User talk:Mista-X

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Newcomers' Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hi Mista-X. Just a note, don't sign your new articles or edits. You also might want to engage in debate about the article or justification of your changed on the "Talk" pages. To access the talk page for a particular article click the "Discuss this page" link at the bottom of the page. AndyL (talk) 01:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

General greetings

Hi!
That's a lot of interesting detail in your "new user log" entry. You could copy it to your user page, where it will be easily accessible for much longer.
Kind regards from New Zealand Robin Patterson 06:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hardial Bains

Hi,

My source for the info regarding other parties Bains founded is http://www.leninism.org/stream/98/hardial-1st-anniv.htm. While the author is unfriendly he seems to have factual info but its certainly worth checking for accuracy. AndyL (talk) 06:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Well, the "Hardial Bains is a Charlatan" and "Hardial Bains is still a Charlatan" articles are definitely POV and I wasn't proposing integrating the accusations into the article but the comments about the other parties seemed factual. (BTW, just because an article is old, doesn't make it untrue, after all everything Bains wrote is older than those two articles). I took out the CPT&T reference but RCBM-L seems likely as does Communist Ghadar Party of India (see http://www.cgpi.org/pv150902.htm) and the others. AndyL 14:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article in the CGPI paper above calls Bains the founder of the parties mentioned in India, Britain and Ireland. Makes no mention of T&T. AndyL 16:46, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cuba

BTW, you might want to check out Allegations of human rights abuses in Castro's Cuba, we've had a bit of an edit war with your buddy TDC who you've conflicted with in Paul Robeson (TDC, as you might have guessed, is a fervent anti-Communist and has been propagating his views in a number of articles). AndyL 16:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allende

Don't cross 3RR, let him or her. 2 can catch one out,--SqueakBox 17:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I reported 200.30.222.170 for 3RR on Allende at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3R, i was just saying don't break the 3RR yourself, let them do it and we can get them blocked, as plenty of us don't agree with him, --SqueakBox 17:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Young Left and Rebel Youth Network

Mista-X, the article on Young Left is very poor. I hate leftists but have taken pity on the article. I suspect a less compassionate soul will just delete it. Can I suggest you add something notable to it or delete it. Johnnyio 04:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I will take my pity elsewhere. Delete Johnnyio 04:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Improve the article or just delete it. Friendly enough words. I tried to improve it as you can see. So leave your conspiracy theories to the barely attended meetings of the Young Left LOL. I would have thought in Canada you could do better with such a group, given how you're all communists who speak funny. Johnnyio 04:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DOOD, the record shows I corrected the spelling errors and tried sincerely to clean it up. THat's real love. I send it out to yo.

Your spelling is just awsome! --Mista-X 04:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But as for Canada, I believe only the solution outlined in the South Park Movie is acceptable. In the alternative you could all become our carpark. It's so hard to get a park these days. We need the space, living space as it were. Anyway, love 2 U. Johnnyio 04:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone from Canada can obviously tell this guy has never been there. If he had he would know that parking space is rare in any urban spot, especially in Ontario. --Mista-X 04:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No one time I did visit Ontario. Go ON. In fact I banged a particularly sweet ho, picked her up near the airport. Might have been your mom. Johnnyio 04:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mista-X, it seems Johnnyio didn't actually post his Young Left deletion nomination on WP:VFD, he just put in the {{vfd}} template which created the VfD subpage. Johnnyio was subsequently blocked for trolling/vandalism/etc., so obviously he's not going to fix things. Rather than have Young Left be in limbo for the forseeable future, I deleted the vfd tag. Heh, do tell me if I'm missing something here. Otherwise, happy editing! TIMBO (T A L K) 05:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia a long time, and share the views of groups like the Young Left which oppose capitalism and imperialism. As you probably already have guessed, your articles on Rebel Youth Network and Young Left are going through votes on deletion not because of any rules about notability or other nonsense, but because Wikipedia is largely controlled by right wingers, going all the way up to the Ayn Rand worshipping millionaire Jimbo Wales.

Anyhow, I would very much like it if you posted the articles to Anarchopedia. You will not be hassled about deletion there! I like Anarchopedia although it gets vandalized too often. Infoshop's OpenWiki does not get vandalized much, but you can't upload pictures yet.

I think you'll find these wikis have histories of left groups that might someday rival Wikipedia. A lot of it is US-based currently, although there are plenty of articles on communist parties from Greece to Peru to Indonesia to Colombia. Recently Revolutionary Workers Leagues were looked at, although just the US ones, not the one formed in Canada in 1977. Actually, some of it is not there because Anarchopedia and Infoshop's Openwiki need Canadians who know about the NDP and the CP of Canada and so forth.

So take a look at these wikis - people won't try to give them the boot there!

