No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Arbitration matters[edit]

SimonP vs -Ril-[edit]

In reaction to your "Reject. Premature; this is still a content dispute." I'd just like to point out that it also includes an important behavioral matter. SimonP is alleged to ignore consensus and attempt ownership of articles. -Ril- is alleged to be a POV-pushing troll. >Radiant< 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man[edit]

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DA[edit]

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man ban[edit]

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else[edit]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography[edit]

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections[edit]

By all means steal the layout of the page. You might even have a guess as to whom I'm going to support or oppose ... David | Talk 14:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göring[edit]

The quote only acheived widespread currency in the wake of the war in Iraq, as a criticism of the Bush administration. It's validity can be checked at Snopes, as you know, so its inclusion here is POV. I'll let it stay for now, though.--Jbull 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your vote on my arbcom nomination[edit]

Hi, I saw you voted oppose due to my candidacy statement and/or my answers to the questions presented.. I think you have a fair comment, and I have expanded on my replies to questions already given as well as adding more info into my candidacy statement and answered some new questions. I would be grateful if you could re-read my questions page. If you have any additional questions or inquiries please add them to that page or ask me on my talk page and I will answer them as soon as I possibly can. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Vote[edit]

Hi Mackensen,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent.

I hope this is not solicitation to you, and thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote regarding your candidacy[edit]

The election period may have 12 days to run, but loading pages, reading statements, determining a vote, loading an edit page, editing that page, saving that page, confirming the vote cast, has already taken four hours and is less than half done. A demos is the root word of democracy. I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to read the questions page of any candidate, particularly one who cannot express themselves adequately in 250 words. Had the number of candidates been below 20, I may have had the opportunity to persue candidates to the extent of their user page and or electoral questions. Fifelfoo 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My neutral vote[edit]

Why I am willing to spend more time than Fifelfoo's to review each candidate, I too have a limited inclination / attention span. As you have since admitted, your election statement is too short / not catching enough (policy wise etc.) to convince me to vote for you. Then in quickly scanning the questions page, your candidacy is not helped by the fact that you enter into the contest late thus having a limited number of Q&A I can base my decision on. And while I like what I managed to gather, I wasn't convince, which explain the lack of an Oppose vote.

Now having looked into all of your statements and response in more details, I would like to know (in a short paragraph if you could please) how you would be carrying out the apporach that you have specify in your recent response to Fifelfoo. In readily willing to write a separate opinion, the chance that the rest of the committee could just ignore you knowing if you were to disagree, you would "just" write an opinion piece. Like-wise with your willingness to recurse yourself (not saying it's a bad thing), the possibility that someone could just go and find some remote indirect interaction in the past to get you off the case. -- KTC 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox[edit]

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage[edit]

Hello, I've rather cheekily added my name to the Peerage Project. I have two questions, which I probably (mis-)placed on the Hereditary Peerage Talk page. Here Can you provide me with the answers? Avalon 01:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gardner[edit]

Hi. I found you essay of why that was obviously a fraud quite interesting. I have therefore moved it to the talk page, where I think it belongs. I hope you don't mind (feel free to revert if you do). - Liberatore(T) 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soames and JackHearne[edit]

I think they are almost certainly clueless newbies, but I know Soames (Forsyte?) has been mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard for disruptive page moves when he insisted that all articles on life peers should include the peerage as part of the article title. He did eventually stop doing this, but his reluctance to get involved in talk pages makes it difficult to communicate. The two have editing patterns which are very similar. There are presumably ways to get their attention. David | Talk 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gardner #2[edit]

That's ok about the links. You might see my comments at User talk:Madame Sosostris. It was just a gut feeling, that's why I asked for a second opinion. Anyway, cheers! --DanielCD 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl's user page[edit]

If you search for my name on his talk page, you'll find that I informed him of the fair use policy twice. Also, the page was protected to avoid vandalism, not due to a content dispute of whatever sort (and I edited it to uphold policy, not to participate in an edit war or install a POV). I'm not going to revert your rollback, in any case. -- Pak aran 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PeerBox[edit]

Is this template still needed? Can it be (speedy) deleted? -- Netoholic @ 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you go the honors, or tag it with {{db|reason}}? -- Netoholic @ 13:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Thanks for your reply and for pointing me towards the expanded statement. I'm afraid I have to maintain my opposition - simply put, I think your statement demonstrates insufficient respect for the sort of quick and principled decision making that Wikipedia relies on. It is not that users with experience should automatically be given leeway, but people who are trying their best and on the front lines of disputes should be given a leeway to make good faith mistakes. And mistakes should be taken, if not as preferable to paralysis, at least as a viable alternative.

