Hey. Do you mind if we delete that page? It seems to have become a cesspool of national-ethnic-racist hatred. Or do you prefer protecting a particular version of it? I just am not sure it is such a great idea if it isn't vigorously monitored. Please respond here, if you don't mind. Thx. El_C 11:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No probs, I deleted it myself. Grue 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
i just picked you at random off the list of admins, this guy had his last warning on Oct 21, and just went back and vandalised Johnny Vegas again on Oct 22, can you block it please. Cheers, King of the NorthEast (T/C) 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Grue, I've no axe to grind against Bigwig (band), but how is notability asserted in the discography section per WP:MUSIC? If those hits charted, the discography needs to say so; there are no links to evidence that. Help me out here! - Fayenatic(talk) 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Point 5 says: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Kung Fu and Fearless are important indie labels, well known within punk community. They also had national tours (point 4), and probably satisfy point 7. I am baffled why you felt the need to prod the article on this band, when the talentless crap like this or this is a far better target. Grue 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It would help if the discography stated whether the releases were singles or albums. I found the article because I was disambiguating links to Zak, and found this article: full or redlinks; apparently self-contradicting re "steadily gaining popularity" and "five-year hiatus"; and completely unreferenced. Touring with other bands does not make them notable - notability is not inherited. Anyway, point 5 is sufficient, for notability, thanks.
However, please improve the other aspects that I've mentioned. - Fayenatic(talk) 11:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. looks like someone wasn't too happy that I sent his template creation to TFD! Grutness...wha? 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed one of your userspace subpages for deletion because I think it's pretty obviously an abuse of your user space. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can realistically argue that you aren't attacking identifiable people. You put a link to your user page on Template talk:Spoiler, and in responding to one of my comments on the deletion discussion you said "I can see how you may be offended by this page, Tony. Truth hurts." You have thus (and I didn't appreciate this at first) explicitly singled out me as one of the targets of your personal attacks. I ask you to stop indulging in personal attacks on me and on other people. I do offer to engage in mediation with you if you have an issue with any of my actions with respect to the deleted template. This would enable us to resolve our differences in the spirit of Wikipedia, where (believe it or not) we are supposed to be collaborating on the same side, to produce an encyclopedia. Passing it off as satire won't do. You've made some extremely serious allegations here and you appear to be acting calculatedly to maximize the damage caused, whilst so far taking no steps towards dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary it looks to me that you have inadvertently targeted yourself. Prior to this MfD I wasn't aware of your active participiation in Template:Spoiler disputes. If you indeed have used the tactics described in User:Grue/howto, then I believe this is very bad. I don't however have any evidence of you pursuing these tactics (though I can easily dig some on other users, which were prototypes for that page). In trying to delete the howto, you're only painting a red X on yourself. So I think the best course of action for you would be to retract the MfD and try to not associate yourself with that page anymore. Grue 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well I think you should apologise for your insinuation that I've engage in such tactics ("the truth hurts"). If you think that somebody who thinks your user page is an abuse has, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, "painted a red X" on himself, you're probably not taking Wikipedia policy Assume good faith very seriously. For the same reason I'll ignore your suggestion that I retract the MFD. I again extend an offer of mediation on this matter. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You were the first to breach WP:AGF by labeling my subpage as "personal attack" in edit summaries on Talk:Spoiler. Since you understood this page as a personal attack against yourself, I could only conclude that my subpage describes something that hints at your behavior in spoiler disputes, because other than that the subpage doesn't mention any specific people or situations. I could only see it as a "confession" from your part. If this was a misunderstanding, I apologize. But then I don't understand why you were trying so much to hide this page, first by deleting it from Talk:Spoiler and now trying to delete it completely. If the page doesn't concern you, why are you so intent on deleting it? Grue 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have been basing your comments on a faulty diff, resulting in your incorrect assertion that I deleted most of the article. I'm sure you'd want to correct that mistake. ·:· Will Beback·:· 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There was an intermediate blanking, but you used the edit summary "rv, stubbify" which probably means that this edit could be seen as two edits: first revert blanking and then "stubbify". Well, as the diff shows, the stubbifying part deleted most of the article, which is what I pointed out in the AfD. Grue 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That was over a year ago. You implied that I actually deleted stuff in preparation for the AFD. If you want to restore any information, and can find sources for it, then do so. But if we can't find anything notable about the person we should delete the article. ·:· Will Beback·:· 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