Fraternally Ruy Lopez 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maoist Reviews

We do not link to every review for every film, usually only to significant reviews that are a part of the movie lore, like Ebert's review of The Brown Bunny, or compilations of reviews like Rotten Tomatoes. If you continue to add these links to further your political viewpoint, it will become vandalism. --The Grza 00:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --The Grza 00:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --The Grza 00:36, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not support MIM. you are assuming that just because I added links to these reviews I must be pushing their viewpoint. This is not the case. Your distaste for these reviews is simply YOUR distaste, your POV. You are trying to portray your viewpoint as non-political, but it is in fact, entirely political. You are allowing mainstream (bourgeois) viewpoints and reviews to be linked to because you consider them to be acceptable. It seems they are acceptable to you because they are part of the status-quo. People come to WikiPedia in search of facts and alternatives to the mainstream corporate control over information. People come to contribute, share ideas and cooperate with others. This is not what you are doing here. Calling this vandalism is typical of tyrannical corporate types. For example, providing no space to people in the hood to be artistic then criminalizing them for spray painting graffitti. Or like dominating the media and shutting down small outlets when what the people have to say is no longer acceptable and deemed inapropriate. I will not allow this practice to be perpetuated on here, without a fight. Different viewpoints is not vandalism, unless the POV is being put right in the article. For it to be vandalism it would have to destroy, distort, or somehow make the article not-viewable. Linking to alternative reviews does not do this. --Mista-X 00:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My distaste for these reviews is based on their complete lack of relevance to the pages at hand. I don't like many of the reviews, some because they're poorly written, some because they like terrible movies, but if relevant they should stay. The MIM Reviews are terribly written with no taste whatsoever, but they are being removed because they lack any significance to the article. --The Grza 00:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are irrelevant. Perhaps you can explain how a review of these films from a class concious and scientific standpoint is irrelevant? If you don't like what they have to say, that's completely fair. You can take that up with MIM if you like. You could even post links to other reviews with different opinions. But other people may disagree with you, and find the MIM reviews to be completely relevant and maybe even a fresh breath of air. Calling the MIM reviews "terribly written with no taste whatsoever" is just your POV. In my POV Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn is a terrible writer, but I have no right to go to the article on Gulags and remove references to his work just because I might think they are "terribly written with no taste whatsoever", (not to mention pure fiction based on his own accounts which very well could be entirely made up) do I? So in short, you have admitted the reason you remove these is just because you don't like them. --Mista-X 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Some reading you should do since you seem to want to push your political agenda. And since you want to add ther maoist reviest to those article, i expect you do to add political reviews, ie not move reviews, to ALL nmovie related articles, as well as to add the the revirews of all extremisits parties, like Nazis, Marxists, Anchrists, those involved in radical Islam, so that your own political views can be balanced out. But being that your a POV pusher no better then the Oliver North vandals and others like him, i doubt that you will do that as it would go aginst the pushing of your own politicaly movated agenda. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 01:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought I made it clear that I don't support MIM. I may agree with some things MIM writes and/or does, but I agree with some things that the NDP writes about and/or does too, and I definately do not support them. Secondly, I am not in the least bit disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point by adding external links of movie reviews. This does not deface or vandalise an article in any way. Thirdly, I don't give a shit what you expect me to do. I will add things that I know about, which are relevant to articles. A Nazi viewpoint would most likely be racist, and therefor would have no place on WikiPedia, IMO, although there could be an exception. I am totally down with all types of opinions being linked to on WikiPedia otherwise, and they should be to "balance out" as you say. Fourthly, you calling these ideologies extremist is simply your POV and unscientific. Lastly, I have no idea what you are talking about with this "Oliver North" crap. --Mista-X 01:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spamming?

Spamming links to external websites on multiple Wikipedia pages is not really appropriate.

Most major Hollywood movies get hundreds if not thousands of reviews, few of which are notable enough to warrant inclusion as external links on Wikipedia, particularly if the reviewer or publication in question is not particularly well known.

-- Curps 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hardly see how this is SPAM. My understanding is that Spamming has to be something commercial. I am not directing users to buy products, simply offering them an alternative viewpoint, which they can read if they wish. MIM is very well known on the internet, and their movie reviews are widely read, at least on the left. Many people who disagree with MIM still find it entertaining and fascinating (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration) to read their reviews. For now, I will leave the others, but would you please leave The Matrix alone? It fits quite well in the section I put it. --Mista-X 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is, is your motivation to discuss the philosophy espoused by the makers of The Matrix, or merely to review that movie (and countless others) from a Marxist perspective? The fact that you seem to be adding movie reviews to so many other movies suggests that it's the latter. Also, the last paragraph of the MIM review strongly suggests that their interest is solely is using the movie as a didactic propaganda tool, rather than exploring what the Wachowskis actually may have had in mind. I'm not aware that the Wachowskis specifically mentioned Marxism as a major influence in any of the interviews they gave. -- Curps 02:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My motivation is irrelevant. We can't assume to know the motivation of every single contributer to WikiPedia, and try to decide if their contribution is relavent based on that assumption, now can we? Let's stick to the facts:

Are the MIM reviews relevant? - Well, IMO it is kind of hard for any review of a movie to be irrelevant. The reviews would have to be very off base, which these are not.

Is it vandalism? - Obviously not. It is not defacing the article.

Is it Spam? - No, it's not commercial nor is it forceful.

Are they not notable? - Well, since MIM has an entry here on WikiPedia, I would say that's notable enough.

Is it POV? - Yes, but all reviews are POV and no one is forced to agree with them or even read them.

