User talk:Shyam/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clarification over "Volunteer"

Shyam, because there is contradictory evidence on both sides for use of "Volunteer" for the PIRA, RIRA, CIRA, and OIRA is it justifiable now to change "Volunteer" to "member" in articles regarding the IRAs that it cannot be proven as a rank for, as per your recent edit on the mediation page? Logoistic 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isnt - after nearly 3 months you make your first post on on the page. The evidence shows it either a rank or title - once that is proven then the mediation will be over.--Vintagekits 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Myanmar(Burma)

Thank you for your fair mediation. I would like to thank you on behlaf of myanmar people. Okkar 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments. But I tried to remain unbiased and solved the case with following NPOV policy. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about edit summary

There is some discussion as to what you meant here[1] going on at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Eminem_1_0_0_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. Could you please pop by there and clarify what you meant in that edit summary? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help to Wikipedia!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Extranet, award Shyam Bihari this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for helping the community with vandalism warnings, etc. You're a great help. Many thanks! Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and if you need any assistance, just ask on my talk page. Cheers. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

About Accepting/Denying

Thanks for taking the initiative to accept/deny cases. I thought I'd mention the following though. When accepting or denying a case, you need to put the correct template on the case, so the MedBot knows to go through it and open/archive the case as needed. The top of the article should look something like this, in the edit pane: 

==Free Trade and related articles==
<div class="plainlinks"
...

Right under the heading, place either {{Accepted case}} or {{Rejected case}} as needed: 

==Free Trade and related articles==
{{Accepted case}}
<div class="plainlinks"
...

This will trigger the bot to go through the cases and do the needed functions. Thanks, ^demon[omg plz] 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely no trouble at all, always glad to help out. And if you ever need anything else, just let me know. ^demon[omg plz] 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete Biota Water

Did you have a reason for deleting my thing on Biota water? If not, please un-delete it. "(and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Dictouray|Dict)" Yes, so far I was the only contributer, but that doesn't warrant you deleting it?!?! Thanks, Dictouray

Type of meditation

Hey, thanks for taking the mediation. I think that public would be best because in my opinion there are only 2 users (possibly sock puppets) who are challenging the rest of the users. Therefore, I'd like the general consensus to overwhelm the two few. (Wikimachine 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Please mention it on the mediation page itself. Shyam (T/C) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All Night Long poster

I was just wondering why you removed the speedy deletion tag of the image. I had already been told by a bot that it was orphaned, so when I viewed the page and saw another poster, I put mine up for deletion. Is there any reason that it needs to go through several more days until it is deleted or can it return to speedy deletion? Just want to know for the future. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Clark

The article I edited on Jay Clark was deleted and I feel it was unjust. The reason given was because he was not noteworthy.

I find this argument inaccurate. Jay Clark aside from being a prominent guitarist frequently interviewed in music magazines such as alternative press and a member of influential american bands Kill Sadie, Sharks keep moving, and most noteworthy of all Curiosa regulars Pretty Girls Make Graves.

I made the page because i followed a blind link on other pages that were mentioning him and made a page to clarify who he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myahon (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, I was the one who tagged the page for deletion. To my mind the article, as written, fails the notability test. As it starts "Jay Clark is an obscure African-American guitarist...", one is hardly knocked out by the notability of the subject. If he is unknown then he surely doesn't merit an article, if the content remains as sparse as it is now it fails to justify its existence. Jay Clark might be the greatest musician ever, but if the article fails to even begin to assert notability then the db-bio tag is surely justified.
Xdamrtalk 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note—I'll leave this in your hands then.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tags

I was wondering why you removed the speedy deletion tags of 14 categories that I tagged as such, stating "consider nominating it at CFD" for each one. The categories were and still are empty and have been empty for over four days, thus they qualify for speedy deletion from my understanding. I realize that the criteria says "If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed" but I don't think "deeper investigation" means to outright remove the tag and tell the nominator to nominate it at CfD. I am asking for third party opinions to determine if these do or do not qualify for speedy deletion on the Administrator's noticeboard here. Thanks, VegaDark 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Breaking mediation

