User talk:Alai/Archive3

Louis Glackens

chris adams 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Re: Louis Glackens You recently catagorized one of my articles as a "stub". While it is indeed a short article, I don't feel it warrants stubification. Wikipedia states that one way "to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library". I have been interested in this person for years, and I must say that six sentences is all I can come up on him. I doubt there is much more information available. And so, I am respectfully destubify this article. -- Chris[reply]

Thanks!

I'm grateful for your kind welcome to Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to many happy hours of editing ahead. Ezratrumpet 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Scotland-related stub" creation

Hi, thanks for the warning. I have put some comments on my own talk page, and would have no problem putting it through the right channels. The UK category is a bit broad, and I believe it would also take care of various Scottish stubs which don't fit too neatly into other categories e.g. Curragh (both a Scottish and Irish related article maybe).--MacRusgail 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alai!

Thanks for going through the extremely dull work of sorting the stubs categories of the heap of articles I've created recently, my dear Alai! You deserve a rest and a cold beer for the task. So come to the table and have one! I doubt that you remember me, but we had the chance to talk back in April regarding the edit war at History of Germany with Heimdal. I'll have to revisit that article and see what remained of it... It's great to see you again. Have a nice day, and hugs! Shauri smil e ! 00:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked the beer, Alai :) In fact, the stubs I was referring to are related to the Texas Rangers, like John Coffee Hays, Samuel Hamilton Walker, Leander H. McNelly, John B. Jones and others, all of which you've wisely categorized. I went on a stub-creating spree on these guys because I greatly expanded the Rangers' article and FACed it... which fortunately ended up successfully! :) I'll add the proper stub category to other ones that I made in such preparation. Again, thank you! Hugs, Shauri

smil e ! 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Freestylefrappe would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Freestylefrappe (email: danofalltrades7@hotmail.com) to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alai/Archive3. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Freestylefrappe 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inlining image

Ta for inlining image at WP:SCOWNB!--Mais oui! 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thanks - I have much less time to edit now - and will be doing some stuff on Physics since it is less emotionally charged for me. I have been cleaning up my watchlist of LDS articles so I can focus better. Therefore, please let me know if there is an issue in the LDS community where I could be helpful. I am a little disappointed to see my Infobox removed from Joseph Smith - but I agree with some of CODGEN's reasoning - perhaps an edit to Joseph Smith, Jr./Infobox could address his concerns while keeping the style similar to the other LDS prophets. I must say that I absolutely hate the toccolours style and its derivatives that are used in the biographical template - yuck! Trödel|talk 11:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Bio Stub

I'd suggest first splitting it into players, coaches, and other figures. That could cut it down from the 900 to something more managable. After that, maybe look into league, decade, and whatnot...but that seems the most logical to me.jfg284 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman...

Oh yes, there have been much, much worse - I just hoped they'd notice how silly it was getting. Thanks for putting this up on RfC, it promises to be a lot of fun. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Cheers, Alai, most welcoming! ben 06:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Macao-stub

Let's sort it out at WP:WSS/P and WP:SFD. :-) — Insta ntnood 21:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect him to answer you. SchmuckyTheCat 07:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've responded your concern, that is, the issue over spelling variants was not appropriately handled, and some arguments were based on assumptions that are not entirely true. — Insta ntnood 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop!

Hi, Alai/Archive3, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on adminship. Dlyons493 Talk 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You'll be a great admin! Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats - didn't even see you were up, but it is well-deserved and overdue. -Visorstuff 22:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I knew your RFA would pass easily. Jonathunder 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too! As to voting early and often, there are times when that would be very useful on sfd! :) Grutness...wha? 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! The reason I voted for you was as follows: Despite our obvious disagreements, you've always been polite in regards to the SFD debates (unlike some editors I've encountered). Also the wikistress level is a bit old... I never fixed it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ag stub

(I've also added this as ancomment on SfD entry, but I wanted to make certain you saw this.)

- Actually where I live, Ag is fairly common. A Google on ag and farm returns over 7 million entries, but I noticed that the first 50 entries (which was as far as I inspected) were all United States and Canadian sites, so I suspect it may be just a North American English thing, which probably explains why you are unfamiliar with it. Caerwine 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

