User:Tstormcandy/Archive 1

Welcome to Archive 1! Covering 21 October to 12 December 2009. I suppose this is my archive of my first clueless views on how Wikipedia works. If you can't tell I summarized some of the sections for simplicity. At the time I think I did it because it looked a lot better. Others I marked as "resolved", but is appears my use was completely inconsistent and I've given it up by now. Oh well. Since late November I haven't been editing a single word as it was left on the talk page. Interestingly enough, my talk page chatter and total activity is way down (75% or so) in the past month. I had 40% fewer edits in that time, but apparently I've (mostly) run out of the most extreme of silly mistakes to make, or at least I can spot them immediately. In hindsight, there were about a half dozen things in here where I got "frustrated", but in all matters some kind of understanding was reached with no ill will on my part. I've actually !voted to support adminship nominations and spoken to support a minority viewpoints in discussions that have involved a few of the frustration-related editors below so I'll call that coming full circle.

Self-Evaluation

Biggest troubles during these 2 months

• WP:N learning the basics and trying to remember so many other basic principles, policies and guidelines in the first few weeks.
• WP:NEWT for almost all of November. It coincided with my rollback status added and larger involvement in article patrols... killing much enthusiasm.
• User:Kils residual troubles through December. It consumed many evenings of free time of many editors including myself, just trying to improve the behaviors of a sole fringe and confused editor. It's still not entirely resolved.
• Extremely social nature and clique formation of some persons in the admin community and evident double standard of tolerance to incidents caused by "known persons" in the community being granted extra leeway on most any matter.
• Slow improvement, but still self-acknowledged WP:TLDR habits I've had for 15 years of internet usage. Getting better...

Some prouder moments

• Able to remain 99.9% independent and non-affiliated with any other users, but at the same time getting a feeling on 'the big picture'. I'll always have some questions, but it's becoming far less frequent.
• What's surely several hundred hours spent researching different angles on policy, reading user essays and researching past ArbCom cases for precedent for a lot of things.
• Zero official warnings given of any type (per ANI recommendation, community or admin). There are I think 5 incident board reports filed on me, though all 5 stem from the same night of harassment and all 5 were quickly dismissed as frivolous or abusive.
• Some open boldness to invoke WP:IAR on occasion ... as a justification and not an excuse.
• Attempts to define users that "look like" admins or seemingly behave like them as "Brooms" to the proverbial "mop" of a sysop.
• Adherence to "politeness guidelines" like taking a quick moment to add a welcome template for users I see haven't had one, having no issues apologizing when wrong, and a preference to suggest user-imposed restrictions in many conflicts, using a basic logic reminding users that no one actually wants to risk being blocked over adding or removing that "of" from the article lead sentence.

First edits added: ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Second set and considered closed: ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evo Street Racers √ Resolved, 22 Oct 2009

Summary: Clarification was offered per my request for more independent sources for said article to make sure it wouldn't be subject to PROD or AfD tag a second time. Editor kindly offered more information and had further questions... everything addressed to the correct persons and all is well with an article that was saved from deletion per discussion consensus. A helpme tag came up by mistake and a very diligent contributor hopped straight on to what was essentially a Wikipedia wrong number. If you really, really, really want to see the text of this for some reason or want to know who was involved, it's be in the article history. Datheisen (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page has been updated with the requested third party sources and the language has been cleaned up. Please review and advise. Thanks for helping me learn the Wiki way! ELandry1979 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghan Mellat

Thank you for your efforts in the Mohammad Daud Miraki article. Personally, I would either support a deletion of the article (the guy is not really important) or support direct quotes from his book, leaving all interpretation to the reader. Anyway, I would like to ask you if you also have a few minutes to check the article Afghan Mellat. Currently, the article is protected because of recent editwar and POV-pushing. It's about an ultra-nationalist party which claims to be "social-democratic". Yet, it is neither recognized by the Socialist International (I have provided a link to the SI's official website), nor is it accepted as a member. It's leader, Ghulam Mohammad Farhad, was a Pashtun nationalist politician, inspired by Nazi policies of Hitler's Germany. Sources have been provided for this, including a publication by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. The party has been criticized as "extremist", "ultra-/super-nationalist", "in the far right", "racist" and "fascist" by various authors and political commentators. User:Ketabtoon has removed these sources and changed the wording of the article, trying to give the party a more acceptable image for the reader. I am criticizing his edits as WP:POV, WP:OR (he cites unrelated and unreliable websites and draws his own conclusions), and partially propaganda for the party and even for the Taliban who are an ideological off-spring of that party. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the message.

I deliberately chose this review off the ANI list because thought there would be absolutely no way I would have any pre-knowledge or bias with article content... and I was 100% correct! Since the article was only 2 days old, to avoid endless edit warring and flying review tags I figured we could just pretend like we were starting over. Since one of the contributors has recently been unblocked with a 1RR rule, I wanted to weight the possibility on conflict starting from either end being equal, and that one side could use 3RR over 1 could be in natural advantage in the extended direction of the article if it did not have continuous monitoring. In other words, I'm hoping to create a fair playing field to start from.

It has been difficult already. I invited both major contributors to comment, and they have. I'm actually just finishing a response to both...... here[1]. ...Ha, seems you beat me to commenting. I'll respond to your question here-- My general thoughts are to wait a day or two yet to give Inuit18 a chance to directly cite his quotations from the book he is using and see if anyone else comes in from the ANI with opinions or more information. I already have a few concerns on both ends, but to stick with fairness I go through every citation and check where it leads me. Most certainly I can review your suggested article as well in the process. If only a few quotations from a single book can be posted on one side it will be hard to sense WP:WEIGHT on the small amount of information. I have no doubt that once resources are checked properly and the article edited to reflect data available from reliable sources that the future of the article will be clear-- mostly than likely an AfD. Even then, this process will be worthwhile since the AfD would be a lot easier for others discuss with those pesky quality tags at the top hopefully gone. One way or another the future of the article will be settled and civility can be kept. Datheisen (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My First Vandal!

A joyous occasion for me today... my very own vandal stopped by this morning with quite obscene and offensive harassment on my user page. Incredibly, it was caught and reverted by an admin in less than one minute because of those fancypants vandal monitoring tools they have and I can only dream about. Generally speaking, this vandal and many other editors got smacked with some abuse after issues here[2].

Still, good fun! There's not a single thing anyone could do or say to me here that could actually offend me, and I have trust in the administrative process that any such attempts to bully me will be dealt with accordingly. Insults and profanity isn't exactly something new to my life that I've never run into anywhere before, so really, you're not going to accomplish anything. Datheisen (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paz Lenchantin article

The edits I made on this article have been in the interest of removing the vandalism that has been present for sometime. As it is, the page that you are reverting back to contains numerous promotional inserts and references by bands/people that Paz Lenchantin did not actually work with and insubstantial appearences referenced as another means of flagrant self promotion. If you would carefully read the edits at hand, this should be quite clear to you. --Leftbrain111 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a minute to leave me a message about this-- Wikipedia would be a much less complicated place if editors would always take this extra step. My major concern with this all... by the general practices of Wikipedia article writing and editing, even if every thing said about yourself is true then I still cannot allow you to edit to page in that manner. The article stood the same way for a very long time with only minor changes and no discussion of revisions, so anything more than cosmetic edits could be viewed as vandalism without it being debated on the talk page. Blanking large sections and rewriting what is left is going to attract attention no matter where or when you do it, and is only considered appropriate in the most extreme of circumstances. I made very certain in my edit summaries that I did not call your edits vandalism because of the unusual process of it all.

I would encourage you to read WP:PAGEBLANKING as my reason as to why I cannot allow substantial edits to this page that result in changed content and especially content without proper citations and sources given. Looking at that policy page, check the example at the very bottom. It says that editors should be very careful with dealing with WP:BLP articles, as Wikipedia is very specific about not allowing unverified claims to remain in those types of articles. Even if you are the person in the article, any blanking of information (without appropriately cited content lets in its place that was hopefully agreed to by consensus on the article talk page) is not permitted. Think of it this way; Editors would be reacting the same way and reverting if a very large section of new gossip information or private personal details were posted.

Though I must always assume good faith from editors, I'm afraid that a long-established consensus of well-cited information on a page trumps any large edits, and as one of the general standards of Wikipedia I must first treat all editors equally based on his or her actions. For concerns you might have about what is in the article, please visit WP:RAA for a list of places to request administrator attention so you can pick out specifically what you're hoping to achieve with your edits. I do want to feel concerned about a possible personal conflict, but since the actions you are taking are the same actions a severe vandal would take when trying to destroy an article. I must treat it equally on both sides without exception. No my knowledge, only incredibly rare circumstances like threats of legal action or threats directed at another user can be looked at beyond the starting blank slate.

