User talk:A Nobody

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I will ignore or revert anything I deem to be bad faith, dishonest, or vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Also, please do not refer to me here or elsewhere by my previous username as I changed names due to real-world off-wiki harassment that remains a concern. Due to the issues that caused my name change and other matters (such as the demands of college!) I may be slow in responding to messages and I may even stop editing for long stretches of time. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to this article

I am not sure what was on the previous version of the article, but the following out of universe information can be added from "Resistance 2: Getting To Know Nathan Hale," PlayStation The Official Magazine 13 (November 2008): 62: the character is voiced by David Kaye. PTOM states that "The Resistance 2 story is all about Nathan Hale and his role in this great conflict." Ted Price, one of the game developers, adds, "Internally we wanted to know more about Hale, and focusing on him provided the opportunity to answer questions about him." Thus, I encourage someone to restore the article and add this information in a manner such as this:

Nathan Hale is the protagonist of the Playstation 3 games Resistance: Fall of Man and its sequel Resistance 2. He is voiced by David Kaye.

Development

Ted Price, one of the game developers, adds, "Internally we wanted to know more about Hale, and focusing on him provided the opportunity to answer questions about him."

Biography

Hale killed practically every chimera in England and then went to America to win again.

Reception

PTOM states that "The Resistance 2 story is all about Nathan Hale and his role in this great conflict." Playstation Universe lists Hale among the top five Playstation 3 characters thus far.

Restoration

Nathaniel is a character in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy. Nathaniel is one of the main characters of this series. After coming of age as a magician when he was 12 years old, he was granted the new name of John Mandrake, and is known by this name to everyone but the title character, Bartimaeus and in the later part of Ptolemy's Gate to Kitty.

Attributes

Appearance

In The Amulet of Samarkand he is described as being small and scrawny with dark hair. His hair, as he increases in rank, becomes increasingly long, but during the gap between The Golem's Eye and Ptolemy's Gate he has opted for a crew cut in (politically advantageous) tribute to the soldiers fighting in America. He is further described as attractive, with "the scent of power [hanging] around him" and of medium height and slender build, his forehead prematurely lined (Ptolemy's Gate, U.S. Edition, pg. 21).

Personality

Nathaniel is, at first, a small, shy boy uncomfortable with anyone who is not Mrs. Underwood or Ms. Lutyens. He is very nervous and scared by Bartimaeus when he first summons the demon. As the books progress, and he becomes more and more proficient, he also becomes more confident, and possibly overconfident. He works fervently when motivated, as is shown when he furthers his education with incredible speed in The Amulet of Samarkand. Throughout the books he also shows signs of ambition to rise through the ranks of the government, a common goal among magicians. Bartimaeus compares him more than once to Simon Lovelace, as they share a similar mindset, and habitual tics, such as stroking back their hair.

Role in books

The Amulet of Samarkand

In The Amulet of Samarkand, Nathaniel starts off as a young boy who, at the age of five, had been given up by his parents to apprenticeship under a mediocre Whitehall magician named Arthur Underwood, the assistant minister of Internal Affairs. Underwood begins teaching the boy in magic, but Nathaniel, being inquisitive, decides to advance his education to higher levels without the knowledge of his tutor.

However, at the age of eleven, in his master's house, Nathaniel is publicly humiliated by a greedy and ambitious young magician named Simon Lovelace. In a fit of juvenile fury, Nathaniel hatches a plan for vengeance. He sets several mites (a weak kind of imp) on Lovelace, but Lovelace is powerful and stops the mites, then proceeds to beat Nathaniel as punishment.

Later, after much research and preparation, Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus, a 5,000-year-old djinni, to exact his revenge on Lovelace. Mrs. Underwood - Nathaniel's master's wife - inadvertently reveals Nathaniel's true name to Bartimaeus. This vastly limits Nathaniel's control over the djinni, because spells can be cast on people when their true name is known (hence the practice of assigning names).

In the end, Nathaniel earns the respect of the majority of the other magicians including Rupert Devereaux, the Prime Minister. He is accepted as a magician in the government.

