User talk:Malber/Archive/Archive 01

Dive right in!

Maureen Dowd[edit]

I like your caption to that Maureen Dowd photo! "Maureen Dowd strikes a journalistic pose". I always think Wikipedia could do with a bit more wit and sharp writing. RMoloney (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked the picture and the caption :-). It may not be NPOV though. Check out these alternates at Drudge's site.--malber 16:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...[edit]

... care to explain the following edit? Seems like extreme POV pushing to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, it's been reverted already...and hundreds of edits since. --malber 15:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a dumbass?[edit]

Why do you keep putting crap and vandalizing Winnermario's user- and talkpage? --Anittas 23:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like this heading. I think from time to time, everyone should ask themselves, "Am I a dumbass?" --malber 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody ballad/slow section[edit]

For what it's worth, I agree with you - I don't recall reading anywhere else that that section is specifically a "ballad".--Stevage 11:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New user box[edit]

Hello Malber, Im SWD316. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! SWD316 03:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (song)[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. I see that you have pasted into the Talk page the paragraph that you are concerned violates WP:NOR. You might want to consider illustrating each fact in that paragraph that is uncited. It would be easier to find appropriate citations for individual facts than for an entire paragraph. Jkelly 04:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your opinions on flatulence.[edit]

Wikipedia is not about politeness. The standard is not "what would you say when you go to the doctor", it is "what would the user put in the search box". -Justforasecond 02:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redux[edit]

For future reference -- articles are to be titled based on "what would the user put in the search box" (not redirected) Its a simple policy. -Justforasecond 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also propose that we change the article titled "Sexual intercourse" to "Fucking"?--malber 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

db[edit]

If you are nominating an article for deletion, please always give the reason why you think it should be deleted. The {{db}} template requires a reason, for example {{db|nn-bio}}. -- RHaworth 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star[edit]

Thanks for the Barnstar, my first! Jtmichcock 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site[edit]

Let's just say it's almost not a stub. I'm glad you like it. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the compliment, but I just personally feel that any subject I have an interest in is "deserving of my talents". Although given the controversy involving the Strickland article and November (film), I'm rather hesitant about writing an article that is later promoted to featured status, and then it being criticised for the subject's supposed lack of notability. Regardless, I'm working on an article at the moment that I intend on submitting to FAC whose subject definitely is notable. Anyway, thanks again for the compliment, and I'm interested to see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles (or the WP:FAC and WP:WIAFA talk pages) about introducing a subject notability criterion to the FA criteria. Extraordinary Machine 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpatch USA[edit]

Thanks to you for supporting my writing style in this article (the bulk of the article was researched and written by my friend, Stuart Feild, and I, in collaboration with him, edited and rephrased the bulk of the article). I spent a lot of time on the intro to this article, trying to find the right words to summarize the park's financial ups and downs throughout its years, and was eventually very satisfied with the sentence that you referred to. I was very dismayed to find it rephrased by some of my peers on November 10th, the day it was featured on the front page. Nevertheless, I'm relatively new here and I've accepted their decisions, though I disagree; I think a measure of creativity of expression is appropriate and desirable and stimulates the reader, and I've found that some of you, my peers, feel the same way. Perhaps some day our view will be accepted in Wikipedia. --RogerK 02:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socks (cat)[edit]

it was funny the first time. please stop. --Duk 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you at least thought it was humorous. --malber 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I snickered :), Happy New Year! --Duk 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Hello. Actually, I was going to delete the lyrics. Someone keeps posting the same materials onto the Star Trek (original series) website and to keep him/her from doing this, I set up a separate article. I was going to delete all by the first line after I had the other person cooled down (stuff like this you have to do in stages. It is a very strange story about how Star Trek had lyrics. Jtmichcock 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Anastasio[edit]

Mr. Malber,

I'm currently in the process of editing, however I believe the article may be instead in need of expanion tag as opposed to a stub as it contains both the nessessary essential information and is well over the one paragraph limit. MadMax 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Blue[edit]

Normally I'm very critical of an article's failure to describe fiction as fiction, but I'm unclear as to what the problem is with this article on this issue. To my eyes, it doesn't appear to slip into the wrong voice in the few instances in which it describes what happened within the show. Postdlf 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Aspie[edit]

Could you please explain why you are changing this template to green and purple? The current(before your changes) version was settled on after a revert war.

Prodego ^talk 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I like those colors. Is there anything about black and grey that identifies aspies? --malber 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is exactly how the revert war I am referring to started. (see history), please gain consensus first, especially on this template as it has already had a revert war, to prevent another from breaking out. I suggest you put forward your proposal on the talk page, and wait a few days. Prodego ^talk 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, you could just use your version of the template on your user page and leave the actual template alone. That would be the easiest answer, but if you believe your version is superior and not just a preference, you should probably use the talk page, and see if others agree. Prodego ^talk 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that black and white are appropriate colours for Aspies, if you understand the syndrome. Its for people who think in terms of black and white :). Purple and Green are the colours of feminism and should be reserved for that. 203.26.136.138 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Up to eleven, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to Eve Angel[edit]

Unfortunately, you did not revert vandalism, but actually re-introduced a spam link back into the Eve Angel article that I (and several others) had removed. If you do not believe this is the case, please feel free to communite with me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment/Wiki-stalking[edit]

Please stop going around removing edits I have made by stalking me via contributions or removing content from pages just because I have edited the pages. You have been reported for harassment - see Wikipedia:Harassment - and this is an official warning as I was told to give you by the administrators. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you habitually change my talk posts and delete them from your talk page, I am restricted to replying here. Contrary to your misguided accusations, I am not stalking you. If you want someone to, you'll have to ask someone else; I'm quite busy. At Talk:Eve Angel, the consensus is that the worksafe warning is appropriate, however your addition of a link to a commercial subscription porn site is not. Your article about a commercial video series about pegging was speedy deleted out of process; it had no context. Your edits to the Scientology articles are POV and against the consensus there. The assertion that I'm a Scientologist and part of some conspiracy against you is laughable. Your edits, reversions, and contributions are against the consensus and disruptive to the process. I will not respond to your ridiculous allegations at AN/I and will show them the same regard as the admins I've spoken with on #wikipedia. You are very young. It is my sincere hope that someday you will learn from the numerous times you've been blocked for disruption and become a productive editor. --malber 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should meet User:Antaeus Feldspar, your fellow Wikistalker and troll. 203.122.221.73 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.122.221.73 is of course actually the banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs), who is in turn a sockpuppet of the banned user Internodeuser (talk · contribs). Any comments he makes should be taken in the context of the very great trouble he has sticking to the truth (full and documented proof of his lying is available as needed.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging[edit]

I removed speedy tags that you had added to Jim Black and Jason Bittner. Both had some reasonable claim to notability, but I decided to redirect the second one for the time being. I later saw that you went back and edited these articles, apparently agreeing with me that these articles are not speedy candidates. Please consider that a too hastily added speedy tag may actually lead to some perfectly decent article being deleted by a hurried admin. Unless the non-notability is really clear, it is better to use {{context}} or {{importance}} tags or to take it to AFD. up+l+and 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response left on user talk page --malber 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage[edit]

Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at user's talk page.

malber, wikipedia is not a battleground. Putting the massive 'defwarn' template on someone's page for 'guilt by association' for a dispute over one sentence is not proper. Just calm. ~ PseudoSudo 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Alexander[edit]

"This person is not notable other than being a friend of Ashton Kutcher and appearing once on Punk'd. I've listed this for speedy delete. --malber 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

Let me ask you something. Who the hell are you to pass any judgement to a person? In case you didn't know, he IS a musician (has fans from all over the world) and has been writing songs for Eric Martin, Richie Kotzen, etc. You DO think his is not notable OTHER than being a friend of Ashton Kutcher. It's your opinion. Sorry but before you post, make sure you've done something right. unsigned comments by 201.0.37.97 (talk · contribs)

First off, it's customary to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, I'm not passing judgment on anyone. The article Frank Alexander doesn't assert any notability per WP:NMG. He may be a nice guy, but being friends with Ashton Kutcher, almost appearing on Punk'd, and auditioning for a play does not make one notable. This is not opinion, this is fact. If you feel that the subject is notable, please improve the article and cite some sources. It may save it from deletion. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! --malber 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your policy of judgement. I've got a source where you can find everything about Frank Alexander's career: google.com. By the way, what's a notable person? A mainstream singer? Britney Spears? Michael Jackson?

I'm not his fan (special note: I'm Eric Martin's fan), I didn't donate aything to Wikipedia, I'm not even a Wikipedian then I won't spend my time with writing an article about him. I don't actually know anything about his career. But I do know he's a famous producer/composer/musician. Since you found it so *illegal* you ought write a decent article (source: google.com) not simply ask Wikipedia to delete down a whole page. I don't think reporting a page for speedy delete is kind of helpful. unsigned comment by 201.13.30.107 (talk · contribs) on Feb 6, 2006

Google is a search utility, not a source. When I googled the name, I did not find any notable references. Searches at All Music Guide and IMDB.com were inconclusive. If you feel strongly about this, then you are welcome to edit the article and cite some sources. Like I said on the article's entry on the articles for deletion page, I am willing to change my vote if you can list at least one source that falls under the guidelines of WP:NMG and/or WP:BIO. Malber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone has shown a source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Alexander), I assume you've just started a thread to make fun of this guy unsigned comment by Ci santoro (talk · contribs) on Feb 8, 2006

Response at user's talk page.

In regards to this "perhaps Frank Alexander should spend less time on self promotion and pointing himself out as Ashton Kutcher's friend"; I totally agree with you. I guess Frank Alexander isn't a celebrity. He may be into the underground scene (let's get this straight, a few people know him), but it doesn't mean he is a celebrity. Fact. On the other hand, I have stopped by bunch of articles which may not contain relevant informations, but aren't flagged. Also, I've read on people who I've never heard of before. Why the double standard? unsigned comment by 201.13.29.83 (talk · contribs) on 14:53, February 8, 2006

I came across this article while updating the List of Prominent Alumni of Berklee College of Music and correlating it with the renamed Category:Berklee College of Music alumni. I scrubbed all of the listings for notability and Frank Alexander was one of the few that I found that did not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Berklee has a lot of alumni, but not everyone becomes notable.

