User talk:Roux

User:PrinceOfCanada/Sandbox/NavTemplate Please remove HG from Twycross Zoo page Hi Prince I'm not really into wiki but you keep deleting my posts using HG. I hope this is the correct way to tell you about my business. I am the owner of Pirates Cove at Twycross Zoo and am trading there right now. Someone is maliciously trying to erase my business from it's history but I can assure you that everything I have posted is 100% correct and I can prove it. I got my daughter to post some citations but I have even more than this as evidence if you need it. Whoever it is, who is trying to remove my posts is doing this out of jealousy or hatred. I request that you remove HG from any posts made on the Twycross Zoo page by myself, Dartman501. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC) On the off chance you ever read this, I'll invite you to read about our policies on conflict of interest, notability, and verifiability. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC) WHY AM I STILL BEING CENSORED? WIKI KEEP BLOCKING MY POSTS AND ALLOWING UNSUBSTANSIATED NONSENSE TO BE POSTED BY TWYCROSS ZOO. I AM NOT ADVERTISING ANYTHING MORE THAN TWYCROSS ARE BY MENTIONING THEIR TRAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Again, please read our policies on conflict of interest, notability, and verifiability. Prince of Canada t | c 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) September 2008 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Please stop. You are 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. Tiptoety talk 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page here, indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to WT:MOS. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to his own edit, the one that he wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved! Decline reason: Despite what you may believe [1], 3RR is not an entitlement. You were clearly disrupting things and knew you were doing it. Declined — MBisanz talk 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Prince of Canada t | c 02:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) No, I was not 'clearly disrupting and [I] knew it'. He had agreed to a consensus until the conflict was over. He decided that was no longer the case. I made my extremely strenuous objections known, he went ahead, I reverted back to the initial version he had created. Prince of Canada t | c 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: What are the chances of being unblocked if I agree to mediation with G2? Decline reason: Given that this is your third block for edit-warring, I wouldn't feel good about an unblock; I'd feel better about seeing you find different ways of editing after the block expires. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. You were BOTH clearly and explicitly gaming the 3RR [2], which is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. I'm not an admin, but I strong believe the block on both participants should stand unless there is a promised NOT to revert on that article at all.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I'd recommend reducing the Block & imposing a 1RR rule for Canadian monarchy related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Seeing as the other user is now resigning from the project, there is no chance for further conflicts. My understanding is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and with G2bambino's resignation there is nothing to prevent. Decline reason: The actions of other users are not part of the reason for your block; see WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Sandstein, I understand that. I didn't say that his actions are the reason for my block; my responses to his actions are. If he's not here to take any actions that I would respond to, there is no reason for me to respond to them, therefore nothing to prevent. My understanding is that punitive blocks are specifically disallowed. Am I understanding something incorrectly? Decline reason: Both editors were blocked because both editors saw the other's edits as disruptive; however, the very actions taken in attempting to avert what they thought was disruption resulted in greater disruption itself. Unblocking one under the guise that it's simply "okay" because the other is blocked would be setting up for a snowball disaster once the other's block expired. Also, for the record, we usually will protect a page after this many unblock declines, so unless you have a really good reason for doing so, I'd avoid making another unblock request under this block. — slakr\ talk / 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Prince of Canada t | c 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Prince, I am willing to unblock your account under these conditions: You agree to no longer edit war on any articles; You are placed on 1RR restrictions in relation to any articles dealing with the Canadian monarchy (generally speaking) You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions performed by G2bambino (even if a neutral third party reverts to his revision) Tiptoety talk 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I don't do that anyway; recent issues have had extremely specific causes, namely 1) his selective refactoring of my comments--explicitly not allowed and he knew it; 2) refusal to actually discuss anything; 3) refusal to abide by his own actions. Since he's leaving the project, all of these are moot. For how long? Since he is leaving the project, that is a moot point. Prince of Canada t | c 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Hey now.. saying that I'm not being receptive isn't fair. I am! I was clarifying your terms. Again, my understanding is that blocks are preventive and not punitive. Given that G2 is leaving the project, there is nothing to prevent. The 'for how long?' is a reasonable question, I thought. Prince of Canada t | c 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I