Shyam, Vintagekits has broken mediation by creating an article here. It has not been established that "Volunteer" is a rank in this context. Also, he referred to him in the initial edit as a "rat" which is surely a very bad edit, even if he were to change it. Can you please do something, Shyam. Logoistic 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shyam - please put this guy straight - the agreement in mediation was NOT to switch Volunteer for Member and vice versa. It is obviously OK to start an article with either as none of the references have been banned.--Vintagekits 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No. As I said on my talk page. Creating an article with "Volunteer" is just as bad as adding it to an existing article. As Shyam said, you must proove Volunteer to be a rank for the respective IRA, and you cannot in this case. Therefore, you cannot use it. Logoistic 22:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Totally incorrect, nothing was ever said about using Volunteer or member in new articles, I have created at least 5 new articles and used Volunteer in all of them. Shyam, I want you to ban Logistic for breaking with mediation for switching Volunteer for member, which is against what you have said - this is the offending edit.--Vintagekits 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have asked him to self revert here, but he has refused. Please take action.--Vintagekits 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Volunteer has been used since wiki started, nobody has ever said it can not be used, its use is NOW currently up for mediation, NO decision has been made on the issue yet and UNTIL a decision has been made over its use then then I have AS MUCH right to use Volunteer as member in any article as long as no one SWITCHES member for Volunteer or Volunteer for member then the use of both is CURRENTLY legal.--Vintagekits 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Shyam, creating an article with "Volunteer" is just as bad as adding it to an article. If it can't be proved as a rank, it can't be added full stop, either adding it to an existing article or mentioning it in a new article. Vintagekits is using this as a way of getting his POV across by claiming creating a new article is somehow different to adding it to an existing article, when both are additions to Wikipedia. He has broken mediation, and thinks he can get away with this. Logoistic 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No its not - the mediation is regarding the FUTURE use of both terms.--Vintagekits 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There has been NO ban put on using either member or Volunteer as of yet, infact since this has all start I have created at least 5 articles and used Volunteer not member which I am totally entitled to do. The use of both is currently up for discussion - Volunteer and member have always been used and nobody has ever said anything about not using them and as it is currently up discussion WHICH one is to be used, the only ban that has been put on is SWITCHING one for the other - which you have done and I would like action taken for this.--Vintagekits 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As a sign of seriousness, I have self-reverted, Shyam, leaving this newly created article with "Volunteer" still in it. If you open this case, can you, as the mediator, please clarify, based on the points above, what the correct thing to do is in this particular situation, as I am very unhappy that whilst "Volunteer" cannot be added to existing articles, it can be added to new ones. It makes no sense. Logoistic 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete on One Dollar

Hey,

Last night you deleted the article One Dollar, however, I am still a little confused as to why. I put Template:Hangon on the page and highlighted my confusion on the article's talk page, which, in retrospect was probably the wrong way to go about it - but I was hoping someone would leave a note on my talk page if the decision was made to delete it. Anyway, so going back to my original question - was the article deleted because the redirect didn't work - or do you feel that the article shouldn't have existed for some reason? Cheers, --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing the cabal

Shyam, why was this done. There was only ONE day left before the whole thing would be over and now this means that it is probably only going to have to start all over again! mind boggling!--Vintagekits 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for it. But you will have to do it over again because both the parties did not follow the rules. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What? What rules are these? I thought we had come to a consensus - not to use "Volunteer" unless specific proof gained. Now you say the whole thing is stopped? What is going on? Logoistic 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not reasonable Shyam, we were ONE DAY from the end - I took this VERY serious - DO YOU REALISE HOW MUCH WORK I HAVE PUT INTO THIS AND STRESS IT HAS CAUSED ME??????????--Vintagekits 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this has been a very draining experience, one which I would not like to repeat. Logoistic 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The rules are: You should be kept away yourself from contrary edits to resolve the disputes. So, I am really sorry to close this case. Shyam (T/C) 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shyam THIS IS CRAZY - you cant do this - it is one day - LOGOISTIC self revert the stupid edit you made today and get this back on track! This most end tommorrow Shyam.--Vintagekits 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Shyam, that didn't make sense. Are you saying that people should avoid edits to do with mediation - e.g. creating articles with "Volunteer"? In which case, surely the perpetrator should be penalised, but instead the whole mediation is brought down! Please clarify. Logoistic 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic, no decision on the term has been made so there is NOTHING wrong with using it at the moment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you hadnt started this nonsense tonight then this would all be over tommorrow--Vintagekits 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Two points. One, whatever dispute we're having over whether sopmething breaks mediation, should not therefore bring the mediation down itself. Secondly, I still assert that creaitng articles with "Volunteer" in it is just the same as adding it to an existing article. Syham - you should have replied to the topic above to clarify the position. You are the mediator. I can't see how you can close the case over this. Logoistic 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I had notified all the involved parties to stay away from the related pages and make all your related contributions to the single page, which was not being done and rather they started edit wars. One more thing, please do not start personal attacks on each other at my talk page. Mediators can perform their work well when the involved parties take the mediation seriously. But I do not think the parties took this informal mediation seriously. So I had to take tough decisions. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That is beyond crazy - THERE IS ONE DAY, ONE DAY! ONE DAY!!! before this is over after MONTHS of work. Please do not do this, please do not do this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I beg you. I can not go through this again, PLEASE I beg you, I will do anything just let this be over tommorrow, PLEASE PLEASE! let this be over once and for all, FOR GOD SAKE IT IS ONE DAY. PPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE reconsider - I have taken this very serious and done everything you have asked me to do and listened to everthing you have said - I think I am going to throw my computer out my window. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reconsider and make your decision tommorrow like you said.--Vintagekits 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make spam on my page. Sorry for being rude, but I want to add, if you took this case seriously then you might not have created contrary articles as mentioned above. I already said to make all the related edits to the single page with providing reliable sources. Shyam (T/C) 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars? Where were any edit wars? The only edit wars I can think of was when El Chito changed "Volunteer" to "member", and Vintage changed them back. Are you saying because a user broke what was regarded as the consensus that therefore the mediation is closed? Surely this was an example of enforcement by Vintage. Moreover, me and Vintage are currently at juxtapositions regarding whether adding "Volunteer" to a new article coutns as breaking mediation. We are asking, and are concerned about, the consensus of mediation. We are not going about breaking mediation in edit wars between "member" and "Volunteer", but merely asking for clarification over the mediation response. If you are having problems mediating the case please transfer it to another admin who is willing. But I can't see any grounds for closing the case. Logoistic 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I also find it incredibly insulting that you seem to suggest we didn't take the mediation "seriously". We have been in juxtaposition over this for months now, and constantly following consensus as per the mediation page. Just as it was going to become official and closed, you stop it. Logoistic 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly - the only person that started an edit war was "El Chito" - who just arrived on the scene to cause trouble and he never even got invloved in the mediation, so how can you say we did not take it serious??????? - just because he started an edit war doesnt not mean you should give me a nervous breakdown - I am at my wits end and will NEVER forgive you or forget this if you do this. YOU MUST RECONSIDER, if for no other reason then to save me from going mental.--Vintagekits 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am so stressed out I think I need to lie down.--Vintagekits 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I may consider re-opening this case. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Shyam. You write: "if you took this case seriously then you might not have created contrary articles". Surely you should enforce the mediation consensus on Vintage for creating these articles rather than closing the case because one user decided to "create contrary articles" as you put it! Logoistic 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Shyams advice was "You should be kept away yourself from contrary edits to resolve the disputes." - this is what I did, you did not do this. --Vintagekits 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest both of you stop accusing each other, because such conduct is completely against the spirit of mediation. Try to actually consider the other person and their frustrations, and try to remember we are compiling an encyclopedia for the benefit of the world. This incident in its own small way is part of that, so let's try to get it right, not so one party or another in this tiny dispute gets its way, but so that a small bit of information is presented to the reader in the best possible way. That is the only consideration. Please remember it. Tyrenius 02:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening case