Unfortunately, I do not think I can help you further and I will have to continue to undo destructive edits to the Paz Lenchantin article until an administrator renders a decision on my request to put it under edit protection. Be them in good faith or no, to me it is still the save reversion process. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

HubSpot article

Noticed you deleted a section on HubSpot products. Wondering under what policy this deletion was made Thanks. Woz2 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General opinion? Preferred for editors to refrain from adding links directly to company product or purchase sites per sentiment WP:PROMO. I meant no direct offense to an experienced editor, I had just noticed this section was new compared to the rest of the article design. You're free to revert as you would have more experience than I, but if it's a resource/link that can get a new article tagged and spat out for speedy delete, it wouldn't seem appropriate for something well-maintained. Datheisen (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The section was actually created with the rest of the article, but I updated it recently to reflect recent changes. I feel in this case the "product is truly relevant to [the] article" WP:PROMO so I think I'll revert and see what happens next. Woz2 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't think so." -- Case deemed closed fully on 28 Oct 2009

Perhaps you can explain how I bit anyone at the hotel van cleef article. I merely stated I didn't know if the German wikipedia has different policies but all I could find was 7 ghits. Where is that insulting or mean? Did I template the creator, or react in any way other then point out it's non ontbale. No. Perhaps you should read what Biting a newbie really is about before spouting off bullshit like that again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you got me on some weasel-like defensive language of the article by removing the CSD tag, but by saying and then repeating "I don't know what the notability standards of german Wikipedia" are in your AfD creation, you leave open the possibility that people could think the standards there are lower-- if this is supposedly a slam dunk to delete here, the connotation on a global level is that it's not worth having anywhere. Is that insulting to them? You'd have to ask them. Despite how it was worded, it's obvious from your rigorous defense that no harm was intended, in which case trying to look at it from a non English-centric perspective might help. I'll also stand by the fact that I consider it polite to new contributors on their first article (in this Wikipedia space, at least) to not delete something they've clearly put a lot of effort into. As for biting? The paraphrased quotes at WP:ABF are always worth a laugh after looking at a lot of angry AfDs in the evening. Datheisen (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive, you overlook my bullshit comment. Good for you. Ironically it was a bad day for me didn't mean to take it out on you. I looked into the other page but unfortunately as a English speaker I was unable to nominate but thus far It looked like the same page and if they do have the same qualifications this one squeezed through. I was more addressing the logic fallacy that just because it is on a different wiki grants it auto inclusion. In this case it wasn't but it could've been made the same day. Either way I did htink it was only promoting a small non notable label so while a unremarkable tag would have worked it didn't quite fit the catergories for anyone in paticular so it was pick and choose. Happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All's well that ends well. Speedy deletion can sometimes be a confusing process; I know I've made plenty of mistakes (I mean, I guess I know?), and fortunately there is an oversight process--with the admin who deletes or doesn't delete. I don't agree on principle that every new article has time and energy put into it, but in a case like this, an article with substantial content, one can see that effort did go into the translation, for instance. And Hell is right, notability in one Wiki doesn't mean notability in another. The speedy deletion tag in this particular case was incorrect, though, since notability was claimed and there appeared to be claims to back that up, so Datheisen was correct and their counter-patrol paid off. I learned my lesson a while ago: don't be too quick to apply a speedy deletion template, and when it looks like promotion, for instance, but it's not really your area of expertise, don't push that CSD button. Happy editing to both of you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as everyone is in agreement, no concerns about any of it! I've put up for AfD and withdrawn later as well, in that case all I asked was the author to talk to me. He did, problem solved. In cases where the original author hasn't come back to the article yet it can be a little more complicated to get the most natural improvements by people who'd best know how to do it, but this is fantastic. Well there was one dissenter in the AfD that I might leave a message for since they would seem rather out of the loop compared to the other people commenting, which is ironic since I don't know you two other anyone there :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After my error had been pointed out I moved quickly to fix it by withdrawing the nom. I never ealizzed that the ghits were organized by date. While I still disagree about the biting part I think your assessment ended up being spot on. Good catch!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe take a look here tell me what you think? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckhaven town afc Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Don't get me started on the depth of issues of notability within WP:FOOTY. I've posted over there some with how to attack the issue. In short, their teams are tiered 1 though 15, where 5+ is a "national-level" team and suits notability. Things are really bad, with entries of some teams down to the 12 range from what I've seen. This is roughly the equivalent to you grabbing a few people in your apartment building at random and running off to the nearest schoolyard for a game of technically-competition soccer. Well it's not THAT bad since these are still true leagues with dedicated players, but it's still a bit silly. I'm working on a proposal for a mass PRODding project over there to mop up the mess and make new guidelines for article creation to hope it doesn't happen further. It should be fun. See here[3] for the concept. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strata (band) article √ Resolved 29 Oct 2009

Cheers for the encouragement - just got it together while I should have been working ;) As I stated in the talk page, it's probably a good idea to threaten deletion so that work gets done on these half-baked band articles :) Jwoodger (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion I've trying to take on page deletions is to kind of... downgrade things a bit to slow down, after some admin advice about CSD use in particular. Instead of patrol for G2s and the most obvious I've gone to counter-patrolling and taking off A7 tags if I think the article has any chance at all, so even assuming someone gets mad their A7 was removed and AfDs it immediately then a good faith article that already has resources and some text beyond base intro and info it means the creator (especially new ones) has a chance to improve it. AfDs like I had been considering here I have a PROD on, and never fear! You had at least 10 days until 3 days had passed if there were no edits, I'd contact your on your talk page without reply, and then started the 7-day AfD discussion. In other words, I'm a total wuss who'd rather help see something live, but I still try to follow through with it all :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why Nothnegal was nominated for deletion √ Resolved 1 Nov 2009

UPDATED: New sources have come up including one of yours-- a news story on the front of blabbermouth.net[4]. The site had been down earlier when you first posted back to me, and luckily thankfully someone posted a mirror on the discussion page. I've closed the nomination myself as withdrawn by nominator, and I'm glad the page will end up looking better as a result. I'll entirely understand some frustration you might have, but with everything found the article can probably be expanded a lot. There are several of you that are clearly passionate about the band, so good luck. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• thats great to hear, i will continue expanding the article. thanks.--Mv head (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pages without ANY valid source √ Laughed at for being 50% true and 50% user baiting on 1 Nov 2009

here are some pages you might want to review: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ahmed_Faseeh and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Xxoffann it does not prvide any reliable sources and looks more like a self promotion by the artist. i see no reason why this artist should be noted, his band does not include any noted musicians either. the only source provided is his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntxdr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're free to research those on your own; I don't take "requests" on possible deletion tagging, and even if I did it would be a direct conflict of interest and I could not in good faith carry it out no matter what my true opinion might be. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD LOLS

Marasmusine has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Ha, this is why the games portal is great... things can be either as serious or funny as you need them to be, and since most of the content has no physical form? Mmm, yes. It's therapy for edit warring and A7 dueling political articles. Thanks! ♥ Tasty! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, fun... that's the last time I respond to random RfCs! Wait-- wrong lesson. That's the last time I ever put anything I comment to on watch since disputes are likely to go on forever! Wait-- that's not right, either. *Sighs* Well, as long as something changes... it's unfortunate it had to come to this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Scary Movie 2

Exactly what part of WP:NOR do you not understand? The section involved was flagged for NOR issues for six months without more than a shred of improvement, and was at best a gigantic mass of dubious trivia and personal opinions. It was entirely inappropriate, bordering on a WP:NPA violation, to revert my edit with a vandalism claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking half a page is usually frowned upon and there were no tags on the page that immediately justified such a deletion. Have to call it as I see it. You may wish to consider using the article talk page before such substantial revisions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bournbrook Kebabs

Very sorry, not sure if this plee for help belongs here or not, please feel free to delete this plee if I have just rudely edited your page but I think this is where it should be! Please could you help me with my article? I do not know what I need to add to stop it from being deleted? I am very confused. Thanks for your help! Polonius-laid (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I was making the page more encyclopedic; it read halfway like a fanfic. I was distracted during the last four edits, that why it took four edits to get it right. Hey, I screwed up, I admit it. Admit it, though: it reads much less 'fanboy' now; it seriously didn't need all that padding. HalfShadow (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! It just looked... silly in edit logs, and really you didn't do anything wrong. There's a reason I manually did it all to make sure AGF got in there, though I think I was a tad blinded too because there had been a string of vandals like that the hour up to that; adding one line and removing it word by word stealthily until all that was left was amiss. Just temporary editor blurry vision? I do also always look at user histories for what might be more subtle changes and was... um, confused?

