text:
Talk:Multiple comparisons problem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrowning17. Peer reviewers: Jbrowning17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Coin flip calculation
"the likelihood that a fair coin would come up heads at least 9 out of 10 times is 11 * (½)10 = 0.0107."

Can someone please explain where the 11 came from? My own understanding is that it should be a 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.132 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It says "at least nine", not "exactly nine".
 * And "likelihood" is the wrong word here; I've changed it to "probability". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P(Heads at least 9 out of 10 times)= P(Heads 10 out of 10 times) + P(Heads 9 out of 10 times)
 * = 1/2^{10} + choose(10,1) 1/2^{10}
 * = 11 * 1/2^{10} 128.231.234.23 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * = 11 * 1/2^{10} 128.231.234.23 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you add a reference of some kind ? Maybe looks obvious to a statistician, but not so much for me. And I'm a scientist ! Would be very helpful for the general reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.10.49 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Any outcome of tossing a fair coin 10 times has probibility of (1/2) ^ 10. There is only one way to get 10 heads and then 10 ways of getting 9 heads (once for each of the 10 throws being a tail e.g. first is a tail or third is a tail) hence (1 + 10) * (1/2). 213.173.165.162 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple comparisons or multiple testing ?
I have always heard of the problems explained in the article under the name multiple testing (cf also the Benjamini & Hochberg paper cited at end of the page), so I would be tempted to suggest to move the article to this name, but it may simply be a bias on my side. Any opinion ? Schutz 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Multiple comparisons is what I've always heard; multiple testing to me sound like simultaneous testing of multiple null hypotheses, and that is not the same topic. So I oppose such a move. Michael Hardy 22:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * multiple testing is exactly what you call multiple comparisons, but I'd be interested to know of any reference that documents the meaning that you indicated above. As I wrote above, I have read mainly papers that use the terminology multiple testing, but this may be a bias among researchers specialised in a specific area. For example, almost all the literature on the statistical analysis of DNA microarray use this term (I just added a sentence on this on the microarray page). Given that noone else has answered my suggestion (thanks for jumping in !), I will not move the page, but I will indicate clearly that multiple testing is (also) what we are talking about here. Schutz 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, after rereading the article again, it seems to me that it is very confusing in its present state ! If one reads only the first sentence, multiple comparisons is indeed not the same as multiple testing: if, by multiple comparison, this article means basically "what you do after obtaining a significant ANOVA F-test", then indeed we are not talking about multiple testing in general (which covers more generally the problems of "using statistical tests repeatedly" as indicated in the intro). Do you agree ? In this case, most of the discussion could go in a more general article on multiple testing, that I will be happy to start. Unfortunately, all the definitions I have been able to find so far for multiple comparisons blur the distinction with multiple testing. Schutz 00:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Michael Hardy that the term often used is multiple comparisons. I have used it myself, and had reviewers of my own research papers claim I need to do "multiple comparisons corrections." Also, google returns 177,000 hits for the search bonferroni+"multiple comparisons", and 48,000 for bonferroni+"multiple testing". Debivort 08:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am lost here; please see the last comment I have written above. It seemed clear to me that this article was about the ANOVA F-test multiple comparison problem; indeed, most of the procedures linked from this page are specifically about "comparing sets of means", as was the lead section. Based on this, the article has been split between multiple comparisons (this page), and multiple testing (the general problem). The (good) changes you have made are about the general problem. If the consensus is that multiple comparisons is the general problem, then the two pages should be merged — and this article should be cleaned up. But I must say that I like the split approach, and it seems logical: with the ANOVA, you are really comparing a set of means, while testing really refers to the application of multiple statistical tests, whatever they are. The google searches do not tell us if the two terms have the exact same meaning (some of the links for multiple comparisons point towards the ANOVA question only; some talk about the more general problem). For the record, even though it is not relevant to this particular discussion, I have mostly seen the term multiple testing for the general problem, including in reviews of research papers. Hey, the only paper in the bibliography of the article that mention anything says multiple testing, and it is about the general problem ;-). Schutz 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mathworld says that Bonferroni corrections address the multiple comparisons problem. They alas do not have an entry on "multiple testing". It seems like the article text (parts not by me) and all of the statistical tests linked below that I am familiar with address "multiple comparisons" as the problem is conceived by me and Mathworld. Is your conception of multiple comparisons (i.e. the ANOVA f-test) a specific example of multiple testing/my conception of multiple comparisons? I wonder if we aren't just running into a linguistic rather than content-based hurdle here. Debivort 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, I first thought it was only a linguistic question when I started this discussion a few months ago. It is only based on the comments above (it was mentioned in particular that multiple testing and multiple comparisons were not the same thing), and the content of the article that I assumed that multiple comparisons (i.e. the ANOVA f-test) was a specific example of multiple testing — while it was not my conception, I was ok with the distinction and spinned-off the multiple testing article, which no one objected about. This is why I am a bit puzzled about the going back. I wonder if there may be a systematic difference in vocabulary between statisticians working in different fields; the statistical papers I have seen so far were all about multiple testing (starting with Benjamini-Hochberg, as mentioned above). This is probably why I easily believed that multiple comparisons was the special case, but it may be only a bias. In any case, if the consensus is that multiple testing==multiple comparison (hopefully other people will say something), then the first priority would be to merge the other article, instead of rewriting it (although it may be too late). As a side note, at least some of the linked articles are indeed specially related to ANOVA. Schutz 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does seem like we need to rope in some other comments. I'll ask around if anyone has the time to comment on it. Maybe you can do the same? Debivort 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I don't know if I am biased by may concrete problem, as I am not statistician, neither I am english native speaker, but I'll try to help. According to dictionary:

Testing n. 1. The act of testing or proving; trial; proof. [1913 Webster]

Comparison n. 1. The act of comparing; an examination of two or more objects with the view of discovering the resemblances or differences; relative estimate. [1913 Webster]

With these definitions, I think that making _multiple test_ is repeating a test some times. An example, if we want to test if A is better than B (or equal, or whatever). After that we got C and we want to test A vs C, and B vs C. Then comes D and I want A-D, B-D, C-D... If we do that, with a t-test or wilcoxon, it is more likely having false positives (the coin example in the article). In this way, we would be accepting a false hipotesis for example saying that A has the same mean that D. For this reason, we have tests designed to avoid this: ANOVA (parametric), Friedman (nonparametric), others??...

After performing ANOVA or Friedman, we only know that for example H0: A = B = C = D is not true. Then we would probably want to know which one is different from the others. For this purpose, we can apply one of the techniques that allow us to _compare_ every pair: Tukey test, Nemenyi, Bonferroni...

The previous could clearly split article in two, but probably I have left other ideas, like those about techniques to repeat a test in order to increase power that I do not know of. I think we should clearify which contents do we want here before deciding about one or two articles. Arauzo 18:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Revising some bibliografy, in (Zar, 1999) these are chapters 10 an 11:

 * Multiple Hypotheses: the analysis of variance. This chapter introduces the problem of repeating the same test to over different samples to confirm various hypothesis over them (coin example). Then explains ANOVA and their non-paramentric extensions like Kruskal Walls and points to chapter 14 for other techniques with more than one factor ex. Friedman.

 * Multiple comparisons. This chapter explains how the comparisons among pairs of the samples tested in an ANOVA test should be done and different test for comparisons like Tukey.

 * In the start of chapter 11: 'The term "multpliple comparisons" was introduced by D. B. Duncan in 1951', according to (David 1995).