Shyam, I respect your decision on this as the mediator and will support you, whatever you decide. I have offered to take up this issue if you do keep the case closed. However, it would make my life a lot easier if you take it to a conclusion! If you decide to, and I can be of any assistance, please let me know. I have had some thoughts on the matter. Tyrenius 02:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No that you havew reopened the case - how long do people have to post their proof that it is a rank.--Vintagekits 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shyam, I hope it's OK that I've put an evaluation on the mediation page. I hope it will help to have an outside voice. I will follow any decision you make regarding this. Tyrenius 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers

You recently semi-protected the Jonas Brothers article, but anon editors are still editing the article. Can you fix this? QuasyBoy 24:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Back again

Hi Shyam, it's ikiroid. I apologize for not having worked on my admin coaching activities for the past few weeks—I went on an involuntary hiatus as a result of my computer breaking down. I'm working on a laptop which I have for a temporary amount of time, but my computer should be repaired (or I'll get a new one) soon enough. My editing patterns should be a bit more regular from now on. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shyam/Archive9

You deleted my page When it was really good. It was not nonsense if the highschoolers made it. Please Respond WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • count) Review Me! 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, can you please explain the reasoning behind this decision to close the mediation:

Reject: All the parties are not demonstrating good-faith interest in mediation.

What can I do to make this mediation be accepted? What can others parties do?

Thank you for your time and your work. As I mention to Essjay, I would never want to be an administrator of these pages, because it would feel to much like real work :) Hats off to you for voluntering your time to do this.

I think all parties want to avoid an RFC and Arbcom ruling, I really think we have made real genuine progress and can work this out. I really think a third party would be able to help us all out. Travb (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have different information than I do, but User:Cls14's comment in the agreement section is a question about what the steps to the mediation process are, not questioning the process itself. Before rejecting the mediation request, could you ask for clarification from Cls14 or show the rest of us where they showed the lack of willingness to mediate? I don't think there is any lack of good faith in mediation on Cls14's part, just confusion as to what is supposed to happen once they accept mediation. --Bobblehead 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have commented on the Cls14's page for the time being, but I do not think there is anything confusion about Cls14's statements made on the mediation page. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Shyam Bihari, if Cls14 were to remove the question, and simply agree to the mediation, could we move forward with the mediation? Like User:Mobile 01[2] and User:Bobblehead, I am rather confused why this mediation was closed. I was actually shocked that you mentioned Cls14 as the reason.
It was rather difficult to create the mediation request, and I spent a good amount of time creating the mediation and making sure I did it correctly. So like Mobile 01 and Bobblehead, I feel really disappointed it was closed.
I asked Cls14 to remove the comment User_talk:Cls14#Request_for_Mediation.
Thanks again for your hard work in a difficult job. Travb (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if Cls14 could demonstrate good-faith in mediation and take his statements back within 3 days from closing of the mediation, then it could be possible to re-open. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Shyam Bihari, Since I relisted the article, I made some changes to make the system easier for future users, so rejecting the old request actually turned out to be a good event, not a bad one :) Have a great week. Travb (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 6 5 February 2007 About the Signpost
Foundation organizational changes enacted Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