The Golem's Eye

Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus again, facing off against the Resistance and sinister magicians.

The second book picks up almost three years later and features Nathaniel as a junior magician working his way up the government ranks. He is described as one of the governments' rising young stars. In this book, Kitty Jones is introduced as an important character. She is a part of the Resistance movement, which seeks to end the oppressive rule of the magicians. Nathaniel is tasked by his superiors to crush the Resistance movement and capture the members. His task is complicated when a seemingly invulnerable clay golem starts to make random attacks on London. Much to the displeasure of Bartimaeus, Nathaniel recalls the djinni to aid him in uncovering the origins of the golem, and to save his own skin.

During the course of the book Nathaniel is almost fired from his post and executed for treason. By the end of the book however he has come back to favor when Duvall's conspiracy comes to light.

Ptolemy's Gate

In Ptolemy's Gate, Nathaniel has risen to the ruling Council and is arguably the most powerful magician in the government. He stands against a force of hybrid magicians with spirits trapped inside them, led by Nouda. Romantic feelings are hinted at in the book at various points between Kitty and himself. Nathaniel summons Bartimaeus into his body to help fight the Hybrids with Gladstone's staff, and destroys most of them, leaving only Nouda alive. However, during this fight, Nathaniel is seriously injured and he loses strength quickly, even with Bartimaeus' assistance. When Nathaniel and Bartimaeus confront Nouda, Nathaniel dismisses Bartimaeus which saves Baritmaeus just prior to the staff being destroyed killing both Nouda and Nathaniel. Bartimaeus returned to the Other Place, but is known to have survived; according to his "journal", he was summoned by a female magician with a stutter afterwards. Kitty, in the end, goes visit her old friend Jakob before she begins to travel around the world in a new life.

Trivia

• Nathaniel's chosen magician name, John Mandrake, may be a reference to the popular comic strip and real life magician, Mandrake the Magician
• Nathaniel's birthday is on November 26, as confirmed by the author.

External links

• Official website

Thanks

Thank you for the smile. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good wishes to you as well! :) I've been busy working on getting articles to GA status lately, with quite a bit of success. It's really rewarding when you get something that was nearly deleted to be recognized as a GA! BOZ (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise indeed. Thanks! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks from me too :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, too!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Smile. :) Cirt (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me also! :-)--Patton^t/c 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, also! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Canvas Comment which has become an issue for ARS and Ikip. To let individuals (that have stepped out of WikiLine and signed up for duty in a group they, as free-flying Wiki-Editors, support) know that they may want to participate in a discussion is not canvassing. In this case, I clearly stated to all editors present that I wished to be involved. Of course, it is reasonable to assume it would be someone from ARS. My point is members of ARS have done the same: they have said they want to be involved. Or , at least, informed. I don't think that is canvasing. To me, canvassing is like one of those big nets that shore fisherman use to catch bait. "just cast it out and see what happens"--Buster7 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be required that everyone who contributed to an article be notified on their talk page of the AfD, i.e. just in case if they have it watchlisted. I would rather have a consensus based on those who actually know about the subject than the usual copy and paste drive by "per nom" and "cruft" non-arguments we get that can't logically reflect the actual honest opinion of our community. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of war crimes

Dear Nobody, ;-)

I'm a bit disappointed that you deleted my "proposal for deletion" just 4 minutes after I wrote it. I don't know if you had the time to read the article before doing so, but it took me two hours to read the article, study the discussion page, read the article, write the delete proposal etc., and I had hoped to at least incite some discussion. There are other people on the discussion page that seemed to share my opinion.

