Grundle2600

Hey Grundle. I saw this article noted on another editor's page and thought it was interesting [1]. I hope all is well with you. I mentioned you once on my talk page in a discussion about prairie dogs and whether they can recognize each other by their teeth or, as I speculated, it's a breath thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. I commented on the relevant section of your talk page about the prairie dogs. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a nice photo. There an even better one in Jenavecia's (sp?) userpage history. Seems like a very strange way to greet one's relatives. But having seen bird mating dances, nature has developed some very interesting behavior patterns. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• This meme is still going strong [2]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! That was great! Grundle2600 (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Given my current circumstances here at wikipedia, I can really relate to his predicament right now! Grundle2600 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if there are enough sources for this but if you can find some I think you should create an article on it. Meanwhile I rearranged the sections a bit since documentaries shouldn't be in a "popular culture" section. If you do so I think there should be two subsections. "Documentaries" and "In popular culture".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just rearranged the section.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

PS: Please take a look at the talk page too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your changes are fine. I just wanted to make sure it was mentioned somewhere in the article. There are enough sources that I could at least create a decent stub, but I've just been really busy recently. I agree with you that it's not always easy to figure out how to arrange these things within the article, but I trust whatever method you believe is best. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just rearranged a bit more. Anyways, if you could start a stub for the Vincent who? documentary (when you have the time) that would be great.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This search at the Movie Review Query Engine does not cite even one single review of the film. I don't recall that ever happening with any other search that I have ever done at that website. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The only evidence of notability is the entry at Internet Movie Database. Even this search at All Movie Guide does not yield any results. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Grundle, I was patrolling new pages when your stub popped up, and marked it patrolled in case someone else wanted to put a speedy on it. But in the long run, you're going to have to find more references than IMDB. I hope you do, because it's a really good misidentification story. Do you know the joke about the Jew and the Korean drinking at the bar? It's not offensive to either. PhGustaf (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank. I agree with you that the subject deserves an article, but also that it needs more references. Perhaps it will win some awards over the next few months, or at least receive a few nominations. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mmh. Google news gave me this but I'm not sure if it would qualify as a RS. A general search gave me this and that and there might be (or maybe not) enough info for an article. What a bummer that there seems to be no news source about the documentary.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I just added the Philadelphia Enquirer article to it right before I read your message. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just saw that you already created the article. "smile" The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind, but I saw that you were discussing the film. I've read about it, so I wanted to help. I added the official website, and I'll look for other sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. And of course I don't mind - the more the merrier! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There we go. Another needed article created! BTW, this part of the judges reasoning, "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail.", really pissed me off (excuse my French).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• [3] ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

While I am very much in favor of laws to protect animals from abuse, I don't think they need their own lawyers! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

One good turn deserves another [4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Heh heh heh. That was great - thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry bro, but I think you're crossing the topic ban line with this one. WP:AN#Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Geez, Grundle, you've got to be smart enough to just fucking stop this shit. Just fucking stop it. No fucking whining or wikilawyering. Keep it up, and you'll run out of people willing to help you pull your fucking self out of fucking fires you've fucking built your fucking self. PhGustaf (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought my request was polite, and completely non-political. But I guess the higher ups disagree. Oh well. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating your topic ban and refusing to stop beating a long-dead horse. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• This is both a clear violation of your topic ban and evidence of a distressing failure to get the point. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A week? Wow! Given that my request was completely polite, and non-political, I think any block is unjustified - and a week is way too long. Oh well. I'll just have to deal with it. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that a moderately contrite unblock request might help. I see the block as a close call. PhGustaf (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. But I think I'll learn more and behave better in the future, if I actually take my punishment now. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder: Blocks are not meant to punish editors. They're preventative. I think you should wait for the block to expire (as you wisely indicated yourself). Any granted unblock request would probably just get you a quite more extensive block in the future if you violate your probation again. So yes, I think you should leave it as is and meanwhile we try to entertain you a bit. Doesn't sound too bad, or does it? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I agree with you. And I appreciate your company. I'm trying to view this as a vacation/rest where I can think about things. Also, if a person never has to deal with the consequences of their mistakes, then they miss out on the best lessons that life has to offer. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your last point is a very wise one. I live by that. Cheers,The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

...at least I try very hard ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

She said that during my block, I still get to collect my full salary. Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't followed the specifics of his case in great detail, but one year would be way too long. Come on, admins, you know he makes great contributions to the encyclopedia. Having him gone for a year is way beyond excessive. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that certain editors seem to be spending all their of time at wikipedia either filing ANI complaints and/or erasing content from articles. Perhaps if these people tried spending some time actually adding content to articles, they wouldn't be so quick to clamp down on people who make a few mistakes every now and then, but are otherwise excellent contributors to the encyclopedia. If a person who contributes lots of legitimate content to the encyclopedia occasionally messes up, there should be some leeway for that. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

He's been in and out of arbcom before. I think the question is not whether to give someone a second chance, but when the chances end.