In total seriousness, I can't think of a single guideline or policy breached and I was basing it on long-drawn apparent consensus and a flagged "ghuh?" internal sensor. Actually, your level of honesty about it tops my frightful level of honesty and apology on most things. At least I'm not alone on such things. You'd actually know far better than I do given the experience gap. I mean, I had to manually chop at it all at once since I don't have rollback (yet!) and with so many consecutive changes I'd rather not 3RR myself to death. Well thank goodness you didn't want to start an edit war over it! :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't care enough to war over it. It was just, like I said, the way it was before looked like someone's fanfic and I cleaned it up. Also, I'm not an admin, though it secretly pleases me when people assume otherwise. It's not strictly necessary to talkback tag me, either; I keep an eye on pages I post messages on. Some people respond on their page and some on the page of the person who posts, so I generally watch both. My 'thing' is generally vandalism-reversion and tidying up pages; either adding info that isn't there or making them read better. I believe the term is wikignoming. HalfShadow (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaah yes, I saw the box on your userpage. I haven't decided yet if I fit into gnome or elf more, but I do know new articles aren't really for me and I actually enjoy digging through diffs for hours to make comments on misc things and be ignored instantly. Not healthy, I know. ...Thanks for the original message. Why can't everyone be this precise? *sigh* ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the one thing I've actually done the most to is List of The Backyardigans episodes. With a couple of exceptions, every synopsis from Special Delivery onwards is mine. I seem to have a skill with synopses. I'm not embarrassed to admit it, either. The show is ridiculously superior to most childrens shows, which are basically just lessons disguised as cartoons. That's basically an example of what I do here, but the example of which I'm most proud of. HalfShadow (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scarborough Athletic √ Odd exercise of self-torment on 4 Nov 2009

In a situation previously unimaginable, something that I actually raised an objection to was resolved without ten pages worth of explanations. Awesome. This outstanding form of depravity spanned about 90min on 4 Nov 2009, re: notability Scarborough Athletic F.C. and division-attached teams and honors. Ok. Time to go to bed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about 10s/11s. Level 10 clubs are deemed notable, whereas level 11 clubs are generally deemed notable only if they have played in the FA Cup/Vase/Trophy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RD

We brushed swords over the kebab shop. Seems to me you are new and keen. I hope you'll soon be a bit better tempered by experience. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key to "best of" or "top" type questions is to establish if there is a reliable source, whether reflected in a wikipedia article or in an external source. (External sources are fine for the RD, we are not limited to pointing at our own articles.) If there is a reliable source (as there was in this case) then we can answer with reference to that source. If there is not (I recall a recent "who are the best known people in the world" question) then we should answer that as there is no source, we will not enter into speculation. We may still be able to make some helpful obervations.

More or less objective measures do exist for many "best of" or "top" questions; it is not a foregone conclusion that this sort of question necessarily means we're in subjective territory.

It's also worth mentioning that elements of original research or synthesis are acceptable on the RD. We are not providing definitive article-standard answers, we're merely trying to do our best to answer questions. We should try to ground answers in reliable sources, avoid bias, etc, but not feel as restricted on the RD as we do within articles.

On a personal note, though I didn't agree with your take on the kebab issue, I'm happy that your good faith shines through. Keep on keeping on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually good about the desk, actually. If it's a place I don't have to quite cough up WP:XXXXings constantly out of confusion or try to remember one of 50 level1 warning or welcome templates? That's good. And the kebob bit... well. Ha. I am really sorry about that mess. In that discussion I knew I was just trying to keep the door shoved closed for another minute. It felt very awkward to ask for patience when I was in full agreement with everyone else already. Other authors in general have been really great about improving articles that I've un-A7'd that were borderline, so I hate to see the streak die. A question for you though, since I have no idea where else I'd ask-- how much faster is Huggle on vandalism and assorted editing, anyway? I see some user histories with a few undos per minute, which is better than my getting beat to the punch 95% of the time. I don't care about count in any way, but if a method better than "refresh changes page constantly and hope maybe the page and diff load fast enough" exists, I'd feel a lot more productive. Twinkle is quite nice for the multiple-location edits/posts and for sending user messages added on, but it still doesn't get through the information any better. Erm. Thanks again. I've been lucky to run into a handful of admins and added-rights users who've been quite helpful, so I'll tell you the same think I tell them; You could think of this is me trying to make you work a little easier instead of just a silly favor :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton/Project

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Great! I'll keep checking the page, could be fun. ...At least, this is arguably the most logical thing that would have come up after un-breaking for awhile. ...I do agree with your tough call on that evil AfD though, and I've noticed RfA candidates the past week have been squirming around on AfD questions... maybe they did too much homework? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Afrosquad RS review

Thank you for looking at it. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read it! -Stillwaterising (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm yes. I don't even have to feel guilty for enjoying it since it was an actual help board request. A good thing overall; I really needed the laugh after some of the other topics that had been up on ANIs yesterday. Oh, and something I didn't realize until after-- I have no idea how there is no advertising or other browser shenanigans there. If that's actually all a personal website with zero desire to relate to any other other sites at all? Quite rare, especially for that ..."particular target audience"? There'll probably never be another source I hope to see as a "source" to pop up again in the future as much. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sehbueno

It's not even a real band! Read the guy's post to this discussion: it's a fictitious band he's creating his own little mythical universe for, with albums and everything! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well. I'm strange about actually explaining my opinion even is something is 100% obvious. Looks strange, but I like having myself covered if I get opposition or angry talkpage mail. Technically (to me) it didn't matter even at the time the user said it was fake since someone had already said to hold off on deletes... though I suppose it's up to an admin to snowball close and CSD it. My first experience in an early close of an AfD where I withdrew after the page was drastically improved with some snowballing; I was scolded for pulling as nominator close as a speedy keep since someone one user had already suggested delete at the top after many 'keep's after the fixes. *shrugs* I figured I'd never act like anything was really a foregone conclusion. I hope that makes a little sense. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. (And how did you guess that I'm one of those quirky folks who dislikes "talkbacks"?} --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure that WP:DTTR was written for a reason, including the available userbox. Admins with an account 5 years old usually fit into that. If there had been zero others on your talk page I wouldn't have, but with 1 other there I couldn't tell if it was accepted or you just forgot to clear it in anger. Since I like to know who's around, I check contributions and rights of most people who stop by. I may be new still but I'm not (that) naive :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Blueskyboris

Can you explain to User:Blueskyboris on his talk page User talk:Blueskyboris why his edits are being reverted (unsourced)? If he can behave he could be unblocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. It's rare for an existing user with edits to go that far on something. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blah. It would appear that IP 222.236.165.240 is a puppet (or just general carelessness since not used to abuse). If you look at the Joe Lieberman article history you'll see that the IP was the first[5] to add the questionable content yesterday. Wow. All of that was in less than 3 hours? Well, let's see how he takes it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cutting Moments

I found 6 reviews easily. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw you links. Some aren't directed exactly at the short film and they're not really top-notch sources but I'll admit this is the best case for notability made yet. A lot of the ones you posted were off the imdb list, where I was mostly disappointed that they teased with links to mainstream pop sites that were only information bits. Pretty much I'm set on neutral since after a hundred lesser resources and vague references I hardly remember what I thought when this all started. Seems pretty clear it'll close as keep or no consensus which is fine by me. My WP:CULT unofficial logic is as close to logic I may get on this. Note to self: No more movie AfDs. Thanks for posting those. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:HAMMER

I wanted it to be chronological, since Wii 2 was the first article not related to music to cite my essay. Also, I don't know; what kind of standard would there be for video games? You're talking to someone who's only even played one fifth-generation game. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah, hah. Well, if the "idea" for music is to have overwhelming evidence it existed beyond the band saying they're making their Nth album and are in the studio, an "equivalent" in video games would be when there are pictures of it available or previews about "hands-on" playing, meaning someone has touched it and can verify that it exists and has progressed enough to offer an opinion of it. There's been some use if HAMMER in video game deletion discussions, so I figured it might be good to have a few details. I will give credit on how efficient it is for sorting out music discussions. Assuming I don't change the history of new uses, would some edits to the lead section for readability be acceptable? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cfd question

I've asked some questions at the cfd you started since I wasn't really clear on what you meant. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CULT?

I was curious about your proposal mentioned in the Cutting Moments AfD, did you not get around to it yet or did it get deleted? Шизомби (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah! Thank you for reminding me about that. It's been an unusual week here. Vote changed to weak keep for no logical reason beyond IAR and a little tingling in the back of my mind. This article is trapped between worlds in odd form and this will drive me nuts if it doesn't end now. I'm glad someone feels up to making the "companion" articles as well, since as a whole the notability is easy with sources aplenty with actual quotations for use. material available for that. As for the 'essay shortcut', I'd almost forgotten about that, too. *makes a note* Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:174.50.39.146

Hey,

Charmer, isn't he? ;)

I've popped a note on the blocking admin's talkpage asking if User talk:174.50.39.146 talkpage access can be disabled. Crafty (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aahahaha, ironically, I was trying to send you a message cursing you for grabbing one faster than I did but it kept coming. Good fun though! Issuing admin seems to have taken care of it, many thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shoved a new report to AIV and User:Cunard has filed for page protection. Let's see which report gets the love. :) Crafty (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, thank you. I'm amused though, the last revert was 1000 officially counted edits for me. it was notable at least! :) ...and this is way way better than the 3 hours I spent trying to figure out "how A7" an article was last night just to see how long it could take. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI blooper

Howdy. I think ya may have accidently 'deleted' my post at the ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ACK! Erm, is the text salvagable I assume or do you need help finding it? That, or you/I could revert my post after copying the diff then place it back in. Ug, I'm usually sooooo good about double-checking things after an edit conflict. I'm horribly sorry! Really, if you need any help with it please let me know, or just do whatever you need to if you've got it handled on your own. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just 'post' something similiar. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks to you too!