I do not know what your comment means, "it can be found in some book"?? I think if you had waited for at least two days before removing the proposal, it would have been in everybody's interest. Maybe some people caring about the article would have given their opinion. The way it is now, all of the parts after WW II, are a at best an unorganized collection of events, in the worst case a one-sided presentation of allegations, or apologias. Was there some formal mistake I did or what? Maybe I should have an account? (I'm on the German and Spanish wikipedia User:KlausN), but I thought it would be stupid to create an account, just to propose the deletion. Anyway. Ciao

Klaus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.152.50 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It is not simply that they are covered in a book, but in literally dozens of books. Could/should the article be improved, probably, but deleted, no? As it is clear that sufficient sourcing does exist to justify such an article in some capacity. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered that I did create a long time ago a user account. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming war crimes do not exist. If one would read the books you are linking to, one could probably write an article more than worthy of any encyclopedia but the way it is, the article is really lacking. Of course, you can write an article "list of Englishmen" and then copy the phone book of Gloucester, then, because you also have an Uncle and an Aunt who are English, you also add them to your list, and of course you would delete several people you dislike. But would you consider that a scholarly work? What can you learn from it? Is it a fair description of the English people? The article in question has been tagged for 1 and a half years with "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies." and "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Not much seems to have changed. I'm not going to improve it, because I have no clue about history, but it seems obvious that most post WW II-additions to this article were not done with the intention to provide a clear picture about some moment in history, but in a very casual way, often with the intention to defend or to blame some nation. Read the discussion page...

Examples: Where is the Spanish civil war? Spanish_civil_war#Atrocities_during_the_war (Go read it, then you update this article ;-) The victim count of executions seems to be in the 100,000s range. This seems to me to be of a certain significance.

It is really difficult for me to argue, because English is a foreign language, and I'm afraid of appearing as trying to defend some murder or some crime, but if you look at order of magnitude, or whether events are typical for the methods used by some faction or the other, than you read "Murder of Ahmed Shah Massoud" for the war in Afghanistan (the word "perfidious" is used twice in the description). If you go to Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1996-2001), you can read "the Taliban were defeated, and 3,000 of their soldiers were captured and executed.", "Upon taking it, they (the Taliban) began a mass killing of the locals; 4,000 to 5,000 civilians were executed, and many more reported tortured.", "It was later admitted that the (Iranian) diplomats were killed by the Taliban, and their bodies were returned to Iran". Why not mention these things, and these are just from the wikipedia page describing 5 years of civil war in Afghanistan, and it just took me 3 minutes to go through the article. I guess you agree with me that the war crimes in Afghanistan have been adequately treated in List of war crimes.

It is such a pity that I cannot express my self, but how laughable: "(Iran) laid mines in international waters[citation needed] no prosecutions Mines damaged the US frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts" What about "During the Operation Nimble Archer in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.[45] On 14 April 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine, suffering 10 wounded but no dead. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on 18 April, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships and six Iranian gunboats were destroyed. An American helicopter also crashed.[45]" "In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on 3 July 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack, which later appeared to be untrue.[48][46]" Iran–Iraq_War#US_military_actions_toward_Iran. See, now it seems as if I were attacking the US, but this is not my intention, my intention is just to show that it should be deleted for being completely unbalanced.

Then you have the Cambodian civil war 1970-1994

From the article List of war crimes: "Cambodian Civil War. Crimes against humanity; Crime of genocide. Khmer Rouge killed many persons due to political affiliation, education, class origin, occupation, and ethnicity. [54][55]" That is true, they did kill MANY. Go to the page Khmer rouge, it says "The Khmer Rouge is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people or 1/5 of the country's total population[2] (estimates range from 850,000 to two million) under its regime, through execution, torture, starvation and forced labor." Strictly speaking I don't know if these are "war crimes" or just "crimes against humanity" of what, but then it seems to be rather subjective to include the 11 September murders, too.

Of course, one could try to improve the article, but neither you will do this, nor I will, nor anybody else did during the last 18 months. And the way, it is now, I think it would be better to be deleted. Tonight I will come back and repropose the deletion of this article. I don't know, if you want to cancel my proposal again, but I beg you to at least read the article List of war crimes before doing so.

Cheers User:KlausN 26 february 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Somebody might improve it; if it has potential that's what we encourage people to do. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Hey, I wanted to thank you for flagging the "Motley Moose" article for rescue. I hate to canvass, but I'm still fighting the article's deletion, and have made a variety of points that are being largely ignored by a few headsrong editors. If you still think the article's worth saving, and could saunter over to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28, I would appreciate it. If nothing else, I could use another eye on seeing if my own arguements are cogent for my work in the future as a member of the Article Rescue Squad. Cheers, mate! Ks64q2 (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! That DRV has closed and as such I cannot comment in a closed discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Hey AN. I saw you made some changes to refs on pages I was watching. I was always taught (and it seems that wiki agrees) that refs go outside of punctuation. It does say that they can be placed mid sentence but that if it's next to punctuation, it should be outside. Thanks for your time thought. From the looks of your userpage, I think we share a lot of the same opinions about wiki. It also looks like you're an asset to the wiki community. Keep it up. OlYeller^Talktome 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page

They were very rude and aggressively, and if you meant to intimidate me you have failed, miserably. I have review the links provided and remain uninspired. The article is worthless in my honest opinion and in its current state and with the references available and what turns up in searches it will undeniably be deleted, that is all.Troyster87 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Just because you don't like something is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, you should read WP:AGF. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Regarding this

Hey iam aware of the upcoming movie but iam not sure why the fiction war is allowed in wikipedia. There is so much of articles in Robotech which does not have sources and the whole is messed up. So far no one is doing anything to improve those articles. Iam not sure if i have the time to rewrite the whole article. Hopefully someone who has time can do that. All iam doing is cutting down the articles and they can concentrate on main articles and characters. Btw don't you think that this sort of article should be added in Wikia and other places?. This sort of articles won't disappear. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! It is allowed, because editors and readers come here for this information, which is verifiable. I am not opposed to a merge and redirect, but deletion is a last resort per WP:PRESERVE. I agree that it should be added to the other wikis, but just as say Britannica has an article on Napoleon, we should still also have an article on Napoleon. Now I know Napoleon is way more significant that Robotech, but all the same, we should be able to cover these in some manner or other and I really think that at worst a merge and redirect would be the way to go, because clearly some number of our editors and readers do come here searching for that content. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Is there a place where we can request articles be transwikied? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's at either WP:TRANSWIKI or Help:Transwiki. //roux   18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a place to list articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have sworn I'd seen a 'request list' at those links. Try asking here, they should be able to help. //roux   18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for Welcome, but...

You may regret it. I was just posting this when you were posting your welcome. Know any fair top people we can write to? Best wishes! SoCoColl (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

John's reply to you in that thread is a reasonable basis for who you may contact. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And highly appreciated. Thank you again. SoCoColl (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your help on the nominated articles. Are there any punctuation/comma rules a non-native speaker like me should take a look at? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Anyway, one of the most common errors I see on Wikipedia that I typically correct is having footnote numbers before punctuation marks. A reference should follow the comma or period. If I can help with anything else, please do not hesitate to ask!  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I see you're interested in RFA. If you like, let me know when you think you're ready, and I'll look through your contribs. If I like what I see, I'd be willing to give you a nom or co-nom, if you think that would help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the offer, but would really have to think about it. I changed usernames to avoid being too obvious to people due to real world concerns and being an admin could attract more attention than I might want and I could imagine certain accounts showing up and disrupting it, as I have had negative interactions with the various incarnations of the following blocked editors: User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:AnteaterZot, User:Eyrian, User:Dannycali, User:Blueanode, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, keep me in mind. I'd like to think that the RFA regulars wouldn't be impressed by a bunch of people we don't know showing up and all opposing for the same reasons or non-reasons, but you never know how it will turn out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would probably also have to say I would not close AfDs, because I could see some being vindictive and trying to oppose per AFDs, even though I have been reasonably successful with them since my name change as seen at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever someone has a philosophy that isn't "centrist", on any issue, it's a good idea not to be the person who makes the final call, because then you just attract more scrutiny, and people give you less leeway to do what you want to do. I think not closing AfDs would be a good idea, for now; maybe AfD will evolve over time to be more inclusionist. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, feel free to add me to your list of people who've said nice things about you, if you like. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, which diff specifically would you prefer I add? (My back is hurting again, so my concentration is a bit off today). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