That said, I don't have an opinion one way or another about this. I'm not well-versed on the issues here, and my interactions with CoM have been minimal. --King Öomie 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Even those who favor blocking him admit that he is a great contributor. I don't think blocks for great contributors should ever exceed 48 hours. A year is way past excessive. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps topic bans or other sanctions (of which he already has at least one) would be more pertinent. I'm sure it will all be considered. --King Öomie 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you - that would be much better. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before today's block, which has left me with plenty of time to watch weekday TV, I hadn't watched any weekday TV since I was a kid in the 1970s, when I watched reruns of Get Smart, Dick Van Dyke, Underdog, the Three Stooges, and Looney Tunes. But now today, all that's on - on every single channel - is reruns on Law & Order! You'd think that with 300 channels of cable today, compared to only 4 channels of non-cable when I was a kid, there'd be a bigger selection today than back then. But no - they had to put the same show on every single channel! What the heck is up with that? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Law & Order, or daytime gameshows, basically. Hope you're a fan of 'the wheel'. I'd say "I feel your pain", but I'm hardly ever home before 6. --King Öomie 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I remember Wheel of Fortune. I stopped watching it after they stopped making the contestants waste all of their winnings by going shopping for the most ridiculous prizes imaginable. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

When I was a kid I loved that one show where they let contestants loose in a store with a shopping cart and let them keep whatever they got. I always imagined what I'd do. --King Öomie 14:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I remember when they did that TV show in the supermarket - everyone always headed for the meat section. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hah! Best way to win there would certainly be to run down the Vitamin aisle with your arm as a scoop on one of the shelves. Worth 3-4 times Prosciutto by weight. --King Öomie 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to today's newspaper, there is updated information regarding the political status of Michelle Obama's arms. The National Rifle Association scorecard has given a rating of 0% to Michelle's left arm, and a rating of 100% to her right arm. The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence scorecard has given the exact reverse ratings, with a score of 100% for her left arm, and 0% for her right arm. All of these ratings, from both organizations, are based on a single photograph - which was taken when Michelle was eight years old - which shows her using her right arm to shoot a squirt gun. These poll results are having a huge effect on the ability of Michelle's arms to get elected to Congress - it's been rumored that one of her arms is considering dropping out of the next election - although different sources are inconsistent about whether it's her left or right arm. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That seems to be something you could add here ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm the person who created that. My account there is "Drop Dead Fred." But you knew that, I guess. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You had it posted here and I remembered.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If we would have a "fun-section" on WP like they do over there you could profit from it as it would be less restrained. But unfortunately we don't and I doubt we'll ever have one.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wrong, O penintent one: Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Some clods keep trying to delete it. Baptists, probably. PhGustaf (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Most of the DoF articles are meta-references to Wikipedia itself. I can't think of one that pokes fun at a political figure (or the ridiculous press coverage of them). --King Öomie 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In resp. to PhGustaf: I didn't say that there are no fun related pages on WK, (BTW: thanks for the link), but it is not handled in a way Rationalwiki does. I added your link to my watchlist "to fight the damn censorship from Babtists" :D . Doh!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Long live biological evolution, and rock music with dirty lyrics! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

LOL. (No further comment needed in response) :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bend it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

^{[clarification needed]} Grundle2600 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A 60s song, I think by The Troggs, that mimicked an orgasm. I can't seem to find the lyrics online. But the song started out in fast tempo with, "Bend it, bend it, show that you can do the..." and got gradually faster till the largo last line of "...when we're endin', you'll be bendin'". PhGustaf (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Bend it". And I thought you where talking dirty... tsts... XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Over at this other website, every week I choose an animal and start a discussion about it by posting its wikipedia article. I've been doing this for about three years now, and you can see my list of all the animals that I have chosen so far, along with links to all the discussions, here. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm just about to sit down and have dinner but if I could change and choose I guess I would go for the Humboldt Squid. *Yummy* :) . Have a good night.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

They are for learning - not eating!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops? But seriously, I was just to post the following:

PS: I realize that not all animals listed are meant to eat by humans. Just don't wont you to get the wrong impression about me and my food intake.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have chicken breast tonight ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

My "shocked" reaction to your comment was intended to be humorous. Please eat whatever you enjoy eating! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That Strawberry Crab is wild--looks almost too good to eat. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a strawberry - but I bet it tastes like a crab. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No fair googling or asking someone! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Eh, that bumper sticker about the incredibly small red dot in the overwhelmingly blue state! Drmies (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for trying - I appreciate your effort. But that's not the answer. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I didn't phrase it very well anyway--I meant that the dot was red but the smell blue. So I didn't win anything? I'm being oppressed! I'm having my parents call the principal! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Since I am the superintendent, I'm not worried about you calling the principal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Red paint? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Excellent job! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow! This is awesome. I don't think I've ever solved a riddle like this before. :) I feel like a genius. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is indeed a very tough one to solve. I wasn't able to get it. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

<--I can't believe I'm being outsmarted by a bunch of conservatives. I'm going back to school. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't able to figure it out. I heard it on the TV show Mythbusters, but they only gave us about two seconds to figure it out before they gave the answer. And I'm libertarian, not conservative. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

