User talk:Latish redone

RFA

Thanks so much for supporting me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwithtalk 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on finding my secret page! I started out with this one, and will make a harder one in the future, and have them get harder as I go on ("secret page 2", "secret page 3", etc.). I'll let you know when "secret page 2" goes into effect. Cheers!

My second secret page is in effect. Better get looking! =)  hmwith  talk 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/hmwith 2

I removed your vote, please wait until it's listed. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Latish redone! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Real World: Austin

Sorry, I apologize for that. I should've looked more closely at the specific season being cited. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Benito Giuliani

Don't ever do that again. east.718 at 04:40, December 17, 2007

Attack pages are strongly frowned upon. east.718 at 22:55, December 28, 2007

U-N-I-T-E-D

I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with your removal of the PROD from U-N-I-T-E-D. The article is just a boorish chant and isn't notable. Fine, it being offensive may not be a good enough reason to get rid of the article, but it's deliberately targeted against Manchester City and is needlessly offensive. I'm not convinced it should be part of wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Virtual Console

Just in case you're interested, I nominated Microsoft Virtual Console for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Virtual Console. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of All That Money

An article that you have been involved in editing, All That Money, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All That Money. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Phil Creswick Mitsubishi Electric Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa Steven Hill (model) Jordan Rules Weldon, Northamptonshire My Doorbell Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park 1852 Democratic National Convention Bunim/Murray Productions Kirby Morrow AFL Live 2004 Battle of the Sexes (radio contest) Stories We Could Tell Central American Common Market Real Options Analysis Agadir Agreement White City, Colchester WKTG (FM)

Cleanup Palm Beach Marg Wrong-way concurrency Chris Daughtry Merge Official Baseball Rules Ordnung Claremont Road, Leytonstone Add Sources Tonya Cooley Interstate 495 (New York) Julie Stoffer Wikify Quiet period Dawlish Town F.C. Horoscope Expand Eurasian Economic Community Princess Margaret Road Interstate 475 (Georgia)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Duel II

Just so you know, I updated the article that you nominated for deletion ( The Duel II ) and want to know if the changes alter your opinion of its status. Actually, it was rewritten from scratch and moved to a different title (being there is no such show as The Duel II currently in production, but there is a Summer Challenge being filmed.) Zredsox (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Contested prod on AJ Walsh

It would be of great benefit if you would explain on the article talk page why you have contested the deletion of this article. The prod template explained quite well why it was nominated, which is essentially that after doing some research, there is nothing to support that anything on this page is truthful. There are no listings of this person having been in the shows which are purported on the page, and the MySpace page that supposedly referenced the claims in the article is set to private. Ther is one other MySpace page that is just some high school kid's personal page and the "songs" he supposedly has recorded was done in his bedroom. Why then is this person notable? Will you be improving and adding references to verify the claims in the article? If not, then what purpose is there in the page's retention? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Island

Let me get this straight. You decide that an article is a recreation and in need of speedy deletion after I spend an hour updating it, but previous to that it was fine (being you made edits yourself.) I am very confused. Zredsox (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Issue resolved. Zredsox (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd please stop stalking me around wikipedia, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Zredsox (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop it with the holier than thou posts on my talk page. We both know what you are trying to do. Actually I'd appreciate it if you didn't post at all on my talk page. Thanks.Zredsox (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like no further communication. I ask kindly that you refrain from contacting me in the future.Zredsox (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN/3RR for violating the three-revert rule on the Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) article. Zredsox (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Toon⁰⁵ 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Latish redone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While my edits may appear to be edit warring, the last three edits I made to Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) were not; I was simply removing unsourced information and other information in the article where the citations referred to Vevmo. It was only yesterday that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard decided that Vevmo was not a reliable source and I was simply removing all Vevmo references due to that decision. In addition, I have attempted to discuss on the talk page of the article in question but Zredsox had reverted my edit despite my notice on the talk page that Vevmo is not an acceptable source.

Decline reason:

Your block is for edit warring in general, and not just for your last three edits. —  Sandstein  06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Latish redone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please explain what you mean by "Your block is for edit warring in general". When my previous block expired, I did not continue to edit war, I attempted to discuss on the talk page about the verifiability of the sources in the article then I made the three edits I described above which was done to remove unsourced and poorly sourced information from the article.