deletion?

you deleted Talk:Jamaiat_Al-Wafa_LiRayat_Al-Musenin.

when an administrator honors a speedy tag aren't they supposed to do a sanity check first?

the main page is small. but it is referenced. it is not a legitimate candidate for a speedy.

Geo Swan 12:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The page was blank so the blank talk pages are the candidates for speedy deletion. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for trying to understand this. Looking at wp:csd I see there is a {{blanked}} tag -- to be used when an article was blanked by its only editor. So, is {{blank}} a synonym for {{blanked}}? If it is, but it is undocumented in wp:csd, then, in the interests of transparency, either it should be added to wp:csd, or IMO, its use should be deprecated.
Looking at wp:csd -- I don't see it authorizing the deletion of blank talk pages I see it authorizing the deletion of talk pages for pages that don't exist.
I am afraid I have found that many editors, and some administrators, aren't careful when it comes to deletion.
  • Some administrators fail to check the article's history, or otherwise check to see whether the tag was a valid tag. A vandal blanked Hazrat Ali, an editor applied a speedy deletion tag, an administrator deleted it. I didn't notice any of this until another editor created a new, stub article. The administrator in question restored it for me, and apologized.
I had an unpleasant interaction with an uncivil administrator a few weeks ago. Not my first. Frankly, I considered her a rogue admin, who seemed to feel that a 100% confidence she was right freed her from the obligation to be civil, who was unwilling to acknowledge mistakes, who claimed authorization for actions which were counter to policy and procedure. I am relieved that after a confrontation on wp:an, over another issue, where she couldn't acknowledge a mistake, she announced her resignation from the wikipedia. I didn't speak up in that other confrontation. I would have been just as happy if she had only resigned from being an administrator.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

I think we're there. I'm not sure what happens next, but I presume there is some kind of formal closure, and await whatever actions you choose to take now. Tyrenius 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the mediation cabal case as most of the involved parties agreed with the concensus. Shyam (T/C) 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort on this case. Bastun 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I award you a barnstar for your work the case. Tyrenius 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For your work as a mediator, particularly on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. Tyrenius 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar. Actually, you deserve all the credits for this mediation cabal. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I did the easy bit, after you'd slogged through it all! Team work. Tyrenius 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus

Good morning (GMT time); I hope you are well. As you may know, I am currently mediating the above case on a non-Committee-member basis for the Mediation Committee; as an extension to that, I'd like to ask your opinion on my handling of this case: do you have any advice for my improvement, what do you think of my recent decision concerning an uncivil comment (statements at the page bottom), and (if any :) do you have anything that you feel I've handled well? DR is something that has become quite important to me on wikipedia, and I'm anxious to have my standard of mediating/advocating improved - and who better than yourself to give some constructive criticism?

Awaiting your reply.

Yours,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, first of all, I would like to thank you for mediating the case on the behalf of a member of Mediation Committee. I would like to appericate your efforts to this complicated mediation case. I appericiate the comments about civility whatever you made, as they are useful and helpful to mediate this case smoothly. I am sure it would close as succesful mediation very soon. If I understand the sub-dispute correctly, you may point out the involved parties to this essay and policy. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I am glad to see that the Committee is of the opinion that I am performing well at the case. Yours, Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

PIRA Volunteer v PIRA member

Can you tell me how this turned out in mediation or arbitration? Is it OK to use Volunteer or not. Given that it is Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members and not Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army volunteers, I believe, and for all the other reasons w/o rehashing, that "member" should be used.

Thanks, El chulito 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the concensus has been reached. Please discuss on the related talk pages with other related contributors what it should be? Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

El chulito 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)==Thanks, Shyam== Thanks, can you link me to the mediation in question?? I have tried without any success to find a final resolution spelled out in black and white.

Yours, El chulito 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it -- it is not very helpful, but...

El chulito is back and immediately breaches WP:NPA

Please see the messages that El chulito has left for me here. I have put up with weeks of abuse from this guy. Can you please take action.