For a commie like me, that's all the same thing. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't use the word commie lightly - perhaps you mean you are a liberal who gets wrongly accused of being a commie? Grundle2600 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm maybe not wrongly. I don't know. Things used to be easy, now they're not. The older I get, the more Socratic I get--the part about knowing I don't know a thing, that is. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meh. I'm no communist, but I don't see it as an inherently evil force. Communism, as an ideal, is noble- the problem is that as human beings, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't sound enough like "GIMME GIMME" to our reptile brains- so communism is only instituted by force, upon a society that almost universally doesn't want it. THAT'S the evil. --King Öomie 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Kibbutzim in Israel are voluntary, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I said almost universal :P --King Öomie 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

link Grundle2600 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow dude, you got some good taste in music! I fucking love the Velvet Underground & Nico CD. Lou Reed is a genius. So is John Cale. I first got that CD when I was 15 and still love it. Caden ^cool 22:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yeah - they are quite awesome! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight is completely unfair. The encyclopedia will suffer greatly because of this. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Holy fuck that has to be a wikipedia record. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are others who have been blocked for a year. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi bot! You can go ahead and delete the image. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"DYN"? :) Reminds me of what some say the "N" on the Cornhuskers helmet stands for. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha! Silly me! Thanks for pointing out my spelling error on ChildofMidnight's talk page. I fixed it. Heh heh. Yes, it is funny! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The punchline to that joke (which I heard from a Cornhuskers fan) is that it stands for "Nolledge". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you work for Keyser Söze, eh? It occurs to me that if you work for Keyser Söze, that probably opens a lot of doors. However, performance review time could be a little tense. With Keyser Söze, there's no sliding scale. It's strictly pass/fail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not only do I work for him - I created that userbox! I looooooove that movie! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha! I get it. OK. I just added the umlaut. Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent movie. I didn't actually see it in theater, I saw it on a rental tape. When it finished, I immediately rewound to watch it again. Very cleverly done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

When it came out in 1995, I was living just two blocks away from the only theater in my city that had it for the first two weeks of its release (it was later expanded to other theaters in the city). I saw it in the theater seven times. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe one of those situations where you tell friends, "You gotta go see this," and you go with them just to see it again, to look for anything you missed before, and to watch their reactions to the ending. In my case, someone in the office (ca. 1998) said, "You've got to rent this." The Sting, which I did see in the theater, was kind of like that also. In both cases, I knew nothing ahead of time (deliberately), and they "got" me, which is the whole point, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did bring a few friends, but I was alone during most of the viewings. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a great crime movie from 1996 called "Bound" that you might enjoy - but don't read about it because you might see spoilers. It was made by the same people who made "The Matrix." Grundle2600 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm right there with Bugs. I watched "The Usual Suspects" on tape at home, finished it, said "holy &$#@," rewound it, and immediately watched it again. It's still one of my favorite movies ever. Knowing the ending makes the rest of it even better, when you consider what may or may not be true. And I'll agree with G2600, "Bound" is also very good. Dayewalker (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll see if I can find Bound in the rental stores, and I definitely will not read about it ahead of time. Typically I don't want to know too much about a movie before I see it. Maybe who's in it, and some really vague, high-level info about the story concept, but that's it. I don't understand the folks who want to find out whatever they can about a movie's storyline before it comes out. No wonder it can disappoint, if there's no surprises left. That's a big part of the magic of movies, don'cha know. Then if it's good, you watch it again. I think back to 1977, when Star Wars came out, a totally and unexpectedly huge hit - in part because kids kept going to see it, over and over. It played in my local theater for like 6 months. That's when you know a movie is good, when it's got "legs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Baseball Bugs - That's great - I hope you find it! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dayewalker, you have excellent taste in movies! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

I have nominated Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ThemFromSpace 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I read what you wrote! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Grundle - that's an awesome article! I hope it is able to remain.--Milowent (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On March 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fedexia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might want to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inimicus_filamentosus as an animal of the day. PhGustaf (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Actually, I don't take requests or recommendations for that. My choices are my "artwork," so to say. Thanks anyway. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on getting this article in the main page, albeit April Fool's Day. Enjoy! Grsz¹¹ 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. HkCaGu (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive? I don't think so. My entry was well sourced. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have reported your most recent disruption of the encyclopedia to ANI. You can comment at [[5]]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any sense of humor at all? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I saw someone called out on an extremely silly "joke" then trying to turn the discussion around to try and get a topic ban lifted, demonstrating IMO the height of foolishness. I tend to speak very forthrightly both online and off. But I see from your comment that you took offence where it wasn't really intended so I apologise for using that acronym. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I accept your apology. For the record, I was not offended. I was merely pointing out that I am more polite and civil on talk pages than some of the editors who want me punished. No harm done! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being polite isn't all it's cracked up to be. Far to much emphasis is given to politeness here. It's what you do that matters really, not how you say it. Take my advice (if you want to) If you want to get your topic ban lifted, then correct what you were doing to get it put in place in the first place. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. I won't made any more April Fool's edits in the article space. I do think that I have been behaving pretty well, since my last block was lifted. I do hope that one day, my topic ban will at least be lifted from the talk pages of political articles, as I have lots of great ideas on how to improve those articles. Thanks for your adivce. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