I'm sure there are quite a number of unverifiable biographies on Wikipedia. You are perfectly welcome to be bold and improve them with references following the guidelines and policy of no original research. If you can't find any sources and the subjects do not meet the criteria of notability, you're perfectly welcome to nominate them for deletion. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blu Aardvark[edit]

Some of the edits you've made to his talk page have come to my attention, such as this, this and this. Please don't let your displeasure at the Wikipedia Review descend into uncivil behaviour here on the wiki, it's bad for the reputation of the site as a whole. As El C pointed out on Blu's talk page, if you think the anon IP is Blu, take it to WP:RFCU. --bainer (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Thebainer. Be careful mate! Don't stoop to the level of some of them. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Says Hi[edit]

Hi! I rm'd the vandalism. -- donkey.

Actually, I removed some yesterday, too, but forgot to put in an edit summary. Hey, Donkey, are you the Donkey Donkey? If so, I have to say, some of your Wikipedia Review baiting was some of the funniest posting I've seen in a long while. You too, Malber. I wouldn't get too cut up about being banned (in fact I would rejoice in the irony if I were you) ElectricRay 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea donkey was Grace Note. I agree with ElectricRay, that was some funny posts. I was horrified that the donkey username had been banned. Who's going to keep Internodeuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in line now? I thought Blu would ban me first. But my days there are likely numbered. Blu's appointed Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a moderator. She's already violated the Proboards privacy policy by posting Grace Note's full name. Now she has access to all the registration information. There's nothing to stop her from using that against anyone who disagrees with her. She's proven in the past that she's incapable of showing any maturity. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, my opinion of Jeff has dropped considerably. I had him down as just misguided and lacking principle but making Selina an admin seems like something different altogether. BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a review board on which critics of Wikipedia can discuss perceived flaws in a more adult environment. Would you be interested in contributing to that? Grace Note 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. ElectricRay 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to canvass some more opinion, perhaps from some of the more critical Wikipedians and I'll let you know what I come up with. Grace Note 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BTW :-) This is the link to the post where selina posts Grace Note's personal info. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Report[edit]

I'm putting up my proposed FAQ/rules for "Wikipedia Report" at my userpage. I'd welcome your input, comments, brickbats. Grace Note 05:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Judd[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ashley Judd, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing!

Thank you but the citation you added to the Ashley Judd page makes no reference to her being the "Queen of the potboilers". As such, I have replaced the fact tag. --Yamla 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! Much appreciated. --Yamla 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gill, M.D.[edit]

Doesn't the fact that he's a major party candidate in a federal election make him notable? -- Superdosh 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user Superdosh's talk page

Thanks for the reply! I got this from the page:

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7.

So it seems that perhaps this should go through the regular AfD process? -- Superdosh 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user Superdosh's talk page

Image:Ashtonkutcher3.jpg[edit]

The image was appropriately tagged as {{magazinecover}}, but is not copyright problem. Instead, I've listed it at Images and media for deletion, since it's clearly an orphan, not being currently used in any article(s). Thank you. - adnghiem501 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LART[edit]

There was no "page move", nor was there any vandalism, Malber. I simply turned an improperly formatted soft redirect to a different project to a redirect to the disambiguation page, which seemed more useful. In addition, I requested a move on WP:RM to complete the process. You really shouldn't lie and troll. And stop posting my personal details. I have NOT posted yours anywhere. --72.160.85.60 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong Together[edit]

I've completed some of the objections and have turned them around. Could you please comment about anything else that should be trimmed/removed/added? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?[edit]

What are you talking about? Luka Jačov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Malber is speaking of this edit you made which is uncivil. WP:CIVIL says to comment on content, not editors. Luka, your speakulation about Malber's sexual habbits is rude and irrelevant. Accordingly, I have removed your comments from the AFD page, though I left your vote to Keep. Johntex\^talk 19:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An opening for Wikipedia review???[edit]

On Criticism of Wikipedia, you put a {{fact}} tag on the following sentence:

Some contributors have quit after denouncing what they have described as abuses of power by Administrators and the Arbitration Committee.^{[citation needed]}

One external reference which might be used to document this claim is--guess what--Wikipedia Review, which contains numerous disgruntled users making precisely such claims. Of course WR doesn't document the veracity of such claims (many of which I consider to be nonsense, and I'm sure you agree), but it does document their existence. And the claim that "contributors have quit after denouncing alleged abuses", can be verified by reading WR and other cites. Of course, there may be (and doubtless are) better references for this claim.

Just thought I'd point this out.

--EngineerScotty 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user EngineerScotty's talk page

Adelle Davis[edit]

Hi Mal. I requested peer review for this article. I'd appreciate your opinion :). --RogerK 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on "Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game"[edit]

I have consulted a dictionary, and the result is in my favour:

"2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or she’)."

From the OED Setokaiba^✌_≝ 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the attacks. They came from google. They look like criticism and not attacks. DyslexicEditor 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks[edit]

Incidences where Malber has made personal attacks: Malber made a personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMalber&diff=47302686&oldid=47298399 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malber&diff=prev&oldid=47396875 DyslexicEditor 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?[edit]

It's called an OBSERVATION, not an accusation. There's a difference. Look at the wording I used. I was basically saying that according to what I've seen you two type on here makes it APPEAR that you think that way. Besides, I've seen what you've typed yourself, accusing people of self diagnosis [1], claiming there's a political aspect to identifying with Asperger's [2], and saying that being Aspie is like joining a special club [3] [4]. Maybe you should read WP:NPA. Besides, it was these edits by you that lead to my observation. And I was commenting on the content of your edits, which in turn reflect you. --JFred 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Continuity and the Continuity Forum[edit]

Hi Malber,

I have a couple of points relating to your 'edits' of Business Continuity and the Continuity Forum, both of which you decided to edit and/or schedule for deletion one for Alexa Traffic issues and the other for the use of what you termed copyright material.

First off the Continuity Forum: The links given and the information provided clearly illustrate that the organisation are heavily involved in the international development of Business Continuity are are the ONLY 'Independent, Not for Profit' group active in this area. The website is used by Police, Government and other emergency services groups as a source for impartial and accurate information. In real terms, Alexa rating mean nothing unless Wiki is just going to deal with Popular, high hit rate stuff and I don't think that is the case ... is it? BTW there are over 500 pages of advice, support and information on that site which would cost £10,000's to access commercially and it is given freely by the Continuity Forum for all to use.

Secondly, you cite the use of copyright materials in a piece outlining Business Continuity. YES it is Copyright, but is is MY copyright and was originally published on the Continuity Forum Website. It was then reproduced by others with my permission ...

I hope that this resolves things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCM Pro (talk • contribs) 12:42, May 23, 2006.

Reply on BCM Pro's talk page

Sorry Malber, but I have read the cited guidance on original Research etc as clarified below:

This policy in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

As the materials provided are both Published and used as the basis for both Government and professional body guidance. I fail to see why it is unacceptable, especially as it is being freely given.

I am surprised that we are even having a debate about something that is clearly so useful and essential to organsations and individuals.

BCM Pro 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)BCM Pro[reply]

Reply on BCM_Pro's talk page

I HAVE fully reviewed the policies and I'm confused by your application of these rules to this entry. Your logic in determining the the 'credibility' or status of the entries provided does not seem to fit with the information provided and any investigation seems to be rather superficial.

Points in summary are:

1. The Continuity Forum are the leading advisers to UK Government (and the Emergency services, Fire Police and Health) and Business, also working at UK and European Governmental and regulatory levels on BCM and related standards ... yet you doubt expertise ... on what basis do you form this opinion?

2. You refer to 'sources' when they are the source of guidance to the above and in the opinion of real experts on the topic they are the leading 'Think Tank'in the world covering both development and application, providing the baseline metrics to Business & Government, impartially and with no commercial agenda.

3. They're trusted by legislators providing the Guidance in Law under the Civil Contingencies Act 2005. In addition, UK Resilience, the Security Service and most public bodies use the reseach and material provided by the Continuity Forum

I can't think of a more expert group than that and there is certainly no-one else with the same level of credibility in the sector!

I had thought that the WIKI project was about promoting access to knowledge, so I am rather disappointed that it appears to be rather less than that.

BCM Pro 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)BCM Pro[reply]

Reply on BCM_Pro's talk page

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Anittas (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Ey (smile)[edit]

Thanks, it was appreciated, it's pretty hectic on Wikipedia lately (although maybe it's always like this?) I didn't forget your comment on the 3rr board, thanks for the support. I think something's seriously wrong with SlimVirgin, she acts pretty much like a spoilt brat trying to get her own way from what I've seen.

I can see SK's point regards the whole harassment issue but you don't seem that bad, though maybe you should read up a bit on psychology and the DSM before making judgements about whether genetic disorders are "made up to excuse bad behaviour". --Col. Hauler 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Smile[edit]

That was a really pleasant surprise! Thank you, and right back at you :). Extraordinary Machine 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at you![edit]

Thanks for the WikiSmile! I'm so used to getting stern messages telling me what I've done wrong this time when the 'new messages' box appears so it was nice to see a smily face instead! Take care! :) HeyNow10029 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the smile[edit]

Too bad that Philip Sandofer (sp?) article didn't make it. I looked for it on other wikis, but I only found it here. DyslexicEditor 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up as copies on wikitruth and encyclopedia damatica. DyslexicEditor 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong Together[edit]

Please respond on the FAC page. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I completed some or most of what you requested with the writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Malber/Archive/Archive 01, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:New England/archive2[edit]

You are not using Wikipedia archives properly. Please move the discussion to the current talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I seem unconcerned as to the discussion page. Part of being an administrator is knowing how to administer Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I was set off in the wrong direction by what appeared as vandalism to the talk page, or at least the persistence of the users involved to continue a heated debate on an archived page, ignoring the proper usage. If I were to apply for adminship now, I wouldn't vote for me either.