 * H. A. David First (?) occurrence of common terms in mathematical statistics. Amer. Statist. 49: 121-133, 1995.
 * Jerrol H. Zar, Biostatistica Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall 1999, ISBN 013081542X
 * Arauzo 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support. I'm late to this discussion, but I've never heard of multiple testing, until just now. I use multiple comparisons as a term all the time (especially Bonferroni and friends). Could it be a UK/US thing, or a case where SPSS has dictated the vocabulary to the world? Otherwise, I think the time for merger may be here. I'll plan to do it in a couple of days, if I don't here from anyone else. -Scott Alberts 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Multiple testing and multiple comparisons should remain different pages. The difference is not merely UK/US or terminology, but one of essential difference. Multiple testing, or multiple hypotheses testing, is the general problem of testing several null hypotheses while controlling the overall chance of false positive; Bonferroni correction of P-values is the most common method for doing this, but not the only one. Multiple comparisons are the special cases where the tests are comparisons between groups, typically several pairwise comparisons on a set of groups (e.g. all-against-all or one-against-all); although Bonferroni correction is still valid, it is typically not very powerful as it does not make use of the dependencies between different pairwise tests performed on the same groups. I'll see if I can make an update to the multiple testing page at some point which will make this difference more clear. --Septagon 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm late to the party here, but "multiple comparisons" and "multiple testing" are typically considered as fairly interchangeable terms these days. One of the most respected experts on the topic is J.P. Shaffer, who said: "The term 'multiple comparisons' has come to be used synonymously with 'simultaneous inference,' even when the inferences do not deal with comparisons" (from "Multiple hypothesis testing: A review," Annual Review of Psychology, Shaffer, 1995). In various instances over the decades, people have sometimes used the term "multiple comparisons" more narrowly (referring to ANOVA-type contexts), but I disagree with Septagon's statement that "multiple comparisons" can only be used in the context of group comparisons. For example, in a within-subjects (repeated measures) design, there aren't separate groups, but there could still be "multiple comparisons" if there are more than one factor or more than two factor levels or more than one outcome variable.

"Multiple comparisons" is an older term than "multiple testing," so it is not surprising that it shows up more in searches. But "multiple testing" is now very much a standard, well accepted term in the field. For instance, there is a well known text called Multiple Testing Problems in Pharmaceutical Statistics, which is authored by and edited by some of the most respected statisticians in the area. In the manual Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Testing Using SAS, by Westfall, Tobias, and Wolfinger (all respected names in the field), the authors say "the term 'multiple testing' is more common than 'multiple comparisons' when analyzing modern high-dimensional data." They make a fairly loose distinction between "multiple comparisons" and "multiple testing," saying that "multiple comparisons" is "often" used for comparisons of several treatment means, whereas "multiple testing" is used in "a broader class of applications." But certainly if one substituted nonparametric tests (in which case the comparisons wouldn't be of means), there would still be "multiple comparisons" in the literal sense. In fact, even multiple correlation tests can be considered multiple "comparisons," as each test is effectively a comparison of the correlation to zero.

To avoid confusion, maybe the best approach for this article is treat "multiple comparisons" as indeed equivalent to "multiple testing," but mention that the term has sometimes been defined more narrowly.23.242.195.76 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead section
I think that the lead section should be a little more accessable. The big picture in plain language. There is plenty of room for the subtulties of the concept further down. ike9898 01:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I don't know what the sentence "The experimentwise α level increases exponentially as the number of comparisons increases." means. What is an α level, or where do I go to look it up? Not really a field I know that much about, so I look forward to a more clear article. -- Jake 07:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree as well, and will take a crack at an edit with a more accessible intro, taking into account the current trent in multiple comparisons v testing (above). Debivort 08:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tukey's Studentized Range Test/Distribution
There is a nice summary of this by NIST at which I believe is in the public domain, as NIST is a US government agency. In fact I made a template for this: NIST-PD. Btyner 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy
There is a section in the middle of the article that is repeated word-for-word later in the article. Please fix. Thanx. --Cromwellt 5PM, 16 Feb 2007 (having login problems) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.42 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

RVs
Recent reversions may be problematic as they restore claims about Bonferroni that are uncited and have already been called into dispute. Can some of the other editors weigh in on this? de Bivort 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple comparisons for confidence intervals and hypothesis tests
The paragraph says:

"If the inferences are hypothesis tests rather than confidence intervals, the same issue arises. With just one test performed at the 5% level, there is only a 5% chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis if the null hypothesis is true. However, for 100 tests where all null hypotheses are false, the expected number of incorrect rejections is 5.  If the tests are independent, the probability of at least one incorrect rejection is 99.4%.  These errors are called false positives."

shouldn't be "However, for 100 tests where all null hypotheses are true, the expected number of incorrect rejections is 5."?

that is, we reject it when we think is false (based on the alpha level). In this case the problem arise because we reject it even if it is true. Sorry if I misunderstood- non-statistician here.Diego Diez 13:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurai yousei (talk • contribs)

Unhelpful section: "Classification of m hypothesis tests"
I suggest a re-thinking of the purpose and goal of this section. The main problem is that nothing in this section appears elsewhere in the article, so it should be deleted if no more work is done to make it useful.

The section comes at an important point in the article and risks throwing the reader off-track. The section throws a lot of variables at the reader, forcing him or her to ponder a complicated table just to come up with some pretty intuitive and obvious ideas, such as that the number of false positives and true positives add up to the number of discoveries. Do we need all this quasi-math to know that?

The table is confusing, mostly because there is no clear relation between rows and columns. I believe "Declared significant" means "Researchers believe alternative hypothesis to be true", and "Declared non-significant" means "Researchers believe null hypothesis to be true". This relabeling might make the table clearer.

So the question comes down to: what do you want to teach the reader? Currently, the section teaches nothing worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOram (talk • contribs) 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Wolf's comment on this article
Dr. Wolf has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The article is not structured well, has many holes, and even contains some wrong (or at least misleading) statements. It might be better to scrap it altogether and refer to a well-crafted review paper instead. Sorry about this negative rating but I feel the need to say it as it is.

http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2010_M000425&edition=current&q=romano%20wolf&topicid=&result_number=1"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Wolf has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference : Joseph P. Romano & Azeem M. Shaikh & Michael Wolf, 2009. "Hypothesis testing in econometrics," IEW - Working Papers 444, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
My issues with this article are: 1) the controlling procedures section is a repetitive since its merge with multiple testing correction so that needs to be condensed and cleaned up 2) the large-scale multiple testing section is largely missing citations for its claims Jbrowning17 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

sources for edit
I must say it is really ridiculous that something that can be found so easily using a search engine (as I mentioned in the original edit summary), would still need to have a source brought for it and deleted otherwise. Well here are the sources, you could just google "MCP conference XXX" (when XXX is the year of the confernce) and get these as first results, but I'll list those results anyway: Orielno (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2011 conference
 * 2013 conference
 * 2015 conference
 * 2017 conference

Multiple comparisons correction section is highly problematic
For example:

Multiple testing correction refers to re-calculating probabilities obtained from a statistical test which was repeated multiple times.

Not clear what "recalculating probabilities" means. And "repeated multiple times" doesn't make sense in this context. Multiple testing doesn't mean the same test is repeated; it means multiple different tests are conducted.

In order to retain a prescribed family-wise error rate α in an analysis involving more than one comparison, the error rate for each comparison must be more stringent than α.

Not true. For instance, you could use sequential testing or a closed testing procedure. Also, the familywise error rate is only one "total error rate" that has been defined. It would be better to mention the familywise error rate and false discovery rate, and link to the wiki articles on those topics.

Boole's inequality implies that if each of m tests is performed to have type I error rate α/m, the total error rate will not exceed α.

That sentence is grammatically indecipherable.

'''In some situations, the Bonferroni correction is substantially conservative, i.e., the actual family-wise error rate is much less than the prescribed level α. This occurs when the test statistics are highly dependent (in the extreme case where the tests are perfectly dependent, the family-wise error rate with no multiple comparisons adjustment and the per-test error rates are identical).'''

Too much detail about one specific procedure (the Bonferroni procedure) in one implausible situation (perfect dependence). Why not just briefly mention the Bonferroni procedure and link to the wiki article on that topic?