How did I miss all this? I thought the part about tipping over and falling into the ocean was funny, but I don't really want to go on record as encouraging it. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will never again add any April Fool's jokes in the article space. So you're not encouraging anything by saying it's funny. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's too bad because it was funny. In the real world April Fool's is a great thing to be a part of. Sadly, on wikipedia so many editors lack a sense of humor. BTW, good luck with having your topic ban lifted eventually. You deserve a second chance. Caden ^cool 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you have reneged on your promise that lead to your being conditionally unblocked ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. –xeno^talk 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand why a message about me being blocked was added to my userpage. But I don't understand why all the other stuff on my userpage was removed. Would someone please put my stuff back on my userpage - and please make sure that the message about me being blocked is listed first? Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Grundle, that was most likely your absolutely final chance. Have a good one. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to be sorry - you didn't do anything wrong. I am proud of my contributions to wikipedia - even the ones that some people considered to be controversial. I am happy with my actions. I don't regret a thing. Thank you for your kindness. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

What a shame. I'm very sorry to see you go. Political articles need more neutrality, and wikipedia shouldn't turn a blind eye to that but it does. Censorship is alive and well and as always, controlled and enforced by the mighty powerful left. Caden ^cool 23:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's how you and I and some others see it, but that's not how most of the administrators see it. I am an inclusionist who wants articles to include all points of view, but not everyone here is the same way. Well, I had a lot of fun writing articles here - and I can still have fun reading the articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many, many editors see it but are terrified of speaking up due to retaliation. We all know who runs the show around here. Wikipedia continues to lose great editors who actually want to help build a neutral encyclopedia. Caden ^cool 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is very neutral on non-controversial subjects. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Awww, well, in case we don't chat again, it's been a pleasure to know you online. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've always enjoyed talking with you too. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For anyone who is curious, here is a permanent link to the discussion of my indefinite ban. Note that it was me who started the discussion, with a request to modify my topic ban. That's an example of chaos theory - I was hoping for one outcome, and I ended up getting an entirely different outcome that I never would have anticipated. Kind of ironic, I suppose.

I have enjoyed my time here.

I see over at the ANI discussion, some people are claiming that I chose my user name with something other than the video game reference in mind. That is not true. I first played that game when I was eleven years old, and it has always been my favorite. To anyone who thinks my interest in choosing my username comes from anything other than my love of the video game, please see the userboxes on my userpage, as well as the list of articles that I started. Does that look like the userpage of a person who is interested in crude, vulgar language, or, does it look like the userpage of a child trapped in an adult's body?

I do admit that several months ago, as a joke to make my wikistalkers laugh, I did several consecutive edits to a bunch of articles about various bodily functions and such, but other than that, I do not think I've ever done anything here that wasn't G-rated. Perhaps I have made a few other such edits, but out of the many thousands of edits that I have made, it's statistically insignificant. My interests are in politics, science, animals, technology, pop culture, and food. A few crude jokes every now and then, sure, but never as a username that everyone sees every day.

And as one editor suggested, for those of you who think I chose my username to be crude and vulgar, how you do explain the 2600 part?

Well, "indef" is not for any fixed period of time. It could be forever, or it could be for two years, or it could be be for six months. We shall see.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whoa! Bigtimepeace, your claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.

Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?

How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?

What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?

And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone at ANI suggested that I edit Conservapedia.

That's a horrible suggestion, because:

1) Conservapedia is only about presenting the conservative point of view. I prefer a wiki that presents all points of view.

2) I am a very strong believer in biological evolution, I know the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and I think Creationism is fiction.

3) I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

4) The info that I added about medical marijuana and benefits for partners of gay federal employees are not things that conservapedia supports.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

But those very same people refuse to teach me the things that I wanted to learn about. That's very hypocritical of them.

I want to learn.

I very much want to learn.

But no one is willing to teach me the things that I want to learn.

When I asked important questions about wikipedia policy, instead of answering my questions and helping me learn, they banned me.

Therefore, for them to say "Grundle doesn't get it - he'll never learn" is completely hypocritical on their part.

I love to learn. I want to learn. I wish that someone was willing to teach me, and answer my questions.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The easiest way to get out of these sanction is to grovel. Grovel and repent. Not saying I approve only that is usually what's required to et a unblock here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am always happy and willing to give a real apology when I believe that I have done something wrong. For example, I have apologized for violating Wikipedia:Synthesis, and I was sincere in that apology.

However, I will not apologize for obeying NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

For example, if a politician makes a promise, and then breaks that promise, then if the article mentions that the politician made that promise, then NPOV requires that the article also mention that the politician broke that promise. If the article only mentions that the politician made the promise, without simultaneously also mentioning that the politician broke the promise, then that violates NPOV. I will not apologize for obeying the NPOV policy.