However, I do believe I am correct on this guideline. Archiving a talk page is often one way to 'cut the fuse before the spark,' as it were. I've restored the changed archive discussion under a subheading on the current talk page, and added the {{calm_talk}} banner to the current talk page. Even so, I really shouldn't "wiki" when I am this busy otherwise. Again, I apologize. - CobaltBlueTony 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for vandalism[edit]

I've reverted your vandalism of List of transgendered people and blocked you for 48 hours. You are not a newbie, and you have absolutely no excuse for vandalising pages, let alone making plainly defamatory edits. Frankly, you should know better than this. Rebecca 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. Please think twice about doing this sort of stupid thing again though. Rebecca 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently"[edit]

Per WP:MOS#Time - never use Recently in an article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule via these diffs: [5] reverting me, [6] reverting the IP address (including reverting some obvious redirect fixes), [7] reverting the IP again, [8] reverting the IP again, and [9] which not only reverted me, but used a misleading edit summary. If you revert to my version now, I will not report your violation of the three revert rule. You cannot use force to get your way on the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be clear that I will file a notice of your violation at the 21:00, 5 July 2006 if you do not self revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on User:Hipocrite's talk page

Make the changes to the section by hand, then. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on User:Hipocrite's talk page

As I assume you suspected, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I invite you to reply. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Wikibofh_(talk) 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter 3rr[edit]

If you revert again its the 4th time and a 3RR violation. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Stubs: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film); New Hampshire Union Leader; Knick Knack; Phineas Nigellus; David Holmes (actor); LAuS; Ratatouille (film); Rapunzel Unbraided; Daniel Webster Highway; Leavesden Film Studios; University of New Hampshire at Manchester; Nickelodeon Movies; Griptonite Games; Mike's New Car; The Adventures of André and Wally B.; NetNewsWire; Red's Dream; Heyday Films; 101 Dalmatians

Cleanup: Paul Hunter (director); OHB-System; Mesa Boogie
Merge: Minor Hufflepuffs; Ministry of Magic; Hepzibah Smith
Add Sources: Githany; School discipline; Kryten
Wikify: Imperial Presidency; Full system simulation; STS-32
Expand: The New Jedi Order; Low-carbohydrate diet; List of Little Penguin colonies

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 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website?[edit]

Is that redirect such a good idea? --EngineerScotty 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article First Internet Backgammon Server (F.I.B.S.), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Cute[edit]

That's really cute, Malber, listing me on WP:AIV [10]. I'm not going to say whether or not 207.118.103.139 is an IP of mine because it's not my responsibility to defend myself against spurious vandalism accusations - but I would like to state a few things. Even if it was me, it's irrelevant, as the edits (with the exception of one, which falls more under WP:NPA than vandalism) were not vandalism. If you don't like people editting your userpage, you really shouldn't invite them to. And listing as evidence against me the fact that I removed an innappropriate {{test4}} from my talk page... Malber, you placed that template there for the same reason you placed {{defwarn}} and {{multipleIPs}} - to troll. I reverted it for that reason. There is no vandalism in any of my contributions, and even if there was, {{test4}} would not be appropriate, and you would not have the ability to enforce it anyway. Leave me alone, Malber. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber...[edit]

You said you searched for Frank Alexander on IMDB but it was inconclusive. I e-mailed IMDB about 3 days ago; I got a reply right now. I explained to them I was searching for Frank Alexander who was born on July 1, 75 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0018420 / he is credited as Alex Caldwell on Punk'd http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091444/; admin either warned me that they did not find a credible source, not even an official site and it's not appropriate to submit his biography, that is why all info has been blank. Come to think of it, you're right. Frank Alexander isn't a notable person. I apologize. But please, see. I have heard of him for his "appearance" on Punkd. Aditional comment; Pacific http://www.randkmusicmix.com/Artists_P.htm is a NZ band and the name was misspelled as Pacifer. The title of the song is Bullitproof, not Bulletproof which was written by Pacifier. I got this comment on Orkut. You clearly tried to humble whoever wrote the article but it didn't worked.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ci_santoro"

Reply on [[User talk:Ci santoro|Ci santoro]]'s talk page

opinion[edit]

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Ann Coulter[edit]

Thanks for asking my opinions about this article. I agree that it's pretty badly done, but I hope it isn't deleted. Here's why:

The Ann Coulter article tends to accumulate a lot of poorly-done, extremely negative-point-of-view material, often posted by not-very-competent, not-very-thoughtful editors. These editors tend to be adamant that their material is notable, neutral, and perfect in every way. They tend to be not very good at explaining why, other than to re-assert that their material is notable, neutral, and perfect in every way.

Sometimes editors can be convinced that the egregiously negative stuff belongs in the Criticisms article, and they move it there. (Or, in some cases, duplicate it there.) IMHO, this is a Very Good Thing, in that it improves the Ann Coulter article. It is also a skill-building exercise for some of the not-very-good editors.

I think of the Criticisms article as sort of a floor drain or grease trap, where nasty goo can collect and do no harm. Like all floor drains and grease traps, it isn't a very pretty place.

It's possible that somebody will undertake a cleanup of the Criticisms article, and I earnestly wish them success. In the meantime, the article serves a useful and hygienic function, and I hope it stays in the encyclopedia. Lou Sander 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter[edit]

(I didn't remember you as the "criticisms of" guy)

Thanks for removing the IMHO totally inappropriate/out of touch religion paragraph. I tried to remove it once, or at least discussed doing so, but one of the other regular Coulter editors said something like "well, she doubted evolution, and the only doubt about evolution comes from religious groups, so this must be part of her religion." IMHO that's absolutely nutty, but typical of what happens all the time in the Coulter article. Thanks again, and don't be surprised if somebody puts it back in. Lou Sander 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VS system[edit]

Tahnks for the correction and explanation. I appreciate it. You're a good editor. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for BLP template[edit]

Hi there. I've recently added a suggestion at Template_talk:Blp#Image_change for a heart icon to be used as the template. I noticed that earlier in the debate you suggested using a generic icon. Would this idea of a heart icon be suitable do you think? Carcharoth 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AFD notification[edit]

Thank you for notifying me that Peter Jackson is up for deletion. I plan to add my two cents to the page. Bobo . 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber said:
I hope you read this right and that it's Billy Jackson, not Peter Jackson.

Ah yes. I'm sorry. I intended to say that it had been transcribed into one place on the article concerning another person. Once we have more information or more notable by himself, we can split the article back up and give him his own page. Since there was little more information available on that page, it seems sensible to keep it in the same place. Basically identical rationale to that of Ohconfucius. Thank you for following this one up, I felt like making things less complicated on the Article's AFD page, yet had OhC's comments in my head at the same time. Bobo . 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber said:
You may also be interested in the AfD for Katie Jackson.

Added my opinion on that page too, thank you for informing me. Bobo . 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think it's good that you inform people who have edited articles that are up for AFD, it's probably not necessary to notify people like me who've only made minor edits (all I did was re-stub the articles). Grutness...wha? 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on the Steve Irwin article[edit]

I assumed the "stringray population tripling in the last six months" was a reference to the Stephen Colbert/elephant population thing -- but then I see you are a serious user with a long history of good edits? Now I am confused? Did I revert a legitimate fact that just happened to sound like Colbert-inspired vandalism, or were you just goofing around? --Jaysweet 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Holly[edit]

Hi, I see that you have been restoring information to the Pete Holly article. If the AfD discussion closes with the article having been revised to include sources and ultimately being kept, that would be acceptable to me. However, some of the content still needs to be sourced. Thanks for your attention to this. --Metropolitan90 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Okay, you've nominated 5 M:TG-related articles for deletion now in retaliation for Roy St. Clair. I'm speedy-keeping the ones I haven't participated in, and if you nominate any more you'll be blocked for disruption under WP:POINT. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming[edit]

Do not spam user talk pages, see WP:SPAM#Votestacking. If you want to inform people that a new debate is taking place, make sure to notify both sides. Votestacking efforts such as yours can lead to blocks. Kusma (討論) 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTG players issue[edit]

It seems to me that the focus of your arguments is more concerned with a policy-level than an individual article level. The question of what level of notability is required for players of a particular competitive game is not fixed, but it's clear that tournament level Magic is well-established, having been around over 10 years. This is especially important given that you've gone after two of the most important players of Magic, who if they're excluded, would necessitate excluding all Magic players who had no other notability. And I don't know about you, but I would find it strange if they were not to be found. And since you've also brought up other sports, it is clear that many of them would also need to be evaluated if the standard you seem to be endorsing were accepted. It's hardly fair to make decisions with such widespread ramifications without giving a chance for input. Let me know if you wish to go that route. FrozenPurpleCube 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Well, Chess is certainly more notable than Magic. It's been around a long while, and for various reasons it has a lot of cachet. And there possible are a lot more chess players than magic players (though I wouldn't say it's a lot more. ). There are certainly more Chess players with articles. See Chess players. Some of those may easily be notable(say Fischer, or Kasparov), but others like Izaak Appel or Alexander Evensohn? Why shouldn't they be deleted? Personally, I'd hate to go down that list, but that I could find two with random clicks does show it would be worth considering.

Addiitonally, the point I was making with tournament level magic was not in regards to length, but as a condition of establishment. It's been around over a decade. It's organized, and international, with Pro-level games played on every continent except Antarctica.. It's not some fly-by-night matter. Surely you can't argue that say, the article on Magic's World Championships should be deleted? Even if the game stopped being published, it'd still be notable, and so would its highest-level of play.