would not that even though the conditions may be moot, they are still conditions. If they're moot, then you should have no problems agreeing with them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I didn't say I didn't agree with them, just that they weren't really applicable. Prince of Canada t | c 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Okay the point here is to avoid any further disruption to the project, so the 1RR would be in affect until the issues or dispute was resolved and/or until the community decides it is no longer productive to have you placed on 1RR. Also, just because he said he is leaving does not mean he will, and I think that this whole issue is really just simply that you do like G2bambino and stopping you from reverting him is the best possible way to resolve this issue. Might I also add that your ignorance is not helping you here. The fact is you did edit war, and it is disruptive, failure to admit your mistakes is just more evidence you need to remain blocked. Tiptoety talk 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Disagreeing isn't ignorance, Tiptoety. I've never denied what I did, I just don't think that classifying it as 'edit-warring' is accurate. You do, and you're the one with the ability to enforce it, and that's fine. Anyway, now that you've clarified, of course I agree. Prince of Canada t | c 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (undent) PofC, your wikilawyering is not helping you here. A 3RR violation (or even a near violation, and especially gaming it as you did) is edit warring, regardless of the reasons and whether or not you thought you were right, and is disruptive. I'm not comfortable unblocking you until you appear to understand that, so please stop dancing around the issue. I'm also not completely certain what you are agreeing to in your last statement - the 1RR probations, or Tiptoety's summary of events? Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not wikilawyering or dancing around anything.. I'm sorry if it appears that way. I guess I'm not explaining myself well enough. I'll try to be clearer: I agree with Tiptoety's conditions I don't agree that what I did was edit-warring, but you all do, and that is what matters. Obviously I will therefore abide by your definition. Or to be clearer (I think): I disagree with your assessment, but my opinion is irrelevant, and I will follow your definition in the future. The only times I have engaged in editing like that have been with G2bambino. I understand that you want to prevent that in the future, thus the block. G2bambino has left the project. That means there is no chance of this happening again. So the block should be removed, as the situation it is aiming to prevent cannot possibly happen. I mean... If someone is blocked for, say, continually vandalizing country music articles, and then they are topic-banned (which they agree to) from editing those articles, the block should be lifted, right? That's all I'm saying. The situation that the block is aiming to prevent can't ever happen again, so the block is punitive, and not preventative. I hope I'm being clear enough? Please let me know if I am not. Prince of Canada t | c 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I just wanted to add, I'm also involved (as mediator) at a MedCab case right now, and would like to be able to wrap it up as soon as possible. Prince of Canada t | c 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Attn: slakr.. it's not that the other editor is blocked, it's that the other editor has announced resignation from the project. My fault for not being clear, I'm sorry; I would absolutely understand your response if I was asking to be unblocked while he remains blocked. Further, given that I agree with Tiptoety's conditions, I'm not understanding the continuation of the block. Prince of Canada t | c 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Helpme request Thanks for your help. While experimenting, I noticed that the problem only happens when 1 box is open and 1 is closed... so I just avoid that situation. Thanks again, TheMoridian 12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) "Vandalism" of Olivia Newton John Hi Prince of Canada, I hardly think a bold edit of the article in question constitutes vandalism. Perhaps I should have used the sandbox to remove useless information for Wikipedia articles, i.e. a list of song publishers. I hope you find this justification to be valid. Best wishes, Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.206.125 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Image move Hi! Just to let you know with regard to your edit here WP:ACCESS only applies to second-level headings(===) not first-level headings (==). Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I have read "third or higher", but now I can't find where. Prince of Canada t | c 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Found it: MOS - Images. Prince of Canada t | c 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, that agrees with the access guidelines: "=== or greater" means no left-aligned images under subsection headings(=== or ==== or =====). Left-aligned images under section headings (== or =) are OK. DrKeirnan (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Page deletion Hey there POC, thanks for the delete. I was also keen on deleting the user page (/Oxazole) as well as the talk page. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Elite Rhodes-Adoption Yes please i will be happy to accept Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway Fenix Project Gholam Serwar Nasher Canting arms Doorhandle Crown of Frederick I Prussian Crown Jewels Royal Guelphic Order Crown of Louis XV Bavarian Crown Jewels Greek Crown Jewels Lady Helen Taylor Graham Bartram Earl of Merioneth Flag of Prince Edward Island Anykščiai Coat of arms of Ontario Prince Joachim of Denmark Cleanup Prince George, Duke of Kent Iranian Crown Jewels Haakon VII of Norway Merge Toorak, Victoria Crown of Charles, Prince of Wales Honours of the Principality of Wales Add Sources Pahlavi Crown Prince consort Mountbatten-Windsor Wikify The Osbournes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease Mary of Burgundy Expand Meerut List of historical events at Windsor Castle Patronymic SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Orissa- thanks I just wanted to clarify that my comments regarding the protection were by no means meant as an attack on you. I can imagine it's been frustrating, but thank you for your work on moving the dispute towards resolution, and for recruiting a rewriter. Best regards, Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reporting Giano II (talk · contribs) to AIV Well... that was brave, I grant you. I removed the report simply as a means of lessening potential disruption, which any block following an AIV report would ensue. Giano should not and generally does not get preferential treatment, but there is an acknowledgement that injudicious action regarding him tend to have consequences. If you, or anyone else, has a grievance against Giano it is best brought to - in very clear and neutral language - to WP:ANI. I will also have a little look as regards the matter. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Regardless of whether you now think the report itself was warranted, you probably should read the following essay: WP:DTTR ... it will help you avoid kerfluffles in future. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. I am sure that you are both working with the best intentions, and that you care passionately about the subject (as does Giano). As I have used The Buttons in a manner which may be seen as favouring Giano (I didn't, I was doing for the benefit of the encyclopedia...) I guess that I owe you a duty of care also. If you get into any "trouble" in relation to this matter, please feel free to come and ask for my assistance. I shall also watchlist this page for the time being. I think you are not yet aware that you may have embarked upon a very steep learning curve as regards certain WP matters, but if you come through okay then you will likely be greatly the better for it. Here's hoping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC) WP:POINT is a guideline, rather than policy (which themselves are "...not set in stone.") and the nutshell says there are exceptions. One of the skills of operating within WP is the ability to embrace the spirit of the rules, policies and guidelines without getting too hung up on the precise wording and application of the terms of said wordings; basically, if it improves WP then it is right. If you can learn that lesson and be guided by it then you are doing better than Giano who, for all his excellent encyclopedia writing achievements, is largely unable to accommodate those who do not share his viewpoint. As I said, you have balls to do what you did - and I hope you have the brains also to understand why being right is not always an absolute. If you have both then you are likely going to be just as valued a contributor as Giano (generally) is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Editors Hiya PoC. As you can tell, myself & Guy (a Wikipedian I barely know) have differing opinons on the value of editors. I couldn't care less, as to how many contributions (good or bad), awards or tenure length a registered user had under his/her belt. None of it intimidates me nor overly impresses me. As I've said before, I'm a true layman. OK, I'll make exception for editors I know, better then others, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Article editing I visited your page and saw you saw you were willing to go through an article. In response, would you bother to check my Mt. Tamalpais & Muir Woods Railway article? It is not complete, but please contact my talkpage and tell me if there is anything wrong; moreover, edit whatever you want.Thanks,--Archeopteryx (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) EDITS AGAIN TO ORISSA BY RECORDFREENOW Minor edits by me to shorten the length and to correct verbosity have been summarily undone by Recordfree without reference. I suggest that the Page be protected. Jobxavier (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Large Scale POV edits were done during the past 3 days while I sat watching. However, please check history about how minor my edit was. And the POV of the last 3 days. Jobxavier (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Threat of block I dont think users should be able to get away from inserting irrelevant POV and reverting all edits regarding that POV and then also threaten to report. The onus is on you to justify how the background section is of any relevance to the recent communal violence in Orissa. Trips (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of month-old articles with no content The articles I tagged had literally no information whatever (Wikicruft doesn't count). You will note that I spared the ones with data. There is absolutely no value to WP to having these stubs in there before there is even an iota of information. I suggest you (a) not shed a tear while watching these all be deleted; and (b) add the new pages when you have the supporting material. Bongomatic (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry you found my previous comment uncivil. Other than the suggestion, I find it to be pretty uncontroversial. If you're concerned about the time to recreate them, you can keep them all by moving them into your user space. Bongomatic (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry you found my previous comment uncivil. Other than the suggestion, I find it to be pretty uncontroversial. If you're concerned about the time to recreate them, you can keep them all by moving them into your user space. Bongomatic (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Again, I don't see your beef: Rudeness. Maybe you don't like the blunt tone. This is really a question of personal opinion. Insults and name calling. Not applicable. Judgmental tone in edit summaries. Not applicable. Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor. Not applicable. Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice. Not applicable. Taunting. Not applicable. Ill-considered accusations of impropriety;. Not applicable. Lies. Not applicable. Quoting another editor out-of-context. Not applicable Making personal attacks. Not applicable. Using derogatory language towards other contributors. Not applicable. Feigned incomprehension. Not applicable. In no case did I comment on the merits of the project, or disparage you for your having created the stubs, which I assume that you did in good faith intending to fill them in with content. I simply observed that they do not have any content and that as such there is no benefit to the project to having them in article space. Do you really disagree with that? Bongomatic (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Your wikilawyering notwithstanding, your 'shed a tear' comment was rude, you know it--you admitted to it. Your entire tone was aggressive and unpleasant and unnecessary. Look below for Nancy's comment, which was a whole lot more polite. Please do not visit my talk page again unless you are willing to converse in a polite manner, ok? Thanks. Prince of Canada t | c 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Hi there. I am the admin responsible for deleting some/most of the articles and wanted to drop by and explain that this is not because the subject does not merit an entry but because we don't keep placeholders on Wikipedia. If there is no actual content (which there was not in any of the ones I have deleted) then the article should not be put in to mainspace, an amount of leeway is given for newly created articles but this is typically measured in hours rather then days, or in this case, weeks! My advice would be to create them in sandboxes in your userspace and then move then as and when they have content. I would normally offer to copy the deleted articles in to userspace but as they are the same template there doesn't seem to be much point, but, of course, if you would like me you just have to ask. Good luck with your COA project. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Hi Nancy, I wasn't suggesting that the articles didn't merit entry, I was pointing out the unnecessarily rude and condescending behaviout from Bongomatic (talk). Prince of Canada t | c 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Little context in Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) How to warn user of vandalism? Thank you for helping to keep Off Broadway Theatre intact. New users have registered (presumably previously unregistered users who were vandalizing the page, with the possibility of one or more sock puppets) and are continuing with deletion of content. I was hoping for some advice or assistance in warning and/or blocking these users. Revision history:[[3]] 00:09, 28 September 2008 Obtsupporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1,314 bytes) Undid revision 240815347 by BillWestman 16:52, 23 September 2008 Obtsupporter (Talk | contribs) (1,314 bytes) Undid revision 240360146 by BillWestman Examples:[4] [5] 19:20, 21 September 2008 OBT2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Example:[6] I appreciate any assistance you can provide. BillWestman (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Coat of arms of Chilliwack, British Columbia A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of Chilliwack, British Columbia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 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. Bongomatic (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Dear Prince of Canada. I live in Nafplio, Greece. There is no rail services from/to Athens anymore. There are only frequent bus services to/from Athens by KTEL organisation. Please correct it, i tried and i cant. thanks antonia paziota My bright idea I'll dress up as batman, you as robin and I'll take the photo though The Queen's window while you cover me! I tried last year but it didn't work. ;) --Cameron* 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC) re Dwayne Perkins Deletion Thanks for your notes. it seems having someone else write about you is the main criterion for not being and "ad" apparently someone already did. I had nothing to do with that one and somehow that got deleted too. I didn't even know it had been created until i went to create one on my own. People come to wikipedia for information. So if someone chooses to type my name in the search engine and they get my page I fail to see how that can be construed as promotion or an ad. The only way people see my page is if they search on my name which means they are looking for me which in and of itself suggests some level of notability. I will peruse the rules but as of now it feels like a very subjective thing is being sold to me as cut and dry. I'm sure the case for my page being ok is almost as strong as the case against it. I have videos on youtube that I did not put there. Articles written about me that I did not generate or spur. Plus, someone I don't even know has already tried to make an article about me. I'm not here for promotion but more for validation. There are plenty of people on my level who have pages/articles here. It's not promotion as much as it is simply making a factual reference page. I don't mind the community deciding my fate on this but I don't feel the community has spoken. Just a few gatekeepers. Thanks again. Regards, Dwayne Dwayneperkins (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Dwayne Perkins ~~Dwayne Perkins ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneperkins (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Fay Weldon That was quick-thanks! 86.136.31.188 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)