Also see his recent edits where he is removing Volunteer from a number of article - what was this mediation about it some editors are allowed to behave like this--Vintagekits 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the mediation cabal has been closed for now. You may consider reporting incident on AN/I. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As I excpected! You were only ever happy to take action against me and no one else - even when I was being called a "Fenian".--Vintagekits 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what thoughts you have about me? But, I tried to perform in the manner as what could be expected from a mediator. But, as now the mediation cabal has been closed, it is better to go for related generalised pages in case of any conflicts. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not meant as a personal attack, just my comments on your mediation. I thought your performance as a mediator on this case was very poor and that you didnt really know exactly how to handle the issue and were saved by Tyrenius.--Vintagekits 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The comments on Shyam are uncalled for. Participants, including you, did not follow the requirements he made. If it weren't for him conducting the case and then agreeing to reopen it (when he need not have done), I wouldn't have been able to summarise and there would have been no consensus. He deserves thanks, but I suppose it is literally a thankless task. Tyrenius 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tyrenius for keeping my user page in your watchlist. I really appericiate your efforts in this mediation. Without you, it would be extremely difficult to close the case successfully. The main reason in the delay of the mediation cabal was making personal attacks on other users and involved parties did not take the mediation cabal seriously. They start continuing making contrary edits. I requested all the involved parties to make contributions on the page which was not being done. If that could be happened, there would be no difficulty in closing. I again very thank you, Tyrenius. Shyam (T/C) 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I realise it sounds pretty harsh and very unthankful, but after stepping back and taking a cold look at it, I think it was handled terribly. Its not an attack or an attempt to be uncivil just my honest assessment.--Vintagekits 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed handled terribly — by some of the participants. In the meantime, I think there are more productive uses of time, like, for example, doing an analysis of the different sources in contention, which I asked you to do, and which hasn't been done. Tyrenius 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I thank Shyam for taking up the case, but I do agree that it could have been handled a lot better. In particular, it was not clear what the consensus was at any given point, the breaking of mediation was ignored for a long time, and then when an issue arose about what the consensus was over the issue of creating new articles with "Volunteer" as opposed to adding them to existing articles (deriving from the fact that the consensus wasn't made clear) the case was bizarely shut down for apparantly not taking the mediation seriously, and no response given to my request for him to look at this issue. To be honest, I was insulted at that, and thought it was an easy way for the moderator to get out of a quagmire of a case. Again, I thank Shyam for taking up the case, but don't think it right to cover over mistakes for the sake of someone's reputation/feelings, particularly as so much energy has been spent over the issue by those involved. Logoistic 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats what I meant to say but it came out a bit more harsh. I thank Shyam for his time and effort, my complaint was that we didnt know where we stood half of the time and it wasnt ever made clear to us. Anyway, thank you for your time and good luck on Wiki. regards--Vintagekits 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. I do agree with you that the case could have been handled better I had but the main reason was the involved parties did not follow the instructions and take it as an informal mediation. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I would like you to indicate where "involved parties did not follow the instructions". Even if someone does break an apparant mediation consensus (whatever that was at the time), shouldn't you have taken action against that user? I wouldn't otherwise want to push the issue, but I do not like the idea of me being branded as someone who didn't take the mediation seriously, or follow the instructions. Logoistic 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic, the mediation was an informal mediation. There is no legal boundation on the users if they do not follow the mediation consensus, so a user can not be punished on the basis of not following mediation instructions and rules of the mediation cabal. There are many instances where involved parties did not follow the instructions. They tend to contribute and make contrary edits on the related pages, rather they need to make a full article of Volunteer (Irish republican) with citing all the reliable sources which I repeated several times, which was not being done. I suppose we should not discuss this issue has mediation cabal has already been closed and most of the parties agree with the consensus. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could not contribute to the Volunteer article in any large measure because I do not have sufficient knowledge to do so. My concern was over its use. You even gave a deadline for producing evidence, so you can't suggest that lack of advancement on the Volunteer article was a reason for closing the case. Moreover, I fail to see these "contrary edits" you are referring to. You failed to reply to the messages I left you here, here, and here. You did not respond to my highlighting of canvassing here. You orignally propose this, which seems to change to "Where the term "volunteer" would be used as NPOV" here. You close the case indicating that "Involved parties did not take mediation seriously and broke rules many times." I cannot see any rules that were broken many times. Nor can I understand why you think we wern't being serious. Do you think we like getting stressed like this? On this basis, I strongly disagree with the awarding of the barnstar to you based on this case, as I am very dissatisfied with the way this mediation was handled before Tyrenius came along. I hope you can see where I think you went wrong, and hopefully you can use it as a learning experience for future cases. Logoistic 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)You say "I could not contribute to the Volunteer article in any large measure because I do not have sufficient knowledge to do so. My concern was over its use." The article is where its use can be studied and analysed in sufficient depth to provide the knowledge necessary to be able to determine its proper use elsewhere. This is why Shyam sensibly made this request. It shows a lack of respect for the mediation process that this was not done. If you do not have sufficient knowledge to determine this in the Volunteer article, then you cannot have sufficient knowledge to determine it elsewhere. I commend Shyam for having the fortitude to bear so long with such obtuseness. Tyrenius 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why evidence was requested within a deadline. It was discussed by users in the know, particularly Jnestorious and Vintagekits. Once the evidence was clearly presented on the Volunteer talk page, I then gave my assessment. I did have sufficient knowledge to determine it elsewhere - it has positive connotations (it didn't just happen to be the same word as "volunteer" in the good citizen sense) that glorify in a way similar to "martydom operation" for suicide bombing. My concern was always about removing this glorification from the article persona, and your (Tyrenius) proposal did this sufficiently. My position was clear throughout the mediation. Logoistic 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice Logoistic, I will take care in the future more carefully. But, I would recommend you to read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal carefully. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The fact is that this mediation ended well. This resulted from two stages, the more drawn out one by Shyam, the summarising by myself. His role was essential for that. I can assure you I would not have sat through it, so that was his strength. Mine was to finish the last lap. No one has every attribute and we can fill in for each other. Now can we let it rest please and do something productive. Tyrenius 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RE ATTACKING OTHER EDITORS