I'm also somewhat concerned about the idea that arbitrators should all post justifications for all decisions, but I suspect this is an idea you would quickly become disabused of on the committee itself. :) Phil Sandifer 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy[edit]

Hi, where did you get the death date for Henry Fitzroy, I note that the Dictionary of National Biography also says 22nd Dec 1859, but the edition of The Times from Saturday 20th Dec 1859 clearly says he died the previous Tuesday, i.e. 17th. Jooler 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well given that the date of the newspaper pre-dates the supposed death, unless reports of his death were greatly exaggerated, which seems unlikely, I suspect that the various other sources might have picked up the date of his funeral by mistake. Jooler 07:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annandale[edit]

Thanks for the catch and revision on the Marquessates page. Bo 20:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)bo[reply]

Harsh?[edit]

I wouldn't worry about it. I was trying to steer the individual away from sockpuppet creation for voting and to actually paying attention to our guidelines. Jkelly 00:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apollogies[edit]

I was mislead by the edit summary, and since I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you yet, I thought it was a blanking attempt - I realized right after you re-reverted. My apollogies, Mac. Cheers, – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Raby[edit]

I was looking for more information on this title. List of baronies contains Raby only as a 19th century title but there was a de Neville who was Baron Raby at least by 1294. The list also contains no sources which is sure to become more of an issue. How can I find the original creation of Raby? Rmhermen 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first "First Baron Raby" appears to be Ranuph de Neville, probably created between 1280 and 1294. Henry Percy's wife was the daughter of the 2nd baron. The 1st Earl of Westmoreland was the fifth Baron Raby. So it is not an insignificant title. Rmhermen 01:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Era Nobles[edit]

You might want to comment on this at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk Humanities section. Rmhermen 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wappen-stadt-bonn.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wappen-stadt-bonn.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.

The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Noble[edit]

For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

~~My condolences~~ Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'm still in a state of shock...Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good show! El_C 02:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Congratulations! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring[edit]

Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject (summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. R adiant _>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayment[edit]

In the context of verifibility and sourcing I doubt the site is a reliable source. Thank you for your note, but I propose we continue this discussion at TfD. --Perfecto 02:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview[edit]

Hello, Mackensen/Archive7. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bedford[edit]

So what exactly is notable there then? Please see my recent (very recent) post on Proteus's page for my views. Giano | talk 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, now you've done it[edit]

You've removed The Right Honourable from Tony Blair's intro. Be prepared for a bit of a punch-up if certain editors spot it. Don't say I didn't warn you! ;-) David | Talk 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles clarification[edit]

Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, Mackensen, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't, I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Sockpuppety[edit]

We can all see that, from your interview for the recent Signpost article that you are an blantant sockpuppet of Morven. :-) The proof:

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?

Mackensen (MC): I'm honored that the community granted me that opportunity and I hope that I won't let them down. I said right after the election that I was in a state of shock and it still seems a little unreal.

Morven (MO): It would be fair to say I was thoroughly shocked that I got so much support. I never expected that; hoped for it, of course. I'm still feels a little unreal.

3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?

MC: In both cases, that I'm not taking it personally.

MO: That in both cases I hope I exceed expectations.

In all seriousness though, congratulations on your election to the Arbitration Committee, and I wish you good luck and godspeed with all the work you wil no doubt face there. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone listening ?[edit]

I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [1] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Dynevor[edit]

Good morning. I hope I can impose on you for assistance. I've been attempting to make a start in filling in the blanks by writing stubs/minor articles for each of the Barons Dynevor who do not yet have an entry. (Score - 2 previously done, 5 done by me, 2 to go). Walter FitzUryan Rice, 7th Baron Dynevor is one of the articles previously written. He was born "Rice" but, as the fashion for "Welshness" hit he adopted the previous Welsh form of "Rhys". Should I move the article to Walter FitzUryan Rhys, 7th Baron Dynevor or leave it where it is? Avalon 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetage[edit]