Oh, and if you have moved things to a policy level, it would be worth noting that in all the AfDs proposed on the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: Starcity news which mentions an interview of Budde in a magazine produced by Beckett. Is that not independent enough? FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Does that mean you're going to change your vote? FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Well, if I owned the Beckett magazine, and knew the interview had some valuable content, I'd do so, but since I don't, and I don't want to buy it (they do have back issues), that's a problem for another person. And you're right, it doesn't matter for the vote, but it'd certainly impress me that you could be persuaded to change your mind, and probably a few others who have expressed concern about the reasons behind the nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

I don't care about Nlu, but you, whose actions started it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans reversion issue[edit]

I am familiar with the Wikipedia contribution policy and I do not intend to maliciously revert people pages. However you seem to be continually reverting my own edits (which were made over a month ago without any problems) seemingly without any knowledge of the situation (you make a vague reference to a "weblog" which has nothing to do with anything) and without acknowledging why on the discussion page. I am making edits to clear up another piece of controversial information which you did not delete, despite its own lack of legitimacy. Please either explain to me the reasoning behind your hostility or meet with me in another medium. I would be happy to chat with you. TheMagnificentHazo 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on TheMagnificentHazo's talk page

See discussion page for response.TheMagnificentHazo 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mûmak[edit]

I read his review of The Two Towers (and most of The Return of the King review) a while ago. While he does have some good points, and can be added to elaborate on widly held criticism, I think it's laughable to include it as a source as if it were a majority view. Like you said "one fanboy's rant is not "some people"". What I didn't get was what "TL;DR" ment (I'm not too affluent on the internet lingo). But I figured it out when you included a link. --Ted87 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Ted87's talk page

Brian Chase[edit]

Just FYI, here's the long sad Brian Chase story. We used to have Brian Chase, about the drummer. Then the whole libel thing started, and Brian Chase was changed to a disambig to Brian Chase (drummer) and Brian Chase (hoaxster) (I think that's what it was called). Then there was a vote on hoaxster Chase and it was agreed that his article be deleted. So we had a disambig that pointed only to the drummer page and a page about the controversy. There shouldn't be a disambig when there's only one article under a name, so I moved the content from Brian Chase (drummer) to Brian Chase, added a top-line DAB pointing people to the Weiglhalger controversy page, and changed Brian Chase (drummer) to a redirect. All was fine for months until some anon editor changed Brian Chase back to an article about the hoaxster. Then you found the redirect pointing to the wrong place and fixed that, understandably. What a mess. Anyway, I tried to clean it up by reverting everything but in the meantime somebody put in a delete request at Brian Chase, sigh... —Chowbok 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Chowbok's talk page

I disagree. I doubt Jimbo knew about the drummer when he did that (it might have been even before there was an article about the drummer). I think my solution (having the main article be about the drummer, with a DAB link to the controversy) is most in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Remember, we wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for some anon vandal. Nobody objected for the months it was set up exactly that way. —Chowbok 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lameness: New England[edit]

Thanks for adding the ongoing New England/Talk:New England stuff to the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars; it certainly deserves it! But I can't decide whether it ought to have been put under the Ethnic feuds section or not (and can't even decide whether that suggestion was a joke or not).

Atlant 15:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

All these {{lame}} tags[edit]

What exactly is going on here? Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you might want to leave word or two at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malber about those {{lame}} tags. Thanks/wangi 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your {{lame}} template was deleted because it was simply {{lame}}. It had the word "amusing" twice in a row as a typo. I also think the way you first had it was good and then this other guy came in and tried to speedy it, and then the resulting compromising edits made your {{lame}} template into a template that was truly {{lame}}. Anomo 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designing and putting ~~a rubbish~~ an amusing template on so many talk pages is pretty clearly an unusual behaviour. It would not have been unreasonable for every talk page to have been reported individually as vandalism, the more so when there had been no edit disputes within reasonable memory. It could equally have been considered by some to have been uncivil. It created work for people with other things to do, and was most certainly ill advised. Fiddle Faddle 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved tis here from my talk page. "Please outline the "so much work" this template has caused. It was an optional template. You could have removed it from your favorite talk page if you felt it belittled your important edit war. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, you put it in so many pages for no reason at all. Publicise your invention if you think it is worth it, but this was simply divisive and disruptive. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there already was a template for edit wars. Anomo 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Anomo's talk page

User:Jasongreenberg[edit]

If you'd bothered to look at the diff from when I actually userfied this page, you'd see that at that point it was just a brief mini-bio of the user, which is perfectly acceptable for the user namespace. The user added quite a bit of info (including links and pictures) AFTER I'd userfied the page. Next time, do your homework before lecturing others about policy. --NMChico24 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on NMChico24's talk page

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope ^Talk 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for adminship[edit]

Anomo would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Anomo to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malber/Archive. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Anomo 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you're done with the questions, please link to it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit -- Anomo 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe in 6 months, you might have a better chance if you tried again. I thought you would do much better when I had nominated you. Anomo 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to withdraw from your current RfA gracefully and with no loss of face for the following reasons:

an expectation that the RfA will not succeed.
lack of understanding of the 3RR policy and several other blocks in the last 12 months
Problematic creation of templates
AfD nominations (here, here, here, here, and here) of dubious merit.
Daniel Brandt incident

None of these will prevent your successful adminship application in the long run but they are all major factors in the low expectations of success in the present RfA. Please try again in 3-4 months' time, using the interim to familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines and demonstrate just how effective you are. (aeropagitica) 12:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on (aeropagitica)'s talk page

I can't see a reply on my Talk page as of this posting! (aeropagitica) 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA: Malber[edit]

I've removed my listing and posted a response to most of your points on the RfA page. I thank you for keeping the discussion civil. You are the only person who brought up the User:DyslexicEditor thing, so I thought I'd address it: take a long hard look at the editor's comments at ANI and the editor's tendentious editing history with the percieved cabal.

Also, I think it's unproductive for an admin to have sprotected their talk page. What if a newbie or anon has questions? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civility remarks - politeness costs nothing! Good point about sprotection, I was thinking much the same thing last week, so I have now removed the status. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination[edit]

Thanks for nominating me to be an admin. I've got to decline, because I just don't have the time for it right now. I've answered the nomination in detail, though. Thanks again, and try to remember me in the future. Lou Sander 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL[edit]

I don't know... I've just had it. There are people who know f***-all about music who are AFDing, PRODing, and in the case of HeartAttaCk, speedily deleting things they have no business with. I know little about science, so I don't go nominating articles about scientists for AfD. I really think that we're past the point of civility, and now measures have to be taken to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. It's not enough to even have reliable sources and assertions of notability anymore, people are deleting things just because "I haven't heard of it." PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Yomangani[edit]

You double voted, it looks like. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Crzrussian's talk page

My RfA[edit]

(I know I've replied to you elsewhere, but I wanted to make sure you saw it...)

Thanks for your confidence! I really appreciate that!

Atlant 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Username Warning[edit]

Per WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG, obfuscation of your actual username in signatures is discouraged. An admin who hides behind a nickname lacks accountability; it would be difficult to find you on the administrator's list. Please change it soon or request WP:CHU.

—Malber (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature is fine the way it is. Thanks and happy editing! Orane (talk • cont.) 06:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yes. WP:Sig points out that it may be seen as disruptive. The operative word is may be. The rule is not set in stone. It does not say, "you must change your sig if it doesnt match your username." I've had this sig since I became an Admin over a year ago. Its rare that you'll find that sigs and usernames are complete matches. If someone wants to look me up on Admin list, then they should come to my userpage first and use that name. It's that simple. I'm not hiding, and I regret that you feel that I am. There are other, far more profound problems plaguing Wikipedia nowadays. I doub't my sig will ruin the encyclopedia.

Now if you will excuse me, I have Bio and Soci tests to study for. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't let Wikipedia get in the way of your studies. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wont. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you too, since you are so assiduously devoted to upholding rules and regulations, that you are not allowed to single-handedly institute a policy, especially one that has no consensus with the community. I am referring to your addition of "For reasons of accountability, administrators should never obfuscate their username in their signature" to WP:Username. This opinion is one that only you share. Please do not force your principles and beliefs on others. Also, please discuss proposed changes on project talkpages or other appropriate places. Thank you :D! Orane (talk • cont.) 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you doing all of this ([11], [12], [13], [14])? Trying to prove a point are we? Well, BE CAREFUL. Orane (talk • cont.) 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And don't you have some studying to do rather than track down all my diffs?" Oh touché :D. Anyway, werent you the one who was at RFA a few days ago? By the looks of things, you aren't planning on returning any time soon. 'Cause with ur behaviour... Orane (talk • cont.) 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never! <cry>I'm shocked and deeply saddened that you'd think that I opposed your RFA because of a grudge!</cry> Please. I have moved on from the "We Belong Together" farce. I'm now getting approval for my writing from the editorial team at the newspaper at UofT. I certainly don't need your approval. And I can see that the community was right to deny your promotion — at least the process still works (for the most part). Hope to see you at FAC soon— that should be fun ;-). Now again, if you'll excuse me, I have some tests to fail. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<wink>Well to be honest, I don't quite know how I became an Admin either.</wink> But I am one, and no one's complaining, so.... Orane (talk • cont.) 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's some kind of victory:P. Orane (talk • cont.) 23:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Courtni and Cruz both say hi too. They hope you don't take your RFA failure too hard. They also want you to know that there are other areas on Wikipedia where you can lend a hand. For example, some Admins (like Journalist —or is it Orane?) arent using their usernames as signatures, and it may bring Wikipedia to ruin! Maybe you should look into that! Orane (talk • cont.) 01:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just gonna remind you remember to sign your post. Good job. You earn your first star! . Orane (talk • cont.) 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How many socks and meatpuppets did you have to use for your second?" You know, I wasn't counting! Anyway, anything I did worked. Maybe I can help you come up with strategies for your second attempt. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which. Surprise me :D. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way...

Warning[edit]

In reference to this:[15] Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikistalking[edit]

Please stop wikistalking me. It's rather disturbing. —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you may want to discuss things before deleting them. Actions like that have brought down better admins. —Malber (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not stalking you. You are the one who keep speaking to me, so I reply on your talkpage. Secondly, the page that I deleted fit the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have a problem, then you know where to go.