I believe you are mistaking what we believe. A "state highway" is a noun, a "California State Highway" is a proper noun.Gateman1997 05:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a proper noun because California State Route is a particular type of state route. While a California state route/highway could refer to any route in California state.Gateman1997 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi Alai! I've explained my answer to that question (#6) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronline. Ronline 04:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point I'm trying to make is that, in a dispute I am actively in, I would not use my admin powers in any way that would disadvantage the "opposition". However, I don't see anything wrong with continuing to apply objective things such as 3RR, simple vandalism, etc. So the answer is "No, except for things that are blatantly and objectively against policy." Ronline 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand how those things can be conflicts of interest. Which is why I would never protect a page I'm disputing in. Which is why I wouldn't block users on these pages for inserting information, even if it's false and tendentious. Is my answer OK now (see the candidature page)? Ronline 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Revised once again. Ronline 05:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you've done is perfectly fine. Administrator abuse is a terrible thing because it leads to alienation on the part of users, which is what lack of communication also leads to. And alienation is a major factor in leading to conflict, not only in Wikipedia but in the world in general. Ronline 05:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Thank you, both for the expression of support and the chuckle! I hope not to let you down on that... I'm not sure whether ot not I hope to be elected/appointed/whatever! :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfB

Hi, you expressed some concern about my answers to the candidate questions in my RfB. I've tried to clarify them further, so would you mind taking another look? I don't mind if you decide to stay neutral. Anyway, good day to you and happy editing! Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and sorry for my discrepancies!

I hope I didn't aggravate anyone with my plethora of unlabled and minor edits to the Atlantis page. I'm a bit nitpicky and of course very compulsive with knowledge.

Thanks again, and I hope to be of service.

gustable

Stubs For Deletion Option

No offense, but please give me another option, having it in permanent limbo is unacceptable. The stub is posted on WP:NH(kind of as a point of pride), and that little "This Stub Is Up For Deletion" makes our state's transportation network to seem not worthy of its own stub despite the fact that there are nearly 100 in that stub cat. People looking at that little template on top of the stub may decide not to use it in the belief that it's temporary even though the worst possible thing that would happen here is that another, almost identical one would take its place. If SfD can't resolve this issue, i'm tempted to send SfD to MfD. karmafist 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's no prank, and quite frankly, the reason why I said that is most likely the reason you put closing the discussion in hyphens. No progress has been made in two months. The average afd takes a week, and has clear rules on closing. I'm moving over to the log now, that discussion has gone on for too long and somebody has to be bold here, I'll go to the village pump later to ask in a change of policy, but that rarely does anything, so I might have to still pull an Ed Poor and do what I said before.

By the way, our wikiproject just started halfway through this discussion, and we've already added 5 members and tagged around 3 dozen articles. We all have better things to do than deal with stub bureaucracy cruft. karmafist 16:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try in a bit

I've been having a bad week, i'll try in a bit to craft a better description of what i'm trying to say, it wasn't my intention to insult you or anything. Lately, everywhere I look I see a tangled mess of invisible rules and entrenched regulars established with the old way of doing things(which is arcane and outdated many places, IMO) to do what seems to be needed. That's what the bureaucracy was about, I encourage clearly set guidelines so if there's a problem, there isn't an arguement over what should be done in order to do what is basically maintenance. karmafist 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. -- featured status vote

Thanks for your suggestions on this article. The article is now up for featured article status. Please vote here, if you can. COGDEN 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highway madness

Hi Alai - I was under the impression that the official designation of those roads was "Washington State Highways". If they're simply Washington state highways, then they should stay as lower case,, but I don't know which way the legislation runs on them. I'm willing to go with whichever is the correct name. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have guessed I wasn't the first to make that joke. As to the official names, if he takes it to cfd, then someone there will surely be able to quote chapter and verse on the correct capitalisation, and - as pointed out - the sfd result will all depend on cfd. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the debate off my talk page and to User talk:Rschen7754/Highway Capitalization. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmatrix scam adminship

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello Alai. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA. I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Hi Alai, regarding your comment on WP:V, I can't see it in both the policy and guideline categories, and I can't see two headers. It's policy so that's where it should be. Am I not seeing something you can see? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese with whine?

Banons, I don't no stinkin' banons! Caerwine Caerwhine 05:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTVX

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies applied only to articles?

As the disputes involved in this case explicitly include categories, and have recently spread to include the stub namespace, would the arbcom consider broadening article-related provisions to category-pages and templates, too?

The decision includes everything whether it is technically an article or not. Fred Bauder 13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, remedies 5 & 6 appear to mandate that Instantnood be informed if either of the other two are barred from an article under the terms of their probation, which I assume is a cut-and-paste error. Alai 05:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They need only be notified of a ban on themselves. Fred Bauder 13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, This was corrected in the final decision. SchmuckyTheCat 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed your post-mortem comment for this on WP:SFD as well as your comments on the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles talk page. I've added a further comment there to see if I can get a response. Deleting this would be a waste of a lot of effort, so if there is no response I will be highly tempted to just carry out the proposed {{MEA-expand}} rename. Good idea? Bad idea? --TheParanoidOne 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get your edit count up ;)