Thanks for your quick revert on my user page as well! I suspect Ryurong might have been impersonating Ryulong (albeit poorly). Thanks again, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Good grief...

It looks like that particular vandalism account was created by the same person as Jauchegrubenvollmacher and User talk:142.161.254.171. (S)he apparently didn't like that I reversed some of their vandalism on a main namespace page, so they vandalized my user page. Pyfan reverted that vandalism, then had his/her user page vandalized. You deleted that and then got your own page vandalized. So my thanks goes to you on this one. :) Pingveno 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was rather fun. I wouldn't willingly filter in Huggle in "most suspicious" order if I didn't think I'd get roughed up a bit. Adds character :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

David R. Brown (neuroscientist) headers

Hi, you added COI and autobiography headers to the David R. Brown (neuroscientist) page. I object to these at this point for two reasons.

1. Right now, I think other editors have combed over the page and removed the non-sourced material and spent a fair amount of time looking at it. The user with a potential COI has not been RRing or edit waring on the page, so i think the COI header can be removed unless that starts being a problem. In addition, I think it is important to realize that this is a BLP and so we should be sensitive to not junking up the page.
2. You did not add a talk section on either topic. In essence, there are no specific objections, so there is no goal that the page can reach where it is clear that these tags can be removed. I think this sort of thing comes across as more of a drive-by than a thought out addition. Obviously this is not the case since you obviously thought about this page quite a bit when you wrote extensive comments at WP:COIN.

For now, I really don't want another argument going on about that page so I'm going to ask you politely to remove those and leave it at that. Thanks for considering this request. PDBailey (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mhmm. Actually, I see that right after (9 minutes!) I added those there was another edit that adjusted one of the few remaining problems and there have been more edits since. I've not problem removing them. As a whole, the article is a few million times better than when it started. I've been watching it since this long string started and it ended up on the COI noticeboard after, well, "concerns". Anyway, done and done. Your politeness in asking me about it versus removing them on your own (I wouldn't have objected) is most appreciated. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right that the article got better with respect to COI and editor review after you added them, and I appreciate that they were arguably valid at that time. Thanks for removing them. PDBailey (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd tell ya...

edit conflict The cookies didn't work; but, I just wanted to tell you that the "we're not Mapquest" response here made me laugh very much. Thanks for your humor. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein page

I saw the Bill Lichtenstein page, and added a few citations. I also saw some other material that I added. I read your notes on the page; if you're 100% convinced about the integrity of the page, what more needs to be done to fix it? --Medianation (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I guess I forgot about the tags. Without exception, I trust users (that aren't a direct party to an article) to take off any tags when they feel they've been handled appropriately, and even then they just need to ask :) All your work there is much appreciated and it's collectively sooooo much better, wow. I don't look for a few weeks and this what happens apparently. You're more than free to take those off the page; I never want them to look like stigmas or warning signs... just reminders (I have no control over the icon in the templates of the extremely official ones like those). Let's just say I had a short but complicated history with the page and for my own good felt it appropriate to not edit it myself. You've done more than enough work to be able to decide if it's in good shape or not. Again, thanks. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address

Thanks for your note. I did not check IP's other edits, thanks for keeping an eye on them as well. If the IP will continue to act disruptively on Heller or other articles, it would be good if any other admin will check it out and consider a block. - Darwinek (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Other admin? Ha, I'd need a first consult since I'm told I just "sounds like one"; I'm quite new yet but am just a quick study spending time on more admin-type activities. ...But yes, neither of us would have a total NPOV on the matter, so at least 2 agreements from completely unrelated admins would be preferable. Sigh... user reverted basically all my other edits, so that's just more evidence. So much for AIV if it's across a half-dozen different articles. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am admin, but as you said I am involved in this "issue", so others would be preferable. AIV or ANI, doesn't matter which I think. If that user reverted you in the manner he reverted me, it is enough evidence I think to report him, just wait for tomorrow if he will resume his disruptive edits. Meanwhile you can revert him again or let me know, which other articles are involved here. - Darwinek (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP has a sockpuppet now, Lud.Tischler (talk · contribs). Should we file a complaint to WP:ANI or rather directly to WP:AIV? If somebody with CheckUser rights would confirm the sockpuppetry, the block could be long-term, even indefinite. - Darwinek (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say AIV at this point, since it's been ongoing and requests to stop and numbers of user warnings have apparently just resulted in further attempts to disrupt the system. Erm, I'd do it now, but as you can see below (and about a week above) that I have an interesting "fan" who takes it extremely personally when any content is reverted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

btw, stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or vandalize my talk page is User:Datheisen. I NEVER stalk and revert of User:Datheisen's edits. Seriously, Can you STOP wrongly accuse me? You reverted My edits. Please STOP, stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or personal attack to my talk page --660gd4qo (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Above struck as inappropriate for this section of talk page) Surely this user isn't stalking me, coming in and commenting on unrelated topics on my talk page (see below for the real "reason". Just more evidence, so I guess it's your call if you want to keep adding it. I have good standing in the XfD and patrol areas of Wikipedia for a reason, and it's certainly not because I'd ever waste my time following anyone around. I told this user a week ago at a 3RR complaint against me (despite my not going over 3)-- they were not worth my time if they remained this stubborn. Apparently the hint was not taken and I have to go a little further this time. Darwinek, I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Thanks for your message. I left my comment and thoughts in the section on the ANI. You're right, the IP did have policy on her side and it appears that it was just a clear case of talk page stalking followed by an unnecessary block where the reason stated didn't make sense. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User: 660gd4qo and comedic vandal shenanigans

I've just up and wiped a massive amount of vandalism from said user. I mean, really quite comical vandalism; incorrect use of policy, personal attacks, disrupting posting, baiting me to violate 3RR, the opinion that if an editor writes "not a revert" in an edit summary that it's not a revert, removing comments from disagreeing editors (my comments), hijacking other talk sections on serious matters to randomly interject about how evil I am. This material is so incredibly useless, I'm not even going to archive it or put it in an expandable box. If you're desperate to read it, look at the last page version. Some other amusing facts-- User has reported me to 3RR violation noticeboard for 3 reversions... the limit, yet was furious at my posting of their 5 straight reverts. Also, I was reported for vandalism and "edit warring" after 1 edit today, which was a reversion. Both of these reports arguably received the "laughed out of the courtroom" treatment of being removed in but a few minutes and without any actual need for discussion. Actually, I 100% expect said user to comment on this talk page section after I finish with it. Apparently I'm such an awful editor that I need continuous stalking. This user has been told several times that comments against my alleged uncivil behavior should be at administrator noticeboards, article talk pages or their own talk page... since I refuse to be harassed on my own talk page. After the first vandalism streak I was more than happy to ignore the issue forever, but it coming up again for even poking my head in as a recent changes patrol and a mess ensued. What a waste of everyone's time. Today's matter ended after a level 4 NPA warning was let here... placed because user thought that a Huggle-placed notice (an official template) on their user page was a personal attack, rather than a reminder to please stop vandalizing my talk page. For the record, I could give diffs and links for every single thing mentioned above, but yea. Really not worth my time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. All of your comments are nonsense, personal attack. And you keep ignoring your massive amount of vandalism, and Wrongly accuse me as "vandal". Seriously, You are only One person who made trouble.
2. Archiving is not blanking.Help:Archiving a talk page
3. Please STOP stalking and deleting my edits. -660gd4qo (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki stalking is not tolerable

• Level 4 harassment warning from above user removed as comedic rubbish: In the middle of my writing the above, user left a harassment warning... because I'd reverted their blanking of a talk page. Nice. I say again... go report it to a noticeboard if it's so terrible, since I don't have anything to hide on my changes. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. All of your comments are nonsense, personal attack. And you keep ignoring your massive amount of vandalism, and Wrongly accuse me as "vandal". Seriously, You are only One person who made trouble.
2. Archiving is not blanking.Help:Archiving a talk page
3. Please STOP stalking and deleting my edits. -660gd4qo (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You actually have to add the mention of an archive on the talk page. My edit summaries were quite clear. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Care to explain this? Tim Song _II (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty simple; it's exactly what it says it is. It's the removal of unsourced material. Warning? Not terribly funny. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, more specifically, the note from above needs to be extended down since novelization is mentioned. If that ref were just moved down I'd have no problem. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted and warned me, when I reverted an unexplained removal of content; note the pointer to the talk page discussion; it's now at Talk:StarCraft/Archive 5#Expansion Pack. Given the comment in the wikitext, I do not see how my revert was in error; much less why I deserve a warning. Tim Song _II (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The warning is what Huggle defaulted to (as the summary says), so I'm not sure what to say about that besides not having any control over it. Pointers to intra-Wiki links cannot be used as sources, see WP:CIRCULAR. Either there's a source there or there isn't and easy to fix. If it's there, add it and clean your talk page. I'll admit that's not what I was desiring it to be, but it was Huggle's call. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was a source - I'm saying that there was a consensus, as established by the discussion, to use that text. If you think that consensus is wrong or no longer applicable, you are of course welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, or to follow WP:BRD, which does not involve issuing warnings - of whatever sort - to other good faith editors. Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. It's never that I doubted the information, I just found it odd given eeeeverything else was neat and tidy. If you haven't reverted it back yet, please do, since there is logic behind it it would appear. Sorry to nag ... Oh, and I see you're already on top of the db-2 template and you caused an edit conflict for me :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

About that block...