Wikipedia:Apology states, "One should bear in mind that an apology is at its best an expression of sincere personal dislike for one's own actions." I really like that definition a lot - it reinforces my belief in never giving fake apologies.

I am sorry that I promised not to ask certain questions about wikipedia policy. That promise was a mistake on my part. But I am not sorry for asking those questions about wikipedia policy. I am a curious person, and I like to learn the rules about wikipedia policy. I am not sorry that I asked questions about wikipedia policy. They claim that they already answered my questions about wikipedia policy, but when I asked them to post a link to those alleged answers, they refused to do so. They are very good at finding every post that I ever made when they want to discipline me at ANI, but they cannot find the alleged answers that they claim they gave me - how interesting.

Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." Perhaps at some point in the future, something can be worked out. My "indefinite" block is not for any specific fixed period of time - it could be forever, or it could be for a year, or six months, or some other amount of time.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship looks like something that I could really get into. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On December 10, 2009, I made this edit to a biography of a living person.

Afterward, people explained to me that by making that edit, I was in violation of Wikipedia:Synth. That means that I took two separate facts, from two separate sources, and I combined them into one sentence, to try to prove a point which was not stated in either separate source. By doing this, I was violating Wikipedia:Synth.

On December 11, 2009, I changed the article so that it no longer violated Wikipedia:Synth. Specifically, instead of joining the two facts (from two separate sources) together in the same sentence, I separated the two facts, and had three entire paragraphs in between those two facts. That proved that I understood the policy of Wikipedia:Synth. That proved that I had learned my lesson.

On December 13, 2009, despite that it had been two days since I had fixed the problem that I had created, and despite the fact that it had been two days since I had already learned my lesson, User:Rd232 blocked me.

Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment."

Given that I had proven on December 11, 2009, that I had already learned my lesson, and given that blocks are meant as a teaching tool and not as a punishment, it doesn't follow wikipedia policy that User:Rd232 blocked me on December 13, 2009, two days after I already proven that I had learned my lesson.

Therefore, the block was in violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I had already learned my lesson before I was blocked. And blocks are about learning, not punishment. Therefore, the block was never justified in the first place.

On December 18, 2009, as a condition for being unblocked, I agreed to the following condition: "Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia." My unblock request was granted.

On April 5, 2010, I broke that promise, and my block was reinstated.

I broke my promise, and the block being lifted had been based on me making and keeping that promise, so the block was reinstated.

However, after thinking about this some more, I now consider that condition for lifting my block to have been unreasonable.

My seven questions were all questions about wikipedia policy. I am a curious person, and I like to know and understand the wikipedia rules, so that I may follow the wikipedia rules.

There is no wikipedia policy that says we are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.

Therefore, the requirement for me to avoid asking those seven questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for being unblocked was unreasonable.

I am not sorry that I asked those questions about wikipedia policy again. Instead, I am sorry that I promised not to ask them again. There is nothing wrong with an editor asking questions about wikipedia policy.

So yes, I broke the promise on which my being unblocked was conditional. However, that promise had nothing to do with my violation of Wikipedia:Synth, which is why I was blocked in the first place.

I will never violate Wikipedia:Synth again.

But I should be allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.

Given that blocks are about learning, and given that I have learned about the Wikipedia:Synth policy, my block should be lifted.

And no one should require that I stop asking questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block to be lifted.

I am asking for my block to be lifted for the following reasons:

1) Blocks are about learning, not punishment. I learned that Wikipedia:Synth is against wikipedia policy.

2) When I was blocked on December 13, 2009, it had already been two days since I had proven that I had learned my lesson about Wikipedia:Synth. Since blocks are about learning and not punishment, the block was never justified in the first place.

3) It was unreasonable for them to require, as a condition for my block being lifted, a condition which had nothing to do with the block in the first place. Since I was blocked for violating Wikipedia:Synth, it was unreasonable for them to require me to agree not to ask questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block being lifted.

4) No editor should ever be told not to ask questions about wikipedia policy.

5) There is no wikipedia policy that says that editors are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

While you assert – correctly or not – that "blocks are about learning, not punishment", your continued insistence on raising and re-raising ad nauseam issues which you have been told are settled suggests that you have not learned from your past actions — nor from your previous blocks. The ultimate purpose of blocks is to protect the project from harm; and editors who persist in wasting the time of their colleagues are damaging to our work here. That you consider it appropriate to argue in this unblock request that you should not only be unblocked, but also be allowed to persist in the disruptive conduct which led to the original restrictions on your editing, is a compelling argument that you should remain blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