MIM's review looks at dialectics in The Matrix and observes it as revolutionary. They don't claim that Wachowskis is coming from a Marxist standpoint at all, and they give their Maoist viewpoint. What one individual had in mind is not necessarily important, but rather what is actually portrayed and percieved, IMO. I think MIM would share that view.

--Mista-X 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM is notable according to WikiPedia

It is interesting that the reviews of movies by the Maoist Internationalist Movement that I have added to a few entries here on WikiPedia are being questioned as notable. The fact that MIM has an entry on WikiPedia that has not been deleted proves notability IMO, and I will be taking this issue up. It seems sparkling clear that it is in fact the ones who are against MIM reviews with the political agenda, and not the other way around. They don't have any other grounds for removing these reviews other than the fact they disagree or do not like MIM ideology. --Mista-X 02:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of topics and organizations meet minimum notability standards to have articles on Wikipedia. We even have an article on Time Cube, but that doesn't mean we should accept someone adding Time Cube–related links at Greenwich Mean Time (I'm not making this up, by the way). Donald Rumsfeld is notable too, but I'm not particularly interested in his views about movies (or baseball or flower arrangement).

I think that the religion/philosophy links section of The Matrix was intended for articles that discuss and analyze the Wachowski's underlying philosophy (which seems to be fairly eclectic) or their influences (which seem to be numerous). The MIM review does not take that approach, rather it merely uses the movie as a prop to discuss its own philosophy, analyzing the movie solely according to its own singular perspective and singular influence. This is akin to a dating-advice site publishing an article saying that Titanic is a good how-to guide for picking up women... they have every right to do so, but we would not really accept this as representing James Cameron's philosophy or his reason for making the movie. -- Curps 03:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you admit MIM is notable, you are just saying that it's YOUR opinion that their movie reviews are not worthy. The Time Cube theory could be added as a related entry in time for example. But just because you don't like or are not interested in something, doesn't mean it doesn't belong on WikiPedia. If Donald Rumsfeld was writing movie reviews, I think it would be totally fine to add them as external links. Why is it ok for Ebert to write reviews, but not some Joe Blow, Jane Doe, George W. Bush or some "wacko" from MIM? Their opinions could be just as valid, insightful and entertaining, if not better. --Mista-X 03:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ebert is notable as a movie reviewer and Donald Rumsfeld is notable as a Defense Secretary; Donald Rumsfeld is not notable as a movie reviewer, and neither is MIM. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and articles have to be kept to a manageable size; not everyone who wishes to add an external link will be able to do so.

I note that IMDB has a review links page for The Matrix, with links to no less than 281 reviews. However, MIM does not seem to be one of them. -- Curps 05:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

You have continued to vandalize pages with this stuff after being warned to stop by several users.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --The Grza 03:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No I have not, you are the only one that asked or "warned" me to stop, so who are the several users? And again, I ask "what vandalism"? You still have not explained how the external links I have added are vandalism. --Mista-X 03:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are vandalism because you are intentionally violating Wikipedia's editing policy repeatedly, despite being warned. --The Grza 03:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between violating an editing policy and vandalism. Certainly vandalism is a violation, but a violation isn't vandalism necessarily. So what "editing policy" did I violate? and for the last time explain how it is vandalism please. --Mista-X 03:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and BTW, actually, you broke 3RR, not me. --Mista-X 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no three revert rule for vandalism; The course of action is to revert the vandalism where you find it, if the person continues then you warn them, and finally, you report their actions to the Vandalism in Progress page. I've done all these things. This is not a matter of disagreement over what the rules of Wikipedia are, this is one user flouting those rules to insert spam onto the pages repeatedly. The edit policy you violated was inserting links of little to no value for your own POV, spam or other, more personal reasons that don't relate to the articles on Wikipedia. I tried to explain to you that these are not of note, not because I disagree with them, but because they are meaningless in the context of the article. The end result of the policy you're trying to create would be miles long links at the end of every page, instead of actually including information. This is an encyclopedia, not WebArchive. Thank you for ending your vandalism of these pages, by the way. --The Grza 04:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad there was no vandalism in the first place, so yes the 3RR is valid. It is obvious that you knew it wasn't vandalism in the first place when you noted your removal was based on the fact that it was a "communist review". You changed your tone later on to try and cover the fact that you were vandalising a legitamate addition based on your POV. Anyone will be able to see this in the history, and like Fidel Castro "it will absolve me". I am still waiting for you to explain how it was vandalism. You can't seem to make up your mind if it was because it is POV (all movie reviews are) or spam (it had no commercial content, and if their is you certainly didn't point out anything of the sort) nor is it being pushed on anyone (like being sent to their e-mail or forced on their screen with a pop-up) which constitutes spam. I am not sure what "persynal" reasons you think I have for posting these reviews, other than I think they are valuable and worthwhile. I disagree with you that they are "meaningless in the context of the article", that's your POV. You have not given any reason other than your persynal dislike and POV of the reviews. There is no "miles long links at the end of every page" to speak of, and in the case you have not given me an explanation of how it is decided which reviews should be allowed to stay and which should not. I don't think this is for you to decide, but rather the masses on WikiPedia. --Mista-X 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand edit summaries. They are there to explain, at a glance, what the edit was, not a detailed reasoning why the edit took place. I did, as my edit summary states, remove a communist review. The POV is inherent in these type of reviews the same way Christian reviews are bound by their ideology instead of actually critiquing a film. As for my "POV", it's based on Wikipedia's "POV" that meaningless articles designed for advertisement for an ideology or a product are spam and repeated entries of such become vandalism. I'm now done with this conversation, hopefully the admins will take the appropriate action if you restart your spree. --The Grza 05:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation if problems persist. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyL 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Centralizing discussion