I just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten all about the issue with that out-of-policy block on the IP the other day...you know how it is, holidays and all. I think, on the balance of it, I'll let you go ahead and handle the AN/I entry if that's what you want to do. You definitely have a point re: the stuff I missed; however, since I already spoke my piece pretty emphatically re: the stuff I -didn't- miss (the length, the perceived COI, etc), not to mention that I refactored his block downward by a pretty substantial margin, it would seem churlish to drag User:Hamster Sandwich to the woodshed as well. I've done my worst; or maybe I'm just in full tryptophan-coma (tryptophan my azz, you ate THREE pieces of pie, woman!--Gladys's conscience speaks). If you think it needs to be brought to a wider audience, though, I'd say go for it. Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving! (assuming you're living here in Amurr'ca--I just Happy Thanksgiving'ed a Canadian today, and was quite abashed to discover that those North-living folk apparently throw their feast a month ahead of ours. With that being the case, though, I do wonder how their stores know when to put up the Christmas decorations!)GJC 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There was further discussion with an agreement that Admin would be watched like a hawk. I'm not going to go against an admin consensus single-handed, and anyone else concerned with it has either disappeared or no longer cares. Thus, I'll follow, and I just really really hope that usertalk block isn't used from block start all that often, since right to appeal is part of the process. A full night of harassment last night seems to have cleared my head of everything else related to Wikipediay, and I'm entirely indifferent on this now (apparently). Thanks for the message! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

db-2

You are welcome to use the experimental template User:Davidwr/db-2 over the next week or so. It's to CSD what Prod-2 is to PROD - basically identical except for the visuals and the categorization. See WT:CSD#Template to get 2nd opinion on marginal A7s and other marginal speedies and User talk:Davidwr/db-2 for more info.

If there's a consensus to do so, I'll move it to Template: space in a week or so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

YES! At last, simplicity! Okay, a minor victory for all the recent A7 talk. Thank you soooooo much for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my ANI post earlier. As is said there, I find it very peculiar that an IP would randomly appear and pick, of all pages, my talk page then disappear. I did wonder myself about your suggestion that it was meant deliberately for me so I checked the IP out and only got more puzzled. The IP is in Herndon, Virginia. I don't know anybody there and, indeed I live in Lincolnshire which makes it all the more baffling. I wonder if you've seen anythign like this before in your experience as a fellow rollbacker? HJMitchell You rang? 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If we've exhausted every other option, there is a tiny percentage of vandalism that's honestly random. Like, say this[6] edit I was left once... locates to the UK while I'm in the midwest US. It's the IP's only post, ever, and I hadn't made any controversial edits that day. Wikipedia is an odd chunk of text since it slowly comprises a larger and larger percentage of total internet content as it's mirrored and archived thousands of places. Just every once in a blue moon, someone might have searched for something somewhere, wound up randomly somewhere you'd been and they felt the urge all random vandals do?

Ha. I know that's not an answer, but as much as I hate to say it I can't come up with a real answer. Since it was a URL and a follow-up was something that would look like a spam email subject I would say some text field bot, but the Wikipedia edit system with diffs and content in the edit boxes constantly changing would make it nearly impossible to design something like that to get the "message" part of the spam in the right spot like this did. One in a million. Score a victory for the mannequin vandal, I think(?). I'm going to add this to my generic offline list of "inexplicable human behavior exhibited at Wikipedia" I randomly add things to. For a comparative level of weird, there's an ANI I found in a random archive titled "Edit war issue with List of all-female bands". Seems kind of like arguing that the number 2 does not = 2. Wish I could be of more help, though. A good laugh every now and again isn't so bad. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

NIKEiD

This is in response to the recent article deletion proposition, you made on the article NikeId. (sorry if I'm typing this in the wrong place!) But it's Just to let you know that we're a group of students who have been assigned the task of creating a wikipedia page, we're totally new to wikipedia and have been trying our best to find a topic not already covered on wikipedia to make. We never intended for the page to come across as a blatant advert, and maybe some of our points need to be changed.

We were given a checklist of things we must include in the article- for example demonstrating that we can use italics, which is possibly the reason they seem misplaced. We'll continue working on the page to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All.watson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen: Given the unusual circumstances, I would recommend taking this to AFD on Monday with the recommendation of "userfy, then delete on a date given by the students." See also: User talk:Grouphcis#Welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with that, but I don't know their timeframe and I get the impression it's a short-term project. Otherwise it would be far better to figure out what school was giving out these assignments so it would be listed at WP:SUP. Going to wait to hear back from this user that contacted me and see if any scope is available. The article did already exist before this, however, so it can't just be deleted because its educational purpose was done with. I think. Well it also depends on if it's improved... Okay, I can put an AfD on it as a contingency to have it okay'd as a delete in a week and could non-admin close if that "reason" for delete had disappeared. Well. *scratches head* ... always has to be some challenge... Well, I'm agreeing that an AfD could be a sneaky way to put a timer on this, but direct information would still be easiest. If the incubation process had ever been finalized that would have been a reasonable use in this case... just out of the mainspace. Mark it as yet another odd case it would have helped resolve in advance. Let's see what anyone comes up with the rest of today. Thanks for finding and putting on the group/anon/misc welcome template since I have no idea which that is in Twinkle and I can never find that stuff manually. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of the AFD as a way to extend the timer from 7 days to a week from Monday. If the PROD remains, the article dies next Friday. I saw your comments on ANI and replied to it, userfication sounds like a good plan. As for the subject matter, I'm not seeing WP:N. As of August of this year, it was a redirect. Prior to that, it was an unreferenced essay on an apparently non-notable topic substantially unchanged from the first edit in September 2008. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the current discussion on AN/I, experimenting must be done within our guidelines. But I do not consider the article an advertisement, as I therefore removed the prod tag. The article might or might not stand up at AfD, since it is a major product from a very major company, but it does need some work at present. What it most needs is references that talk about the program and provide substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases. Otherwise, it can probably be merged into the main article for the company. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yikes. I hadn't checked it for messages lately. No objections on PROD gone. Even the few edits since I fell into this fixed a few of the worst areas, and it could well end up with 50 hands behind it if it had to. I'll be blunt and say that yes, I've basically ignored my handful of articles listed for "iffy" the past few days. My head has been wrapped in a sphere of policy pondering far more than checking back on watched items, and each of the past several nights I've run into multi-hour roadblocks of things I for unknown reasons feel really need to be done asap. About the policy on schoolwork though, well for one is there a direct WP:xxx for it? SUP and SCHOOL aren't quite right for the Wikipedia end. Should I have originally suggested merge? In hindsight, yes, but it really did look like a direct printout of a promo brochure at the time and was a chopped up copyvio of text elsewhere. After the student's message, I just didn't know what my actions between article discovery and that info could have done to the article. My obnoxious brain jumps in, thinking "It's a COI if I take off the PROD now! Hopefully someone will without my mentioning it". ...You fixed that part at least. And no, I don't think I've earned the right to twist common sense around something like COI or POV yet, being why it comes up. Userfication was all I could think of (which last I knew was being considered reserved for admins in accordance with possible Twinkle additions, being why I go seeking admin view). The fact that it was a 110% AGF matter from a random message also drove me to another opinion.

I seem to always fall the last the step short of making something look work well. If incubation was fully functional I figured that'd have been a fair pick for temp concerns like what were really atrocious formatting and style problems at first then continue as normal If I'd have known it were school project I'd have had a better direction than a PROD. Usually, when I do PROD something, I hope it gets taken off, since it means someone cares about it, can do more with it than I ever could, a chat line is open in advance in case there are problems.

I know there would have been no need for ANI if I'd have had that last piece... I would have know the construction template was more than just a stalling method. At least I've learned what one style of odd edit histories could mean on skeleton articles and it's something else to watch for in CSD'd articles. ...In other words, thank you for closing up an accidental mess that was actually more like a blob leaking a little. If you ever spot my discussion posts, past the odd punctuation a classic trait is a second opinion if I "decide" anything. I don't trust myself to be the "the" in a discussion if that's all there is to go with, not yet, so I always look for a bit more. My confidence has been improving a lot the past few weeks, but this case was way above my head in terms of what knowledge could be dug up in policy/guidelines or in precedents searched for. ...Well, as I've told several of your partners in crime now, hopefully this means there'll be less work for you in the future, and I've yet to actually break anything. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Visaliaguy & sock stuff

Hello, Tstormcandy. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That wise "resolved"

That was well handled. Bravo. Of course, I do have a question: how does a "young" (in wikitime) rollbacker have authority to close at ANI? Excuse the presumption of the question, but while I understand that non-admin closes are possible, I would assume that much more experience would be required.