Dear Shyam:

I do not believe I attacked anyone, but please accept my apologies if any other editor felt attacked. As a matter of fact I contacted User:Vintagekits with a suggestion for a serious and dignified compromise, to which he/she has not responded (see last section @[3])

Again, please extend my apologies to whomever felt attacked (as he or she has not contacted me directly re this accusation) as that was not my intention.El chulito 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I was distracted ;-).--cj | talk 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It does happen while we have to make number of changes, so someone has to fix. I did in this case :) Shyam (T/C) 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of prod

Hi, you left the following message on User talk:Vintagekits: Please do not remove {{prod}} without explaining the reason and inproving the article. This sounds to me like a warning, even though Vintagekits did nothing wrong: any editor may remove a {{prod}} notice without explanation. It's good form to include one, but it's not required. Furthermore, you violated the proposed deletion policy when you re-added a removed prod notice here. From Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Conflicts:

If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense)...

If you wish to continue using the {{prod}} template, please familiarize yourself with the policy, as it can be very confusing to inexperienced users when they're warned for an action that wasn't actually improper. And please don't re-add removed prod templates. Let me know if you have any questions. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Darcy, for clearing out the misconception. I will take care to these points in the future. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Aeluros Inc

Why did you remove the speedy delete tag? As far as I can see, there was no assertion of notability, even on the talk page? J Milburn 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by author it refers to a company that manufactures state of the art components for networking infrastructure and is a significant contributor to the maturing 10 gigabit ethernet standard. is significant enough to remove speedy delete tag. I would recommend to nominate it for AfD. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

why did you delete my page on AFC Wandsworth, i really dislike you right now. I am 13 and spen all day doing that not for you to come and delete it i was asked to do that by my manager amit patel and i had not finished when you came and destryoy it was there any point REPLY PLZ I AM REALLY PISSED OFF!!!!!!!11 :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfholmesattivor2 (talk • contribs)

I am unable to find out which page are you talking about? If you are talking about Afcwandsworth, then it had never been deleted. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

in the deletion log it says that page afc wandsworth was deleted by you, not Afcwandsworth, that is a different page

19:58, 10 February 2007 Shyam Bihari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Afc wandsworth" (A7 Not notable article)

This is proof of your deletion of my page

The article was being deleted because it was non-notable. If I am not wrong then probably you have tried to create a new duplicate article of Afcwandsworth, which is already on deletion. If this is the case, then please don't do so. If you think the article is notable and satisfies all the policies and guidelines then improve the nominated article rather creating a seperate one. Please consider signing your comments using four tildes (~~~~) Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable Photo

Image:n121402700_30422168_5047.jpeg was tagged by me for speedy deletion because it does not meet the requirements of notability per the Template:db-bio-photo template. It is a photo of a person and there is no assertion of notability in the image description. Where exactly does it fail the criteria that you claim in the edit summary? Thanks. ju66l3r 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use this template. It is a non-sense template. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh RFM

Can you advise the parties of the next step in the Rush Limbaugh RFM process, now that it has been accepted by the Mediation Committee? Thanks. Kpedsea 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep patience until the acceptance. One member from the mediation committee will take case soon then mediation will started. In the meantime, keep RFM in your watchlist for the acceptance of the case and further instructions. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page on Brian Bartish?

The page was non-sense and non-notable. If you want to create this article, it seems to be notable by its contents. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AAVE mediation inquiry...