Regarding the ongoing debate over your edits to movie-related pages, AndyL has objected that the discussions have not taken place at Talk:The Matrix. To accomodate this objection, perhaps future discussions should be centralized there rather than various users' talk pages. -- Curps 21:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alan Duff

Thanks for the tipoff about the article. I've given it a bit more wikifying. I liked the whole article (though I wondered where it all came from but I didn't look at the external links). Kia ora! Robin Patterson 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Can you please consider certifying my dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps? To do so add four squiggles immediately under my name at Users certifying the basis for this dispute AndyL 03:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL

I've filed a request for arbitration against AndyL. For reasons described in the request, I don't believe you are a directly involved party, but you may wish to provide evidence later if the arbitration request is accepted. -- Curps 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material from a chat room

I have removed the material in this edit [1] which concerns events in a chat room. It is impossible to verify due to its nature. Please avoid material of an ephemeral nature such as a chat room or irc as it is almost impossible to prove that the event occurred. Fred Bauder 17:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the log is available somewhere online. Also, Merle did admit to saying these things in e-mails he sent to various people and I believe on an online forum. --Mista-X 18:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the source of that passage in the Terleskey article so I don't have the original citations.Homey 20:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the removed text removed by User:Fred Bauder is here [2] It was actually a womens shelter he was harrasing and calling those things. --Cloveious 19:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mista-X 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

Please don't make reverts without discussion like that. its a waste of everybodies time, yours included, and raises the tension level. I spent about an hour merging all of that, the least you could do is gove it a day or two of discussion befroe undoing all that work. Sam Spade 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it was trouble, but many other people put work in to the articles as well, and you made major changes without discussion... Also, it was not organized well.--Mista-X 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well we seem to be doing ok now. I'll try to contact involved parties regarding mergers in the future, and would ask that you discuss prior to reverting non-vandalism. I'm sure your right about your concerns w the material I merged, but I don't know how much I can do. I explained myself in a bit more detail @ Talk:Systema. Cheers, Sam Spade 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you totally butchered the Systema page after admitting you knew nothing about it.--Charlie Evatt 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just a note to say thank you for linking to Defendo from Combatives. I had known that they were different systems but it had never occurred to me to look for a separate entry. My memory was that Defendo was covered in passing as part of the Defendu article, but now that I go back to check I see I was mistaken. Good catch! Thank you. - Rorybowman 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Mista-X, i just thought i'd drop you a message to say i've had Curps-related trouble, he's blocked me 8 times erroneously, and i'm completely innocent. To me, he seems to just disregard anything which other admins say to him, and go about whatever the heck he wants to. Truly, very very annoying admin. J.Spudeman 12:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Stevenson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stevenson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Ratsma.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ratsma.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systema disambiguation

I'm un-merging the various Systema-related articles because they were merged without discussion. If you wish to discuss these changes, please visit Talk:Systema. -- Sy / ^(talk) 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it has sort of been discussed already, but I didn't like the way it was reorganized either (if you look at the history and talks), so I have no problem with you un-merging. --Mista-X 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Talk:Systema. Spade is a dumbass, and has acted like this with other topics too. -- Sy / ^(talk) 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIP report: Sam Spade

Hello Mista-X. Note that a Vandalism in progress report concerning Sam Spade, which you commented on, was moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for outside input. If you would like to comment, please see WP:AN#VIP_alert:_Sam_Spade. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade brought a mediation case to my attention, which makes this unnecessary. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hbred.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hbred.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Anti-Canadianism

First of all, calm down. Second of all, I didn't write any of that stuff about the Communist Party. The article is at the centre of an odd fiasco involving a nationalist who is offended by it; I've been reverting to keep the article intact. I'm sorry your edit got tangled in that. I restored some of it. Please assume good faith. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of PEDS

Hi,

I saw that you removed my {{notability}} tag on PEDS, saying that the game makes the series notable. This has not been held up in precedents involving previous machinima series that have been deleted, even though they were based on popular games. Becaus machinima series are usually fan-made, they really can't inherit the notability of the game. Could you please provide evidence that the series is notable in and of itself? A mere listing on machinima.com is usually insufficient, as there are a lot of productions on machinima.com. Independent reputable reviews (not based on forums or random blogs), awards won, etc., help to establish notability. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article PEDS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:PEDS. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — TKD::Talk 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Path