Thanks for the message you left. I actually came across a couple of problems whilst I was doing it: the remaining entries under C, E, M and P on Category:Baronets do not appear to marry up to actual Baronetcies that I can find a reference to. The source I was using was Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page. I was wondering if you might know any other way of resolving this seeming problem? --New Progressive 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McAlpine[edit]

What you see there was a result of me splitting [2] this page. It appears I realised my initial mistake in that he wasn't the oldest son of the fifth Baronet (and therefore isn't the sixth Baronet), however neglected to remove the category. Feel free to modify it as you see fit. Morwen - Talk 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hacking[edit]

1938 Baronetcy for Douglas Hacking is shown in Who Was Who, which was my main source for the article--George Burgess 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent efforts[edit]

For your efforts in removing some things best done without, I award you this barnstar! —Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sea of red! I suspect it won't last—but it's still a marvelous sight. —Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

If this about the userbox template which I deleted last night, it was speedy deleted per CSD T1. I've nothing further to say on the matter. Best wishes, Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletions[edit]

"That's all well and good. Now, go ahead and explain why I aided in the deletion and we'll see how far your remarks get you." What did you delete that you thought my comments were applicable to? JDoorj a m Talk 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

"The box in question clearly expresses a sentiment contrary to established policy, the wishes of Jimbo, and sheer common sense". Wow, I didn't expect to hear something like that from an arbitrator. Do you believe articles should be POV? Or maybe you believe that expressing people's view on Wikipedia should be banned? In my opinion, this userbox exactly restates current estabilished policy and it's sad to see that some new users understand Wikipedia policy better than some members of ArbCom. Grue 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion isn't bizarre. Outside of article space POV is a fair game, and always was. Speedy criterions, especially those created without prior discussion and forming of consensus are not the absolute truth, and certainly don't give a permission for people to delete things that the community doesn't want to see deleted. T1 is so vague, I can delete almost any template because of it (for example PR of China authority would certainly find Template:Republic of China infobox inflammatory). When there is no consensus whether a speedy criterion is applicable, it's community that decides what should be kept and what's not. Grue 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy peerages[edit]

Dang! I'll go revert myself. Choess 18:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, do sons of peers without courtesy peerages (like Lord Henry Lennox) get the definite article or not? Choess 18:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm back[edit]

Don't go. David | Talk 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? At least come and talk. --Doc ^ask? 22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

OK, thanks for clearing that up about the conservative party and democratic party userbox templates. Didn't quite understand the difference between a template or a userbox. ConDem 03:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work[edit]

I came across you, and looking at your contribs, I'm pleased and impressed. The English Peerage section of Wikipedia is certainly one of our most complete and well-made sections, and you seem to be a useful and valuable part of that. Good work! I, for one, appreciate it, and encourage you to continue as long as you are able. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

my comments regarding userboxes.[edit]

First off, I just noticed that my German was off, so i'm not really saying anything. Second, sieg heil: The German-English translation means "hail victory". The Nazi meaning is "we will win".

I believe we WILL win our fight to keep the userboxes. At the rate the deletions are going, this IS, to me, a war. Coolgamer 17:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean it in the same context. It's so often used that way it's what you think of, though. I did it on purpose in an attempt to convey sarcastic disapproval towards not only the rapid deletion, but the "war" attitude. Seriously, it's Wikipedia, and we're all fighting each other. Sarcasm does not commit to text well, and i've changed most of my old text to different statements. Coolgamer 18:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man and DA[edit]

I see you voted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the 6-month ban of T-Man. I feel I am much to blame for his behaviour, and I truly believe that given a chance he will not again act inappropriately. Probation gives the admins sufficient control over him (and me) in case we step out of line again. I really feel badly for T-man and the current situation, and I fear a 6-month ban will mean a possible permanent loss of this obviously talented and comic-knowledgable individual. Dyslexic agnostic 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you deserve it![edit]

I award you the **"what's-missing-in-the picture? non barnstar"**! -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GG of Canada[edit]

I agree that the text of our article is similar to that on the Canadian government's site; I would note that their date of posting is last September, while Adam Bishop wrote the main text of our article in August of 2003. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You had me thinking there for a bit, but then I remembered what tipped me off to the similarity. Both Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon and Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough credit the site involved by saying: Adapted from http://www.gg.ca at the bottom. --Martyman-(talk) 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] There's the version the article would have been copied from.