At Talk:Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem you wrote that but actually it is equal to 2cos(1), so your counterexample is not valid. JRSP (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Grue, I am wondering, how can we turn the tide of deletionism? It seems like we've been losing ground. I think that inclusionist admins can help by restoring improperly deleted articles but I think they are outnumbered, and policy changes have not been working in our favor. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know, I know... I also was a KoL player when I was adminned :) Grue 11:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Grue/Politics of South Park, is an interesting article that I came across randomly, could there not be a article on this topic? Lobojo (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there was, but it was deleted. South Park Republican has some remnants of what was once a good coverage of South Park politics on Wikipedia, but alas, deletionists have turned it all into pathetic stub. Grue 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was not undoing the merge because the article wasn't merged. There are two outcomes of AfD, keep or delete. That one was keep, so I'm keeping the content. It's up for editors to decide where the content should be, and it really makes no sense to have a redirect to a page which doesn't even mention Amulet of Yendor. Basically your edit made the least sense of all possible outcomes, so I reverted it. Grue 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true. From Rogue (computer game): "The goal is to fight one's way to the bottom, retrieve the Amulet of Yendor, then ascend to the surface. Until the amulet is retrieved, the player cannot return to earlier levels." Pagrashtak 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Nethack basically says the same thing too. At the very least, the article which Amulet of Yendor would redirect to should have a paragraph on which games it's encountered in, what does "Yendor" mean and so on. I'd write it myself, but I'm currently abroad and my Internet access is pretty limited. Grue 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged it into Roguelike. (diff). This might be a better location, since the Amulet appears in multiple games. Pagrashtak 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to intrude here, but shouldn't (apparently controversial) merge actions such as this be more widely discussed first? D. Brodale (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case, no. The discussion took place months ago, and given that Grue restored the article, any potentially controversial merge should be open to discussion. I question its inclusion within Roguelike. The merge is an awkward fit, and the level of detail is out of place within an article meant to discuss the genre as a whole. D. Brodale (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The only reason Grue restored it was because he felt it was not covered enough in the Rogue article—not because he opposes a merge. If the level of detail is out of place, the solution is to compress it within the article. I have absolutely no objection to that. Pagrashtak 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's start at the beginning. Am I correct in assuming that we all generally agree that the amulet should not have a stand-alone article? If so, we should decide where to best place the content. Possibilities include Roguelike and Rogue (computer game). Any other suggestions? Pagrashtak 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I must apologize for hijacking what seems to have been a private conversation. To answer your question, I cannot speak for Grue, but I believe that the AoY at present cannot stand as its own article, as it lacks clear notability of its own. The content of the article (now merged) includes a broad claim of lasting inclusion in several games as an end-game objective, but the supporting evidence is that this is only true for Rogue (and immediate derivatives) and Hack/NetHack (the former morphed into the latter). Mention of Kingdom of Loathing is nothing more than a name-check. The User Friendly reference relates to the AoY in context of NetHack, an irregular thematic element within the strip. What remains is an unsourced claim regarding the origin of the Amulet's name. If anything, I suppose, the naming claim could be merged into the article on Rogue (pending proper referencing) and the remaining bits merged into Mythology and fiction in NetHack. I remain unconvinced that it belongs in the article on the roguelike genre, as it's an in-game object particular only to a handful of games. D. Brodale (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary, there's really no such thing as a private conversation on a wiki, and for good reason. I don't have as much experience in this matter as you or Grue, and have just been trying to merge as best I can. I'll support whatever merge you two think is best. Also, claims that have been marked as unsourced for a significant period can be removed, if you believe that would lead to improvement. Pagrashtak 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fuskerlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that User:Abd and I have found the solution to the problem of deletionists taking over the process through participation bias in which they win deletion debates because of their greater willingness to spend time on deletion debates while we're busy creating articles. See Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Under this system, fellow inclusionists might designate you as proxy so that you could speak on their behalf in deletion debates and other discussions. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
i noticed the fab picture of the dwarves at london monto and was just wondering if you had any more? i was right down the front and had the best time ever....then lost my camera...doh!!!
so maybe u could possibly email them to me? [email protected], if not maybe give me a location where i could view them?
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Politics of South Park, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note),
DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Grue. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not for you (or me) to decide. It was deleted just a few months ago with clear consensus that the band was non-notable. If you really feel that the band deserves an article, put it up at deletion review, unless of course you feel like the deletionist cabal will get you :-D
PS In the future, please at least briefly rationalize any deletion/undeletion in the comments section. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The article was nominated for speedy-deletion, which is why I found it. The AfD is less than 4 months old, and yes, I did my research, and I still believe the article is non-notable, otherwise I would have filed the deletion review myself. A good portion of the article was unreferenced, and most if not all of the sources that were used were blogs or band-created sites such as this and this.