Of course, your action (and rationale) was flawless. So whether you feel like enlightening me, good job! Cheers. And happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this had to come up at some point. Honestly, I'm mostly amazed I haven't been called out as ignore-worthy in ANI at all. I'd rather it be like this, where I'm not noteworthy of Wikiexistence but can still get done what needs to. I'm glad I found the WikiElf category for that. Since day 1 of editing I see the saaaaaame people talking about slight variations of topics or moving to new projects and just apparently loving the playing field of Wikipedia. They can argue on their own time, and all end up blocked eventually... that's not my problem. I don't know any of the involved, I also don't really care what end results of further disputes are. That makes it a lot easier to actually see how stubborn some can be. Not that they'll ever listen.

I guess I've been overexposing myself to the grunt work. If I wanted to research matters to better the human race I'd go to grad school... a tweaked neurological issue results in, well, it's hard to explain. The upshot being I can process logic and discussions all day long and spit out opinion and conclusions to no end, but can't focus for 5 minutes with a blank edit screen in front of me and a topic. I adore Wikipedia's generic policy set of "basically almost rules but most anything can bend a little" logic, since it means common sense can wrap around 80% of most confusing issues and give the start of a reasonable answer. 10% winging it in odd cases like the close (where I need a ton more work). The last 10% being why we have massive lists of exceptions to things and why XfD and AN/I/etc exist. It's almost foolproof as a whole... CSD-A7, RfA/tools and rather rampant admin/older user elitism from some are my only real concerns. Along those lines, the dreaded WP:NEWT of the past month drove me mad over A7 since it had a million ethical concerns and policy violations on top of that, and for extra insult the majority of "data collection" was extremely irresponsible admin work. All things bad in one place.

Oh, and insomnia kind of adds time to the day to read archives and the like, so despite 6 weeks of work, time logged in researching probably equates to 6 months for the normal person starting. The reason my edit count is very low for a 6-month perspective would be that I'll write up insanely long single entries like this as 1 edit and proofread it a few times, instead of forming it in 10 pieces and needing to minor fixes on top. It will come back to haunt me eventually, I fear, and it's a reason I don't spend more time on Huggle... paranoia on skewed namespace percentages. Some things just do make no sense. Cheers, and happy holidays as well. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sometimes known for my paralogic replies ... and so, do not be surprised that my response to your reply is simply this (for now): "miraculous." -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure at ANI

I agree with this comment by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs). It was inappropriate of you to close a thread at ANI where there were unaddressed issues posed by an admin to that thread. Please refrain from doing this again in the future. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've written on other talk pages, even though there were "issues", the discussion was a million miles off the ANI topic. I'm sure you've seen more than a few ANIs that are told to go elsewhere if the content shifts, same to talk pages to ANI, closers specifically stating a resolve put was put on so that a better location can be selected for it, etc. These things are not new and not uncommon, so I'm not sure why this is particularly different than all of that. You can squabble about this all 'til the end of time, I don't at all care. Just not in the wrong place. The discussion had dug so far down that two users not mentioned in the ANI statement were trying to dig up information from the other about some email. That's no longer ANI. For what it's worth, I did have nothing but good faith that can be seen in my admitting to weakness and entirely admitting that maaaaaybe it'd be a good time to feel good about some agreement before having at it again. I'll do the same as I've said elsewhere-- I can promise that it won't come again to any of you, but I'm entirely confident of what I did and stand by non-admin close policy of accepted when administrator attention is no longer needed and the discussion topic has been lost. I'm not out to censor anyone, or ask anyone to calm down or scold people for "maybe uncivil" things said. You may want to look through diffs, as well... the non-admin resolves happen more than you'd think and they're not permanent or set in stone. Plenty of them at AfD, and those do get archived and saved in a closed form immediately. So yeah, I will again give promise you won't see it again, and I can make a deliberate effort to stay away from any similar matters. Don't really know what else I can try to offer. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

Since you did look the recent history of Macedonians (Greeks) do you have anything to say about my request? Thank you. - Sthenel (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the net result of edits for the day was practically zero, which is good. Without edit summaries I have no idea whatsoever what he was trying to accomplish. I've reverted the page back to the one where you corrected syntax; the only changes were those seemingly-pointless fact flags and a butchered disambiguation line text. I have no idea why Toddst1 came down hard on you like that. I'm going to post more on the ANI. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your intervention. Is there anything that you ask me to do and I didn't get it? From my point of view, Alex Makedonian wants on the one hand to dispute the existence of the Greek Macedonians and, on the other hand, to point out that they are a group of people with some (disputed and definitely not Macedonian for him) regional identity compared to his argument that the Slav Macedonians are the true descendants and inheritors of the ancient Macedonians. This is typical for some editors coming from the Republic of Macedonia who have come to be punished several times in the past by other administrators, or even few editors who work as suckpuppets and emerge from time to time as different users and push for such claims (see the history of the article if you want). Alex Makedonian falls into both categories, as you can see in his talk page. I'm not really willing to criticize his edits, but the article has most of its major points sourced and uses a variety of foreign sources. Asking for citation about their diaspora when there is a whole section about it with several sources and putting everywhere the word regional to stress what I've told you above is meaningless. - Sthenel (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I say this first-- I know basically zero of the ethnic/political statement on this topic in particular, besides just knowing that the problem is there. It was just really, really obvious and painful to see someone ask for proof of existence, or put so many qualifiers on admitting they may or may not actually exist so an article might be about something but actually they think it should be another topic in that article space? Yea, no. There are a lot of reasons governments don't "recognize" these groups that perhaps other don't know about it. It's more political and matter of economics than it is any country hating them. Originally I just posted over the not-really-a-3RR violation, but finding the rest of this all was just... sigh.

If for whatever reason this drags on, I don't know what else I can say. No offense to the content or details, but it's not my area of interest. However, that makes it a lot easier for me to review. The only way content matters to me is if used outside good faith or not resourced correctly. The only morality I most always follow is Justice. Involved content of today was long-standing since the article was written 3+ years ago with no consensus to change in any way should not be toyed with There's my robot official opinion. An unofficial duck test and palm hitting my face are a lot simpler. Only pitfall on this being I have to tell you I'm not an admin, so it's on whomever stumbles on it next to make an official call. This will likely be a strong warning; I'd give a 1-time final warning on any ethic groups in Europe. I'll speak to any admin who doesn't at least 'have a word', and please try to back away from this for a few days if possible. Just don't violate 3RR and you've done nothing against policy that I can figure. Do let me know if I can somehow help in any way further. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, although you are not interested in this topic. The dispute has its roots to Macedonia naming dispute and the question whether the Slav Macedonians are more Macedonians than the Greek Macedonians. This article is occasionally attacked by users like him, who start edit wars for one or two days and stop after the intervention from an administrator only to return a month later with a different account (or with someone of their "mates") to do again the same. This is not the only article that faces this problem but all Macedonia-related articles, and vice versa from the other side but not to this extent. I admit that my fault is that I always answer with two or three reversions (this is what I do generally with all articles but always starting a discussion) hoping that the other side doesn't want to show an aggresive and pov-pushing behaviour but just make a good-faith or test edit, but I always stop there asking for help considering that possibly I'm wrong too. Btw, if you are interested in football, I have another content dispute, I've asked repeatedly for help, almost nobody has paid attention and the other side is not willing to discuss. - Sthenel (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Camaleones (band)

I've blocked user:Chelo61 for 1 week for disruptive editing and was going to delete Camaleones (band) - recently added refs are blogs - but noticed your hangon and leave it to you. The user created a number of article of rather dubious notability. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mhmhm, the irony of someone self-destructing after being extremely generous. User's contribution history is... not encouraging, and this looked like a best effort yet, oddly. I'll look it over but it still all looks like fanfic publications. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

This is me venting :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, you can do better, can't you? Ha. Really, when you came and posted, I literally screamed because I'd forgotten that that entire end of the process was cut out like, immediately. I sent out 3 "invitations"-- you, rather dubious editor, and the editor who posted the sizable note about COI/SPA socks/students/whatever on the AfD... and yea, you were accidentally who scurried over. Could easily have been me had I appeared a day earlier. I've been following some WP:PROF discussion and RfAs using that discussion for the past week, so... interesting. Not good if you have to throw around bills to try to justify your existence in an autobiographical article, is it?