The text is a pretty close match between the old version and our article when it was first created. You just have to fish around a little as the parragraphs have been re-ordered and several sentances left out. In my opinion the changes made are nowhere near considerable enough to get around copyright infringement. --Martyman-(talk) 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of that dumb category with the vice presidents[edit]

Why close a deletion review early? There were people in the discussion calling for "letting the DRV take its course." To my mind, this makes sense, because the closing admin at CfD tagged the category as "no consensus" and then it was deleted. That's inappropriate. No consensus defaults to "keep," not "delete," and people were trying to discuss that.

Also, you closed the deletion review with the wrong template. The template you closed the deletion review with suggests that, for further discussion, the discussion should be taken to deletion review. Closing a DRV early with a suggestion that further discussion be taken to deletion review makes even less sense than closing a CfD with no consensus and then deleting the category.

Please consider reopening the DRV so people can have their say. Premature closure of a DRV because the conclusion is "obvious" makes everyone who can't see the "obvious" conclusion feel like they're being ignored. Prolonged discussion, on the other hand, doesn't hurt anyone. (And while I see your obvious point, which is that there was a consensus to delete and therefore the category was deleted, I have serious issues with the way it was handled by the closing admin. You're not supposed to be careless and write no consensus when what you mean is consensus to delete. Deletion policy is confusing enough for people who are new to it, even without allowing this kind of sloppiness.)

-ikkyu2 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand your answer was left in good faith. I'm assuming you're aware that the guy who closed the CfD as no consensus actually never did delete the category, and that the admin who actually did delete the category got reverted and then redeleted it, which almost looks like wheel warring; and that that abnormality of process was what the DRV was called about, not the eventual outcome (which would be to leave the category deleted). My impression was that DRV exists to discuss irregularities of process, not the outcome of CfD's, but I am assuming that your answer means you don't think these irregularities are worth discussing. And since you're a bureaucrat, that sort of trumps my 6 months trying to understand how this crazy and wonderful Wikipedia works :) --ikkyu2 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re your re-write of the style references in the MoS. You deleted the reference to the style infobox without debate. That was added in as per the agreement that stopped the style wars last year. It had a consensus behind it and was to provide a practical alternative to those determined to start articles with styles. Your deletion is now being used as a justification to delete those boxes. Their deletion in turn risks re-opening the whole edit war fiasco again, because other users have said that if the boxes are removed they will return to the previous format even though that is contrary to the MoS format. Please reinsert the reference to the box. It took months to stop the mess. Having the consensus format in the MoS was one of the conditions some of the warring factions set for accepting the compromise. In deleting it without discussion you risk reopening edit wars over hosts of articles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1852 general election[edit]

Hey, I've now copied out a list of all the MPs elected in 1852 into Word, and am in process of trying to identify them. If you'd like, you can email me, and I can reply and send you the file to take a look at. I'm not really sure how to go about identifying all of them - a fair number are in the ODNB, but the majority are not. Also, how on earth does one identify an "independent tory radical" representing Birmingham? john k 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I've been going through the ODNB - I'll try to get everyone I can from that. Presumably, everyone voting for the budget can be identified as a Conservative, no? john k 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predigtstuhl Aerial Tramway[edit]

Thank you for cleaning this up! That is the optimal outcome of a {{prod}} process for a page like this. Of course I could (and maybe should) have cleared this up myself, but Babelfished articles annoy me so much that I usually can't make myself do that. Kusma (討論) 03:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2[edit]

Hi, not sure whether it counts as "no solicitation" if I'm asking you to offer a view opposing to mine; if it does, I apologise in advance, but I noticed that you commented in support of Ta on WP:AN/I, so I'd appreciate your comments here. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August von Mackensen[edit]

You know that your image of August von Mackensen has been removed because it is insourced. A loss to that article and the totenkopf one. Jooler 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

I noticed you went on a userbox massacre. Please restore them. And if you're going to delete them, at least provide some reasoning on the talk page. --LakeHMM 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]