'''For example, in fMRI analysis,[8][9] tests are done on over 100,000 voxels in the brain. The Bonferroni method would require p-values to be smaller than .05/100000 to declare significance.'''

fMRI analysis is often done on over 100,000 voxels, but not always. Also, this is not the best example, since using p-values for thresholding in fMRI (as described in the cited sources) isn't quite the same as using p-values in standard null hypothesis tests.

Since adjacent voxels tend to be highly correlated, this threshold is generally too stringent.

It's POV to say the Bonferroni threshold is "generally too stringent."

Because simple techniques such as the Bonferroni method can be conservative, there has been a great deal of attention paid to developing better techniques, such that the overall rate of false positives can be maintained without excessively inflating the rate of false negatives.

It's POV to refer to other techniques being "better" than Bonferroni.

'''Such methods can be divided into general categories:

Methods where total alpha can be proved to never exceed 0.05 (or some other chosen value) under any conditions. These methods provide "strong" control against Type I error, in all conditions including a partially correct null hypothesis. Methods where total alpha can be proved not to exceed 0.05 except under certain defined conditions. Methods which rely on an omnibus test before proceeding to multiple comparisons. Typically these methods require a significant ANOVA, MANOVA, or Tukey's range test. These methods generally provide only "weak" control of Type I error, except for certain numbers of hypotheses. Empirical methods, which control the proportion of Type I errors adaptively, utilizing correlation and distribution characteristics of the observed data.'''

That entire list is unsourced, and there is no particular reason to divide multiple testing procedures into those particular categories. For one thing, these categories are not mutually exclusive (e.g., methods that provide weak control are a subset of methods that provide control "except under certain defined conditions"). Also, the first category (methods that work "under any conditions") is so narrowly defined that it excludes basically any standard method, as there are pretty much always statistical assumptions that are required. And the second category (methods that work "except under certain defined conditions") is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Also, some of the info here is false. For example, Tukey's range test is NOT an omnibus test; and a method can require a significant omnibus test and still provide strong control (e.g., Hayter's procedure). Also, the list of categories ignores procedures that are designed to control the false discovery rate, rather than the familywise error rate. It would be better to link to the familywise error rate article than attempt to cram a bunch of detail in here.

'''The advent of computerized resampling methods, such as bootstrapping and Monte Carlo simulations, has given rise to many techniques in the latter category. In some cases where exhaustive permutation resampling is performed, these tests provide exact, strong control of Type I error rates; in other cases, such as bootstrap sampling, they provide only approximate control.'''

That may be true (though no source is provided). But again, there is an entire wiki article on the familywise error rate, which covers methods of control. Why not just link to that article, instead of going into detail in this article which is supposed to be about the general problem of multiple comparisons?

Problems with the "controlling procedures" section
'''If m independent comparisons are performed, the family-wise error rate (FWER), is given by α¯ = 1 − ( 1 − α)^m. Hence, unless the tests are perfectly positively dependent (i.e., identical), α¯ increases as the number of comparisons increases.'''

The second statement, though true, doesn't follow from the first, so why "Hence?" Also, FWER is only one error rate that's been defined; what about the per-family error rate and the false discovery rate?

If we do not assume that the comparisons are independent, then we can still say: α¯ ≤ m ⋅ αpercomparison

"We can still say?" I think what was meant was that, regardless of the dependence of the tests, α¯ ≤ mαpercomparison., and the more positively dependent the tests, the more α¯ shrinks toward α.

Example: 0.2649 = 1 − ( 1 − .05 ) 6 ≤ .05 × 6 = 0.3

That "example" has no explanatory value. What's the point of simply plugging arbitrary values into the formula without providing explanation that connects those values to some useful context?

The most conservative method, which is free of dependence and distributional assumptions, is the Bonferroni correction

Not necessarily. There are procedures that can be more conservative than Bonferroni in some cases (e.g., the Benjamini–Yekutieli procedure and the Scheffé procedure). Also, note that we don't need to mention the Bonferroni procedure both here and in the next section. Also, "free of dependence and distributional assumptions" is vague and likely unclear to many readers. I suggest either being more explicit (e.g., "The Bonferroni procedure does not require any assumptions about the dependence (correlation) of the tests, and does not impose any added assumptions about the distributions of the test statistics") or simply linking to the Bonferroni correction article without going into the issue of assumptions here.

A marginally less conservative correction can be obtained by solving the equation for the family-wise error rate of m independent comparisons for αpercomparison.

That method (i.e., the Šidák procedure) is indeed marginally less conservative than Bonferroni, but it's actually marginally liberal when the tests are negatively dependent. Also, focusing on the Šidák and Holm procedures is abritrary. Numerous proceudres have been developed. Each procedures has its pros and cons, and some procedures are more generalized or specialized than others. Mentioning Bonferroni makes sense (though we don't need to do so multiple times in the article), since that's the simplest method. Why don't we just mention Bonferroni and note that there are other procedures, rather than going into detail about two particular alternatives?

Continuous generalizations of the Bonferroni and Šidák correction are presented in.[7]

That's not even a complete sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.195.76 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Multiple comparisons problem


text:
Talk:Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://0-www.jstor.org.ilsprod.lib.neu.edu/stable/1567070
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ubu.com/film/huyghe_dreaming.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610081642/http://www.archlab.tuwien.ac.at/~carpent/carpenter/texte/intro.html to http://www.archlab.tuwien.ac.at/~carpent/carpenter/texte/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Category:Chinese tea grown in Anhui

title: Category:Chinese tea grown in Anhui


text:
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 24, 2005

A researcher, Dr. Rochelle Newman, at the University of Maryland recently found that TV background noise slows the development of a baby's ability to distinguish words, such as her/his name. I suggest that this might explain some of the increase in autism. References:

and The Washington Post, April 24, 2005, p. B5 Pdn 03:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Drdr1989

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Karmafist 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Download-latest-online-music
You have been adding links to a website almost certainly run by you. You have already been warned not to do this but nevertheless, I feel that the additions should be discussed as they may be valid. Please add your comments to Talk:Snoop Dogg. Until this matter is resolved, please do not add any more links to that website on any page. But please do participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Yamla 16:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * But how about this site: A good site?
 * OR this one?

Signature
Hey there, did you know you can easily sign and date your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes i.e. ~. It'll save you some typing and put in an automatic link to your User page. If you want to customise your signature you can do so in your preferences. the wub "?/!"  21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No I actually did not know. I was wondering how their sigs and mine could be so different, not to mention their precise UTC time! I actually had to calculate mine (lol). Thanks! Drdr1989 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

vandalism
Thanks for keeping Wikipedia looking good by reverting 66.171.226.248's vandalism to Bow Wow. DDerby | Talk 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I-15
Out of curiousity.. so I-15 does go to I-5 now? --Rschen7754 03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes it now does go up to there as a junction and past that. Go ahead and add it as a junction if you like.  Drdr1989 03:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg
Drdr1989, please stop editing on the Snoop Dogg article. The date (1972) you kept reverting was wrong. Right now, I recommend you discuss your changes on the talk page please, before editing again. Thank you! -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Snoop pr0nz relisted for the intelligent:

 * Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle (also executive producer)
 * Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz - Diary of a Pimp (also executive producer)
 * Girls Gone Wild: Doggy Style (2002) as Himself
 * Snoop Dogg's Buckwild Bus Tour (also executive producer)
 * Sex in the Studio (guest appearence)

All that, linked to from the articles talk page. How many times do you need telling to read the talk pages before it sinks in? Newsmare 01:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, while you're making revealing edits like these on my behalf, you might have tried a little harder to understand the article on aporia. I'd have been employing aporia if I'd have been addressing, via rhetoric, a problem (genuinely or sarcastically) that I was having with myself.  As it was I was addressing you and your shortcomings, which I really did try to impress upon you with those handy hints.  If only you had better reading comprehension you'd have understood that.  In fact, if you had even a modicum of it, we wouldn't be discussing this at all as you wouldn't have waded into those articles so bereft of clue in the first place.  You try and be a smart***, and succeed in bringing the smart.  Love it, it completes the picture.  Oh well, I expected very little and wasn't disappointed.  If I see another **** up, I'll keep an eye out for ya.  So long.  Newsmare 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, our certain friend has kept his aporic discussion on his page where it belongs. Not to worry, a cure is on the way. In the interim, he'll hopefully do his homework and keep working upwards from the low ranks that he comtemplates and not confuse entertainment with principle. Drdr1989 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic
It appears that your recent changes were reverted. I would support removal of the blog entry if you would like to seek RFCs. Edwardian 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

post-Britpop
post-Britpop or second wave Britpop is the new British music movement of the past 5 yrs or so. The original Britpop phase ended around 97 or 98.