re Notability fad

Hello, I have read some of your comments on the GNG RFC, and I feel that I am a kindred spirit to your opposition to this "guideline." Although some have posted that articles are not deleted under the aegis of this "guideline," I have seen where they have been. I would oppose deleting it from the website as I am opposed to all censorship, but I would like it relegated to a style guideline that is characterized as the view of some editors.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to have a kindred spirit!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Add me to your list of approving editors on your user page if you desire--Drboisclair (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Please see [1]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links to Wikia

Just so you know, you can link Wikia wikis using [[wikia:NAME:article]], where NAME is Anime, or Annex, or etc. Your links on your subpage aren't working because they have spaces in. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Snow keep

You and editor:stifle mention "snow keep" at Template/Rescue. Does that have to do with WP:Snow?--Buster7 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When it is obvious that the overwhelming consensus is to keep, it can be closed as if it doesn't have "snowball's chance in hell" of being deleted, which is obviously the case here. We use it so as not to prolong needless and thus time wasting disucssion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

We have never spoken before, but I wanted to take a moment to say that I have seen your positive contributions to Wikipedia -- both in your personal messaging and in the well-considered statements you have posted in various discussions. I just wanted to take a moment to say "Thank you!" You are wonderful editor and a wonderful person. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind words. Happy editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have spoken before. :) Anyway, let me second the above note from Pastor Theo. Your constant positive attitude, spreading of good cheer, and willingness to discuss and explain in a civil manner (rather than resorting to shouting the other person/people down or throwing wild accusations around) when people disagree with you helps contribute strongly to a good and collaborative atmosphere: we need more editors with your qualities. Best wishes. Acalamari 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to you as well. I just wish I could get more people to help me rescue articles! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ER

Hello A Nobody, your ER has been open past the 30 day time limit, and has gained many reviews (the most currently at ER). Are you satisfied with those reviews? If so, I will have to archive your review nomination, if you are not let me know to give it some extra time.--₮RUCӨ 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was hoping a few more editors would comment as I like to have a broad range of feedback (to be honest, I wish I could just leave it open indefinitely as I think it is good to have a place beside the talk page where editors can ask questions and offer feedback about general editing rather than the more specific day to day items on the user talk page), but if it needs to be closed, okay. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, there is a lack of reviewers so I don't think you can get any further reviews at the moment. Is 2 weeks fine?--₮RUCӨ 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever works best for everyone. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your email

The page you mentioned has been moved to a new title without redirect and then deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User space edits on User:Edgarde/tools

Since you are a polite and thoughtful person, I welcome talk pages comments from you. But please do not continue to edit my userpages. Normally I welcome drama of this sort, but I today was looking for that section and it was missing.

Thanks in advance. I am presuming Ikip will understand this applies to him as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove it or I will nominate it for deletion. Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per Wikipedia:User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody (talk · contribs) writes:

Please do not keep information used to mock or disparage your colleagues in your userspace. Doing so is unconstructive and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per Wikipedia:User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") I shouldn't have to request an admin delete it or nominate it for deletion. For the same reason why I do not keep information used negatively against eidtors with whom I disagree in my userspace, I expect the same from you. Moreover, I have asked editors not to refer to my old username due to real world concerns, which DGG and Randomran can confirm really have happened. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was observed that some editors appear to be keeping lists of diffs that can be used opportunistically in various disputes. I am keeping a list that may or may not be used in future RfC's. Since I feel I have little to hide, I keep this online. I am not the only editor doing this.

• example

This information is not being used to mock and disparage. Prior to your edit, none of the information on this page was linked from anywhere outside my userspace (nor was your current userID mentioned, if I recall correctly). If you insist on having an administrator intervene, your best bet would be DGG, since a DGG section will probably be added at some point. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue with any editor who's not me …

… do it on that editor's talk page or your own, not on mine. Deor (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)