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

You added much. You are way too smart for this group, something that saddens me.--75.4.16.15 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Grundle2600, I'm sorry to tell you that you have been indefinitely banned by consensus of the Wikipedia community. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy for further information. Given the discussion that led to the ban, I strongly recommend waiting at least one year before appealing it--and even then, I'm not sure an appeal would get you anywhere. I will not disable use of your talk page unless you give me a reason to, so please don't give me that reason.--Chaser (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry this happened to you. Good luck in future endeavors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It didn't just "happen" - I repeatedly did things that I was warned not to do. I do believe in personal responsibility. It's not as if I wasn't warned again and again and again. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi bot! This is in response to both of your posts to me: Thanks for telling me about this. However, there is nothing I can do about this. I guess the bot that blocked me has not told you about my block. Perhaps you bots need to get together for chocolate milkshakes and some wikipedia conversation! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This came about as a result of a misconception that I've cleared up. Someone else put the images back in the article. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw this thread you started at freerepublic - that's too bad that wikipedia banned you http://www.google.com/#q=freerepublic+grundle+%22Wikipedia+banned+me+for+asking+why+Presidency+of+Barack+Obama+couldn%27t+contain+criticism.%22&num=30&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f

If it's any consolation, I see that someone has added the info about Obama favoring offshore drilling to "Presidency of Barack Obama" as well as a sentence about Van Jones. Since this info is now allowed in the article, perhaps they should unban you.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps the reason they banned you was because of your obsessional behavior, and not because of the content of your suggested edits. Perhaps if you had gone about proposing the same edits, but in a slower, more limited way, you wouldn't have been banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.47.41 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not offended - I readily admit to being obsessed. I think anyone who makes thousands of edits a year is obsessed! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Grundle, you are surprising clueless as to the actual reasons you've been blocked again and again. And yet you go spouting off to whatever group of right-wing message boards will make you feel that you've been mistreated. You were not banned for asking your stupid seven questions, you were banned for your continuous inability to understand how exactly to behave here. But hey, if their coddling makes you feel better, knock yourself out. Grsz¹¹ 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps. But it is interesting that the three people I know of who got blocked for a year or for forever (GoRight, ChildofMidmight, and me) are all people who are either libertarian or conservative, while the majority of wikipedia editors who have political views are on the political left. Of course this sample size may be too small to be statistically significant. I guess I'm not sure what to make of this. If I had been blocked for two weeks (my previous longest block was for one week) then perhaps I might not be so paranoid. But to jump from one week to (a year or longer or forever) seems like way too big of a jump. And I feel the same way about ChildofMidnight's and GoRight's restrictions too. I'm confused about all of this, actually. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'll give you my take but you probably will not like it. I played America's Army when it came out, and spent a great deal of time on their forums, particularly the off-topic, non-game parts where people discussed politics. Given the nature of the game and the time frame (2002, the so-called War on Terror), liberal commie pinkos like me were quite in the minority. As debates raged on, the more heated people were given blocks and bans, and almost every single one was a conservative. I think they'd be hard-pressed trying to claim that that AA forum mods...all of whom if not enlisted themselves, reported to someone who did...had a liberal agenda. So what was it? IMO, conservatives have a much harder time dealing with dissenting points of view. At least a dozen ppl there hit with a banstick over the years, in part or in whole from interaction with me. Whether it's a do as you're told household or job or military life, they do not have experience in dealing effectively with dissent. When their argument is counter-argued here, they can't do the counter to that, and instead lash out. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I am very happy that you posted that. It's a real eye opener. I now admit that I was pushing POV in the political articles, and that I was wrong when I accused people of censoring political articles, and that I was wrong when I said my blocks were based on the political views of the admins being different than my own. Thank you for posting that. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Grundle2600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am asking that my block be changed from indefinite to three months, and that my ban be lifted entirely. I promise not to ask those seven questions anymore. I realize that I broke that promise the last time I made it, which is why I think I deserve a block of three months. I also think that anything longer than three months is excessive and inhumane. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

This is not a reviewable block. It's a community ban. It gets appealed to the community or the Arbitration Committee. If you want to appeal your ban to the community, then ask that. I strongly advise against an appeal at this time, but I will post it to ANI for you all the same.Chaser (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

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

Ha, you promise not to bring up "seven questions", but immediately after your block you go crying about them on Free Republic. And people are suppose to give you the benefit of the doubt? Let's not waste everybody's time. Come back in six months when maybe people can take you more seriously. Grsz¹¹ 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That post I made was so last week! I'm asking for three months, which is a very long time, in the world of the internet. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Except you weren't blocked, and never have been, for asking your questions. You would be better off addressing the actual reasons that led to your ban. Grsz¹¹ 19:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps if I ever get unblocked and unbanned, I could create a separate talk page in my userspace, specifically for talking about this subject, and a volunteer mentor could agree to help me out. Since no one who didn't want to read it would have to read it, I could not be accused of disruption. Not that this is an excuse or anything, but I do have OCD and Asperger's, both of which I am in therapy for. I have always been an "outsider" in social situations (except for when I went to Montessori as a kid, and when I was on the math team in high school). I'm not trying to use this as an excuse. But please understand that my behavior here has always been done with good intentions, and I think that some of my critics have not done enough to wikipedia:assume good faith on my part. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why not just go away for three months, and then come back and request a re-review of your ban. Stopping by every few days to discuss things, when the community's patience has already worn thin, is not the best idea. If you want to be back in three months, then disappear for three months. The community will be much more amenable to letting you back if you abide by your ban and go away; and if you avoid Wikipedia, both around here, and in your blog and other places. Demanding now to have your ban modified will not produce the results you want. Honoring your ban, in letter and in spirit, and showing the community respect by not dragging this matter outside of Wikipedia, would BOTH go a long way towards gaining the confidence of the community. --Jayron32 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for your suggestion. This is my last post here at least until July 12, 2010. If people here say things to me and I don't respond, please don't think I'm trying to be rude. Bye for now! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (Note from Grundle2600: I broke my promise less than one week after I made it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC))Reply