The term is commonly used in the press to describe bands like Coldplay, Keane, Franz Ferdinand), etc.

 * BBC:"Are we in Britpop's second wave?"
 * PopMatters: Parachutes review
 * Guardian UK: "My journey into sound"

I've heard of the term "Britrock", but it's a very generic term that has never been well defined like the two phases of the Britpop movement. And it's never really entered the mainstream.

--Madchester 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Hilary Duff
It's against Wikipedia's style guidelines to wikilink to the names of months unless there is a very good reason to do so. Please do not keep doing this. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gold Stur's comments
I may be an admin, but I am also an Arbitrator, and as an Arbitrator I tend to refrain from using my administrative rights in situations like these. As such, if you feel that Gold Stur deserves some sort of administrative sanction, I suggest you follow our dispute resolution procedures. I won't be blocking or banning him myself for his rather fascinating conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

okay, dates
On Wikipedia, wikified dates can be rearranged to suit each user's personal preferences (mine say "d M yyyy", for instance). There's at least three ways to wikify dates that I know of: 6 December 2005, December 6 2005, and 2005-12-06. All three produce the exact same result on the page, and there is no "Wikipedia's standard format".

A while back I got sick of silly Americans changing dates I'd write as "d M yyyy" to "M d yyyy", often with an edit summary of "fix date" (see also: "colour", "humour", "standardise", etc.). I've also got a bad habit of transposing digits when I write out dates. For this reason, I use "yyyy-mm-dd" — it theoretically avoids "America vs. everyone else" style wars, and because it's unfamiliar, I have to take more care writing it, and am less likely to make an error. That's why I use it.

As to why I rvted you: I always rvt changes of this kind, even if they move to my preferred format, on principle. I have gotten sick of silly people — many of whom aren't even American — changing "color" to "colour" or vice versa, or fiddling with dates, even though it makes no difference to the page. Any questions? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * My point is that it makes no difference how the date is written in the source, since by the time anyone looks at it it's in their preferred format. Changing from one format to another — regardless of what the respective formats are — simply because the original "looks dorky" to you is deeply obnoxious. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Pretty much, yeah. If you click "Preferences" up in the top right of your browser, you'll notice there's a "Date and time" tab on the preferences page. Click that, and it'll give you a selection of formats you can have it display as.  For a list of formats you can edit as, see here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll try it out, thanks Drdr1989 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

References and footnotes
Please stop reverting my addition of footnotes and the References section on Reunion (TV series). Both are perfectly fine: The inclusion of a Refences section is part of Wiki's guidelines (see WP:CITE). The use of the footnotes (see Footnote3) is a Wiki standart used on over 1,000 articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually found the mistake (minor misspelling) and fixed in the my last edit (, which you still reverted)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You were right, it's the web reference template that didn't work properly with the urls. I thought you meant the links within the article (from the footnotes to the References section), that's why I kept reverting, sorry. It's all fixed now. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please keep vandalizing Green Day
It has agreed that they are not punk rock. read the talk page, even though I didn't.Psychomelodic 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Apparently not. YOU read the talk page (even though it might be difficult at this stage).  And what vandalism?  Do you understand the meaning of the term?? Drdr1989 09:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)                                                                                __________________________________________Apparently he doesn't. Psychomelodic, vandalism is bad. Morwen 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Better listen,  p  s  y  c  h  o  m  e  l  o undefined  d  i  undefined  c  undefined  ! Drdr1989 04:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

links to copy-vios
TO my knowledge we should not make links to sites that are copyright violations. Most lyric sites are, so unless you have reason to think that that particular site is licenced I have removed the link. Agathoclea 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Becky O'Donohue
Thank you for updating the information on this page. I was aware that her sister was in the room, but not singing. The way it was originally stated made it seem as though they both auditioned and only one was passed through, which as we know was not the case. I like how you've worded it now. Again, thank you! Batman2005 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in Green Day article
Please stop reintserting this sentence: "Once exlusively considered a punk rock band, their music now leans more towards pop punk/pop rock." It was decided on the Talk page that this does not belong for a number of reasons, namely that it's extremely POV and comes off as original research. If you are going to add this to the article, please cite a publication or website that makes this claim. WesleyDodds 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would, but it's quite evident that no one can reach an agreement regarding the band's genre. Why not just call them "the band"? Drdr1989 03:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiro revert
Hi Drdr1989, I thought I should let you know as a matter of courtesy that it was quicker to use revert. There was not agreement to make the change you did. Perhaps you could let it wait a couple of days in future before changing the top. I also gave my reasons on the talk page. Thanks. Best wishes. Mccready 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
The WP:3O mechanism really only works to settle good-faith content disputes. It's not at all likely to work for more emotional disputes. The user you're complaining about already removed your 3O request once, which would certainly suggest that he or she is unlikely to accept a third opinion if it's given. So you're probably going to have to use a more formal dispute resolution mechanism, like WP:MC. Kickaha Ota 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try it soon, thanks. Drdr1989 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suzy Tavarez
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Suzy Tavarez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rtphokie (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Suzy Tavarez
A tag has been placed on Suzy Tavarez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rtphokie (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Drdr1989! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sina Schielke -

GA reassessment of Green Day
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cervical manipulation

The article Cervical manipulation has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Mostly unsourced article with no claims of notability. The given source only mentions the article topic in passing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  T K  K ! bark with me! 17:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jordan Alan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jordan Alan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jordan Alan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calton | Talk 12:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drdr1989


text:
Ozzie Canseco

Osvaldo "Ozzie" Canseco Capas (born July 2, 1964) is a Cuban-American former professional baseball player. He is the identical twin brother of former Major League Baseball player José Canseco.

He was manager for the Brownsville Charros of the United League before the league's dissolution. He was previously the pitching and hitting coach for the Yuma Scorpions of the independent North American League and the manager of the Edinburg Roadrunners.

Playing career
Ozzie had a brief major league career, playing in 24 career games with the Oakland Athletics and St. Louis Cardinals between and 1993. In 1991, he played in Japan for the Kintetsu Buffaloes.

Canseco was drafted as a pitcher by the New York Yankees in the second round of the 1983 Major League Baseball draft. In stark contrast to the prolific, power hitting career of his twin brother, Ozzie never hit a major league home run.

Canseco currently holds the Atlantic League single season home run record with 48, which he achieved while playing for the Newark Bears in 2000. After the season ended Canseco was named the league's MVP. Later he played one season in the Northern League. In 1991, Canseco signed a one-year contract with the Kintetsu Buffaloes of the Japanese Pacific League. However, due to an injury, Ozzie would never play a game with the Buffaloes.

Yuma Scorpions
On April 11, 2011, it was announced that Ozzie and his brother would play for the Yuma Scorpions of the North American League. In addition to playing, Ozzie would be the bench coach and Jose would manage the team. Ozzie played 12 games with 8 hits and 12 RBIs. His season batting average was .258.

Other activities
Canseco appeared on an episode of VH1's The Surreal Life (Season 5) as a José Canseco impersonator. At the end of the program, it was revealed that he was José's twin brother. He has also reportedly appeared at baseball card shows and book signings passing himself off as his brother.

As manager of the Brownsville Charros in the United League, Ozzie pulled his team off the field with a 2–1 lead giving the RGV Whitewings a win.