Hello Shyam Bihari, I wanted to ask you about the AAVE mediation you recently accepted. I wanted to ask about how it would work and when it will start. I have never gone through a mediation before so it is new to me. Thank you.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, thanks for considering me to answer. The Mediation Committee has accepted your case. There are many cases are pending which would be taken by the members of the committee on their convenience. Generally a case gets started after 2 to three weeks of the acceptance. But, it is not compulsary, it could be taken earlier or later by a member of the mediation committee. Please keep your case in your watchlist in the meantime. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Will you be the one who takes up the case for mediation or did you simply accept the case on behalf of the mediation committee?Wikidudeman (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not necessary that I will take up the case from the Mediation Committee. Any member from the mediation committe can take up according to their convenience. I made an acceptance as it qualifies for the mediation and meets all the criteria. Shyam (T/C) 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for explaining it.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost
US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Jana_Gana_Mana.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jana_Gana_Mana.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

about Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dokdo

am I participate in mediation from the middle?--Forestfarmer 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Forestfarmer, thanks for asking, but please do not involve yourself in this mediation. We are close to get a concensus, so there is no need to involve more people. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, thanks your response.--Forestfarmer 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

good-faith

I logically pointed out the problem of your proposal. No one can persuade when you run away from your contradiction. It is you that no good-faith. If you have the friend from the law school, please hear to him about your proposal and my point. Regards,--Opp2 13:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I respect the Radha Binod Pal judge in India. It is not because he insists on a Japanese innocence theory. It is because he was faithful to the law though he was pressure from the victorious country. adios!!--Opp2 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is last comment really. This is sentences that I was preparing for the explanation to you about Japanese terra nullius story. Because the usage was lost, I leave here.

International Law is not applied before International Law is received. Terra nullius and title by occupation are concepts of International Law. I will liken terra nullius story to the computer network for the understanding of International Law.
  • SNA(IBM's Mainframe network protocol)=Eastern Asia rule about territory
  • TCPIP=International law=Europien rule about territory
  • TELNET=title by occupation of International law
Japan say
Thogh we used SNA as communications protocol. But we will use TELNET for communication from now because we change the computer to unix system.
Mr.Kim say
If Japan had already used the computer network, TELNET need not be used again. The use of TELNET is evidence that Japan did not use the computer network befor. The insistence of Japan is contradicted.

Good luck!!--Opp2 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, your comments were very vague. They were not clearer to me what they want to describe. I asked you to be brief, but rather being brief, you did not demonstrate good faith and made incivil comments. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It is because you do not know the international law. Confirm to your friend of the law school. Even if my English is cruel, he will be able to understand. --Opp2 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... Network Neutrality mediation

You rejected the case on the grounds that Stevertigo didn't agree to the previous case; as point of fact, he *did* agree to the previous case. *I* was the one that rejected it, and made a different counteroffer. I don't see how you can arbitrarily kill the case without giving him a chance to consider it.WolfKeeper 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not notice that. If this was the case then I suppose there was no requirement to make a fresh request, you can add those points in the issues to be mediated. If you do not mind, you could make a fresh request again. Sorry again. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Shyam/Archive9

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Network Neutrality

Please reply -Ste|vertigo 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Editor's Barnstar
For deleting a great number of images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, I, Conscious, award you this Editor's Barnstar. 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

World cup squads

I saw the new one pop up on Paul Collingwood. If you compare it with the 2003 version, it was alphabetical, but this isn't. I think alpha order is a useful way to go. What do you think? --Dweller 13:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could arrange them alphabetically. For the time being I am following the order mentioned here. But, I am unable to see albhabetical arrangement in {{England Squad 2003 Cricket World Cup}}. I do not have any problem following any order, go ahead as you wish. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Quite right. The 2003 box goes captain, vice captain, then alphabetical. --Dweller 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...It could be arranged in that manner. But personally I would prefer to arrange them in batting order. Shyam (T/C) 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In a squad of 16, and with potential for pinch-hitters, it's difficult to do that without POV. Where would you list Gilchrist for Australia? --Dweller 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in those cases it would be quite difficult to determine. So please go ahead as you wish. Probably the last world cup format seems better. Shyam (T/C) 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SVG v. PNG

Hello Shyam. I read your comment regarding SVG and PNG file formats. I understand that SVG format files display much sharper. Unfortunately I find that at least on my Mac platform SVG files often upload but then are no longer visible in an article. Would you have an idea as to why, or what I can do to make this work? My process is to creat files in QuarkXPress, save as an EPS, open in Adobe Illustrator select all and save type as outlines. Then save as SVG. Many thanks. Best, Jim CApitol3 15:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Transition to SVG. It could be done by the help of Inkscape. Please download and install inkscape. You can help by creating SVG file to the commons. Shyam (T/C) 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WYSS

Please look further into pages before you delete them. While you were deleting that page, I was performing a history merge which would have been seen had you looked into either the log or the history. Please be a bit more careful in the future. Thanks, Kyle Barbour 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see it before deleting. As I was trying to fix it, I saw it has already been fixed. Thanks for your notice. I will be more careful in the future. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Cheers, Kyle Barbour 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Shyam, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I am honored by the support I have received from the community. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 04:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 8 19 February 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

nancy reagan edits

Just curious, was there a reason you deleted the image?Arcayne 14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Image:Reaganinagural.jpg? If yes, then the reason has been mentioned in the deletion log, (i.e. I4 - Image with no copyright tag for more than 7 days). If not, then please let me know the image address. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just a tag error. I was skimming through the wiki image library, and the image was there (I wasn't really looking for it, and only noted it bc it was familiar)Arcayne 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

why?