Decline reason:

Although you also made posts to the talk page, you still made several changes to the article reverting it to your preferred version. Making a post on the talk page is not the same thing as discussing: if you were discussing, you would discuss and leave the article alone, and only make changes once a clear consensus emerges. Mangojuice^talk 14:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Latish redone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Regarding "only make changes once a clear consensus emerges", a clear consensus has emerged. At a previous AfD, an attempted DRV of that AfD, and the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk page of the article in question, it is agreed upon by several established contributors including Corvus cornix (talk · contribs), Fram (talk · contribs), and Slp1 (talk · contribs), and even new user Spiderman2351 (talk · contribs) - all agree with me that Vevmo is not a reliable source, and I had discussed that at the talk page. I was removing citations of Vevmo as a source. Zredsox (talk · contribs) is the only registered editor (there are also some IP editors, and he could be some of them) that has attempted to restore Vevmo references, and if you see his responses to my concerns on the talk page you will see that he is not attempting to address my concerns about sources. He says he is making "improvements" to the article but those "improvements" are simply adding content to the article without any citations or any explanation of why his content is relevant or important to the article in question. My edits to the article are not meant to bring it to any "preferred" version but to remove unsourced information and to remove citations of sources that are not reliable according to consensus.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, that's still edit-warring. Chances are good that other editors, seeing that consensus was clear on the use of that source, would remove it from the article. Dispute Resolution offers several choices to avoid an edit war, including third opinions and mediation, and any of these would be acceptable. In any event, you need to let discussion progress before reverting again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Latish redone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If I am not going to be unblocked, can we at least have some trusted editors watch the Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) page and remove all the Vevmo citations and the unsourced information. These articles for upcoming seasons of RW/RR Challenge are bait for unregistered and unexperienced Wikipedia editors to post rumors and other speculative and unsourced information in violation of Wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:NOR, and especially WP:BLP. Unfortunately these questionable edits happen every time someone decides to create an article for an upcoming season. For example, The Gauntlet 3 article was created before the season aired and was then deleted because of speculative and unsourced info from rumor-spreading sites.

Decline reason:

Per the three declined requests above. Please realize continued use of the unblock template will result in this page being protected for the duration of the block. The article will still be there when your block expires. - auburnpilot talk 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AfD nomination of Elsayed

An article that you have been involved in editing, Elsayed, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsayed. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Newton

I've been helping out at WP:BLPN today, and you're more than welcome to join the discussion there about Newton. I agree that ESPN seems to be a reliable source, but Wikipedia doesn't report everything in the New York Times much less everythng that ESPN reports. Instead, Wikipedia has policies like WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS which say that we should wait awhile until things develop and get finalized before including them here.Anythingyouwant (talk)

WPGUNS vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:WPGUNS. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

• link to incident

I do not know why you felt the need to add that map to the talk page template for WikiProject:Guns, but I have obviously since removed it. Please refrain from edits of that nature. I would expect better out of a distinguished member such as yourself. Thank you. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hello. I have just closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Thank you for volunteering as an admin candidate. It often takes several attempts at RFA for folks to be successful and the key to success is to take the advice from the folks who opposed your candidacy and apply it to your editing. If you would like to reopen your RFA, please let me know. If you would like additional feedback from the community about your editting, consider WP:Editor review. Please don't let this stress you out or change your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Good luck and happy editing.--v/r - TP 04:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Discussion moved from my talk page.--v/r - TP 04:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My rfa was closed after less than three hours active. I would prefer that it remain open while some comments I have made have not effectively been received by the "!voters", and I also reply to further comments made. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you reconsider. I'll of course reopen it, but I'd really like you to consider two points first. 1) Generally folks who are successful at RFAs have around 4000+ edits and at least a solid 6 months of consecutive editing and have no blocks. 2) That if you really want feedback, the appropriate location is WP:Editor review. If you consider both of these points and still would like to proceed, I will promptly reopen it.--v/r - TP 04:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I need feedback as an editor, just as to why I would be unsuitable as admin. Although if one really needs 4000 or so edits, I guess there might be no point in continuing since I don't expect to ever reach that level of editing WP --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 4000 is actually on the very very low end of the spectrum. I had 5000 when my RFA passed and I'd consider 7000 on the low end too. Most folks with successful RFAs have 10,000+ edits and years of experience on Wikipedia. I might be able to dig up hard statistics if you're interested.--v/r - TP 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with someone with 2000+ edits, but I do expect a decent amount of recent edits (at least, say, 100 per month for the last 6-12 months) and having worked in admin areas. I definiely need to see recent evidence connected with the areas in which they say they want to use the mop (eg someone who says they'll do page protection needs to have spent some time submitting valid pages at RFPP to show they understand what they're getting into! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the statistics here, if you're interested.--v/r - TP 04:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the issue is not about the edit counts, but about demonstrating a history of using the many tools available through Wikipedia. It seems apparent to me and I presume to anyone else who examined your proposal that you seem to be much less experienced than all current administrators. Please do not be discouraged, and enjoy your time using Wikipedia. If your relationship with this website changes then apply again in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Latish redone. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC) x2

Cam Newton article

You are making a mess of the Cam Newton article. You have repeated references 13, 14, & 17, to where they are (in your version) both 6 & 16, 7 & 17, and 8 & 20. Do you know how to reuse reference links? If it's not already named you need to name the reference by beginning with >ref name="WhateverNameYouWant"< instead of just >ref<, and then after any other uses of the reference, simply type >ref name="WhateverNameYouWant"/< (or just use the Named references tool). As someone who has made hundreds of edits, you should know this, or were you just being really sloppy?

Also, the cited article about allegations of academic cheating links to the original FoxSports.com article that it itself cites, which reports the allegations of an unnamed "source". Both articles clearly state the allegations cannot be corroborated by official sources, but you have written them as fact, as well as citing them as the reason for his transfer. These are violations of the WP:NPOV policy.

It appears you may have a NPOV problem regarding Mr. Newton (witness your "$cam Newton" redirect, which does not even redirect to his 'Eligibility controversy' section, but the article as a whole). As a UF alum and Buccaneers fan from Florida, I personally do not like Newton, but as you well know at Wikipedia that does not matter. If you believe his problems at UF belong in the introductory paragraphs as well as in the University of Florida section, then write them in a way which is has a NPOV. Please do not write unconfirmed allegations as fact, and then link to an article that states they are unconfirmed allegations. I'm reverting to the old version until you can come up with something better. If you can't, please just leave it alone. Thank you --72.186.190.220 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious redirects

In addition to the $cam Newton redirect mentioned above, I have deleted Benito Giuliani. There is no indication that Giuliani is known by that name, and under the circumstances I can't muster enough belief in your good faith to consider it anything but an attack with reference to the late duce. Your use of the blatantly false edit summary "Adding/removing wikilink(s)" when creating the redirect doesn't help. Don't create any more such redirects, or you will end up being blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cam Newton

I have started a discussion about an issue that you are involved in at Talk:Cam Newton#Laptop theft controversy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment request

Since you were interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Rivalry articles, I feel you might have an interest in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Rivalry navboxes. Basically, there are three issues. 1. Should we have rivalry navboxes for conferences; 2. Should we have a policy to make each conference's navbox include non-conference rivalries and/or non-football rivalries; 3. Should we have individual school rivalry navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Benito Giuliani as well as numerous articles and WP:Coatracks related to Cam Newton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Latish redone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking administrator suggests that I have created WP:Coatrack articles regarding Cam Newton. This is false, since the only article I created relating to Newton was the Cam Newton eligibility controversy which: (1) was a neutral article which had legitimate sources and references, and (2) was intended to be created as a result of the discussion at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The blocking administrator suggests that I have created [[WP:Coatrack]] articles regarding [[Cam Newton]]. This is false, since the only article I created relating to Newton was the [[Cam Newton eligibility controversy]] which: (1) was a neutral article which had legitimate sources and references, and (2) was intended to be created as a result of the discussion at [[Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.]] ''<span style="font-family: Calibri, Tahoma, sans-serif;">[[User talk:Latish redone|l a t i]] [[Special:Contributions/Latish redone|s h r e]] [[User:Latish redone|d o n e]] (previously User:All in)</span>'' 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocking administrator suggests that I have created [[WP:Coatrack]] articles regarding [[Cam Newton]]. This is false, since the only article I created relating to Newton was the [[Cam Newton eligibility controversy]] which: (1) was a neutral article which had legitimate sources and references, and (2) was intended to be created as a result of the discussion at [[Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.]] ''<span style="font-family: Calibri, Tahoma, sans-serif;">[[User talk:Latish redone|l a t i]] [[Special:Contributions/Latish redone|s h r e]] [[User:Latish redone|d o n e]] (previously User:All in)</span>'' 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The blocking administrator suggests that I have created [[WP:Coatrack]] articles regarding [[Cam Newton]]. This is false, since the only article I created relating to Newton was the [[Cam Newton eligibility controversy]] which: (1) was a neutral article which had legitimate sources and references, and (2) was intended to be created as a result of the discussion at [[Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.]] ''<span style="font-family: Calibri, Tahoma, sans-serif;">[[User talk:Latish redone|l a t i]] [[Special:Contributions/Latish redone|s h r e]] [[User:Latish redone|d o n e]] (previously User:All in)</span>'' 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}