Early life Joseph Smith will be featured on the Main Page on the front page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day. Could you help in monitoring the page? The 23rd starts at 7 pm ET on Dec 22nd, since wikipedia goes by UTC. Thx in advance. Trödeltalk 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting my sig page. I would love to visit Scotland - I have two tartan ties I bought here when I was on my mission - glad you are getting a break. I hope we are up to the task. My main concern is from about 5 UTC to 11 UTC as that is when most of the US is asleep, and I don't know many european editors. I hope there isn't too much vandalism - I originally had the 23rd off (Fri before Christmas) but now we are getting Mon the 26th off, so I don't know how much help I'll be. Have a great vacation!! Trödeltalk 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of JS edits

I'm afraid you might need to block User:130.13.121.233 - he has made the same full section deletion to the treasure seeking marriage section. I'll explain in detail on his talk if you decide to block that ip. Trödeltalk 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I left him an explanation already - have a good Christmas! Trödeltalk 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

..

wtf is this?!?!?!?!?!!

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcom to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could benefit from it, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, I saw you blocked Gryffindor for a violation of 3RR. Did you look into that? I have my doubts about the validity of the claim. (Perhaps Gryffindor was just reverting POV? Not positive, since I myself haven't looked in to it totally, but the comment here was made by Jamesbozen (talk • contribs), who, while I'm not saying is a bad user, I don't know yet, and looks to be a newbie?) No rush on replying, I'm just curious. Have a nice day! Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alai, yes I do have to wonder about that as well. I thought I made my actions pretty clear in my comments of the histories when reverting, such as South Tyrol, Trentino-South Tyrol, Italy and Bozen-Bolzano. I kept on reverting the edits by the anon users, however got tired of it therefore I tried to get the opinions of other users, see [1], [2], [3], [4], as well as leaving numerous warnings on the talk page of anon [5]. I also reported the case on the Wikiquette alerts [6]. Since the users kept on doing it, I decided to report at least one case. I also pointed out to the other cases in my report [7]. I'm really not sure what else I needed to have done in order to avoid getting blocked myself. I appreciate and thank you for your help in blocking anon and defending me. Maybe you could be so kind as to point out to me what was done wrong and how it can be avoided in future, because I find it unjustified to block me as well. I received no warning of impending breach of rules, which would have sufficed I think. with kind regards Gryffindor 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violingirl, what doubts about validity do you have, exactly? "Reverting POV" isn't an exception to the 3RR, and I don't think the reverts were simply of vandalism as such. (They don't look like good edits to me either, mind you.)

Gryffindor, my suggestion on not getting blocked for the 3RR is simple: don't revert so often! Wait and see if someone else reverts the changes: if they're as bad as you think, surely they will. By all means contact other people, or noticeboards, etc, but those are intended to be alternatives to serial reverting, not simply prerequisites to doing so. Please note that the 3RR applies per 24 hours, not per calendar day, as your own numbering of your reverts seems to reckon it. If you'd misunderstood that, I have even more sympathy for you, which I have rather a lot of in any case, as I'm sure your edits were in good faith. But none the less they were indeed reverts, and an excessive number of them at that, and I felt it wouldn't have been supportable to block one party and not the other, when both are equally guilty at least in technical terms. I'd probably have lifted your block early on the basis of the checkuser results, since the sockpuppetry at work here seems to have been a large part of what provoked you into breaking the rule, but unfortunately I wasn't online much yesterday (pesky broadband regime has left me in the lurch again). Alai 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I didn't warn first as firstly, it's not a requirement; secondly, as I assumed that if you were familiar enough with the rule to file 3RR violation reports against others, you'd be familiar enough to avoid infringing against it yourself; and lastly and most importantly, so as to deal as equitably and impartially as possible between two parties guilty of essentially the same "offence", regardless of any personal opinions or sympathies I might have on the matter. Note also that if you disagree with a block, you're free to email the blocking admin, and in any case, you're free to admin your own talk page even while blocked, so you can make whatever commentary you wish there. In any case, glad you're back, all the best. Alai 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord this is so confusing to me. Ok, because my understanding was you need to warn someone about the reverts, that's why I was warning the anon. user. Considering that user was probably using multiple account (if I may dare say so), I was only able to warn one address, not the others. you are right about the one day/24 hour thing, I must have gotten that one confused. Ok, so am I getting this right: next time, see how many reverts have been done in 24 hours, not one day (meaning from morning till evening), and inform other users first about the going on's. see if they think it needs to be reverted, or let others do them. But I thought that reverts by other users do not count towards the limit on the three-revert-rule, only if I do the reverts do they count. Is that correct, or it does not matter which users do the revert? IMO the changes done constituted vandalism, because whole sections of the article were simply being sliced away (see South Tyrol), it wasn't just about names. Please correct me if I'm wrong or forgot something, thanks. Gryffindor 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning's a very good idea, and I entirely applaud you for having done so, it's just not part of the blocking policy as such. I may have been somewhat severe in my assumption that if you warned and reported someone else, you were fully aware and didn't need to be warned myself, but at any rate such was my thinking at the time. The rule is: no more than three reverts per person, per article. Reverts by others don't count, reverts by sockpuppets do. (So ideally your antagonist would have been blocked sooner, and more thoroughly, but hopefully this is resolved now at any rate, if a little later than would have been ideal.) I didn't notice any other "vandalistic" changes at the time, nor any reports that they were such. Looking back I can see half of paragraph was being removed from Trentino-South_Tyrol (but nothing similar on South Tyrol) though that's not necessarily "blanking vandalism", or at any rate, isn't clear-cut as such. As other people were indeed making reversions sim8ilar to your own, all the more reason to stop when you reach your own "limit". Of course, even better to resolve the dispute otherwise, without "using the reverts"! (Though I admit this seems unlikely to have been possible here.) Alai 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha. So in case something like this happens again, can I ask you for your opinion so that everything is legit? This was really my first time reverting such a user and using the reverts policy. Gryffindor 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely welcome to, certainly. Alai 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still slightly confused...So, if it's a case of POV, don't revert more than once(?), but if it's vandalism, then you can revert however many times the vandal vandalizes. :) Right? (And, thanks for being patient explaining this to me!) --ViolinGirl^♪ 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can in principle revert POV, or anything else you think needs to be reverted, up to the maximum number of times (i.e. 3). I'm just offering the commentary that reverting may not be the best action to take, esp. repeatedly, as it'll often just lead to further retaliation in kind. But on vandalism, yes, however many times however many vandals vandalise. :) And, you're welcome! Alai 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it, this time! Thanks for helping. --ViolinGirl^♪ 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merci beaucoup. Gryffindor 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay edit war incident