And is there a reason that you keep making new headings for one continuous discussion? Is your aim to draw attention and paint a good picture for yourself. Well, no one is gonna buy it. Orane (talk • cont.) 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Actions like that have brought down better admins." Is that a threat? Orane (talk • cont.) 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him, Orane. Malber does not show a nice understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You will only end up replying to his pointless arguments. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA questions[edit]

Asking about their view on IAR and WP:SNOW are tough. My best answer is relating it to how policy pages get rewritten constantly. But I thought up a tougher one, "What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia?" Anomo 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funny[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serious_Business_Records_(2nd_nomination). See it. Anomo 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Anomo's talk page for both

Stalking[edit]

Hi, I've seen some signs of you possibly stalking User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington recently, and would just want to remind you that wikistalking is not good etiquette. – Elisson • T • C • 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Johan Elisson's talk page

This is not an accusation, it is a pure reminder that stalking is not good etiquette. – Elisson • T • C • 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Johan Elisson's talk page

No, it is not an allegation that you are stalking. What I say is that your behaviour can be interpreted as stalking if looking at it it with critical/evil/anti-Malber/whatever... eyes. I do not say that I interpret it as stalking, but someone else might. And User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington does not like your behaviour against him, stalking or not. Therefore, I'd suggest you keep yourself calm and cool and think about what you do. That's all. I consider this "discussion" finished. – Elisson • T • C • 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks[edit]

Hi, Malber! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Core des at 15:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I've noticed that you seem to have gotten yourself into some disputes with a number of admins over finer points of policy or your interpretation thereof. You don't know me and I don't know much about you or what you do/have done for Wikipedia. I haven't looked at your contributions. I have seen your talk page and the talk pages of some of the people you have recently corresponded with. You seem to be trying quite a lot of people's patience. Admins have been trusted with upholding the wishes of the community. Aadmins usually have a much stretchier patience than the average Wikipedian and have been chosen for this quality, thus it worries me when they have their patience exhausted. Having a signature that is your actual real-life name is not something to complain about. If anything, you should be praising Journalist for being upfront as so many people complain about lack of transparency. In any event, having a signature that links to the correct page is all that counts. In fact, that is currently suggested—on a policy page, mind you—over a username change if someones wants to go by something different. I think you should look at past RfAs and see what kind of supports have been given. It is the community consensus—and thus policy—that you can really say whatever you want as long as you aren't violating other policies. I was given a "16oz steak" among other things in my RfA. The community hasn't had an issue with such things in the past. If you wish to seek a consensus on this you could bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. You can also bring up the signature issue on the appropriate talk page. Please do not edit policy pages without first getting consensus. I also want to let you know that you can be blocked for exhausting community patience. You will do so quickly if you continue to circumvent consensus discussions and harrassing people for violating your interpretation of policy.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on WAvegetarian's talk page

Maureen Dowd[edit]

I like your caption to that Maureen Dowd photo! "Maureen Dowd strikes a journalistic pose". I always think Wikipedia could do with a bit more wit and sharp writing. RMoloney (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked the picture and the caption :-). It may not be NPOV though. Check out these alternates at Drudge's site.--malber 16:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...[edit]

... care to explain the following edit? Seems like extreme POV pushing to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, it's been reverted already...and hundreds of edits since. --malber 15:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a dumbass?[edit]

Why do you keep putting crap and vandalizing Winnermario's user- and talkpage? --Anittas 23:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like this heading. I think from time to time, everyone should ask themselves, "Am I a dumbass?" --malber 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody ballad/slow section[edit]

For what it's worth, I agree with you - I don't recall reading anywhere else that that section is specifically a "ballad".--Stevage 11:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New user box[edit]

Hello Malber, Im SWD316. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! SWD316 03:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (song)[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. I see that you have pasted into the Talk page the paragraph that you are concerned violates WP:NOR. You might want to consider illustrating each fact in that paragraph that is uncited. It would be easier to find appropriate citations for individual facts than for an entire paragraph. Jkelly 04:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your opinions on flatulence.[edit]

Wikipedia is not about politeness. The standard is not "what would you say when you go to the doctor", it is "what would the user put in the search box". -Justforasecond 02:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redux[edit]

For future reference -- articles are to be titled based on "what would the user put in the search box" (not redirected) Its a simple policy. -Justforasecond 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also propose that we change the article titled "Sexual intercourse" to "Fucking"?--malber 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

db[edit]

If you are nominating an article for deletion, please always give the reason why you think it should be deleted. The {{db}} template requires a reason, for example {{db|nn-bio}}. -- RHaworth 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star[edit]

Thanks for the Barnstar, my first! Jtmichcock 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site[edit]

Let's just say it's almost not a stub. I'm glad you like it. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the compliment, but I just personally feel that any subject I have an interest in is "deserving of my talents". Although given the controversy involving the Strickland article and November (film), I'm rather hesitant about writing an article that is later promoted to featured status, and then it being criticised for the subject's supposed lack of notability. Regardless, I'm working on an article at the moment that I intend on submitting to FAC whose subject definitely is notable. Anyway, thanks again for the compliment, and I'm interested to see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles (or the WP:FAC and WP:WIAFA talk pages) about introducing a subject notability criterion to the FA criteria. Extraordinary Machine 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpatch USA[edit]

Thanks to you for supporting my writing style in this article (the bulk of the article was researched and written by my friend, Stuart Feild, and I, in collaboration with him, edited and rephrased the bulk of the article). I spent a lot of time on the intro to this article, trying to find the right words to summarize the park's financial ups and downs throughout its years, and was eventually very satisfied with the sentence that you referred to. I was very dismayed to find it rephrased by some of my peers on November 10th, the day it was featured on the front page. Nevertheless, I'm relatively new here and I've accepted their decisions, though I disagree; I think a measure of creativity of expression is appropriate and desirable and stimulates the reader, and I've found that some of you, my peers, feel the same way. Perhaps some day our view will be accepted in Wikipedia. --RogerK 02:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socks (cat)[edit]

it was funny the first time. please stop. --Duk 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you at least thought it was humorous. --malber 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I snickered :), Happy New Year! --Duk 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Hello. Actually, I was going to delete the lyrics. Someone keeps posting the same materials onto the Star Trek (original series) website and to keep him/her from doing this, I set up a separate article. I was going to delete all by the first line after I had the other person cooled down (stuff like this you have to do in stages. It is a very strange story about how Star Trek had lyrics. Jtmichcock 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Anastasio[edit]

Mr. Malber,

I'm currently in the process of editing, however I believe the article may be instead in need of expanion tag as opposed to a stub as it contains both the nessessary essential information and is well over the one paragraph limit. MadMax 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Blue[edit]

Normally I'm very critical of an article's failure to describe fiction as fiction, but I'm unclear as to what the problem is with this article on this issue. To my eyes, it doesn't appear to slip into the wrong voice in the few instances in which it describes what happened within the show. Postdlf 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Aspie[edit]

Could you please explain why you are changing this template to green and purple? The current(before your changes) version was settled on after a revert war.

Prodego ^talk 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I like those colors. Is there anything about black and grey that identifies aspies? --malber 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is exactly how the revert war I am referring to started. (see history), please gain consensus first, especially on this template as it has already had a revert war, to prevent another from breaking out. I suggest you put forward your proposal on the talk page, and wait a few days. Prodego ^talk 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, you could just use your version of the template on your user page and leave the actual template alone. That would be the easiest answer, but if you believe your version is superior and not just a preference, you should probably use the talk page, and see if others agree. Prodego ^talk 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that black and white are appropriate colours for Aspies, if you understand the syndrome. Its for people who think in terms of black and white :). Purple and Green are the colours of feminism and should be reserved for that. 203.26.136.138 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Up to eleven, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 10:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to Eve Angel[edit]

Unfortunately, you did not revert vandalism, but actually re-introduced a spam link back into the Eve Angel article that I (and several others) had removed. If you do not believe this is the case, please feel free to communite with me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment/Wiki-stalking[edit]

Please stop going around removing edits I have made by stalking me via contributions or removing content from pages just because I have edited the pages. You have been reported for harassment - see Wikipedia:Harassment - and this is an official warning as I was told to give you by the administrators. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you habitually change my talk posts and delete them from your talk page, I am restricted to replying here. Contrary to your misguided accusations, I am not stalking you. If you want someone to, you'll have to ask someone else; I'm quite busy. At Talk:Eve Angel, the consensus is that the worksafe warning is appropriate, however your addition of a link to a commercial subscription porn site is not. Your article about a commercial video series about pegging was speedy deleted out of process; it had no context. Your edits to the Scientology articles are POV and against the consensus there. The assertion that I'm a Scientologist and part of some conspiracy against you is laughable. Your edits, reversions, and contributions are against the consensus and disruptive to the process. I will not respond to your ridiculous allegations at AN/I and will show them the same regard as the admins I've spoken with on #wikipedia. You are very young. It is my sincere hope that someday you will learn from the numerous times you've been blocked for disruption and become a productive editor. --malber 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should meet User:Antaeus Feldspar, your fellow Wikistalker and troll. 203.122.221.73 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.122.221.73 is of course actually the banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs), who is in turn a sockpuppet of the banned user Internodeuser (talk · contribs). Any comments he makes should be taken in the context of the very great trouble he has sticking to the truth (full and documented proof of his lying is available as needed.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging[edit]

I removed speedy tags that you had added to Jim Black and Jason Bittner. Both had some reasonable claim to notability, but I decided to redirect the second one for the time being. I later saw that you went back and edited these articles, apparently agreeing with me that these articles are not speedy candidates. Please consider that a too hastily added speedy tag may actually lead to some perfectly decent article being deleted by a hurried admin. Unless the non-notability is really clear, it is better to use {{context}} or {{importance}} tags or to take it to AFD. up+l+and 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response left on user talk page --malber 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage[edit]

Wikipedia Review is not a "neo-Nazi" "Wikipedia hate site". There are no neo-nazi's on the forum - at least, no open neo-nazis - and it's not a "hate site" - it's simply highly critical. You were banned from the site for trolling, no other reason. If you want to hold that as a badge of honor, it's your perogative, but I would request that you at least be honest about it. Oh, and before you call 207.118.103.139 a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, you should do a whois on it. It's a CenturyTel IP, and geolocates to Canyon City, OR. It's not an Internode IP, geolocating to Melbourne, Australia. Seriously. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at user's talk page.

malber, wikipedia is not a battleground. Putting the massive 'defwarn' template on someone's page for 'guilt by association' for a dispute over one sentence is not proper. Just calm. ~ PseudoSudo 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Alexander[edit]

"This person is not notable other than being a friend of Ashton Kutcher and appearing once on Punk'd. I've listed this for speedy delete. --malber 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

Let me ask you something. Who the hell are you to pass any judgement to a person? In case you didn't know, he IS a musician (has fans from all over the world) and has been writing songs for Eric Martin, Richie Kotzen, etc. You DO think his is not notable OTHER than being a friend of Ashton Kutcher. It's your opinion. Sorry but before you post, make sure you've done something right. unsigned comments by 201.0.37.97 (talk · contribs)

First off, it's customary to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, I'm not passing judgment on anyone. The article Frank Alexander doesn't assert any notability per WP:NMG. He may be a nice guy, but being friends with Ashton Kutcher, almost appearing on Punk'd, and auditioning for a play does not make one notable. This is not opinion, this is fact. If you feel that the subject is notable, please improve the article and cite some sources. It may save it from deletion. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! --malber 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your policy of judgement. I've got a source where you can find everything about Frank Alexander's career: google.com. By the way, what's a notable person? A mainstream singer? Britney Spears? Michael Jackson?