Please stop reverting the page User:FarmSanctuary unless you have a valid reason. I have no idea why you keep reverting, so please stop immediately. If you do not have a valid reason and continue to revert, I am going to report you to Wikipedia immediately.

Stop vandalising and blanking the pages. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shyam, re. your block of Brooklyn5: I think we may safely believe them when they say that Brooklyn5 is the same user as FarmSanctuary, and that they were just trying to get their old userpage deleted. Poor communication on their part, certainly, but I think they should be unblocked. I'm going to fulfill the request and delete the userpage too (not the user talk page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I have deleted FarmSanctuary's page and unblocked Brooklyn5. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 09:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairuz Picture

May I know why did you delete Fayrouz's picture from Beiteddine without even giving a reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabe88 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you talking about Image:Fayrouz02.jpg? If yes, then the reason has been mentioned in the deletion log, (i.e. I4 - Image with no copyright tag for more than 7 days). If not, then please let me know the image address. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image of Ente Malyalam

Will you please inform why the image in Ente Malayalam was removed and what should I do to insert that image (CNRNair) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CNRNair (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you talking about Image:Entemal01.jpg? If yes, then the reason has been mentioned in the deletion log, (i.e. I4 - Image with no copyright tag for more than 7 days). If you want to use some image, then please read the policy carefully. Please provide the appropriate copyright tag to tha image with providing source information. If still, you want to know some clarifications, then please let me know. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The creator of the image Image:Entemal01.jpg has added it with appropriate copyright tag. Hope the procedure was right. contribs) 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please use an appropriate tag for the image. It seems to be {{software-screenshot}}, rather than {{GFDL-self}}. If yes, then please add fair use rationale to the image with correcting the tag. Shyam (T/C) 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Although not a requirement, restoring the previous logo would have been more helpful. Deleting logo2 resulted in the first logo being orphaned. Fortunately I was able to save it before the orphan fair use image patrol would have deleted that one as well. Pendragon39 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on BJBot talk page, as this seems to be the actual cause of the situation. Pendragon39 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The location of this user IP (which you have previously blocked) seems to be mislabeled:

It is from Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is a long ways from Georgia!

It is still being used for vandalism. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

09:10, 21 February 2007 Shyam Bihari deleted Image:0401.jpg (I4 - Image with no copyright tag for more than 7 days)

I'm addled. The image was published some time in 1901. Evrenosogullari 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is so, I would appericiate if you could mention the image source as well. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Shyam, it's Ikiroid checking in again. I've completed all but one of the speedy deletion exercises, and I also have a question regarding a new article which may or may not be a speedy deletion candidate. If you have time, your response would be appreciated. Thanks for everything so far, by the way. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was away. So I could not look into your response and waiting for completing all of them. I will look into it as the time will permit me. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what she said

Why did you delete this page? I know that I can create an article with that title that includes at least two paragraphs, which is more than a lot of articles on Wikipedia. The more true articles, the better. It is usually a bad thing to delete articles. Please allow me to recreate the page 'That's What She Said'. It is a popular phrase popularized by the TV show 'The Offfice' and used by many people. Randomfrenchie 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look into WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for popular phrases from a TV series. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Irishguy. Be careful while using tools initially. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA you supported has closed successfully

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Meanwhile, enjoy your trip home! James086Talk 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats James. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And another one

It's been a week and a bit since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Many congratulations to you from my side. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Carennac article

I just feel the need to ask you why you felt it necessary to delete two images from Carennac. Those pictures were perfectly in context and well placed. Daniel Montin 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you could mention the image link. I suppose the probable reason for them would be I4 - Image with no copyright tag for more than 7 days. Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 9 26 February 2007 About the Signpost
Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk" News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Satan Triumphant deletion

I just wanted to argue the "patent nonsense" designation on this speedy: as I last left the article, it was a concise description of the term. I'll give you non-notable if I have to, but definitely not nonsense.--SarekOfVulcan 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. But the article does not seem to be suitable for me because the page contains quotations. If you want to write quotations then please use Wikiquote. If you think the main reason should be non-notable then I would agree with you and please do not write articles which are non-notable. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shyam/Archive9&oldid=1083444280"