User talk:Shereth/Archive08

Straw polls

Hi Shereth. Could you please userfy the three straw poll articles by prepending "User:John J. Bulten/" to each? Please be certain to userfy the talk pages as well (I don't think there were any archives), because the talk contains the significant discussion of allegations of OR and/or SYNTH, as well as much information on sources, and would be a key requirement for improving the articles. Thank you for your attention. JJB 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I put nowiki tags to comment out the categories but these are otherwise exactly the same as the pre-AfD versions. Note that the Republican polling article did not have any comments on the talk page. Shereth 13:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I think. Per WP:USERFY re cut and paste, shouldn't this be done differently? Or shouldn't a list of contributors provided, to satisfy licensing requirements? E.g. shouldn't the pasted copies be deleted, and, in their place, the articles and talks restored and moved (with categories deselected) instead, and the new redirects then deleted? JJB 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  - You are correct! Fixing it now ... Shereth 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I will fix it in about an hour .. thanks for your patience. Shereth 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

I'm still laughing about that! :)Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Phoenix meetup today!

	In the area? You're invited to
	Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup
	Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm
	Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ^(map)

--EdwardsBot (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a test

We're doing it on purpose, you know. To test you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horrible test :( Shereth 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I'm not fond of it when its done to me, either!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who to ask

I see you were on the signature talk page and wondered if you could help. Basically since maybe the last week or so whenever I try to sign on a message (4x~), this happens. [[User:John Smith's|]] (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason an extra "|" is being added. What's up with it? User:John Smith's (talk)

Have you checked your preferences and then looked at what you have in the signature line? It could well be that you accidentally formatted your signature this way. Shereth 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked now, but the signature line is blank. To my memory I've never put anything there. User:John Smith's (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV closure - surnames

Thank you for closing the surname deletion review, I hope you had some fun reading through the discussion :) In your close you say: "I see no problems with any other admin making them available on a temporary basis". I just wanted to ask, do I qualify for the any other admin group? Haukur (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Granted, you were involved, but it's hard for someone to start claiming you have a conflict of interest when I specifically stated that any admin could do it, including "involved" admins. It shouldn't be a problem, although if you are concerned about appearances you may want to enlist the help of another. Shereth 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be tactful. Still, it would be very helpful to have a neutral admin on the sidelines if things start to go sour. You would be ideal for that since you closed the DRV. Would you be willing to help out in that capacity? By this I mean that if someone challenges something I'm doing category-wise and we can't easily work it out, we'd take it to you and I'd defer to your judgment on what is appropriate. Haukur (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly fine for me - don't hesitate to let me know if there is anything I can do in that capacity. Shereth 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Eccleshall article deleted

Please could you create http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Beeflin/Chris_Eccleshall from the deleted Chris Eccleshall article, then I can work on making the article more reliably sourced? Thanks :-) Beeflin (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Shereth 13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Beeflin (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Thai

Hi,new to the editing side of wikipedia but from what i gather on june 19 you endorsed closure of the lily thai page after another 2 admins had reopened it. * Lily Thai – closure endorsed. – Shereth 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If you're going to delete lily thai, you should also delete 90% of other porn stars on wikipedia and start a real shit storm.

DRV for James P Barker

Hi, Shereth.

I see you've closed the DRV for James P Barker early, and I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the consensus. I would like to invite you to reconsider.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what there is to reconsider. A raw headcount was 8-7 for overturning the closure, which even without taking a harder look at the comments is a clear no-consensus case. Could you please be more specific in terms of what, specifically, I should reconsider? Shereth 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - I'm not sure why you say it was closed early? It was open for 7 days and 6 hours. Shereth 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you're correct about the 7 days and 6 hours. (It's not listed under "Recent discussions" yet, is what fooled me there.)

At DRV, "no consensus" is not an unambiguous outcome. The "closing reviews" section says:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

In this case, I think "relist at AfD" is a more appropriate outcome than "no consensus".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the somewhat ambiguous nature of "no consensus" closures at DRV. I appreciate where you are coming from here but a re-reading of the debate seems to indicate a general feeling - even among those arguing to overturn the original closure - that this article would be unlikely to survive an AfD and the end result would essentially be the same. As such, overturning the closure and relisting (without a clear consensus to do so) appears not to be the most appropriate outcome. Shereth 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern is that the closure as implemented appears to endorse an invalid speedy, and I think that's a rather harmful precedent to set.

I agree wholeheartedly that this material wouldn't survive AfD, and I would personally !vote "delete" at such a discussion. But as an overriding consideration, I think speedy deletions do need to be unambiguously correct. I think allowing a seven-day relisting at AfD isn't so high a price to pay, in establishing that principle.

I understand the argument that "the outcome's the same so why does it matter?" but I disagree with it, feeling that this closure sends an inappropriate signal to admins active at CSD. I feel they need to understand that DRV will overturn them if they get it wrong.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern completely. I have to admit that I am personally not a fan of belaboring issues for the sake of policy; I would not mind going back to the original closure and amending the closing statement to reflect the fact that the speedy method of the closure was improper and not endorsed per se to avoid any possible future confusion about what is or is not an appropriate and acceptable method of closing arguments. Alternatively, if another administrator (not involved with the discussion) felt strongly enough about the issue and wanted to re-list the discussion I would not really object to that. Shereth 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment to the closing statement would go some way towards ameliorating my concerns. Thank you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closure has been amended accordingly. Feel free to provide any feedback on the amended statement if you have any. Cheers, Shereth 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←The wording's excellent. I'd be really happy if the DRV page said that as well as the AfD page. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd made a slight change to the DRV closure wording as well, hopefully that clears up any concerns. Shereth 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for your patience with my incessant badgering on this. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Wednesdays