Legal troubles
In 2002, Canseco pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a nightclub fight on October 31, 2001. He and his brother Jose got into a fight with two California tourists at a Miami Beach nightclub that left one man with a broken nose and another needing 20 stitches in his lip; Canseco was charged with two counts of aggravated battery. The brothers received probation and community service. Ozzie was sentenced to 18 months' probation, 200 hours of community service, and anger management classes.

In 2003, Canseco was sentenced to four months in jail for possessing an illegal anabolic steroid and driving with a suspended license.

title: Ozzie Canseco


text:
List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles

This list contains fictional chemical elements, materials, isotopes or subatomic particles that either a) play a major role in a notable work of fiction, b) are common to several unrelated works, or c) are discussed in detail by independent sources.


text:
Rush (video game series)

Rush is a series of racing video games developed by American-based company Atari Games and published by Atari Games and Midway Games for home consoles. The series debuted worldwide in 1996. The games consist mainly of racing with various cars on various tracks while players perform stunts in races.

San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing
The original San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing was released in 1996 in the arcades and included 3 tracks and 8 cars.

San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing (home version)
The original arcade version was followed by the home version for the Nintendo 64 in 1997. This included 3 additional cars (bringing the total to 11) and four additional tracks (bringing the total to 7; 1 of these tracks was hidden). The game also included new shortcuts that were not in the arcade's original three tracks. Within the game's 6th track is a hidden stunt track. Several months after the game's release, there were rumors about a bonus "Alcatraz Track" hidden within the game. Via a special code, or through such hardware like GameShark, an unfinished version of the Alcatraz track could be unlocked within the game. The developers of the game later revealed, via interviews with IGN, that the track was originally to be included in the final release, but was cancelled by the publisher due to the cartridge running out of space to hold the finalized track. Instead, the developers decided to hide the track within the game, rather than completely delete it. The version plays like a beta, with many textures unfinished on the track and lacks many shortcuts. The finalized version of the track was eventually released in "San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition" in arcades and Rush 2 for the Nintendo 64.

San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition
Also released in 1997, San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition included the 4 new tracks from the home version and added additional shortcuts to them all. 4 new cars were also added which are also included in the next Rush game.

Rush 2: Extreme Racing USA
Rush 2: Extreme Racing USA was released in 1998 on the Nintendo 64. This is the first game in the series that does not include the core three tracks from the original San Francisco Rush, and the first, and only, that includes multiple cities to race in. It is also the first Rush game to have a proper stunt track (rather than the hidden stunt track in the Nintendo 64 version of San Francisco Rush). Like the last home game, new cars are unlocked by collecting keys but now Mountain Dew cans are also featured. Rush 2 includes every car that was used in its predecessors and includes several more (both hidden and default) that are new to Rush.

San Francisco Rush 2049
San Francisco Rush 2049 was released in arcades in 1999. It features 4 all-new tracks as well as a returning track, Alcatraz, re-invented for the future. Unlike Rush 2, Rush 2049 does not carry over cars from the previous game. Except for two returning cars, all cars in this game are new. Also new is Rush 2049 uses coins, which replace keys when unlocking new cars. Two rarer versions of Rush 2049 exist: SF Rush 2049 TE and SF Rush 2049 SE, which stand for "Tournament Edition" and "Special Edition", respectively. These games featured 2 additional tracks and a number of additional cars, as well as bug fixes (mostly to eliminate certain dubious racing practices). The SE version was produced by Betson Enterprises and released in 2003.

San Francisco Rush 2049 (home version)
The home version of San Francisco Rush 2049 was released in 2000 for the Dreamcast and Nintendo 64 with major changes. The Alcatraz track from the arcade version was removed to make way for improvements of stunt mode. New modes introduced are multiplayer battle mode and special obstacle course. The game includes the 2 race tracks from "Tournament Edition", 4 stunt arenas, and 8 battle venues. A new feature for cars is the wings, a trademark feature that gives the player axial control over their car and a slightly more gradual descent while airborne.

The Dreamcast version of the game was also included in the Midway Arcade Treasures 3 collection for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube.

L.A. Rush
L.A. Rush is the fourth and final game in the Rush series, featuring an open-world design and licensed vehicles.

Games
The Midway Arcade Treasures 3 compilation released for the GameCube, PS2, and Xbox in 2005 contains ports of San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition and the Dreamcast version of San Francisco Rush 2049. The 2006 PC-only Midway Arcade Treasures Deluxe Edition compilation also includes those ports.
 * San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing (Arcade - 1996)
 * San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing (Nintendo 64 - 1997)
 * San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition (Arcade - 1997)
 * San Francisco Rush The Rock: Alcatraz Edition (PC - 1998) - a PC port released exclusively as a pack-in game for the Quantum3D Raven graphics card.
 * San Francisco Rush: WaveNet (Online Arcade - 1998)
 * San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing (PlayStation - 1998)
 * Rush 2: Extreme Racing USA (Nintendo 64 - 1998)
 * San Francisco Rush 2049 (Arcade - 1999)
 * San Francisco Rush 2049 (Dreamcast and Nintendo 64 - 2000)
 * San Francisco Rush 2049 (Game Boy Color - 2000)
 * San Francisco Rush 2049 (PC emulation - 2007)
 * L.A. Rush (PlayStation 2, Xbox, PC - 2005)
 * Rush (PlayStation Portable - 2006)

title: Rush (video game series)


text:
Sancha of Portugal (born 1264)

Sancha of Portugal (2 February 1264 – 1279/c. 1284 ) was a Portuguese infanta, daughter of King Afonso III of Portugal and his second wife Beatrice of Castile.

Sancha was born on 2 February 1264. Little is known about her life. She travelled with her mother and sister Blanche to Seville where she died in 1279 or around 1284. In 1302, her remains were transferred to Portugal where she was buried at the Monastery of Alcobaça, Alcobaça.

title: Sancha of Portugal (born 1264)


text:
Talk:Bomberman Jetters

A Girl?
Why the hell is bomberman a girl in this game? Note the name bomberMAN! MAN! Not girl. And the game sucks. Waste of time.
 * You must be an idiot. Shirobon is NOT a girl in that game. He just has a high-pitched voice.
 * Bomberman's always had a high-pitched voice (but it seems to be a different VA for every game...). And I disagree, GCN Jetters has a pretty good multiplayer, at least. And multiplayer is always what's good about a Bomberman game. --BPM 09:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Tradition seems to demand that animation use womens voices for younger characters. but the use of Mihama Chiyo's Voice actor may have been pushing it for shirobon.

Either way, I was just wondering; how does he talk at all? Bomberman has no mouth Allyourbasearebelongtousomg 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is your favorite character?
I'm not sure about mine. Probably Max.

Zeeco 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Zeeco

USA
I think the anime series should not be dubbed in the US. The company must've been very smart. They probably hated what 4Kids would do the the series.