Good. Bear in that your ban is not based on one or two incidents, but on what the community perceives as a solid year of tendentious and disruptive editing followed by a series of broken promises. You show no evidence of understanding this. Until you do understand it, I think your return is out of the question. Here's a suggestion: go back through all your appearances an AN/I and ArbComm. Go back through all your exchanges on the Obama talk pages. Try to look at them as a dispassionate observer, not as one trying to defend himself. Hope for a Gestalt. Good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Grundle, also note your block/ban does not extend to foreign language versions of Wikipedia, such as Simple English, or any other you may be able to write in. Grsz¹¹ 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grundle. I think Jayron32's suggestion is a good one. I doubt that anybody will shorten your block/ban now, but if you come back in a few months things might be different. Grsz11 has also made an excellent suggestion. If you can point to your constructive work on another Wiki, I think it would go a long way toward improving your reputation. Good luck, and try to enjoy your wikibreak. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, everyone. And yes, I broke my promise to not post here before July 12, 2010. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to clear a few things for the record here. Jayron32 and Grsz seem to think they have the power to speak as the single voice for the entire wiki community here. Please do not speak for me as a member of the community. My patience for Grundle has never worn thin. Furthermore, you simply can't run around speaking on behalf of an entire community. That's unaccepatable and not true. Grsz, I personally never perceived Grundle to be "tendentious" and "disruptive". That's your biased opinion of him. You can't run around speaking for hundreds of editors by claiming the "community" said this or the "community" said that about Grundle. You have no right. You are one voice only. Same goes for Jayron32. Speak for yourself but do not speak for me or others. Caden ^cool 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not just these two editors, it is many, many, many others who have weighed in the numerous times that this user's concerns have gone before the administrative boards here. No one is speaking for you, so please, spare us the "don't speak for me" junk, and do not encourage blocked users that their behavior really was ok after all. It wasn't. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Spare me your rant. Keep your "junk" opinions of the community out of this. You CAN'T speak for others or for me. Knock it off thank you very much. Caden ^cool 00:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

No one was speaking for you, at any point in this. Please stop lying and claiming otherwise. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

April 17, 2010

To: Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

I, User:Grundle2600, acknowledge to having conducted the following activities at wikipedia, all of which are against the rules:

• Edit warring at political articles

• Violation of 3 RR at political articles

• Violation of synthesis at a political article which was a BLP

• POV pushing at political articles

• Creating an April Fool's joke in the main article space which mocked a politician

• Violating my topic ban by editing political articles

• Monopolizing political article talk pages

• Asking specific questions about Obama related articles after promising not to do so as a condition for being unblocked

• Recreating deleted political articles after I had been specifically told not to do so

• Making edits at political articles that went against consensus

• Assuming bad faith by accusing other editors of censoring political articles

In doing these things, I have jeopardized the project, and I have also wasted the time of other editors.

At the same time, it is also true that my contributions to non-political articles have been outstanding. I have created a huge number of such articles, many of which were featured in the "in the news" section of the main page. I have also improved many other previously existing non-political articles. The very long list of articles that I created can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grundle2600&oldid=353969441#Articles_that_I_started

I acknowledge that the good things that I have done here are not an excuse or justification for the bad things.

In order to help improve the encyclopedia, I wish to create a set of circumstances which will allow me to continue doing good things to improve the encyclopedia, while simultaneously providing me with strong incentives to avoid causing harm to the encyclopedia.

I propose that my community ban be lifted.

I propose that I be automatically blocked for 30 days if I do any of the following. There is no need to have a long, drawn out ANI discussion for such a block - any admin may carry out the block, and any non-admin may suggest such a block at ANI or on the talk page of any admin. These are the actions that, if carried out my be, will result in an automatic 30 day block for me:

• Edit warring at any article

• Violation of 3 RR at any article

• Violation of synthesis at any article

• Editing any political article, political talk page, or political deletion discussion.

• Creating an April Fool's joke in the main article space

• Violating my topic ban by editing any political article

• Monopolizing the talk page of any article

• Asking any question about any article that contains the word "Obama" in the title

If I do any of these things, I am to be automatically blocked for 30 days, and there is no need for a long, drawn out ANI discussion.