I'm completely in favor of using common sense to undelete an article if new info comes to light, but I could find no notable sources for the article, and the overwhelming consensus was to delete. Like I said, if you truly believe it satisfies Wikipedia:ARTIST, go ahead and file Deletion review. Discussion is never a bad thing, and it will take all of 15 minutes. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Grue/ethics, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Grue/ethics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you re-deleted the cross-namespace redirect at Unusual Articles. I just wanted to let you know that a discussion at deletion review is underway about the original deletion of that redirect (and other redirects that were deleted at the same time), in case you were not aware of the discussion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 10). Calathan (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Not sure how I found this, but since its free speech zone, might as well give you some advice.
This is clearly an encyclopedic article, however it has a poisonous line early in. Anything referencing or involving Newgrounds as a creator is likely untrue. Newgrounds, in more that just the beheavior of its users, is the /b/ of games. It popularizes things, but rarely creates them. Now mind you, I have the personal bias of hating NG, but I urge you to look into the history of Roflcopter, because I doubt anything remotely interesting actually origionated on NG. Nuclear Lunch DetectedHungry? 14:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Had to smile at your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. "Absolutely this bullshit has got to stop." amen. amen. Thanks. Ikip 10:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.
Regardless, it was kept by RFD, and pages which have survived deletion discussions aren't eligible for speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually it was added less than an hour after the discussion started,[1] and was mentioned specifically by the closer's statement and by nine people in the discussion. There's no rule which says terms have to be used by valid sources to exist as redirects. Hut 8.5 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In order to resolve the debate here before the wheel war fully takes off, I have listed it here: [[2]]. Your input would be welcome, I have provided a summary of what seems to be going on in the scenario from my third-party view, but may be missing important context, thus I would be glad for you to give a statement clarifying reasons for deleting/keeping. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As an additional note, I recreated the page and tagged it, for the purpose of allowing non-admins to see exactly where the target was, and to allow those who may randomly use it to have a chance to participate. You may wish to slightly tweak the wording of your comment at the RfD as a result. Apologies for any inconvenience, --Taelus (Talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete the larkin wiki page?? Please don't delete stuff for no reason. Youy erasing peoples work idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't deleted anything in years. Grue 10:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I am writing this in regards to an article deleted under your supervision, "Anti-Basque sentiment".
I understand that the original Anti-Basque sentiment was a biased politically motivated page. But that's not to say that something better can't be written. Given the history of the region and current (or less current) events, can we honestly believe that there has NEVER existed ANY irrational anti-Basque sentiment ANYtime, ANYwhere? It simply seems rather implausible. By checking shortly my edit history you might notice, along the fact that most probably I'm not the most skilled or knowledgeable editor, so you might notice also that I'm not Spanish or Basque. It just seems to me that it is a valid article on discrimination.
Of course there might be rational enmity for some Basque individuals or organisations but I simply can't belive that there's no anti-Basque sentiment in Spain and there has never been. I recooment writing something general first like "Anti-Basque sentiment [or Vascophobia] is an irrational hatred, fear, enmity or distrust towards Basques." On the net indeed are few sources (but there are some sources mentioning actually anti-Basque sentiment in the American West of all places!!! [sic]), but surely somebody somewhere sould find better sources.
I am interested generally in discrimination because my people have been involved in the Holocaust and, although my direct ancestors are not culpable, I do feel some guilt over this (because my country was late to admit this historical truth). So I often read articles on discrimination and irrational phobias for ethnic groups as I'm interested in the subject.
Omulurimaru (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that I'm here and I've taken a look at your page I wish to officially request the deletion of the page Nefertiti. Nefertiti is sexually very attractive and gives people lewd thoughts and hardons (at least she does to me). I think that is disrespectful to Nefertiti and to the entire Egyptian people.
Of course I'm being SARCASTIC (since you said it's a free speech zone, I thought I might indulge). [and I could have told that about a number of living... females but I've decided to be dandy]
Seriously, you are doing a great job with the whole "ethical" bunch. They have no bloody idea of what ethics means...
Omulurimaru (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the owner of the DancesWithGrues account, which is being blocked on suspicion of being a troll account to harass you. I don't know anything about these quarrels and would like to use this name. Would you have any objection to this? If not, I would be grateful if you could have a word with Jpgordon to assure him that I mean no harm. Thanks. Captain Feeney (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I unblocked you, but please don't try to sockpuppet with multiple usernames that you have or whatever. Grue 20:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I just want to start a fresh account, and have no intention of causing trouble. Captain Feeney (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)