Entire process of events-- User blocked for legal threats to Jimbo (not because it was him, but just anything legal in general), 2 vandal new users appear in the past several nights that did nothing but post the same types of things on his talk page, user begs for unblock based on cash handed over, finally gets unblocked (but for the correct reason), and immediately goes back to waving cash around. Jeez. ...And this is why I'm going to have to leave something for the unblocking admin... or Jimbo. Admin = teeth grinding, Jimbo = a laugh. I hope. ...Thanks for tolerating me, really, lol... Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally

...thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Astor

As a fairly new editor, I hope to understand categorization better. My original categorization for Astor Court included references to Chinese art, and this was narrowed by another editor. Now you have eliminated the sole remaining reference to Chinese art, or art history at all, which leaves me at a loss as to how to classify the article. The Astor Court is in the Ming style, with a strong design kinship to an existing Ming garden courtyard. It holds and displays Ming Dynasty furniture. Is it really a mistake to include Ming Dynasty Art in its classification? Agreed, it is not itself a Ming Dynasty work but a modern creation; I assume that is the reason for your deletion. Can you suggest alternatives which would capture its art historical role? Also, perhaps you can help me understand if these categorizations are intended to help users find articles (suggesting an inclusive approach) or are supposed to fulfill a purpose that is more scholarly, and definitional, in nature (suggesting that narrowness is a prime virtue). Thank you for your scrutiny of this entry and for taking time to help me learn.Alawa (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical matters like mine were for general cleanup, and stemmed from other articles in similar areas being shuffled around by a few dubious persons in the past week. Basically I'd been going backwards to double-check things. Technical matters are, when the right people step in, merely technicalities and a reason to overturn is great! I'll take the word of someone with specialty in an area any day. Actually, it's comforting to know someone was looking after an article in such a way. If it is your opinion that it does suit fittingly as Ming Dynasty art, I wholeheartedly encourage you to reinsert it to that category. Over-categorization is slowly becoming a concern in a lot of of places so I suppose I have an odd view of trying to adjust things if I wander by. Not to say this is a case of that, but it's usually taken very loosely. That category is nicely defined, so no troubles.

When categorizing, my only real requirement is to hope for a mention/listing/suggestion/connection to the category in some way in the article itself. It doesn't even need to have a resource (though welcomed!), I doubt anyone would demand that. A reader needs to at least make a direct connection, especially in a case of drastically different Eastern works in en.Wikipedia. By all means place it back in the category if you can work in even a small mention in the text. I hope you can understand that this was just general cleanup work and wasn't any wider damage intended on my part. If there are other matters you're concerned with, go ahead and change them first, as I at least certainly don't expect contact first. 'Tis an open project, after all. I do greatly appreciate your writing me on the issue. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It took me two tries but the cat is now back. I added a couple more mentions of the period to clarify the point. Thanks again for your helpful insight.Alawa (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I do feel bad for taking up some of your time with this and the last thing I'd want to do is discourage a new editor. Keep up the good work! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

115........

Its not vandalism coz its a TALK page, nd what i have took aff is hardcore POV for a terrorist.115.252.44.42 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is never acceptable to remove text from any page other than your own userspace, and especially never on talk pages. We do not censor opinions and remove opinions simply because an editor does not agree with them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Stcsge.jpg

Err, why should this be deleted under CSD F3? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...I left a notice box under it for more info. It's rather indeterminable for source, to say it was from a redirect's redirect back to start but it on en.Wikipedia and not commons/media despite saying it went there and... well, it made my head spin. Any source I figure is acceptable so long as it wasn't within Wikipedia proper and not verifiable on top. There's also a concern on the talk page of a copyvio/fogery and possible replacement, which is another reason I figure an actual source would be good. Just, a source, even self-made instead of a place it was never from or being moved to, etc. Really, anything at all. ...I apologize, since I knew it'd be confusing as hell which is why I tried to explain with the notice box. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot. I accept any degree of claim of editor stupidity, because, well, yeah. I usually willing to admit my mistakes before I even finish submitting anything. My luck with image tags has been good thusfar but I'm a complete novice from any angle, so I really am sorry for likely head scratching or teeth grinding. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I think the right thing to do here is to tag it with "no source". Do you have little tab things at the top of image pages after the watch one that say "csd" "di" and "xfd"? I am not sure if these are standard or something I have in my monobook.js file. (Another "err" there I'm afraid. If it is the monobook it will be the Azathoth thingies at the bottom.) Anyway, if you do, the "di" one has options for "no source" and things like that which will tag the image for not-so-speedy deletion and leave messages in all the right places. If you're less sure you can use the "xfd" one and tick the "possibly unfree" box which submits an entry at WP:PUI. Of course you can do these things manually, but that's a pain in the arse.

Does this make any sense? Probably not... Past time I went to bed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I'm still with you. I used DI. Well *checks*, and did select no source. I'm like 99% on that. My contributions history says set for CSD. ... No, I'm 100% on it. The diff and page view of it claims it's on unspeedy deletion for no source, which I see is basically PROD for files. Seriously! It's right there! My Twinkle needs to be thwapped on the head, apparently. One would think it can't be a general bug because that has to be used at least some, yes? Since setting it up in my monobook I haven't touched a byte of it though... *dies* ...Well, so long as I didn't break Wikipedia I suppose it could have been a lot worse. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

I didn't quite understand the comment you left at User talk:CBM. Who is the "you" - me or CBM? And what is the "dubious evidence" you are talking about? --Hegvald (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See below post first, I fail at reading this late.

It was regarding the Bot, not you! Sorry! I just... didn't want to create a new section on top since it seemed silly and would be cluttering a tidy talk page, and it's habit to indent in. If anything would ever, ever be about another user, ever, I'd message them. Actually, I wouldn't accuse anyone of anything directly. Doh. I'm not sure how any particular user would be able to create an automated bot operating log :) ...Actually I haven't checked up on that ANI, but I'm certainly curious. Think I'll do that now. Soooo sorry for any confusion. Mea culpa. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DOH I even misread that, lol. It'd be to anyone interested in the situation, I suppose. Mostly directly at CBM because of the ANI posting but certainly not a personal message. Anything to make that damn bot behave and stop discouraging me from touching the mainspace, ug. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils

Hi, could you please fill me in on this "Norse user alliance group" incident? There's obviously something I'm missing here about the recent actions of that account. Thanks. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's... strange. In apparent relation to the Kils article as a whole and its plethora of SPA-apparent AfD participants, many openly discuss their affiliation as a group of students under the person in question, how they comet to Wikipedia to make sure things are voted on and things get included, to make sure all user pages are fine to family photo storage (apparently), etc. The join dates are all quite varied so I'm not really sure how or why the new articles only came around now. The userpage thing is incredibly depressing in and of itself. It doesn't matter to me if a bunch of people with a same unique bit of background have accounts-- that's not the issue-- it's when they publicly state their aim to work together or list a "mission statement" openly of pushing forward the agenda of a particular person/topic where it's not appropriate... even worse, if they meatpuppet or share their accounts. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kils is where this is ending, it seems. After the incredible inconvenience the situation as a whole has put me through the past week I'm deliberately staying away from any public mentioning of it further and mostly only want to "be sure" that the obvious issues like an image in a signature are corrected. I'm sure other people can handle out the rest of the content as a whole since I figure it's all been discovered by now, and it can be scrutinized properly and hopefully without sock interference.

Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm generally just trying to forget about it. ...I'm not 100% sure why Jehochman has pushed on you. I don't know any of the other editors who have been obviously looking it over, so just as observation I'm not sure how that all started. Perhaps it's good I haven't been reading every last word of everything from everyone. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jehochman hasn't pushed on me, just the opposite, and I'm beginning to see that this rabbit hole goes deeper than the last few weeks. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Stop marking it as resolved when it clearly is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I could just have let the issue move to WQA, however I thought that both the editors would be frustrated by the lack of any real action. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I particularly like a 'fix' that's basically only a reminder to never have it happen again, but imho without any very specific final-type warnings on either end of things in the past (or especially recently), but I'll try to take good faith as far as at all possible. Short-sided of me? Some, and I openly admitted this it Spitfire. It's also true that ANI is a frightful disaster of a collection of pretty much every other report/discussion board, particular the past few weeks so. I'd forgotten how forked the wording of where-goes-where is, so both quotation of WQA purpose could have been picked from. An admin proper (from MedCom no less) I will completely assume can handle things further. My apologies on this for the both of you (again) and hope it's fixed up soon. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification

This article is not aboute 2010 Speedway Grand Prix season (see 2010 Speedway Grand Prix). Article 2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification is aboute Qualification to the 2010 season. All Qualification event was held in the 2009 season. Radziński (t) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have noticed you attempts to overhaul the 2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification article as well and I'm afraid you seem to be making a mess of it. Are confusing this article with 2010 Speedway Grand Prix? Like Radziński says, the qualification article is merely a list of the qualifying rounds which were held in 2009 used to determine 3 of the 16 riders who will take part in the 2010 Speedway Grand Prix. Perhaps I could help with making the original article a bit clearer? (BTW speedway has nothing to do with motocross). Cheers. Barret (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm structuring it for Qualifying. See how I go over the format and have left a section open for tables added for grids to be added per event. The older version of the article included information such as this season's champion, which is 100% inappropriate for an article on Qualifying. This is 100% regarding qualifying procedure and format with specific space left for inclusions. I'm nearly done and you're free to edit further, though it would be rather unproductive to continue reverting to an article for "2010" containing zero 2010 info and nothing but 2009 results. I'm afraid I cannot waiver on this given the very low quality of the article as it was, and again, you should edit further (I'll remove the tag about undergoing revisions when I'm done), but it must relate to 2010 qualifying. no content in the reverted version does, and all of this does. 2010 is not 2009, so that info had to be removed. I've leaving specific space to expand when the season starts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger_Woods#Car_accident_and_alleged_affairs

I think there is some confusion about the sourcing regarding his alleged affairs. The claims in the famed National Enquirer story, for example, were reported by the Associated Press, among other major news organizations (The New York Times carried the Reuters' story, for example). Only those reliable sources are used as citations in the article, rather than citing to the tabloids directly, and only to indicate what the tabloids claim. This is the way we did it during the John Edwards affair, as well. The rumors and stories got reported as rumors and stories (which is why that section remains "alleged affairs") because the gossip has been reported in imminently reliable sources. I think this is a good method of dealing with this, but if you disagree, I'm happy to chat with you about it (though I'd suggest the article talk page). Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please copy your comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tiger_Woods.2C_again to Talk:Tiger_Woods#Dispute so we can keep everything in the same place. My comment above was not meant to address the reliance on the Boston Herald. As to that issue, I obviously agree with you. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I just wanted to make sure the topic didn't look entirely neglected on BLP/I. I was in the middle of writing up something there anyway :) ....... and Ironic, first popup for a new message came up as I posted a reply to your weight concerns. ...And then EC just now as I posted this. Our A+++ sources stating that another source said something might actually evidence that they consider it entirely false. If it were reliable or verifiable those agencies would have worked on it and given their own version, or stated what the first source said and heavily backed it up. At the very least, it means they can't verity it and thus they can't agree and state it as fact. Mentions like that are rubbish. For claims that absurdly exceptional, this would be funny if it weren't so foul. ...Do forgive my frustration, but BLP things have gotten me fired up since WP:PROF events this past week. We've had way too much tolerance for violations of any and all sorts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Tstormcandy! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Conservipedia + "The Report"

Content-related comments ONLY in this section

!!! Seriously.

(lol) I appreciate your message, I think you're completely correct. Although, why did you undo your edit? Did you try preview? :P A8UDI 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Text was getting jammed into the blue background box of the piano... over and over. It previewed correctly hitting '+' for new section and did it anyway, and did it in preview when having the entire page edit open. Was trying to figure out what on earth was wrong. On the interview... Normal complaints of Wikipedia, but... After mentioning how we "politely" and slowly remove diverging information, he seemed to agree that the truth for an article should eventually be determined in a style similar to a trial jury. That's... more of note? Sounds an awful lot like "consensus" to me. I'm not sure how that's more of note, but it was an odd spot to spot a junction with Wikipedia, being totally the inferior in every other way. Possibly useful things:

• Add any new statistics or portions of mission statement to Conservipedia article. Video clip on the Report website would be source.
• Ironic junction mention on the Colbert article.
• The ironic junction of subjects having a notable history with Wikipedia placed on Wikipedia's history listed to the misc places where "Wikipedia in the media" and etc are mentioned.
• 503's at the site might warrant a short bit in the article's "Reception" section
  

Was certainly interesting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I thought it was odd how he tried to literally interpret the bible into modern life. I was like "huh"!? and Stephen ya know.. and his satire. :).. Idk I just posted that for food for thought tho.

A8UDI 05:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. He was breaking character, which is really rare. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll catch him going over his weirdest interviews. The history is just waaaaay too ironic, and you have to wonder if the CP side even understood. I'll be flying through the morning media for any mentions. I mean some producer or writer somewhere has to have gotten a kick out of it. Otherwise... will need to wait for video clips posted as sources. I think 113,000,000 hits to date was mentioned. Oct 2009 for en.Wikipedia was... 6.02B (as in billion) [7]. Ooh, a factoid. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

good idea!! A8UDI 06:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

re Kils restrictions

I suggest that perhaps a report to ANI might be in order here, for violation of User:Kils/Restriction. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Collapses*, It would seem so. For a minute I thought those violations had to go to ArbCom but remembered I was pertty sure that was for community sanctions and that I'm too tired to look after hours of this. Alright, I'll create a new ANI with the larger chunk I typed up earlier. This is depressingly empty and emotionless to "fix" at this point. At to why or how this started as legal threats at Jimbo's article talk 10 days ago, I have no idea. Thanks for the message. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hallo from Uwe Kils

I only asked them to vote, no influencing, and I was allowed to make comments on the talk page. No other used my account or tcpip Uwe Kils 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking anyone in particular to vote is considered Canvassing. Keeping articles is not related to any popularity contest, and Wikipedia is not for class reunions. It's the fact that you blatantly ignored terms 3 and 4 of your restrictions where the real problem rests. The fact that it's a chosen list of people you knew means their opinion is assumed. You were forbidden to talk with anyone related to your profession when it came to any Wikipedia work or deletion discussion involving you. That's influencing. Even 1 person is 1 too many.

Discussions are also not !votes, and we weren't to be fooled by it. It's simply never acceptable to collect people to speak on your behalf, especially when the article isn't about you as a person. Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal life and what you've done. We care about what's been done and only then does someone become notable if they were part of it. I worry you had rather a reverse look at our process from the start. The irony is that the likelihood of your article being deleted was very low, and your zealous need for ownership of it led to repeated disruption cycles to the community.

I'm really curious why this all started with legal threats posted on Jimbo's article talk. Had that not happened you wouldn't have been on watch from likely dozens of editors wondering what was going to happen next. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

for your support of me on the wp:an thread. I appreciate it and will be taking a break. I really wasn't expecting so much negativity. -tom A8UDI 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Hope you get a chance to relax. Actually, now I'm wondering if I can remove the red option out of my own Twinkle. Would have a lot of trouble overall to be gone if there were a forced checkbox to affirm vandalism. Hum. Huggle customization with some AGF templates, too. I'm about 99% sure that one instance of this means it won't happen again. Tan is wise enough to know this as well, but I can understand a firm tone he had to take as the at-large Admin at the case. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll focus more on adding minor details to articles rather than vandal fighting. A8UDI 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

About criticisms

As I said at the top of the thread, I do appreciate what happened and why in the case of Kils, and would've endorsed that sanction. This might clarify where my criticism headed - that is, Kils, or the difference between indef or something else, has little to do with it. If my comment still makes no sense or it's too confusing, please ignore this message as I cannot be anymore explicit on details than that - but if it gives some idea, or helps, great. Cheers anyway, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy text--

Nono, I apologize... I just don't react well to that whole issue and any rambling goes by in a blur and I was overly harsh with my passive mention of you. I was reading the article per diffs at the time and am confused to death by edits appearing to be nothing but -yellow and +green of the same without a single damn red character changed. I agree entirely that general dicipline follow-through is weak, and I think it stems from the larger issue of none of the content or incident boards having any real identity anymore. Even things like 3RR, AIV and RPP get tossed up on ANI, which is ridiculous given their definitions. Seemingly without exception, the order of all disputes today are: -- Article bickering > Insults > ANI. Split... half going 1 tier above ANI to SPI, RFC/U or anywhere people think "community" sits and nothing more since ArbCom has turned into the Parthenon no one should touch. Other half demand to sit on ANI or AN or swapped around to no end until someone gets blocked. Hell, I have a sock of Kils with 2 of 7 violations already and I don't even know where to report it! I really vaguely remember reading it should go to the closing SPI admin or ArbCom if no semi-quick reply there.

Admins at SPI get entirely shafted by this system because they're the sole line of admin involved in the entire process. Clerk and CU don't automatically have admin rights (I think?) so they may have nothing else to go on. They can solicit more opinions (and I can tell they often do), but some things are at least somewhat time-sensitive, too. That's awful pressure Even a month ago (yikes) those things would only come to ANI after much talk page arguing so that diffs were available, ANI would be a glorified duck test and some twisted test of presenting one's evidence to see if someone actually deemed one step higher to be necessary. ...Oh, and WP:DR? What's that?

... You're a rollbacker as well so you probably feel the same in that some things are just kind of ... off-tilt. Many ANIs go ignored for 12+ hours, leaving me ethically torn to just leave if I see anythings like that, even if it's an obvious POV trap of a topic or something incredibly obvious. If admins are mops, I figure bold rollbackers in WP:namespace are "brooms", trying to sweep off the floor for a polish. If it means more time spend elsewhere for active admins so blocks aren't as common, I don't mind being a stop-gap time measure. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (sorry for being extremely verbose. it's just how I do things)

Archive 1

Archive 2