Hello there! :)

This is with regards to the very public edit war in the cosplay articles regarding the filcosplay forums, and the pinoycosplay forums. I would firstly like to apologize for the behavior of the Filipinos involved, and would like to ask not to take the actions of a few for the actions of us as a whole. I speak for several members of Filcosplay, who asked to apologize to the administrators caught up in the fighting, and they would like me to explain to you that they were not intentionally encouraging the edit war; they only wanted to have their own webpage up on the site, and fought back only when the user |Mikeabundo began constantly deleting their link without explanation.

I have posted on the discussion page of the Cosplay article, asking for your help in this matter, if you are available (and will be deeply in your debt!) As I have mentioned there, Mikeabundo has been something of a thorn on the cosplay community's side since late 2005, when he first began causing a ruckus. He takes photos from pretty female cosplayers and posts them on his site without permission, implying that he is on close terms with the women despite repeated overtures by the latter to stop using their pictures. In 2005, he bought pinoycosplay.com (there is a mailing list that has existed since 2000 called "pinoy cosplay", in no way affiliated with his forums, and in fact was opposed to taking a similar name as theirs); we believe that one of the reasons for his taking that domain name is that he can claim his boards to be the extension of the oldest filipino cosplay community. Some people have posted on his forums to point that fact out but, like what he has done here with regard to the filcosplay link in wikipedia, simply deletes the posts that contradicts his own without bothering to reply.

Recently, he bought filcosplay.com, and then re-directed that domain name to his pinoycosplay.com site, in the hopes of taking away potential new members who had heard of and were curious about the name "filcosplay". While this is not illegal in itself, it nonetheless smacks of immorality and a lack of netiquette. Filcosplay was never informed by |Mikeabundo about his taking the filcosplay.com domain name; they were only made aware of it through the discovery of one Filcosplay moderator trying out domain names on his browser.

I can provide proofs regarding all I have mentioned above as further evidence of his character, along with further proofs that filcosplay has been in existence far longer than pinoycosplay (which only began in late 2005 as well), that filcosplay has more members, and that filcosplay is supported by many of the online filipino gaming and anime communities (while pinoycosplay is not; it is in fact shunned by some communities because of its owner's actions). Quite frankly, many people have been very irritated by his ongoing behavior, along with his inability to make compromises - people not just in the cosplay community, but also many other people in blogging communities, gaming communities, and even some in the Philippine Technology field. While we have very little success to date in solving many of our problems regarding him, we are hoping at the very least, not to have the wikipedia incident added to our list.

(At the very list, we are hoping to remove the "old" descriptions labelled with the filcosplay link in the protected cosplay page, because it is both untruthful and misleading; we have no complaint against having the pinoycosplay link up as long as we are given fair treatment in the page; unfortunately, the other party does not share the same views.)

Thank you very much, and I apologize for taking up much of your time. I am relatively new to the inner workings of wikipedia, though I visit the site and read articles there often, and I would appreciate any help you can give regarding the situation. :)

Altaecia 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LDS

Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:

Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).

Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.

(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]