Fair use rationale for Image:BombermanJetters.jpg
Image:BombermanJetters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Bomber
In which episode does she makes her came? I kinda wanted a screencap, to see that.189.4.82.167 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bomberman Jetters


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JesseW

JesseW
 (34/0/0) ending 03:17 31 August 2005 (UTC) - I first ran into JesseW commenting on an improvement to a MediaWiki namespace message and now I see him pop up on my watchlist all the time doing admin-type janitorial tasks, participating in community discussion, identifying copyright problems, and editing odds and ends all over the 'pedia. I've seen him to be friendly and helpful, and he'd definitely have use for the admin tools. --Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * closed Uncle Ed 17:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, honored to be asked to join the ranks of the janitors, and looking forward to clearing out the backlog on WP:CP. JesseW 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support as nominator, of course. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Mindspillage nominated him, so I support per IRC cabal. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ryan Norton T 05:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Much maintenance work; easy to get along with. Maurreen (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, does good work.-gadfium 06:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian (t) (c) 06:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. An excellent editor, he helped wlecome me into the project. -Willmcw 07:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) TINC. Radiant_ >|< 10:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, a good candidate. Rje 12:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, absolutely. A fine candidate. — mark ✎ 13:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Cool. JuntungWu 15:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, a wonderful editor.  Hall Monitor 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support— would make a good administrator.  Journalist   C.[[Image:Smilie.gif|30px]] Holla @ me!
 * 16) Support - meets my standards. Good luck! --Celestianpower hab 21:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Give him the mop! Hamster Sandwich 00:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Alphax τεχ 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Stewart Adcock 10:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Meets my guidelines. Backlog work is tedious but necessary – thank you. android  79  20:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, as per the nominator. Func( t, c, @,) 05:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support the juggling janitor. Dmcdevit·t 06:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) A copyright violation hunter?! Support, before he gets away! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support; everything looks good to me! Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) El_C 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) What they said. Andre ( talk ) 19:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support SqueakBox 20:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support.— Encephalon |  ζ   00:12:30, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, seems to have a genuine interest in undertaking one of the most time consuming admin tasks.--nixie 06:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, what else is left to say? -- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 15:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support, thanks for the help too. feydey 23:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support.  ral  315  05:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support but only if you promise to teach me how to juggle.  Acetic Acid  ( talk  ) 14:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Good candidate. Alf 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * 1) Acetic Acid, well, I don't know where you live, so I can't teach you in person ;-), but how 'bout this link? If you use it, let me know. JesseW 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Dmcdevit, I'm going to change my sig to Jesse W, the juggling janitor, as soon as this vote is over. Thanks. :-) (And, re Linuxbeak - it's not the violations that I hunt, it's the backlogs - I just want to get WP:CP down to a level where I can fill it up again with new ones from Articles_needing_wikifying.  Sigh.  We really should change the wikify message to say, in big letters - Use The Google Test to Check For Copyvios. JesseW 16:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Tee hee :). No one out in the real world understands me when I try to tell them "janitor" is a compliment here. Dmcdevit·t 06:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the idea.  If you're doing it for respect in the real world, you are in the wrong place. JesseW 06:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Support Seems like a level headed fellow --Ryan Delaney talk 06:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Oops! --Ryan Delaney talk 11:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ryan, am I mistaken, or have you voted twice for this candidate (vote #2 and #19)? Perhaps you meant to put your name down on another candidate's subpage, and placed your second here by accident?— Encephalon |  ζ   08:30:15, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

 * Question I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A. 75% of valid votes for deleteion(so 70% is the minimum) based on my understanding of policy. (Please let me know if I'm missing something here...) Why do you ask? JesseW 21:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A question for the questioner! Rather than an answer, I shall give you a comment based on your answer. Your number seems high to me, especially since I asked you to provide an answer within 5%. Your answer was 75%, so the actual number could range anywhere between 70% and 80% of votes, based on that criteria. You are right to point out the votes to delete, because of course any issue that hasn't met a certain standard is to be kept as it is, by default. So at VfU for instance, you might have a vote that is 75% to keep deleted. Or you might have a vote that is 65% to undelete. So heres another question, what would you do in such a case? Hamster Sandwich 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok - I like discussion. I picked 75% from my memory of VfDs that I've seen.  Can you point me to some where the percentage was lower? Regarding your question about a 75% delete at VfU, I would close as delete; a 65% undelete would imply a 35% delete vote, so I would close as undelete.  This seems pretty obvious, or am I missing something... JesseW 22:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will refer you to WP:CON. I am not looking for a right or wrong answer here, I am trying to guage your ability to answer them, and thus get a feel for what kind of admin you would be. Hamster Sandwich 22:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank for that pointer. After reading it, I would change my answer to 66% plus or minus 5% as you said, to come in line with the two thirds majority mentioned on that page, which would not change the two you mentioned, as they are 75% and 35%, respectively.  As for my ability to answer them, what do you think of it? I'd be curious to know. ;-) JesseW 00:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am extremely pleased with your response here. I give you my full support. Hamster Sandwich 00:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Backlogs. WP:CP first, and other's as needed.  The basic principle I'd follow as an admin is that any use of the buttons should be with more not less, specific, stated support from other community memebers.  I prefer to fix tagged articles rather than tagging them, so if/when I'd do speedy patrol, I'd only speedy already tagged articles, rather than deleting any on sight.  I'd probably stay away from VfD for a while, as I'm generally leary of controversy. JesseW 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm proud of my work on the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles project, and my various software tools. If I think of other ones, I'll mention them... JesseW 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Hm. I generally try to avoid controversial articles, and try not to respond in anger, and always remember that anything said on the 'pedia is expected to last for the next hundred years - so any stupid jokes will follow me(or you) forever.  I expect I would back down from most challanges - my belief in eventualism would lead me to ignore the issue until my challanger went away.  If you all have any further questions, my talk page is open... JesseW 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JesseW


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Calendars/Poll

Abstract: Wikiproject Calendars must have a standard format throughout each calendar year article. The format must be simple and elegant.

Question: Should the date numbers of each day on the calendar have a hyperlink to its respective article (like in Calendars of 2006 or should they be left plain (like in Calendars of 2005)?

The poll will close on October 21.

Polled closed, 2006 style agreed upon.


text:
User talk:Extreme Unction/Archive 1

Update to template
Hi! Thanks for updating the template from to  in Caesar IV. If you are interested in computer and video games you might like to become a participant at WikiProject Computer and video games. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:24, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Template:Cat-stub
Nicely done! El_C 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now if I could just figure out how to make it a sub-category of  like  is, I'd be in business...  Extreme Unction 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Your note on my page
Hi, Extreme. Welcome to Wikipedia. Leaving a note on my talk page is fine! I'm going to go look at the page now. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the "Votes for deletion"/"Pages for deletion" system has been a bit messed up because a group of people decided to change the name from Votes to Pages recently. I think they didn't work out all the links they would have to change, like the one you reported. All I did was replace it with a redirect to the proper page, which actually doesn't require special admin powers. If it gets vandalized again, any admin (including me) can "protect" it. Thanks for the heads-up! FreplySpang (talk) 04:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of pages for reporting vandalism: WP:VIP and {{WP:AIV]]. To be honest, they both confuse me and I avoid them! But lots of other admins keep an eye on them. There's also the Administrator's Noticeboard and the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. (No. I'm not clear on the difference here either.) If you need to get an admin for something you can post on one of those pages. If it's the "wrong place" someone will set you straight. Finally, there's the #wikipedia IRC channel, where you can pretty much always find an admin. Cheers! FreplySpang (talk) 13:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Gallagher (comedian)03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gallagher (comedian)03.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an description of its source, as the promophoto tag requires. Note that any unsourced image will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Zeimusu | Talk page 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your table
I stole some code from the September 11, 2001 attacks fatalities section. Hopefully, this was what you were looking for. - Mgm|(talk) 22:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism marking
Thanks for helping revert vandalism. Here is the code I use as it mimics what the admins can do automatically and aids in tailing a vandal: Reverted edits by IP to last version by USER

Grika Ⓣ 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Got your message
I'll fix it but help. I am not absolutely certain how, again help.Thanks.-Dakota

Thanks
Think I fixed it.Thanks again.-Dakota 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
For excellent detective work uncovering the truth of False Doppler (and other AfD nomations). howcheng   [ t • c • w •  e  ] 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Woot! My first! You like me! You RILLY RILLY like me!