I'm not his fan (special note: I'm Eric Martin's fan), I didn't donate aything to Wikipedia, I'm not even a Wikipedian then I won't spend my time with writing an article about him. I don't actually know anything about his career. But I do know he's a famous producer/composer/musician. Since you found it so *illegal* you ought write a decent article (source: google.com) not simply ask Wikipedia to delete down a whole page. I don't think reporting a page for speedy delete is kind of helpful. unsigned comment by 201.13.30.107 (talk · contribs) on Feb 6, 2006

Google is a search utility, not a source. When I googled the name, I did not find any notable references. Searches at All Music Guide and IMDB.com were inconclusive. If you feel strongly about this, then you are welcome to edit the article and cite some sources. Like I said on the article's entry on the articles for deletion page, I am willing to change my vote if you can list at least one source that falls under the guidelines of WP:NMG and/or WP:BIO. Malber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone has shown a source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Alexander), I assume you've just started a thread to make fun of this guy unsigned comment by Ci santoro (talk · contribs) on Feb 8, 2006

Response at user's talk page.

In regards to this "perhaps Frank Alexander should spend less time on self promotion and pointing himself out as Ashton Kutcher's friend"; I totally agree with you. I guess Frank Alexander isn't a celebrity. He may be into the underground scene (let's get this straight, a few people know him), but it doesn't mean he is a celebrity. Fact. On the other hand, I have stopped by bunch of articles which may not contain relevant informations, but aren't flagged. Also, I've read on people who I've never heard of before. Why the double standard? unsigned comment by 201.13.29.83 (talk · contribs) on 14:53, February 8, 2006

I came across this article while updating the List of Prominent Alumni of Berklee College of Music and correlating it with the renamed Category:Berklee College of Music alumni. I scrubbed all of the listings for notability and Frank Alexander was one of the few that I found that did not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Berklee has a lot of alumni, but not everyone becomes notable.

I'm sure there are quite a number of unverifiable biographies on Wikipedia. You are perfectly welcome to be bold and improve them with references following the guidelines and policy of no original research. If you can't find any sources and the subjects do not meet the criteria of notability, you're perfectly welcome to nominate them for deletion. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blu Aardvark[edit]

Some of the edits you've made to his talk page have come to my attention, such as this, this and this. Please don't let your displeasure at the Wikipedia Review descend into uncivil behaviour here on the wiki, it's bad for the reputation of the site as a whole. As El C pointed out on Blu's talk page, if you think the anon IP is Blu, take it to WP:RFCU. --bainer (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Thebainer. Be careful mate! Don't stoop to the level of some of them. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Says Hi[edit]

Hi! I rm'd the vandalism. -- donkey.

Actually, I removed some yesterday, too, but forgot to put in an edit summary. Hey, Donkey, are you the Donkey Donkey? If so, I have to say, some of your Wikipedia Review baiting was some of the funniest posting I've seen in a long while. You too, Malber. I wouldn't get too cut up about being banned (in fact I would rejoice in the irony if I were you) ElectricRay 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea donkey was Grace Note. I agree with ElectricRay, that was some funny posts. I was horrified that the donkey username had been banned. Who's going to keep Internodeuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in line now? I thought Blu would ban me first. But my days there are likely numbered. Blu's appointed Mistress_Selina_Kyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a moderator. She's already violated the Proboards privacy policy by posting Grace Note's full name. Now she has access to all the registration information. There's nothing to stop her from using that against anyone who disagrees with her. She's proven in the past that she's incapable of showing any maturity. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, my opinion of Jeff has dropped considerably. I had him down as just misguided and lacking principle but making Selina an admin seems like something different altogether. BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a review board on which critics of Wikipedia can discuss perceived flaws in a more adult environment. Would you be interested in contributing to that? Grace Note 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. ElectricRay 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to canvass some more opinion, perhaps from some of the more critical Wikipedians and I'll let you know what I come up with. Grace Note 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BTW :-) This is the link to the post where selina posts Grace Note's personal info. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots For you :D Gutz Book 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very phallic of you. Do you have an obsession? I'm sorry but you'll need a doctor for help with that condition. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrots are yum yum, i give you more yummy carrots :>

Carrot Giver 20:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Report[edit]

I'm putting up my proposed FAQ/rules for "Wikipedia Report" at my userpage. I'd welcome your input, comments, brickbats. Grace Note 05:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Judd[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ashley Judd, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing!

Thank you but the citation you added to the Ashley Judd page makes no reference to her being the "Queen of the potboilers". As such, I have replaced the fact tag. --Yamla 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! Much appreciated. --Yamla 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Gill, M.D.[edit]

Doesn't the fact that he's a major party candidate in a federal election make him notable? -- Superdosh 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user Superdosh's talk page

Thanks for the reply! I got this from the page:

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7.

So it seems that perhaps this should go through the regular AfD process? -- Superdosh 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user Superdosh's talk page

Image:Ashtonkutcher3.jpg[edit]

The image was appropriately tagged as {{magazinecover}}, but is not copyright problem. Instead, I've listed it at Images and media for deletion, since it's clearly an orphan, not being currently used in any article(s). Thank you. - adnghiem501 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LART[edit]

There was no "page move", nor was there any vandalism, Malber. I simply turned an improperly formatted soft redirect to a different project to a redirect to the disambiguation page, which seemed more useful. In addition, I requested a move on WP:RM to complete the process. You really shouldn't lie and troll. And stop posting my personal details. I have NOT posted yours anywhere. --72.160.85.60 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong Together[edit]

I've completed some of the objections and have turned them around. Could you please comment about anything else that should be trimmed/removed/added? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?[edit]

What are you talking about? Luka Jačov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Malber is speaking of this edit you made which is uncivil. WP:CIVIL says to comment on content, not editors. Luka, your speakulation about Malber's sexual habbits is rude and irrelevant. Accordingly, I have removed your comments from the AFD page, though I left your vote to Keep. Johntex\^talk 19:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An opening for Wikipedia review???[edit]

On Criticism of Wikipedia, you put a {{fact}} tag on the following sentence:

Some contributors have quit after denouncing what they have described as abuses of power by Administrators and the Arbitration Committee.^{[citation needed]}

One external reference which might be used to document this claim is--guess what--Wikipedia Review, which contains numerous disgruntled users making precisely such claims. Of course WR doesn't document the veracity of such claims (many of which I consider to be nonsense, and I'm sure you agree), but it does document their existence. And the claim that "contributors have quit after denouncing alleged abuses", can be verified by reading WR and other cites. Of course, there may be (and doubtless are) better references for this claim.

Just thought I'd point this out.

--EngineerScotty 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on user EngineerScotty's talk page

Adelle Davis[edit]

Hi Mal. I requested peer review for this article. I'd appreciate your opinion :). --RogerK 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on "Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game"[edit]

I have consulted a dictionary, and the result is in my favour:

"2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or she’)."

From the OED Setokaiba^✌_≝ 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the attacks. They came from google. They look like criticism and not attacks. DyslexicEditor 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks[edit]

Incidences where Malber has made personal attacks: Malber made a personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMalber&diff=47302686&oldid=47298399 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malber&diff=prev&oldid=47396875 DyslexicEditor 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?[edit]

It's called an OBSERVATION, not an accusation. There's a difference. Look at the wording I used. I was basically saying that according to what I've seen you two type on here makes it APPEAR that you think that way. Besides, I've seen what you've typed yourself, accusing people of self diagnosis [16], claiming there's a political aspect to identifying with Asperger's [17], and saying that being Aspie is like joining a special club [18] [19]. Maybe you should read WP:NPA. Besides, it was these edits by you that lead to my observation. And I was commenting on the content of your edits, which in turn reflect you. --JFred 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Continuity and the Continuity Forum[edit]

Hi Malber,

I have a couple of points relating to your 'edits' of Business Continuity and the Continuity Forum, both of which you decided to edit and/or schedule for deletion one for Alexa Traffic issues and the other for the use of what you termed copyright material.

First off the Continuity Forum: The links given and the information provided clearly illustrate that the organisation are heavily involved in the international development of Business Continuity are are the ONLY 'Independent, Not for Profit' group active in this area. The website is used by Police, Government and other emergency services groups as a source for impartial and accurate information. In real terms, Alexa rating mean nothing unless Wiki is just going to deal with Popular, high hit rate stuff and I don't think that is the case ... is it? BTW there are over 500 pages of advice, support and information on that site which would cost £10,000's to access commercially and it is given freely by the Continuity Forum for all to use.

Secondly, you cite the use of copyright materials in a piece outlining Business Continuity. YES it is Copyright, but is is MY copyright and was originally published on the Continuity Forum Website. It was then reproduced by others with my permission ...

I hope that this resolves things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCM Pro (talk • contribs) 12:42, May 23, 2006.

Reply on BCM Pro's talk page

Sorry Malber, but I have read the cited guidance on original Research etc as clarified below:

This policy in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

As the materials provided are both Published and used as the basis for both Government and professional body guidance. I fail to see why it is unacceptable, especially as it is being freely given.

I am surprised that we are even having a debate about something that is clearly so useful and essential to organsations and individuals.

BCM Pro 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)BCM Pro[reply]

Reply on BCM_Pro's talk page

I HAVE fully reviewed the policies and I'm confused by your application of these rules to this entry. Your logic in determining the the 'credibility' or status of the entries provided does not seem to fit with the information provided and any investigation seems to be rather superficial.

Points in summary are:

1. The Continuity Forum are the leading advisers to UK Government (and the Emergency services, Fire Police and Health) and Business, also working at UK and European Governmental and regulatory levels on BCM and related standards ... yet you doubt expertise ... on what basis do you form this opinion?