In regards to your edit of Shining Path, please see Wikipedia:Civility. Refering to the article as "crap" and "shit" is not something most wikipedians appreciate. Thanks. --Descendall 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that "crap" might offend some, but I find that "Crap" sometimes offends me. That's why I changed the "shit". --Mista-X 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to abide by wikipedia policy, that's fine by me. You won't get very far, however. For example, your edits on Shining Path were almost immediately reverted. Keep up your attitude, and you'll see a lot more of that. When you're facing arbitration for being uncivil, you now have a few less people to come to your defense. Have a good day. --Descendall 01:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having people come to your defense, how "civil" you are, etc. is more important then the content of the article and seeking the truth? Typical. And I won't get banned for saying "shit" and "crap", I am familiar with wikipedia policy, but thanks. --Mista-X 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that anything in wikipedia can be erased if it is challanged and no sources are available to back it up. However, I have to ask if you are actually challanging every single thing in this article. For example, are you really challanging that Maria Elena Moyano was killed by the Shining Path? Are you challanging the fact that at least some Peruvian Marxists were anti-sendero? You have placed {{fact}} in the article so many times, and for things that would seem to be so obvious to the causual reader, that you have to understand it will take a ton of effort to dig up a source on everything. That being said, I am happy you did what you did to an extant, because this article could be excellent if it had more sources. --Descendall 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, are you really challanging that Maria Elena Moyano was killed by the Shining Path?"

I don't have to believe it nor disbelieve it in order to demand a source.

" Are you challanging the fact that at least some Peruvian Marxists were anti-sendero? You have placed {{fact}} in the article so many times, and for things that would seem to be so obvious to the causual reader, that you have to understand it will take a ton of effort to dig up a source on everything."

It might take a "ton" of effort, or not much at all. And is it even noteworth if some crusty "Communist" Party with 4 members that sits in an air conditioned office Lima publishing papers disagrees with PCP? Does this make them "anti" or just critical? Would it be so hard to cite a publication? Most "communists" are pretty open about their criticisms of other "communists", so why is this a problem? I don't think that we should assume anything is obvious either, this is how myths are perpetuated as truths. --Mista-X 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand how you think it's even possible to cite some of the material. You challange the fact that the Communist Party of Peru was against capitalism. What do you want me to cite? That page on which "communism" is in the dictionary? I can't imagine what would be an acceptable citation for you on things like that. Furthermore, it certainly is noteworthy that the vast majority of Peruvian Marxists were against the Shining Path. Brush up on your recent Peruvian history: The IU wasn't four guys sitting around, at the time it was the most powerful Marxist party in South America and largest party in Peru, and it held the ~~governors~~ mayor's office in Lima as well as in several departamental capitals. It probably could have won the presidency of Peru if it didn't split. Is it noteworthy that the Shining Path pretty much destroyed the democratic left? You bet. The results of that have been tremendous for Peru. --Descendall 06:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I just don't understand how you think it's even possible to cite some of the material"

Then I don't understand why you think it should belong in the article. If it can not be cited then we have no way of verifying it, do we?

"You challange the fact that the Communist Party of Peru was against capitalism. What do you want me to cite?"

I didn't challenge that PCP is anti-capitalist in Marxist terms of historical materialism, I challenged that they are against small merchants. Merchants and market economies predate capitalism. You had a market for goods under capitalism. Also, I'm sure that PCP supports national bourgeois revolution against imperialist domination, if their was such a progressive bourgeois in Peru. Therefore, they would have to support a temporary stage of capitalism. I was challenging the misrepresentation and obscurity of it.

There are already two references to peasant disagreement with SL's closure of small markets. The page reads thus:

Shining Path also became disliked for its policy of closing small and rural markets in order to end small-scale capitalism and to starve Lima.[9][10] As a Maoist organization, it strongly opposed all forms of capitalism,[citation needed]

--Descendall 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, it certainly is noteworthy that the vast majority of Peruvian Marxists were against the Shining Path."

I'm sure the vast majority of these so-called "Marxists" were/are against each other as well. if they all has some consensus or block against PCP, it should be easy to reference this.

"Is it noteworthy that the Shining Path pretty much destroyed the democratic left?"

Then it should be explained and backed up with sources. You remind me of a Trotksyist though; thinking you can prepare the future and liking very much to criticize everyone else. In the end you support the bourgeois "democratic" route, good for you! --Mista-X 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark major reverts as minor edits. --Descendall 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --Mista-X 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word --Descendall 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you may be happy to know that I've added a large block quote of the Shining Path concerning human rights, since you seemed to be mainly upset that their understanding and practice of human rights protections is misrepresented. --Descendall 01:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts

You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- Medains 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the project talk page to see my possible ideas to get the project moving. -- Medains 13:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systema - external links

The external links that I removed from Systema (an edit which you reverted) clearly are inappropriate as per WP:EL. Please see Talk:Systema. fbb_fan 16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it would have been fine if you wrote that in the summary of your edit. --Mista-X 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the List of Martial arts - by the by what do I do about someone who just removes tags without any changes. Icho Ryu Aikijujutsu. I've reverted once but trying to avoid a game. I can also see this coming up in later situations.Peter Rehse 01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rusnazmarchsymbol.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Mista, would you mind e-mailing me, please? You have no e-mail in your preferences so I can't contact you directly. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey Boxing

Hi, could you please provide some inline citations for some contents such as "It is named after a monkey in Africa", "..has been used by MMA fighters successfully"? Shawnc 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Ting