This proposal, if adopted, would allow me to continue doing the good things that I have done here for the past three years, while simultaneously providing me with a substantial disincentive for doing the bad things which I have done in the past.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,

Grundle2600

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

My god, this apology letter reminds me of the Church of Scientology. Heck, cults don't brainwash using deindividualization or paranoia facilitation or any of that mumble jumble... it seems a great deal of officialdom is all it takes. Grundle, you won't regret getting the hell out of Wikipedia, don't let Wikipedia and its phony social rank assignations consume you. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

I have nominated Air Force One photo op incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One photo op incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

I have nominated Mangroomer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangroomer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion has begun about whether the article Gerald Walpin, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion has begun about whether the article Barbara Bullock, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bullock until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion has begun about whether the article Reann Ballslee, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reann Ballslee until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mark Addison, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Addison until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Lance Thomas (watch merchant) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Thomas (watch merchant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Twanda Carlisle is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article HealthAccessRI is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Extra Mile Education Foundation is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Mile Education Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Mismatching is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Dear IRS is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article YaVaughnie Wilkins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP (because of age of article not eligible for sticky prod) with no real evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LadyofShalott 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B&W mPower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B&W mPower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Payppp (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not swear on talk pages as this is considered offensive. Thank you Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Read wp:TPO and wp:NOTCENSORED.TMCk (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

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

This board game does not appear to be notable.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hall and Oates Voices alternative cover art.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whisson Windmill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Markus (prostitute) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E. Received a flurry of coverage over 2 months for the same thing, and that was it.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Markus (prostitute) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safari cards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you still watch this page at all? Tarc (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't. I haven't even visited wikipedia since I was banned over three years ago.

But if you need me to make any edits to any transgender related articles for you, just let me know, and I'll be happy to do it for you.

38uy56GH (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Grundle, c'mon; we both know you've been here all along, most recently in the Obamacare article. I just want to know if there's something we could do here to by some miracle facilitate your return. Could you just stay off politic articles entirely? Do some music, pop culture, etc...type of article work? Tarc (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be a lot of fun. I do enjoy writing about music, movies, science, animals, etc. I would agree to a topic ban on politics and anything even remotely related, such as global warming. Thank you for asking.

Of course it's me - I was making a joke when I said I never visited wikipedia.

When I logged in with my Grundle2600 account, it said I was banned from posting on my own talk page, and it's been that way for a few years. That's why I had to use this sock. I wish they would at least let me comment on my own talk page.

38uy56GH (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, obviously I have no power to enact such a thing myself, and most would vote against it automatically at WP:AN on the basis of the socking alone. I dunno, I just would rather not see you continuously hurl yourself against this brick wall over and over and over. I know you post on the Free Republic too, but you have to understand that the Wikipedia is an unfriendly platform for those sorts of views, and that your political edits will never stick. Imagine if I created a new account at the FR, and started a discussion thread on the benefits of Obamacare. How long before it, and I, were "zotted" ? (yes, I am quite familiar with the FR lingo). Tarc (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have never tried to make wikipedia like Free Republic, because I have have never erased anything that portrayed Obama or Obamacare in a positive light. Wikipedia is supposed to include all notable, reliably sourced points of view. For a controversial subject such as Obamacare, the article should include both positive and negative information. You seem to have no problem with the article including positive information. It is only the negative information that you have a problem with. Even though these problems with Obamacare have been cited in large numbers of reliable sources, on a daily basis, for more than a month, you think they should not be included in the article. Why do you think the Obamacare article should not mention those problems, even though they have been cited in large numbers of reliable sources, on a daily basis, for more than a month? Sqdn65487 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in either a Google search or a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. n.b. this is not the playground equipment manufacturer, but a software organization (playpower.com vs. playpower.org)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – czar 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Team Sarah. Since you had some involvement with the Team Sarah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiihabilitation. Since you had some involvement with the Wiihabilitation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Grundle2600,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Education crisis should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education crisis .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Non-notable product.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H.R. 1503. Since you had some involvement with the H.R. 1503 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect We demand more asbestos!. Since you had some involvement with the We demand more asbestos! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doogie Howser GOP. Since you had some involvement with the Doogie Howser GOP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Virtual cocoon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article based on a 2009 wave of promotional churnalism, about a forthcoming product that doesn't appear to have come to fruition. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows the churnalism.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Compact is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Compact (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vintage Estate Wine and Beer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Estate Wine and Beer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Raiders of the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Raiders of the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article How to Survive (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability; fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Sabrina76.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feral rhesus macaque is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mooonswimmer 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Eric Schansberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and article primarily relys on sources authored by the article subject.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tdl1060 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Isabelle Redford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks notability, sourced coverage is from one minor story from over a decade ago. No additional coverage seems to exist since. Additional data (unsourced) and self-promotion seems to have been added more recently by the subject themselves.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Underfunded public school system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 13#Underfunded public school system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mike Allen 03:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Is It Possible? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rielle Hunter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Rise of the Video Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to pass WP:NTV or WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2016

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:NASA global temperature data 1880-2009.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, issues with file extension (.gif but actually .png), unclear what green bars refer to (see talk)

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Spend more money on public education has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 21 § Spend more money on public education until a consensus is reached. (plus six similar redirects) Jruderman (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Tax cuts for the rich has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 21 § Tax cuts for the rich until a consensus is reached. Jruderman (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply