhere useful. Feel free to weigh in. --McGeddon (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what was in the previous sentence: Leonora Piper's first medium of communication between spirits and the sitter was called 'Phinuit': purportedly a French doctor, I guess you didn't read that! Mrs. Piper was a simple American middle class house wife. She never was a "professional medium," in the strict sense she had not advertised and charged a fee. Why remove this? Wow! Look what furbal did to Leonora Piper now. I am not going to waste my time trying to educate people who prefer to remain ignorant. Fare thee frigging well. Wikipedia. Sandra told me I should never have got involved with this experiment that I would only get hurt. Well, she was right. The uneducated still want to burn down the Library in Alexandia because they are afraid of knowledge and prefer to never challenge their comfort zones. In 200 A.D., this is before Christianity took over the Roman empire, history, geography, and science books were no longer composed. Censors diguising them selves as editors, I want nothing to do with them anymore. I figured Leonora Piper would be my last entry on the wikipedia, any way, I had covered all the others: Daniel Dunglas Home, Arthur Ford, Mina Crandon, Eusapia Palladino, Ingo Swann, and even Gary Schwartz, remote viewing and the Stargate Project. Book burners I just don't need them in my life anymore. It takes intelligence to create. It takes nothing but mindlessness to destroy. Adios. I have got a triple false cut, some classical guitar and many wondrous books to catch up on. Wikipedia is no longer FUN. That's what I get for trusting the male of the species. I have been beat up a lot more times by better people. Kazuba (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after this one! We have to keep our GA's to a higher standard, so we don't want people just posting anything on those (not that we want it anywhere, but it's more important to look out for the GA+ articles). BOZ (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...you'll be interested to know I'm doing it again (you'll see what I mean at the top of your page under "RFA" LOL) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it, thanks. Padillah (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is just a reminder that you have put yourself down as working on a audio version of the following WikiPedia article: Heroes_(TV_Series). If you do not wish to continue working on the article or have completed recording of the article, please remove your submission here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Recordings

The article will be deleted from the page in 7 days if there is no response.

Thank you --Fumitol (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. That article is simply changing way to often for my taste. I'll have to drop it. Padillah (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Padillah

Take a look now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.139.154 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. –Turian (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please inform me whom I am attacking. I am simply trying to communicate a policy violation to an editor. I have watched as two other editors tried, unsuccessfully, to communicate with this editor, so I tried to format the statement in a manner they might have responded to. How does this constitute an attack? Padillah (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You called me a vandal, when in fact, my edits were aimed at improving the wiki. WP:NPA. –Turian (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, if you read what was posted I said what you did was vandalism according to policy. I said nothing what-so-ever about you. I have never met you and I know nothing about you. What you did was considered vandalism. As such I have tried to warn you, per policy, about the edits that are regarded as vandalism. At no point did I refer to you as a person. Only what you did - your actions. Please understand, I have no intention of attacking you. I wish only to make sure you understand the technicality that you find yourself in. I don't want you blocked. I have no intention of editing the wrestling pages and, from what I understand, you are doing a fine job. I am simply trying to explain the technicality of the rules. Padillah (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have already discussed it on my talk page, I am making a detailed list of power stations in Iran, which does not exist on wikipedia (English). Please have patience till the process is complete and the data added gradually. I have added List of power stations in Iran, which did not exist on Wikipedia and all these pages, I am creating is related to that. Please do not waste my time by putting tags and messages which do not contribute towards betterment of the project. If you want to help, I suggest to help me add more data to articles by translation from Persian sources.--Irooniqermez (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is these power stations don't, in fact exist in Iran. They are all proposed power stations and as such qualify for deletion under WP:BALL. Please stop making articles on future dams and concentrate on dams currently in operation. There's much less push-back in this area. Padillah (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding your question: these are just some examples:

Franklin Dam Kalabagh Dam Red Sea dam The thing is the mere study of a dam or any structure of that caliber be it a plane, a locomotive, or a plan to go to Mars, is considered a portion of body of human knowledge which qualifies it an entry on any respectable encyclopedia.--Irooniqermez (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I am sorry that you have not even looked at the articles and the contents you wish to be deleted. On the page: [4], you mention the dams are in Iraq, where in reality the dams I am talking about are in Iran, which for your information is a different country altogether. No to devalue your efforts, but it shows you are not thorough enough. Have a good day.--Irooniqermez (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Or could it mean I have three other things I'm trying to get done and mistyped by one letter? Is your contention that these are in Iran and I'm simply misinformed? Then the argument still stands, I will correct the posts, but please, in the future, try to understand others limitations and try assuming some Good faith, it works much better than getting snooty. Padillah (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not be angry, I am just making a point here. The things you said specially the Good faith, stand valid for me too. I have not three, I have many other things to do and the time and effort I have put into creating the list in past 5 days, has been a drain for me. I do not expect you to appreciate it even a bit. But when you come to destroy it because you feel like that, then I have to make the point here. Do not take it personally. If you do not like that country for any reason or if you dont care for a letter, then go ahead delete everything and beyond. Who cares? If you expect others to understand you, I believe you should have understanding for others too. And for me a letter is a big thing. I appreciate that you are going to correct it. An encyclopedia should be accurate.--Irooniqermez (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, the "naked" females in the picture are not completely naked. Removing POINTLESS nudity is not "censure", it's called quality control.--81.174.47.212 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a sociological difference between the levels of clothing required to maintain a state of dress between males and females. If the pic were of a topless man it would hardly be representative of a "clothing-optional" choice. Topless women are viewed as, at least partly, unclothed. If you can find suitable pics of fully nude women sunbathing then, by all means, put them in the article. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Padillah. In this case, I agree with the removal of the male image, although for different reasons. I've outlined them on the talk page, but the gist of it is that a) the section doesn't need two images; b) the beach shot is better quality, better framed, and more importantly public (rather than "some guy on a deck); and c) the image contributor, based on his record at Commons, appears interested primarily in contributing nude shots of himself. If we wish to balance the image from a gender perspective, the solution lies in finding a singe image of equal quality features males and females, not in adding lower-quality images into a small section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created an AfD for Sexasaurus. A3 should not be used for a page you blanked yourself. If you think about it, this would allow anyone to bypass normal deletion processes by simply blanking a page. You should add your comments at the AfD about why you think it should be deleted. Here is the link Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexasaurus Gigs (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but I couldn't leave the redirect and G8 the page. I couldn't add any content to it, that's my main contention with the subject in the first place. How can I fill an article with content I don't think deserves to exist? I didn't know what else to do with it. Blank it a PROD it? Anyway, it's where it is now. Thanks for the PROD even though it looks as if you disagree. Good form there. Padillah (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't really disagree, we just need to follow the process. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Padillah, you had great timing - I was in the middle of granting Reviewer access to a whole slew of editors. I'm very happy to have included you in that bunch, and regretful that you had to ask - I wish they were granting that one automatically. I've also given you rollback rights. Please make sure to read through the instructions. Rollback will let you revert a string of edits from the most recent editor. For example, if user A makes a vandal edit, then user B makes a good edit, then user A makes 2 more bad edits, rollback would revert the most recent 2 edits from user A; it would not revert the first edit from A. Rollback does not give you the opportunity to put in an edit summary, so please be sure that you use it only for reverting blatant vandalism. Please also be careful - the link is often quite close to other, useful, links, and I've learned that it's really easy to click it accidentally. If you have any questions, let me know. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

nd out that my friend Chie Han was fooling around and posting everywhere that 'violin' was a curse word. Sorry if he did any damage.Fifteen501 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Fifteen501

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for setting me straight on some of the procedures around here. I'll try to be more careful. It is difficult when others use sources that are literally just printed copies of someone else's opinion, which often times are bogus and which often times quote from other authors that have done the same thing. Honestly, I'm not going suffer it to take upon myself to read all these salacious writings so that I can tell someone definitively that their source is bad. But I might introduce new source material that others have largely ignored or were just plain ignorant of (one would think the first place to compare written histories would be from the writings that the Church claims is history). Peculiarly, no one on this discussion page mentions that oddity. If you aim to disprove something then you need to be able to disprove the official histories of the Church first, and then reach into obscure authors. Isn't that how it should be? Another beef I have with these people is that they use an author "Richard Bushman" whom they claim could not be credibly called an anti-mormon. Nothing could be further from the truth. The absolute worst anti-mormons are either former Mormon's or are ones that have joined the church for the express purpose of having more clout in denouncing the Church. The writing of this Richard Bushman (which comprises the majority of the sources for the article) are exactly in line with typical anti-mormon literature. I go to church every Sunday and I've never read or heard of the things that he writes. The guy is a fake mormon so he can claim neutrality.

There should be a Wikipedia rule that one cannot claim neutrality of a source when that source is denounced by the people that source belongs to. I'm telling you Richard Bushman is dyed in the wool anti-mormon. Yes I read someone said he was a "stake patriarch" but just because he was high up doesn't mean he isn't against the church. Apostles have been known to fall away. Heck, even then Governor Lilburn Boggs was convinced to issue the mormon "extermination order" by a former mormon and once closest of friends with the leadership of the church. Everything Bushman says is both a perversion of the truth and puts a bitter taste in one's mouth about the Church. To say he is neutral is utter lunacy. That's how you get members of the Church coming on here ranting about the injustices occuring here.

How can an article be balanced if it is all based off of one author?? I don't care who the author is, if it only comes from one viewpoint then it is slanted. Why hasn't this raised a red flag with you? Steve200255 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. I do want to point out a couple things, the first being, when you post on a talk page try to use the headers (unless you are replying) it just makes it easier to separate peoples conversations. Two, you say "There should be a Wikipedia rule that one cannot claim neutrality of a source when that source is denounced by the people that source belongs to." in point of fact, there is. If you can provide contrast to the writings of Richard Bushman then, by all means, provide them. You are right to think we need more sources in the Joseph Smith (and, frankly, other Mormon) articles. But we've got to be careful that they are not proselytizing conversion pamphlets. Any source you bring has to be above reproach. And not above reproach to Mormons, but above reproach to anti-Mormons as well. Check out Jerald and Sandra Tanner, now they were basically anti-Mormon but they did extensive research disproving the Salamander Letter to the benefit of the Mormon church. Resources like them, that are proven to be impartial, are the best possible source. But they one overriding thing to remember when looking for a source is that you will have to present it to the WP community and they will attack it's veracity. So, be prepared. Know where your source is weak and be ready to speak to that weakness. Even if it's a simple What does that have to do with being Reliable?" be ready to defend. Also, keep in mind this is about sources and a rebuttal of those sources. NOT Mormonism, NOT you, NOT your religious views... Just the sources and the article. And if it ever stops being about the sources and the article, you tell me and I'll keep an eye on what's going on. I may not be an admin but I find working with people to much more effective than hitting them with things. That doesn't mean I'll come in on your side, it means I'll see what's going on and listen to both sides, and try to help. Other than that, anything you need, just ask. Padillah (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Padillah for straightening out the Bete Noire issue. I know no Church or individual is perfect, but unfair generalizations or inflammatory comments attacking the Church just keep the battle going. If you were to study modern Church administration practices (i.e. financial, procedural, legal, organizational, even technological) you would find an organization with an extremely high level of prudent social responsibility and integrity. You will find political, educational, and other faith leaders speaking of the Church with highest regard. So when it comes to volatile issues, lately I've been trying to stay out of the fray, but now and then I get pulled in to the rhetoric (my fault). This time I was coming to the defense of Steve. I know I'm supposed to have thicker skin, but there comes a time when you just get tired of turning the other cheek. I'll try harder in the future.

Also, I completely agree with your statement to Steve about being careful things are not proselytizing pamphlets. The challenge we have faced is that the reality is very possible that Joseph Smith was a sensitive man with integrity. That does not demand acceptance of the LDS Church. Let me explain. Let us say that Smith was kind to those who were less fortunate (in fact one record finds him in a meeting where a local family had lost their home and all were declaring their sympathy for the family. reportedly, "Joseph put his hand in his pocket, took out five dollars and said, ‘I feel sorry for this brother to the amount of five dollars; how much do you all feel sorry?" (Andrew J. Workman, in “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor, Oct. 15, 1892, p. 641).

So, the common approaches to this are;

1. Cynics of Smith see this as proselytizing because it "promotes" Joseph as an inspired man. 2. Critics offer evidence from enemies of Smith stating he lied about a land deal. Therefore the discussion is too debatable or divisive and so it is not included. 3. Critics identify the source as a publication of the Church (even though it was originally recorded by an individual's own history) and so it is rejected based on NPOV.

So, by selective process, the truth would be either replaced with error, contrary evidence, or simply avoided.

I understand that the article should not read,

"The Prophet Joseph demonstrated his Christian sensitivity when..."

Nor should it read,

"Enemies of Joseph accused him of ignoring the plight of (insert group) when (insert context)..."

But the statement,

"Friends close to Joseph saw him as a compassionate individual as evidenced in a recorded instance in which ..."

should be acceptable. My point is simply that just because an evidence paints Joseph in a positive light, it should not be dismissed as bias or proselytizing. Try reading the article as it stands, and then ask whether anyone would be even remotely likely to investigate the Church through its members because of what they read. But I bet there are a lot who would be turned off from further investigation based on what I feel is a more skeptical (not neutral) tone. So in relation to what you said, we should also be careful that this article does not turn into a proselytizing pamphlet for Mormon cynics (skepticism I get, not cynicism).

I think you would also agree that while all LDS proselytizing pamphlets paint Smith in a positive light, not all that portrays him in a positive light is of necessity proselytizing.

Sincere thanks,

173.180.112.66 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Hi, Padillah. Now John Foxe is accusing me of filibustering. This was never my intent. I am not asking you to do anything about that, this is clearly between he and I. I just want to find somewhere to express the unfairness of it all, and it seems better to do it here than on the discussion page where it only adds to the polarization of the discussion there. Thank you for NOT taking sides, that's the best anyone could ask for. I went to the dentist today. I think your role is similar. People only come to you when there is a problem, the problem is often complex and the clean-up messy, and no one thanks the dentist for the work when it's being done. And still, at least he gets paid a heck of a lot of money. The best you earn is a feeling of pride in what you do and the occasional award thingy.

So thanks for telling it like it is and being patient us all.

173.180.112.66 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Far be it from me to deny a man his rant. :) Thanks for keeping it off the talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello padillaH, I was wondering if you could take a look at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Mormon_sacred_texts. I believe the article Criticism of Mormon sacred texts should be deleted primarily because there are other articles dealing with each criticism listed. I have a lot of other reasons which I have listed in the AfD page. I was wondering what you thought? Thanks, --CABEGOD 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem contributing but my best advice would be to make a comprehensive list of articles regarding Mormonism and start at the top by correcting the hierarchy and then the contents. Please be absolutely sure you have citations and references for each and every change you make. If you want to change the way Mormonism is presented by Wikipedia, don't waste time with AfD's like this. Let's correct the problem in an orderly fashion and then, if we find no use for the article and it can't be saved... then we ask for an AfD. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take your advice and start from the top. That being said, I still believe the article is just a duplicate of other articles and should be removed. Thanks for your help. --CABEGOD 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has participated in revisions of Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) Series, I would like to draw your attention to the discussion on Season 8 regarding the inclustion of a nearly complete transcript of Chef Ramsay's views on the Signature Dish Challange. Thanks. Hasteur (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intrawar. Since you had some involvement with the Intrawar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Phoenixrod (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections. I'm only attempting to stem the flow of reference footnots and attempting to keep the page at least somewhat presentable. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And believe me - I appreciate the help. I've been trying to get these tables under some kind of control for almost a year. I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining about you, more like complaining about the fact that it takes two of us to get a summary table straight. Hope there's no ill. Padillah (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the RFC has concluded with only us expressing any thoughts, I have gone and implemented the RFC's guidelines on Season 1 to be Bold. If people come along and revert we can discuss and point at the RFC as why we're doing this and why they should have spoken up earlier in the process. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your edits to L.A. Noire , but I think I should point out that the article uses Australian English spelling, not American spelling. Wikiproject Video Games has a guideline that articles should use the version of English that matches the developer's nationality. The developers of L.A. Noire are Australian. - X201 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. since I'm not familiar with those spellings I'll have to leave the corrections to others. I'll know, going forward, not to correct spelling. Thanks. Padillah (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's no problem. What you've done with the Synopsis is great. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that fixed? I went to bed shortly after moving the article, before I realized I somehow sent the move through twice, overwriting the entire article's history. If there's anything I need to do, please let me know, and thanks for looking after this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Padillah, one of the big discussions (even Bushman agreed) of the past are that Joseph Smith's flaws exist but then the polemics have also stripped the article of his accomplishments. In this case John Foxe has attempted to strip the article of Adjwilley's fair proposal which states, "During his lifetime, he published the Book of Mormon, built cities and temples, and attracted thousands of followers..." In fact his proposal then goes on to include the divisions in the historic community. Why would anyone want to remove from the article's lead some of these main contexts? Adjwilley's original proposal is supported, fair, short, and succinct. I propose leaving it as is.--Canadiandy talk 15:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? "Though his character and achievements are widely debated..." That's worth noting? That's the most genial, lackluster, "almost-a-critique" as I've ever seen. The lead that Adjwilley proposed supports Smith in several aspects and then meekly mentions that he may have had some down sides according to some people. It's equivocating and says nothing. Heck the "character and achievements " of Christ " are widely debated" as well. You could say that about anybody or anything. How is that fair? How is that succinct? It's a way to get the Book of Mormon mentioned and to get credit for superlative acts that happened during his life. Foxe's proposal mentions Smith's religious leadership, his founding of the LDS church and his position as Prophet. Yet mentions none of the detractions that Adjwilley supposedly mentions. Why not stay with the shorter, actually succinct, lead? Padillah (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

First, according to LDS doctrine, Joseph Smith didn't "found" the church, Christ did, so this is actually POV. Yes, I also agree that Christ restored his church through Joseph Smith is POV which is why we need to be thoughtful in treating this matter with a mind to neutrality. Secondly, pointing out that Joseph Smith was a very polarizing figure is relevant. Billy Graham wasn't. Mother Teresa wasn't. In fact it is this strong polarization which has slanted much of the research available and made this article so hard to address in a fair and neutral manner. Third, Joseph Smith's being an LDS prophet is not unique considering that there have been 13 since. What is noteworthy is that he was the author of what is claimed to be God's revelations to ancient American prophets. I don't know many people who have done that. I'm fine with dropping the part about his achievements being widely debated, but ignoring his publishing the Book of Mormon is like dropping the ninety-five theses at the lead for Martin Luther. It seems to me that Adjwilley is doing an excellent job of presenting a neutral proposal which is both meaningful and fair. It would be a shame to run him out when he seems to be just what is needed. If you are suggesting Foxe is more fair-minded on this one I will be very disappointed.--Canadiandy talk 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the church has it's own doctrine but according to government records, Joseph Smith Jr. founded the LDS church. While Wikipedia may strive for neutrality raising dogma to the same status as reality is not quite neutral. I can find nothing in the Adjwilley lead that mentions his polarizing qualities. Besides, A description of those kinds of qualities would need to be much more extensive than a lead sentence allows. Third, since you brought him up, the lead sentence on Martin Luther does not, in point of fact, mention the Ninety Five Theses. It mentions his role in the Protestant Reformation and his being a theologian. I don't understand how you can feel that laying claim to being one of only 13 people in modern history is not slightly noteworthy. You do realize that there are 6.5 billion people on this planet, right? If all 13 prophets were currently alive they would constitute 0.0000002% of the entire population. There are more people with "one-in-a-million" diseases than there are prophets of the LDS church. I would hate to disappoint you. I don't mean to promote any editor over any other editor. I mean to say I think keeping the lead sentence short and direct is a better idea than trying to layer detail that would be better suited to the body of the lead. I have a sneaking suspicion there is a misunderstanding here on what is being presented. And I fully believe that this type of discussion needs to be had in the public eye of the Smith talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Third sentence at Martin Luther reads, "He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517." Maybe I misunderstand the word lead. I assume it means lead, or first, paragraph (I never said lead sentence). Sorry if I misunderstood. As to Adjwilley's lead proposal he wrote, "Though his character and achievements are widely debated...". That seems to mean he is a polarizing figure assuming debate is two-sided. My big question though is how anyone could drop The Book of Mormon from the lead. How is it not critically significant? --Canadiandy talk 19:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leading by example, Padillah. Sorry if I got pushy. What impresses me most here is your humble ability to recognize an honest mistake and then work to correct it. This is what the article needs, fewer apologists and polemics and more fair-minded and ethical contributors. I think Adjwilley is another such contributor and would hope you and he could tune out me and Foxe and possibly Avanu (all three of us seem to edit from a POV which is not helpful which is why I am avoiding editing and even discussing at the article page). Anyway, you deserve a Nobel. Heck I'd kill for a Nobel peace prize.--Canadiandy talk 01:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Padillah,

I'm working on the Hammock Camping article and would like to know what process we would need to follow to bring it to GA status. Never done it before.

Any tips?

--Canadiandy talk 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I've never done it either. Steps I would take are to find and fix any errors that I can see (if I can tell it's biased then it's really biased) then ask for a GA review. I think there's an actual list of Good Article Criteria. Padillah (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Start archiving the NP Talk page yet. As knarly as it is, it does have Smokefoot's, your, and V8rik's comments. If it is archived, I will be without this support (2 of 3 of you are scientists), and I will be forced to restate my case. And when I do that, the argument with Boghog will begin again—except lacking the three voices visible, that I just mentioned. Please do not archive, and so eliminate, the "lower volume" but critical additional voices. (See also reply in section immediately above.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

... Boghog has objected to my shading your text as heavy handed, and demanded I ask your permission. As I have said, it is being done, so new editors comments are not lost in the sea of counter-discourse between Boghog and I. Can I have permission to leave your comments highlighted, to make the new comments and questions easier to find, and easier to refer to? Thanks. (RSVP here.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. WP talk pages have worked fine for quite a awhile and I don't see many contributors complaining about loosing entries yet. I think it's best to leave well enough alone until there is an actual reason to change. Padillah (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If I cannot persuade you to allow this simple, neutral, minority-protective and practically useful tool, I will probably give up on this article, as my persistent opposing editor has stated is his wish. The ability to draw in new voices, and to allow those voices to hear one another, and to be able to point to them once their points are made (or supported)—this is near impossible otherwise, given the lengths of the sections and repetitive, side-stepping nature of the forms of argument taking place. If the new voices entering cannot be made foremost, and easily seen, then there is no hope here. And, frankly, as much as I esteem you for what you are trying to do here, it is a war of attrition being fought, and the expert voices needed have only begun to arrive. At some point, the opportunity cost of this activity, balanced against the likelihood that I can make a positive contribution (which appears to be narrowing again) overwhelms, and if it does, I have to let the persistent opposing editor have his way, though the message remains errant. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. I've never seen this "tool" used and I've edited religious talk pages, T.V. shows, Movies, and Palestine. There is always a way to hear others and you can always simply say "Like padillah said the other day". There, I pointed to another user. It can be very easily argued that this tool is simply used to give undue weight to statements you agree with and allows you to point new participants to sections of text that agree with your point. It could also be argued that changing other users talk comments (even in as simple and innocuous a form as this) is tendentious editing. There's just too much that could go wrong with this type of approach. I really do hope you stay with the article, I need someone that actually knows what they are talking about. I can only provide a third opinion, you have to provide the first. Padillah (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The graying is over every person's comments besides me or Boghog, and so it permits no bias toward or against my views. (The only exceptions being persons declining permission. If you decline, it begins a trend I cannot fight.) Bottom line, highlighting, as when done with book reading, allows critical content to be "lifted above" the vast morass of remaining content. I view every outsider's utterance to be such critical content. Last try—may I leave yours highlighted (grayed)? If not, all graying comes out, and the progress will suffer for it. There is no bias in its use, you can check me—but bias against smaller voices will ensue if it is removed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear on what you mean, Pad — leave well enough alone (with gray highlighting in as it is), or remove highlighting? Have one last look before replying. The goal is not to allow newcomer comments to be overwhelmed by the at odds discussants. I want Smokefoot, Doc, your comments to pop, because it breaks up the wall, and allows people to get at the issues more quickly. One last look, and then "keep the highlighting or "lose the highlighting"? Give me a minute to update before checking. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant ot loose the highlighting. I meant to leave the talk entries as they are when they are made. The easier way to keep the page legible for others is to keep comments and responses as small as possible. Don't wait to respond to several points, respond to them as they arise. This also helps keep the discussion from wandering around too much and loosing focus. Also, don't use more text than necessary to explain your point. Now, that last has to be tempered with the knowledge that you are explaining high-level chemistry concepts to neophytes (at best) so there may be some explanation required. But even then, let the other party ask for clarification rather than assuming they don't know and over-expounding a topic. Padillah (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

For future reference -- {{db-u1}} tags stuff in your userspace for deletion. MER-C 14:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while and all I really had was Twinkle tools. I knew there was a way to delete userspace stuff, I just couldn't remember it. Padillah (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

…in any sense in future, but it comes after seeing this Admin make a comment to another Admin, suggesting that I refused to answer his questions (a repeated claim, repeatedly responded to at the time): [5]

Letting you know, only because it contains statements of great respect for your dedication and ultimate role (please take no offense at statement regarding zero subject expertise). The truth is, apart from you, there was no progress, and there would have been no help at all for this article in the month of this conflict. Thank you, and please, maintain hope for the article, for its best. I am giving it one last effort, but am ready, after this Admin's intervention (and the long history of the other editor's refusal to budge) to leave this article, and even WP, out of exhaustion. Yes, you pried the boulder loose, and it has begun to roll. But with only two persons involved (no other experts recruited), we are likely to end again at an impasse, a 1-to-1 vote, with no others to resolve it. This is not to complain to you—you at least engaged. This is simply to admit I am tired of it all, and I may not last to see a good article here. TY, regardless, however it may end, for your sincere and wise effort. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I closed it because I (and most of the others, apparently including you) felt that the discussion needed to end. I did not request formal closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Also, the consensus for the change was what was lacking. The majority of participants were opposed to the change. That's a clear consensus, as far as determining whether the discussion should remain open goes. At this point, I'm responding here precisely because I don't want that to continue any further. I don't think anyone who isn't in favor of removing the word wants that. I would appreciate it if you'd move your comments to the inside of the closure tag, so as not to provoke any continuance of the argument. I don't feel comfortable editing your comments myself, unless you specifically tell me it's okay. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I see you just did that. Thank you, I appreciate it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that that discussion (much like this one) is continuing out of, what appears to be, a lack of notice on your part to the fact that no one is, in fact, contradicting you. By announcing "closure" you are putting hand-cuffs on a dead man. Yes, he broke the law but... at this point nobody else cares. The most productive way to "close" a conversation is to simply stop having it. If the other person keeps going then you need to read their reply and respond to it. NOT to what you think it says. I never expressed an opinion one way or the other about the subject other than to ask that the conversation stop since it consisted mostly of people agreeing with each other. There was no argument, there were only people agreeing with each other and not listening to others who were agreeing back. Padillah (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I know this is out of your field, but as a layperson, your objectivity and perspective have been welcome in the past. Please see these two sections, and feel free to comment: [6] and [7]. THis is highly technical stuff. I am looking for an opinion from a non-chemist, Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts. The article is in much better shape for your having taken the time. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 07:17, 20 August 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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Padillah! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)