Thank you for ensuring neutrality on this article. I declined your request for page protection, as the disruption was being caused by a single IP. In this case, the right procedure is to contact the user and confront them with your position. If they do not reply or persist in unilateral changes to the article then you may place the "Not adhering to neutral point of view" templates (which you may find on WP:WARN) on their talk page. Refusal to cooperate may result in the user being blocked. Page protection applies only when multiple users are causing disruption to an article. Regards.--Hús ö nd 03:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning. If he transgresses that warning, tell me or report him to WP:AIV. Thank you for your good work. Regards.--Hús ö nd 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Stevenson

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Ray Stevenson. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your original contributions are welcome. One Night In Hackney 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages, as you did to Ray Stevenson, unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. One Night In Hackney 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruud

Yep, that's him, as well as a number of other members of the Northern Alliance and Canadian Heritage Alliance I see. AnnieHall 06:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMAX

Yes, I know that RMAX has some influence from Systema. Part of my objection to includimg RMAX on the Systema article was the fact that Sonnon denies that influence. So the way I have been looking at it is, if Sonnon wants to deny any conection to Systema, then why bother include it?

And I am not confused about what "softwork" is. I know what it is, and I am familiar with the concept of Hard and Soft martial arts. However, Sonnon calls his style "Softwork™" with the little "trademark" thing, and he seems to use "Softwork" as a proper name for his style.

For the record, I tried to end the arguement with B-ham several messages ago, when I told him I was tired of the arguement, and agreed to leave RMAX in the article despite my disagreement. But he chose to accuse me of having bias against RMAX and Sonnon just because I studied Systema a while back and that iritated me slightly, because I have no bias toward RMAX, and wasn't even aware that there was hostility between Sonnon and Systema. So I tried to explain that I had no bias, and he ignored me and said that I did, even though I know that I don't. That's why this whole thing wasn't settled days ago, because B-ham continued to argue after I tried to end it. But I really don't care anymore if RMAX is listed in the article or not. So hopefully we can all just move on with our lives. MasterGreenLantern 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Day stockwellmilk001005.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Day stockwellmilk001005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to talk

Is there a part of "take it to talk" you do not understand? You are now engaged in edit-warring; please cease. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, here are the relevant sections in the archive--including the results of an RFC regarding the dictator wording.

Stalin as dictator discussion

Hope this helps. C ^thirty-three 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the dictator wording in the Josef Stalin article without first reaching a consensus with other editors on the talk page. C ^thirty-three 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Joseph Stalin for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Jean Chretien

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Lonewolf BC 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ylogo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ylogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great purge

Your edits to this article were extremely unhelpful and I'll make a point of having you blocked if you do something similar again.

Your recent edit to Great Purge (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 16:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Um, where did I make vandalism on the Kimbo page?

dude

stop reverting my page or I will do the same to yours and much more. leave me the fuck alone. MMAfan2007 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

3rr

You are nearly in violation on the Kimbo Slice page. Please stop and discuss.Turtlescrubber 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 3rr and will be reported. Take care. Turtlescrubber 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-Knuckle Boxing

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MMAfan2007 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message

What is a sock puppet? MMAfan2007 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of one hundred hours for violating the three-revert rule on Kimbo Slice and Bare-knuckle boxing, coupled with incivility. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMA pov tag

Could you explain why you added the tag please? Talk:Mixed martial arts#POV tag Insert non-formatted text here

You are at 3rr

On the Bare-knuckle boxing page. Please stop. Turtlescrubber 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 3rr

On the Kimbo Slice page. Please stop.

Merle Terlesky

I've raised this on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Merle_Terlesky. You may wish to comment. Reginald Perrin 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Youth

Hi, I noticed that you inserted the content from Bolivarian Youth. I'm not sure if Bolivarian Circles is the right place. The term "Bolivarian Youth" should also not be reduced to a small local group in Florida even if this one is the most active english speacking in the internet. In Venezuela and other countries you will find groups wich use the same term and are far more notable.google. As long you don't expand this section with the attempt to represent the movement Bolivarian Youth in general it will look like PR for a specific local organisation and I will delete it. I would do it myself but don't have enough particular knowledge about this movement and think its quite hard to explain the term because the aims of "Bolivarian Youth" groups differ. In Columbia for expample they are established by the FARC and probably much more radical and militant.-- Stan_talk 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete it for now because you see no alternative, that's fine, and hopefully someone can expand on it. I merely wanted to merge it rather than see it completely gone. --Mista-X 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bolivarian Youth might be indeed notable. I stored the section on disc and hope that someone rewrites it. I might even insert it again myself if I can present a fairer picture. But my spanish is worse than my English and most material can be only found in Spanish. I don't even want to exclude US groups from this section but right now it really looked like PR to me. -- Stan_talk 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I rewrote the section "Bolivarian Youth". If you are still interested I would appreciate any corrections espescially wording,grammar and spelling.(Hope I didn' make to many.) -- Stan_talk 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made some very minor changes. --Mista-X 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

I agree with your deletion in the article on Stalin. I didn't liked the paragraph as well, so i added some information that i heard in a course on stalinism i attended. Deletion is a better option, but i hardly ever do that myself.--Daanschr 15:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada For Us

I could use your input on this, as it has been nominated for deletion. AnnieHall 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page

I get it. You don't believe that Ramon Mercader was a Soviet agent, or that Trotsky's assassination was ordered by Stalin. But those contentions are supported nearly unanimously by reliable sources. Please stop deleted them from articles without discussion. Use the article talk pages. You're engaged in an edit war and are removing well-sourced material from pages, apparently in service of a POV, without any response to talk page discussion. That's not a good approach. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian martial arts

Hello:-)

As i understood you know alot about martial arts. Could you please help with the Russian martial arts thing (i have found you thru the Russian All-Round Fighting you created. We expanded it, feel free to check it)?