2. You refer to 'sources' when they are the source of guidance to the above and in the opinion of real experts on the topic they are the leading 'Think Tank'in the world covering both development and application, providing the baseline metrics to Business & Government, impartially and with no commercial agenda.

3. They're trusted by legislators providing the Guidance in Law under the Civil Contingencies Act 2005. In addition, UK Resilience, the Security Service and most public bodies use the reseach and material provided by the Continuity Forum

I can't think of a more expert group than that and there is certainly no-one else with the same level of credibility in the sector!

I had thought that the WIKI project was about promoting access to knowledge, so I am rather disappointed that it appears to be rather less than that.

BCM Pro 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)BCM Pro[reply]

Reply on BCM_Pro's talk page

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Anittas (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Ey (smile)[edit]

Thanks, it was appreciated, it's pretty hectic on Wikipedia lately (although maybe it's always like this?) I didn't forget your comment on the 3rr board, thanks for the support. I think something's seriously wrong with SlimVirgin, she acts pretty much like a spoilt brat trying to get her own way from what I've seen.

I can see SK's point regards the whole harassment issue but you don't seem that bad, though maybe you should read up a bit on psychology and the DSM before making judgements about whether genetic disorders are "made up to excuse bad behaviour". --Col. Hauler 14:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Smile[edit]

That was a really pleasant surprise! Thank you, and right back at you :). Extraordinary Machine 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at you![edit]

Thanks for the WikiSmile! I'm so used to getting stern messages telling me what I've done wrong this time when the 'new messages' box appears so it was nice to see a smily face instead! Take care! :) HeyNow10029 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the smile[edit]

Too bad that Philip Sandofer (sp?) article didn't make it. I looked for it on other wikis, but I only found it here. DyslexicEditor 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up as copies on wikitruth and encyclopedia damatica. DyslexicEditor 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Belong Together[edit]

Please respond on the FAC page. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I completed some or most of what you requested with the writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Malber/Archive/Archive 01, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:New England/archive2[edit]

You are not using Wikipedia archives properly. Please move the discussion to the current talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I seem unconcerned as to the discussion page. Part of being an administrator is knowing how to administer Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I was set off in the wrong direction by what appeared as vandalism to the talk page, or at least the persistence of the users involved to continue a heated debate on an archived page, ignoring the proper usage. If I were to apply for adminship now, I wouldn't vote for me either.

However, I do believe I am correct on this guideline. Archiving a talk page is often one way to 'cut the fuse before the spark,' as it were. I've restored the changed archive discussion under a subheading on the current talk page, and added the {{calm_talk}} banner to the current talk page. Even so, I really shouldn't "wiki" when I am this busy otherwise. Again, I apologize. - CobaltBlueTony 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for vandalism[edit]

I've reverted your vandalism of List of transgendered people and blocked you for 48 hours. You are not a newbie, and you have absolutely no excuse for vandalising pages, let alone making plainly defamatory edits. Frankly, you should know better than this. Rebecca 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. Please think twice about doing this sort of stupid thing again though. Rebecca 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently"[edit]

Per WP:MOS#Time - never use Recently in an article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule via these diffs: [20] reverting me, [21] reverting the IP address (including reverting some obvious redirect fixes), [22] reverting the IP again, [23] reverting the IP again, and [24] which not only reverted me, but used a misleading edit summary. If you revert to my version now, I will not report your violation of the three revert rule. You cannot use force to get your way on the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be clear that I will file a notice of your violation at the 21:00, 5 July 2006 if you do not self revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on User:Hipocrite's talk page

Make the changes to the section by hand, then. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on User:Hipocrite's talk page

As I assume you suspected, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I invite you to reply. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Wikibofh_(talk) 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter 3rr[edit]

If you revert again its the 4th time and a 3RR violation. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Stubs: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film); New Hampshire Union Leader; Knick Knack; Phineas Nigellus; David Holmes (actor); LAuS; Ratatouille (film); Rapunzel Unbraided; Daniel Webster Highway; Leavesden Film Studios; University of New Hampshire at Manchester; Nickelodeon Movies; Griptonite Games; Mike's New Car; The Adventures of André and Wally B.; NetNewsWire; Red's Dream; Heyday Films; 101 Dalmatians

Cleanup: Paul Hunter (director); OHB-System; Mesa Boogie
Merge: Minor Hufflepuffs; Ministry of Magic; Hepzibah Smith
Add Sources: Githany; School discipline; Kryten
Wikify: Imperial Presidency; Full system simulation; STS-32
Expand: The New Jedi Order; Low-carbohydrate diet; List of Little Penguin colonies

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 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website?[edit]

Is that redirect such a good idea? --EngineerScotty 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article First Internet Backgammon Server (F.I.B.S.), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Cute[edit]

That's really cute, Malber, listing me on WP:AIV [25]. I'm not going to say whether or not 207.118.103.139 is an IP of mine because it's not my responsibility to defend myself against spurious vandalism accusations - but I would like to state a few things. Even if it was me, it's irrelevant, as the edits (with the exception of one, which falls more under WP:NPA than vandalism) were not vandalism. If you don't like people editting your userpage, you really shouldn't invite them to. And listing as evidence against me the fact that I removed an innappropriate {{test4}} from my talk page... Malber, you placed that template there for the same reason you placed {{defwarn}} and {{multipleIPs}} - to troll. I reverted it for that reason. There is no vandalism in any of my contributions, and even if there was, {{test4}} would not be appropriate, and you would not have the ability to enforce it anyway. Leave me alone, Malber. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber...[edit]

You said you searched for Frank Alexander on IMDB but it was inconclusive. I e-mailed IMDB about 3 days ago; I got a reply right now. I explained to them I was searching for Frank Alexander who was born on July 1, 75 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0018420 / he is credited as Alex Caldwell on Punk'd http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091444/; admin either warned me that they did not find a credible source, not even an official site and it's not appropriate to submit his biography, that is why all info has been blank. Come to think of it, you're right. Frank Alexander isn't a notable person. I apologize. But please, see. I have heard of him for his "appearance" on Punkd. Aditional comment; Pacific http://www.randkmusicmix.com/Artists_P.htm is a NZ band and the name was misspelled as Pacifer. The title of the song is Bullitproof, not Bulletproof which was written by Pacifier. I got this comment on Orkut. You clearly tried to humble whoever wrote the article but it didn't worked.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ci_santoro"

Reply on [[User talk:Ci santoro|Ci santoro]]'s talk page

opinion[edit]

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Ann Coulter[edit]

Thanks for asking my opinions about this article. I agree that it's pretty badly done, but I hope it isn't deleted. Here's why:

The Ann Coulter article tends to accumulate a lot of poorly-done, extremely negative-point-of-view material, often posted by not-very-competent, not-very-thoughtful editors. These editors tend to be adamant that their material is notable, neutral, and perfect in every way. They tend to be not very good at explaining why, other than to re-assert that their material is notable, neutral, and perfect in every way.

Sometimes editors can be convinced that the egregiously negative stuff belongs in the Criticisms article, and they move it there. (Or, in some cases, duplicate it there.) IMHO, this is a Very Good Thing, in that it improves the Ann Coulter article. It is also a skill-building exercise for some of the not-very-good editors.

I think of the Criticisms article as sort of a floor drain or grease trap, where nasty goo can collect and do no harm. Like all floor drains and grease traps, it isn't a very pretty place.

It's possible that somebody will undertake a cleanup of the Criticisms article, and I earnestly wish them success. In the meantime, the article serves a useful and hygienic function, and I hope it stays in the encyclopedia. Lou Sander 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter[edit]

(I didn't remember you as the "criticisms of" guy)

Thanks for removing the IMHO totally inappropriate/out of touch religion paragraph. I tried to remove it once, or at least discussed doing so, but one of the other regular Coulter editors said something like "well, she doubted evolution, and the only doubt about evolution comes from religious groups, so this must be part of her religion." IMHO that's absolutely nutty, but typical of what happens all the time in the Coulter article. Thanks again, and don't be surprised if somebody puts it back in. Lou Sander 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VS system[edit]

Tahnks for the correction and explanation. I appreciate it. You're a good editor. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for BLP template[edit]

Hi there. I've recently added a suggestion at Template_talk:Blp#Image_change for a heart icon to be used as the template. I noticed that earlier in the debate you suggested using a generic icon. Would this idea of a heart icon be suitable do you think? Carcharoth 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AFD notification[edit]

Thank you for notifying me that Peter Jackson is up for deletion. I plan to add my two cents to the page. Bobo . 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber said:
I hope you read this right and that it's Billy Jackson, not Peter Jackson.

Ah yes. I'm sorry. I intended to say that it had been transcribed into one place on the article concerning another person. Once we have more information or more notable by himself, we can split the article back up and give him his own page. Since there was little more information available on that page, it seems sensible to keep it in the same place. Basically identical rationale to that of Ohconfucius. Thank you for following this one up, I felt like making things less complicated on the Article's AFD page, yet had OhC's comments in my head at the same time. Bobo . 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber said:
You may also be interested in the AfD for Katie Jackson.

Added my opinion on that page too, thank you for informing me. Bobo . 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think it's good that you inform people who have edited articles that are up for AFD, it's probably not necessary to notify people like me who've only made minor edits (all I did was re-stub the articles). Grutness...wha? 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on the Steve Irwin article[edit]

I assumed the "stringray population tripling in the last six months" was a reference to the Stephen Colbert/elephant population thing -- but then I see you are a serious user with a long history of good edits? Now I am confused? Did I revert a legitimate fact that just happened to sound like Colbert-inspired vandalism, or were you just goofing around? --Jaysweet 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Holly[edit]

Hi, I see that you have been restoring information to the Pete Holly article. If the AfD discussion closes with the article having been revised to include sources and ultimately being kept, that would be acceptable to me. However, some of the content still needs to be sourced. Thanks for your attention to this. --Metropolitan90 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Okay, you've nominated 5 M:TG-related articles for deletion now in retaliation for Roy St. Clair. I'm speedy-keeping the ones I haven't participated in, and if you nominate any more you'll be blocked for disruption under WP:POINT. Mango juice^talk 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming[edit]

Do not spam user talk pages, see WP:SPAM#Votestacking. If you want to inform people that a new debate is taking place, make sure to notify both sides. Votestacking efforts such as yours can lead to blocks. Kusma (討論) 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTG players issue[edit]

It seems to me that the focus of your arguments is more concerned with a policy-level than an individual article level. The question of what level of notability is required for players of a particular competitive game is not fixed, but it's clear that tournament level Magic is well-established, having been around over 10 years. This is especially important given that you've gone after two of the most important players of Magic, who if they're excluded, would necessitate excluding all Magic players who had no other notability. And I don't know about you, but I would find it strange if they were not to be found. And since you've also brought up other sports, it is clear that many of them would also need to be evaluated if the standard you seem to be endorsing were accepted. It's hardly fair to make decisions with such widespread ramifications without giving a chance for input. Let me know if you wish to go that route. FrozenPurpleCube 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Well, Chess is certainly more notable than Magic. It's been around a long while, and for various reasons it has a lot of cachet. And there possible are a lot more chess players than magic players (though I wouldn't say it's a lot more. ). There are certainly more Chess players with articles. See Chess players. Some of those may easily be notable(say Fischer, or Kasparov), but others like Izaak Appel or Alexander Evensohn? Why shouldn't they be deleted? Personally, I'd hate to go down that list, but that I could find two with random clicks does show it would be worth considering.

Addiitonally, the point I was making with tournament level magic was not in regards to length, but as a condition of establishment. It's been around over a decade. It's organized, and international, with Pro-level games played on every continent except Antarctica.. It's not some fly-by-night matter. Surely you can't argue that say, the article on Magic's World Championships should be deleted? Even if the game stopped being published, it'd still be notable, and so would its highest-level of play.

Oh, and if you have moved things to a policy level, it would be worth noting that in all the AfDs proposed on the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: Starcity news which mentions an interview of Budde in a magazine produced by Beckett. Is that not independent enough? FrozenPurpleCube 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Does that mean you're going to change your vote? FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

Well, if I owned the Beckett magazine, and knew the interview had some valuable content, I'd do so, but since I don't, and I don't want to buy it (they do have back issues), that's a problem for another person. And you're right, it doesn't matter for the vote, but it'd certainly impress me that you could be persuaded to change your mind, and probably a few others who have expressed concern about the reasons behind the nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on FrozenPurpleCube's talk page

I don't care about Nlu, but you, whose actions started it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans reversion issue[edit]

I am familiar with the Wikipedia contribution policy and I do not intend to maliciously revert people pages. However you seem to be continually reverting my own edits (which were made over a month ago without any problems) seemingly without any knowledge of the situation (you make a vague reference to a "weblog" which has nothing to do with anything) and without acknowledging why on the discussion page. I am making edits to clear up another piece of controversial information which you did not delete, despite its own lack of legitimacy. Please either explain to me the reasoning behind your hostility or meet with me in another medium. I would be happy to chat with you. TheMagnificentHazo 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on TheMagnificentHazo's talk page

See discussion page for response.TheMagnificentHazo 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mûmak[edit]

I read his review of The Two Towers (and most of The Return of the King review) a while ago. While he does have some good points, and can be added to elaborate on widly held criticism, I think it's laughable to include it as a source as if it were a majority view. Like you said "one fanboy's rant is not "some people"". What I didn't get was what "TL;DR" ment (I'm not too affluent on the internet lingo). But I figured it out when you included a link. --Ted87 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Ted87's talk page

Brian Chase[edit]

Just FYI, here's the long sad Brian Chase story. We used to have Brian Chase, about the drummer. Then the whole libel thing started, and Brian Chase was changed to a disambig to Brian Chase (drummer) and Brian Chase (hoaxster) (I think that's what it was called). Then there was a vote on hoaxster Chase and it was agreed that his article be deleted. So we had a disambig that pointed only to the drummer page and a page about the controversy. There shouldn't be a disambig when there's only one article under a name, so I moved the content from Brian Chase (drummer) to Brian Chase, added a top-line DAB pointing people to the Weiglhalger controversy page, and changed Brian Chase (drummer) to a redirect. All was fine for months until some anon editor changed Brian Chase back to an article about the hoaxster. Then you found the redirect pointing to the wrong place and fixed that, understandably. What a mess. Anyway, I tried to clean it up by reverting everything but in the meantime somebody put in a delete request at Brian Chase, sigh... —Chowbok 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Chowbok's talk page

I disagree. I doubt Jimbo knew about the drummer when he did that (it might have been even before there was an article about the drummer). I think my solution (having the main article be about the drummer, with a DAB link to the controversy) is most in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Remember, we wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for some anon vandal. Nobody objected for the months it was set up exactly that way. —Chowbok 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lameness: New England[edit]

Thanks for adding the ongoing New England/Talk:New England stuff to the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars; it certainly deserves it! But I can't decide whether it ought to have been put under the Ethnic feuds section or not (and can't even decide whether that suggestion was a joke or not).

Atlant 15:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

All these {{lame}} tags[edit]

What exactly is going on here? Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you might want to leave word or two at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malber] about those {{lame}} tags. Thanks/wangi 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your {{lame}} template was deleted because it was simply {{lame}}. It had the word "amusing" twice in a row as a typo. I also think the way you first had it was good and then this other guy came in and tried to speedy it, and then the resulting compromising edits made your {{lame}} template into a template that was truly {{lame}}. Anomo 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designing and putting ~~a rubbish~~ an amusing template on so many talk pages is pretty clearly an unusual behaviour. It would not have been unreasonable for every talk page to have been reported individually as vandalism, the more so when there had been no edit disputes within reasonable memory. It could equally have been considered by some to have been uncivil. It created work for people with other things to do, and was most certainly ill advised. Fiddle Faddle 06:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved tis here from my talk page. "Please outline the "so much work" this template has caused. It was an optional template. You could have removed it from your favorite talk page if you felt it belittled your important edit war. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, you put it in so many pages for no reason at all. Publicise your invention if you think it is worth it, but this was simply divisive and disruptive. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there already was a template for edit wars. Anomo 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Anomo's talk page

User:Jasongreenberg[edit]

If you'd bothered to look at the diff from when I actually userfied this page, you'd see that at that point it was just a brief mini-bio of the user, which is perfectly acceptable for the user namespace. The user added quite a bit of info (including links and pictures) AFTER I'd userfied the page. Next time, do your homework before lecturing others about policy. --NMChico24 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on NMChico24's talk page

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope ^Talk 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for adminship[edit]

Anomo would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Anomo to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malber/Archive. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Anomo 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you're done with the questions, please link to it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit -- Anomo 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe in 6 months, you might have a better chance if you tried again. I thought you would do much better when I had nominated you. Anomo 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to withdraw from your current RfA gracefully and with no loss of face for the following reasons:

an expectation that the RfA will not succeed.
lack of understanding of the 3RR policy and several other blocks in the last 12 months
Problematic creation of templates
AfD nominations (here, here, here, here, and here) of dubious merit.
Daniel Brandt incident

None of these will prevent your successful adminship application in the long run but they are all major factors in the low expectations of success in the present RfA. Please try again in 3-4 months' time, using the interim to familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines and demonstrate just how effective you are. (aeropagitica) 12:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on (aeropagitica)'s talk page

I can't see a reply on my Talk page as of this posting! (aeropagitica) 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA: Malber[edit]

I've removed my listing and posted a response to most of your points on the RfA page. I thank you for keeping the discussion civil. You are the only person who brought up the User:DyslexicEditor thing, so I thought I'd address it: take a long hard look at the editor's comments at ANI and the editor's tendentious editing history with the percieved cabal.

Also, I think it's unproductive for an admin to have sprotected their talk page. What if a newbie or anon has questions? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your civility remarks - politeness costs nothing! Good point about sprotection, I was thinking much the same thing last week, so I have now removed the status. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination[edit]

Thanks for nominating me to be an admin. I've got to decline, because I just don't have the time for it right now. I've answered the nomination in detail, though. Thanks again, and try to remember me in the future. Lou Sander 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL[edit]

I don't know... I've just had it. There are people who know f***-all about music who are AFDing, PRODing, and in the case of HeartAttaCk, speedily deleting things they have no business with. I know little about science, so I don't go nominating articles about scientists for AfD. I really think that we're past the point of civility, and now measures have to be taken to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. It's not enough to even have reliable sources and assertions of notability anymore, people are deleting things just because "I haven't heard of it." PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Yomangani[edit]

You double voted, it looks like. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Crzrussian's talk page

My RfA[edit]

(I know I've replied to you elsewhere, but I wanted to make sure you saw it...)

Thanks for your confidence! I really appreciate that!

Atlant 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Username Warning[edit]

Per WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG, obfuscation of your actual username in signatures is discouraged. An admin who hides behind a nickname lacks accountability; it would be difficult to find you on the administrator's list. Please change it soon or request WP:CHU.

—Malber (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature is fine the way it is. Thanks and happy editing! Orane (talk • cont.) 06:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yes. WP:Sig points out that it may be seen as disruptive. The operative word is may be. The rule is not set in stone. It does not say, "you must change your sig if it doesnt match your username." I've had this sig since I became an Admin over a year ago. Its rare that you'll find that sigs and usernames are complete matches. If someone wants to look me up on Admin list, then they should come to my userpage first and use that name. It's that simple. I'm not hiding, and I regret that you feel that I am. There are other, far more profound problems plaguing Wikipedia nowadays. I doub't my sig will ruin the encyclopedia.

Now if you will excuse me, I have Bio and Soci tests to study for. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't let Wikipedia get in the way of your studies. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wont. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you too, since you are so assiduously devoted to upholding rules and regulations, that you are not allowed to single-handedly institute a policy, especially one that has no consensus with the community. I am referring to your addition of "For reasons of accountability, administrators should never obfuscate their username in their signature" to WP:Username. This opinion is one that only you share. Please do not force your principles and beliefs on others. Also, please discuss proposed changes on project talkpages or other appropriate places. Thank you :D! Orane (talk • cont.) 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you doing all of this ([26], [27], [28], [29])? Trying to prove a point are we? Well, BE CAREFUL. Orane (talk • cont.) 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]