I'd like to thank the Academy for this award... → Ξxtreme Unction

WP:WPB
Hey, great to have you on board at the Beer project. I'll look forward to seeing more of your contributions! (I've enjoyed the articles you mentioned editing, smoked beer, etc.) --Daniel11 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad you've enjoyed them. The adjunct (beer) article is one of the articles of which I'm most proud.  Looking forward to further participation in the project.  And I'm having a homebrew RIGHT NOW! → Ξxtreme Unction

Re:Inadvertent broken foreign language links
Sorry about that, I had pasted the article into an external editor when I made my changes, I won't do that again! Thank you for fixing it for me. Foofy 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. That was my other guess.  Might wanna check to see if you've hit any other articles that way, though.  Good luck and happy editing.  → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Luckily it was the only one I did ('cause it was long). And sorry for not seeing your little policy about spreading the convo across pages. Foofy 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, don't worry about it. Not like I'm gonna flip out or anything.  Just a personal preference, not a hard, iron-clad rule that MUST BE FOLLOWED or anything.  Just stating what I'd like to see, if the other person is amenable to such.  If not, no biggie.  I'm pretty laid back. I mean, seriously, if the worst thing that happens to me in a day is that someone leaves me a comment on my page in response to a comment I left on their page, welp, I figure I'm doing pretty good. =) → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 00:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Mantle
Glad I could get a chuckle out of you. I think humor is important to keep a nice atmosphere here in Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 20:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
So that explains it. I was wondering why I couldn't find any trail in the page history. Figured something was still rotten in Denmark. I appreciate your note. Durova 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"broken" talk page link
Thanks for the hint on fixing the link. I tried it on my talk page and all it does is place the Talk link in bold. Then I had a thought... is this because I'm already *on* the talk page and therefore it's the software automatically preventing a loop? Therefore, if you don't mind, I'm going to have a quick trial here and see what happens! Thanks again :) IainP (talk)

 * As you can see, that's exactly what happens. Good luck.  =)  → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 13:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : Just a note...
Hi Extreme Unction,

Fixed that, thanks for the message! :) Probably a (frequent!) server error didn't get the 'delete' command thrrough... =P

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

list of Jewish Publishers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers

Help
Hi Extreme Unction.

Excuse me If I'm bothering you, I don't want to act inmaturely or nothing but I need help, I'm Tamao from the Kimi Finster discussion, I've tried to make clear my points but the main contributor keeps threatening me and I don't know what to do.

I've told him about his work is good but the page needs some edits, but he takes it as I'm want to destroy his work which isn't true, and he keeps attacking me instead od trying to work together to improve the page.

Thanks

Tamao 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give some advice on how to "spice up" a user page using HTML. For example, your ID "Extreme Unction" is colorful; mine is not. I'm looking to grow my userpage, but first I need to know how the system works.

Thanks Ryoung122 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings,

Yes I am still looking for advice on how to create a signature, where to learn about more advanced features of Wikipedia. Clearly, your signature indicates you have figured it out, and the best way to learn is from those who know.

Again, any assistance is appreciated, although there's no rush.

Thanks, Robert Ryoung122 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to copy your HTML and substitute "Ryoung122" for the words "Extreme Unction." However, the "Nickname" still turned up like this:→ Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł talk } 00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Take 2. Edison didn't invent the light bulb on the first try!→ Ryoung Unction {yak ł talk } 00:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Take 3. → R Young {yak ł talk } 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Take 4 (Testing user-page link)→ R Young {yak ł talk } 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is preposterous
Have you reported Man in Black for 3RR? - 81.153.41.72 16:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Reverting vandalism doesn't prompt a 3RR violation. Sez so right on the 3RR page.  → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Votes needed
If you haven't already, we need votes on several Jewish and Catholic lists up for deletion:

StabRule 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology
 * Articles for deletion/List of Catholic authors
 * Articles for deletion/List of Catholic composers

D&N AfD
Thanks, now I can start ignoring this subject again. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting afds
When you relist an afd for more discussion, please remove it from the older page; otherwise, someone else is likely to close it very quickly after you relist it. —Cryptic (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note on my page. I am, in fact, guilty of closing an old AfD earlier today that had been relisted.  However, I'm not sure how to go about deleting the old listing.  Just edit the AfD page and remove the article listing?  Thanks. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 04:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep. Be sure to mention that's what you're doing in your edit summary, though (like "relisting 4 on today's page"), so folks don't think they just disappeared.  Alternately, you could comment out the discussion like Jerzy did here. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * ...and as long as I've got your ear, I just noticed your close of Articles for deletion/Better Off Dead (Soundtrack). The final step of an article merger isn't deletion; it's redirecting; the GFDL requires that we keep track of the authors of any text we use, and we usually do that by preserving the history in a redirect (though not always from the article namespace).  In this case, the only text that's currently surviving in Better Off Dead is the producer's name, so it wouldn't be necessary here; but if you're going to close this as a merge instead of a delete, you still need to redirect the article. —Cryptic (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wales
Actually, it's "Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells. See Diocese of Bath and Wells. FYI and all that. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Simpons Vehicles
hey there, you just closed the AfD for List of vehicles in The Simpsons, as no consensus, and I was just intrigued to know why. I know it doesn't really matter, since that will default to a keep, but to my count there was 11 Keep's against 8 Delete's, which seemed relatively clear cut. Is there a policy on what the difference should be between votes for one to win outright? └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The AfD discussions are not meant to be simple up/down voting processes where the decision goes to whichever viewpoint ekes out a simple majority of votes. This is why the name of the page was changed a few months ago from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion".  Ideally, an AfD nomination will prompt a discussion which will eventually arrive at some sort of large agreement.  What qualifies as a "large agreement" is subject to some debate.  Some folks feel that unanimity or near-unanimity of opinion is needed for "consensus" to be claimed.  Other folks feel that a mere supermajority (say, 75% of the "votes", to pick one standard used by many AfD closers) is sufficient.  In addition, most folks who close AfD discussions endorse ignoring spurious reasoning when counting the "votes".  e.g. If you vote "keep, because I don't like the nominator," well, that's a bogus vote and will almost certainly be ignored in the final analysis by anybody who closes AfD discussions.
 * I confess that I lean towards the supermajority side of things; I find the notion of requiring unanimous or near-unanimous opinion to be a bit too idealistic for my tastes, particularly in a project with as many participants as this. Under either circumstance, however, an 11/8 "vote" is near enough to an even split that there is obviously no consensus.
 * Hope this clears things up. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 13:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, now I understand properly! Thanks for the explanation └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisted AfDs
Greetings:

''I noticed that, last night, you relisted some AfDs which hadn't garnered much discussion. I have taken the liberty of removing those AfDs from the old AfD logs by commenting them out. This will keep the AfD listings in the new AfD logs while removing them from the old logs, so that new folks like me won't make the mistake of closing them out inadvertently.''

Felt you'd wish to know.

→ Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I forgot to remove them from the old logs. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats
Could you review your close on this article? I know you closed it "No consensus," but 9 of 13 users expressed a desire to see the article deleted or transwikied, by my count.

Note that at least two votes that begin with "merge" are indeed support for transwiking the article and removing it from Wikipedia, albeit saving some of the info as a merge into another article. (I know how this can be done and can do it myself, but I obviously don't want to make the final judgement on an AFD I nominated.)

Let me know what you decide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As I am new to closing AfD discussions, I felt it prudent to err on the side of caution. Merging is an issue of editing, and requires no AfD discussion.  And my perception (perhaps incorrect) is that Transwiki-ing requires Admin access, of which I am in short supply.  Thus, I interpreted the "merge/transwiki" votes as "keep" votes since the article cannot (so far as I'm aware, though I could certainly be wrong) be merged and transwikied without being "kept", however briefly.  If this is an erroneous approach to take, please let me know. I am certainly open to revising my decision if I've made it in error. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 00:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I can perform the close if you endorse JIFish's merge/transwiki/delete suggestion as the closing decision. It is possible to merge and delete, through a handful of methods. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Done and done. Sorry for the trouble. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you changed the corrected the result of Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats. But RuneScape cheats remains the same. Are we waiting for User:A Man In Black to perform the merge/transwiki/delete? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * So it would seem. I am not an admin, so I don't believe I can transwiki the article. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. Thanks for getting back to me so fast. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I had a phone call, sorry. I'll get on the closing work ASAP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Uncle G already did the transwiki during the AFD, so I've moved the page to Rune-scape to preserve the history, and deleted the redirect left behind. I'm gonna get started merging info Cheating in online games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Numbered paragraphs as a list
Thanks for your tip, but that's also not quite what I'm after. That produces paragraphs between each dot point. I'm interested in when several paragraphs form one dot point.

I think the wikiverse is trying to tell me not to use a numbered list and just settle for plain old *s. :) Thanks --pfctdayelise 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Aha, the ol' <ol>! It works perfectly (in combination with <br> or <P>). Cheers --pfctdayelise 02:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Extreme Unction
As per our IRC conversation, here it is: Your own private RFA subpage. Make the most of it ;) grm_wnr Esc  14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA
I figured it'd be appropriate.karmafist 22:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

An answer
First, your merges are clearly ok. You would be unlikely to face any opposition to a closure of those debates as you describe. My personal feeling on these things is that, if I have been involved in the debate I do not close it, unless there is some very good reason for me to. So I personally would note in the debate that I had done so and leave it.

This seems a little bureaucratic however, since you could as well have closed the debates (both are clear merges, so that's fine) and then merged: the effect would be identical. (This is the route I would have, I hope, followed.) Since we're more interesed in product than process, you may as well close them, noting that you have merged. For clarity, I have no problem with non-admins closing clear debates (I did literally hundreds before becoming an admin myself), and I have no problem with you closing this one either. It's just no consensus debates (or delete ones, which happens occasionally) that I, personally, would prefer left to admins who have already been scrutinised and approved by the community.

My opposition to your RfA is reluctant and more a request to play around a bit more than anything. -Splash talk 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What Splash said on all points.

 * On the other hand, the afd process failed us on all three articles, since they're all copyvios from the company's website. (Probably posted by an employee, but that doesn't really matter.)  I've removed the pasted information from Keynote Systems on that basis (and also tagged Umang Gupta, which was a copyvio from the same url; I found it through Special:Whatlinkshere/Keynote Systems, and would have merged that in also if the articles hadn't been copyvios).  I didn't tag Keynote Systems itself, since it had been rewritten in place already.

 * I strongly suspect that Keynote doesn't meet WP:CORP, either; we don't normally keep company articles just because they're publicly traded, so the call for a speedy keep in its afd is boggling. —Cryptic (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the copyvio revisions from the histories of the first two articles, and will leave the third to WP:CP. The usual procedure when an article has been copyvio'd in place is to simply revert as has already been done. -Splash talk 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the help on the Dobie Gillis Williams article. Your wikification of the article was very helpful. I will try to use this style in the rest of my articles. Nolamgm 20:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Moshe Dwek
I've read over some of the Hebrew articles provided by the author of the Moshe Dwek article, and they do seem to confirm the contents of the article. I've been trying to find an English source and coming up short. See my full comment on the AFD page. --Bachrach44 00:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Laughing point Barnstar idea
Great idea, but I think barnstars need to be first discussed on Barnstar and award proposals. I've therefore reverted your addition. --Nlu 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
--Nlu 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question
''I was wondering if you might perhaps take a look at Articles for deletion/Daniel Hirst. I feel that what I've done there was justified based on past closures of similar articles. Indeed, I closed another article similarly a week or two ago without anyone complaining. However, I can't find any guideline pages which discuss when an article might be justifiably userfied, so I feel that I may be exceeding my authority. Any thoughts you may have on the matter would be appreciated. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)''

 * Not something that I would have tried. A userfication is still a deletion from the main namespace.  Userfying it to User:DanielHirst might have been appropriate if you'd found it on NP patrol; it's a much more dubious call if it's already gone to AFD and there weren't calls to userfy it.  Putting it on a user subpage is also iffy; in effect, you're saying that it's an article under active development that's not yet ready for the main namespace, not a user page accidentally created as an article (which is the usual reason for userfying).

 * As to when to userfy: we usually userfy articles (to a user page, not a subpage) when it would otherwise be deleted from the main namespace, it's clearly an autobiography, and the user has made unrelated contributions to Wikipedia. (Merely registering a user name doesn't justify having a user page, since Wikipedia is not a free web host.)  Userfying to a subpage should only be done by request or specific recommendations on an afd, perhaps when there isn't the overwhelming majority required for outright deletion, but suggestions that the article cannot remain in the main namespace as-is.  I don't think that was the case here.

 * That said, I wouldn't worry about reversing yourself unless someone complains. Consensus isn't what everyone wants, or even what a majority wants; it's something that everyone consents to abide by. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SAN - -
"Children are yucky, smooth and make noise." Aaaaagggggghhh! FreplySpang (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hey, man. I just wanted to let you know that I am in favor of your promotion, but I really do think it's early. It's not that I have doubts about your ability to deal with conflict, but I'm one of the people who thinks time is the most important commodity in administrators. Again, there is really nothing to establish, as I don't have any reason to find fault, and I'm looking forward to being among the first "support" voters on the next nomination. I haven't been as consistent as I'd like to be with the time criterion, but I can only think of one person for whom I violated it, and I don't have magic numbers, but I think a calendar page or two need to go by. Geogre 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA
I restored the vote, but I made it clear that I voted after the deadline. It's up to the closing person to determine if that vote is valid or not. Good luck! howcheng  [ t • c • w •  e  ] 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA
Extreme thanks for your 100th-vote support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | talk 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Congratulations. I decided to support you at the last minute (actually, after the last minute but it was still "above the line") and I think you'll do fine.  Based on some of the oppose votes, however, I do strongly urge you to err on the side of caution on hotly contested AfD votes and leave them for experienced admins until you are comfortable that you have a very good feel for consensus.  Stick your toe into the water; don't dive in head first! In any event, good luck! -- DS1953 23:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Early RFA thanks
Hi , Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. It has done very well and is currently at 67/0/2. As such, I am posting this in advance of its closure. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know. Thank you once again! – NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure
I'm not from Vienna, though I can be quite grim at times ;)

Anyway, I think you'll make a great admin, and while my nomination was fast, by the reactions to your RFA I get the impression that it was not premature and would have happened soon anyway. And where's the fun in nominating candidates that are 100% sure to win... It was my pleasure.

-- grm_wnr Esc  13:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA
Well done :-) You'll be a great asset to Wikipedia. The Land 13:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
I appreciate your comments. You demonstrated a great deal of patience and tact while under fire from those ip’s and afd questions which I think will be good assets for an admin. Think you will make a great one. Congratulations again. (P.S. I borrowed the Grika’s code  to use on the vandals. Hope that is o.k.-- Dak ota    t    e  ''' 15:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome. --Merovingian 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha!!! Yet another congratulations note to clutter up your page!!! Oh, will the cycle ever end? BD2412 T 21:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL :) Yes, take off every 'zig! Good luck, I think you'll do fine :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
Be good to the tools...let them know that you love them, and that you'll never leave them. :) Ral315 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd buy them some flowers every now and then too. ;-)
 * Oh yeah, do you know or know anybody who's good at statistics? Yo tengo un pregunta. karmafist 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome for the vote, and congratulations on your Adminship. To solve your curiosity, I had your Talk page on my watchlist following my previous AfD question, and noted that you'd been put up for an RfA so I thought I'd take a look... I've been around the place a while now, and have been increasingly interested in RfA as one of the few aspects of WP i've never played much of a part in. Anyhow, so that's about it... since I felt your previous comments regarding the AfD closure showed you did sufficiently understand WP policy (contrary to some of your opposing votes) I thought i'd add my $0.02. └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hirst discretion
Hi. I noticed that you chose to userfy the page after it was voted 4/1 to keep, with no votes to userfy. I am interested in what the discretionary powers are. Just because he wrote the page himself does it mean that it has to be userfied? I certainly wouldn't have thought so. So long as he quoted references, which he did, I can't see the problem. Unless I am missing something. Also, is the closer allowed to go against what everyone else says? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions about deleting a redirect
I've answered you (at some length) on my talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Extreme Unction/Archive 1