I will tell you the problems:

1. Russian martial arts article needs referencing, and i couldn't find thise.

2. I dont know if you know Russian, but there are articles about martial arts in Russian that need to be translated to English. After translated to English, they also need to be referenced and expanded (the demends on the English Wikipedia are higher). Those articles are: [3], [4], [5].

If you can't do that, then please leave that messege to someone who can help here. Thank you. PocketMoon 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your behavior on the Che page

Hi,

I think we should discuss this on the talk page of the article rather than participate in a revert war. In the meantime, however, how about not deleting the disputed tag and the reference needed tag? If you think that another tertiary source is a legitimate reference, then offer your arguments on the talk page. If you want to ignore the literature that indicates batista was not a dictator, please explain why on the talk page. There is no need to be incivil. Your accusation of "vandalism" is not based on what that word actually means according to WP:Vandalism.PStrait 20:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Sau Chung Article

Mista-X can you please help with this article? The first part was done some months ago with the assistance of MArcane. I recently added some more information so am thinking that it is this last bit of info that is causing the problem. Than-X (hey thats a good one - LOL) Debon 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You are edit-warring at Ramon Mercader, repeatedly making the same inappropriate edit despite being reverted by multiple other editors. Making matters worse, despite numerous requests to discuss the issue on the talk page, you've not bothered to respond in the discussion there but simply continued trying to push your favored version by edit-warring. That kind of behavior has generally been frowned upon. Please participate in the talk-page discussion instead of continuing your current approach. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't appear to be interested in responding or discussing the content issue but have continued reverting, I've asked for an admin to review things. I've opened a thread at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Rlevse 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For information, see here. Rlevse 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Russian All-Round Fighting

Russian All-Round Fighting, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Russian All-Round Fighting satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian All-Round Fighting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Russian All-Round Fighting during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bradford44 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City Skins and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team Nominated for Deletion

I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Shane Ruttle Martinez article

Hey, can you keep an eye on the SRM article? A user by the name of Cheap Laffs has been causing problems there as of late, and seems to be a fascist vying to twist things to his / her viewpoint. Thanks! Frank Pais 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Frank pointed out, "Cheap Laffs" is up to his usually tricks. I came across this today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Please sound off on it when you get a chance, and counter the crap being spewed. Thanks! UnionPride 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off Hess

Dear Mista-X. Please keep your untrue and hateful opinions to yourself. It could be that you would benefit by watching Hess v. Anderson with your eyes and mind open. In UFC five there were no rules however for two things only you could receive a fine. These are eye attacks and biting. It was style v. style and Hess is a San Soo black belt. Hess was the best fighter at UFC 5!

Before SB 2 Vitor Belfort claimed to be Royce Gracie's little brother to get Hess to fight on short notice as Hess had previously challenged Royce. Belfort has been accussed of by Hess and others of using steriods.

Jlhess (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you watch UFC 5 before you make any more comments and negative pov that you keep attacking with. Your pov is 100% false. I have grown weary of your attacks. Why don't you interview V. Belfort and Anderson if you don't believe me. Every thing I have said in reference to these fights is true. You are a very obnoxious person that may be better served attacking another person as you clearly are not a fighter or a someone that has ever had a serious fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlhess (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jon Hess

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Hess, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hess. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jon Hess

An editor has nominated Jon Hess, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Life

Please click on the anti abortion link. Do you see where it goes? The wikipedia community has decided what is the correct term. Continuing to revert will be considered a violation of WP:DISRUPT. Thank you. Prester John (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same veiled threat on my talk page, I don't consider using the term anti-abortion to be disruptive, and in this case, it seems the be the most accurate term. Pro-life covers many issues, such as the death penalty, anti-abortion is a single issue. Without meaning to disrespect Prester John, he has a history of disruption and his edits have been accused of extreme bias, so in my opinion, you are free to revert to anti-abortion. (I have already done so) Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Tehranto

A tag has been placed on Tehranto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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. —BradV 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Levant

Please respond to my criticism of your edit of this article at Talk:Ezra Levant#"common ground" with white supremacists. --D. Monack | talk 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky

Your comments at Talk:Merle Terlesky are coming awfully close to violating no personal attacks. I'd suggest that you refactor them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. --Mista-X (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice. If that sort of thing persists, though, you're likely to be blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boo, hoo. It's won't be the first or last time either. I stand by what I said. --Mista-X (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of hoping you will do the smart thing and keep your thoughts on that person to yourself from now on, but if you choose not to, and just for the avoidance of doubt, any repetition of those attacks on the article subject may lead to your being blocked from Wikipedia. WP:BLP applies in all namespaces, especially the talk page of the subject, whatever we might think of their politics. The days when you could troll article subjects are long gone, if there ever were such days. I hope you are smarter than that, though. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Emmanuel Manolakakis

An editor has nominated Emmanuel Manolakakis, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Emmanuel Manolakakis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emmanuel Manolakakis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Manolakakis. Thank you.

I'm putting this note here as you are the only recent editor of this article. There may be something that makes this person notable but can't see what it is from the artikle. CBHA (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for calculated and egregious violations of WP:BLP aft er warnings. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

targeted by trigger happy admin

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

Mista-X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Did not violate BLP by posting on my own talk page Mista-X (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned repeatedly and yet you continued. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

To add to the above, Guy told you explicitly that BLP applies throughout the project. That includes on your own talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your comment on a talk page.

I deleted your comment from Talk:Che Guevara because it has no relevance to editing that article. I see that it also violates WP:BLP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same with your comments here. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and less still is it a place for you to denigrate people you don't like. Given your most recent block, you're on a very short leash. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing WP:BLP violations after previous blocks; personal attacks; and abuse of article talk pages. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant diffs from today alone: [6], [7], [8]. You are also edit-warring to restore this clearly inappropriate commentary after other editors have removed it. The block length is based on your log of prior blocks. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mista-X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Same old trigger happy 14year old power tripping admins attacking me again...it is a clear personal vendetta against me, as I didn't even violate BLP.

Decline reason:

Personal attacks in a unblock request for a block for personal attacks? Are you trying to get unblocked or get the blocked lengthened? — BJ^Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mista-X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It wasn't personal attack, since I didn't single out anyone. But it is clearly and obviously an unjust block

Decline reason:

You want to try to tell me that this isn't a personal attack? You can't even play games with the language properly. Your record of incivility and disruption remains unblemished; intelligence-insulting unblock requests like this are just going to exhaust whatever patience the community has left with you. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mista-X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

it wasn't personal at all. Now just unblock me and do what's right instead of being a bunch of fascists.

Decline reason:

Even without considering your history (or block log for that matter), the 3 diffs listed above are all highly inappropriate. Doesn't help that the latest unblock request is also an attack. Please discontinue abusing the unblock template or your talk page will be protected for your entire block duration.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please note that, despite the fact that most attention seems to be focussed on the personal attacks, the far more egregious stuff is the BLP violations to which MastCell linked, and the subsequent edit-warring to preserve those violations. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. There was no BLP violation. I took facts written in the article and rementioned them on the talk page, and they are sourced, so how was there any BLP?--Mista-X (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frank Monsalve

I have nominated Frank Monsalve, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Monsalve. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systema

I removed the tags because they realy were not needed. Now I referenced the whole article, if the tags would be there it would case me a headache because it would add work for me (I would also have to delete them every time I wanted to add a link). Kostan1 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello, Mista-X. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Koalorka (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Gershuny

There is currently an AfD open for this article, which is why the tag is on the page. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Lorne Gershuny. Thank you. TN‑X-Man 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ryn logo-v2.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Ryn logo-v2.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE

Please note that the LTTE is recognised as the pioneer of suicide bombing amongst *terrorist/rebel/militant* organisations. They may not have been the first people in history to use suicide bombing, but they were the first to introduce it as a major weapon of the terrorists, as they kiiled two world leaders and thousands of others. Please feel free to discuss at WP:SLR if you have any alternate views. Thanks. Kerr avon (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE are hardly the first people to be called "terrorist" and use suicide attacks, but I whatever, the entire article is pro-imperialist propaganda anyhow. --Mista-X (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Ruttle

What, precisely, is illegitimate about my 4 hours of confirming sources? Please see my response to User_talk:Frank Pais as a representation of just how much I don't appreciate you reverting my edits. - BalthCat (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that no one's life is so empty that they would conduct research about Mr. Martinez between the hours of three and seven in the early morning. He is an interesting fellow most definitely, but I would not think so fascinating that he trumps anyone's necessity to get a good night's sleep. Frank Pais (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forgive you that bit of diurnal bias. Especially considering your reply to my concerns must be so well considered that you had to take a bit of time out of composing it to deliver that delicate little dig. I'll return to listening to this interesting anti-Atlantica CD I found while I wait for it. - BalthCat (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining what is wrong with people who live alongside the Atlantic? Frank Pais (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Is there any way I can get into contact with you? --Mrdie (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marcelthemaost at gmail dot com --Mista-X (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hardial Bains for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardial Bains 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardial Bains 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Crazy Monkey Defense

The article Crazy Monkey Defense has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. StevePrutz (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Canadianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mikhail Ryabko

The article Mikhail Ryabko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only sources used are directly associated with Ryabko, dubious claims impossible to verify, there's not even a Russian article.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Niemti (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vladimir Vasiliev

The article Vladimir Vasiliev has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only sources used are directly associated with Vasiliev, dubious claims impossible to verify, there's not even a Russian article.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Niemti (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Matua

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Matua, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Matua listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Matua. Since you had some involvement with the John Matua redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mista-X. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mista-X. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Merle Terlesky for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merle Terlesky 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merle Terlesky (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mikhail Ryabko

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mikhail Ryabko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kazamzam (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]