You have deleted Wicked Wendsdays following an AfD discussion. However, in the meanwhile an editor had moved the article to Wicked Wednesdays, so that what you deleted was just a redirect. Perhaps you could also delete the actual article at Wicked Wednesdays. Thanks in advance, assuming you are going to do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that - thanks for bringing it to my attention. Shereth 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad (film)

You recently deleted the article Ironclad (film). I was wondering if you could Userfy the page under my account. Thank you. JEN9841 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article and history has been restored under User:JEN9841/Ironclad (film). Cheers, Shereth 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Creek, Olathe

Couldn't you have relisted this? Nobody but me mentioned any policy based reason to delete the article, and one person was blatantly voting and refused to provide any reason for deletion. This seems to be a close based on who happened to show up at the AFD rather than any attempt to generate a consensus based on policy, not just people voting. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but I doubt that a relisting would have resulted in a different outcome. Housing developments are not generally considered notable unless there is something exceptional about them. If you would really like to see the information included, your best bet is probably to introduce the information as a (short) section within the article about Olathe. If you are interested in doing so I can provide a userfied copy of the article for you to use. Shereth 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Housing developments are not generally considered notable unless there is something exceptional about them." What guideline or policy is that based on? I have seen many AFDs result in keep decisions when people presented sources comparable to what I did... because of WP:N and all. It's just this AFD didn't happen to attract anyone who looked to guidelines and policies when making decisions about inclusion... including the closer apparently. Some of the many AFDs I've participated in where people were satisfied that sourcing, similar or inferior to the sources I presented in Cedar Creek, proved notability: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloom Brothers Department Stores, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ong's Hat, New Jersey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Alaskan Hotel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby County Republican Party, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptist Hospital of Miami and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), where everyone conceded it was an utterly unimportant storm, but since a bunch of newspaper articles had been written about it, we had to keep. In those AFDs, the only thing that was different was the people who showed up... your close just seems entirely arbitrary, especially as you still can't find a policy or guideline that says the article should have been deleted. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at any rate, it seems unlikely I'm going to change your mind or vice versa, so I've listed this on DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 10. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nevermind... if policies and guidelines are so unimportant to admins these days... I don't have the energy to fight it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It was unnecessary, thanks for you speaking up. The agressive attitude by the friends of the nominee only assists to support my opinion, best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

UAA

Hi, just about that UAA report, User:STONEY L.D. STONE has a sockpuppet User:STONEYSTONE used for creating the same copyvio spam. Triplestop x3 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a warning on their talk page regarding copyvio and spam material. As of yet they have not used the alternate account in a prohibited manner and cannot be blocked, but if they continue to introduce prohibited material I have no qualms about blocking. Please feel free to notify me if you see this behavior continuing. Shereth 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are top of my list for promotion to the new discussion group.

Top of the class, consider yourself in receipt of some kind of barnstar. Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure what group you are referring to but thanks all the same - you're welcome for the info. Shereth 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this group Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum (Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TAM_Flight_8095

Could you please explain your decision? I don't see any response to my query in the discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There s little to explain, as consensus was fairly obvious in this case. I'm sorry that no one chose to directly respond to your query but that is not especially relevant to the decision. Please note that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and the consensus notwithstanding is that the subject did not meet notability guidelines. Shereth 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have differing understandings of what WP:Consensus means. All I see there is a prevalence of votes, not persuasively reasoned explanations. Or am I missing something?LeadSongDog come howl 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to discount 8 comments because they did not "elaborate". Failure to meet policy (WP:NOT) and guideline (WP:N) was cited by multiple commenters. Several opined that it failed the AIRCRASH essay. Just because they did not elaborate in detail does not mean that their comments are merely "votes". A single well-explained comment hinging on an essay is insufficient to outweight multiple comments in disagreement. Sorry. Shereth 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that any comment should be discounted. I'm suggesting that the decisive rationale should be stated.LeadSongDog come howl 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it would be infinitely more helpful to provide a bit of reasoning along with one's comment. For better or worse, AfD has a long and entrenched history of people making comments to the effect of "Keep, meets X" or "Delete, fails Y". It would be nice if all discussions on Wikipedia were more of a discussion and less of a drive-by comment fest, but I'm afraid that problem far exceeds the closure of this particular AfD. It is my reading that the consensus is fairly easily determined on this debate. I'm not sure if there is much else I can do for you at this point. Shereth 15:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that precludes you from stating which argument made up your mind?LeadSongDog come howl 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one argument "made up my mind". Taking one side as a whole and comparing it to the other side as a whole is what "makes up my mind". It is not my place to interpret comments left by others, nor is it my place to be "convinced" one way or another. If it were a matter of being convinced one way or another, I would participate in the discussion, not close it. I make no judgement as to whether one side is right and another is wrong - it is merely my place to judge which outcome the discussion favors, if any. It is clear to me that the outcome favored by the participants of this discussion was to delete the article. I am honestly at a loss as to what you are requesting here. Shereth 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a decision baffles me, I seek education on the assumption that there must be something that I didn't know. If there is no reasoning to state, that's what DR is for, but if there is a reason that I just don't understand I'd rather just learn and move on.LeadSongDog come howl 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is simply that the consensus was to delete. Numerically, he comments favoring deletion outweighed those arguing for retention by a wide margin. Taken individually they may have been less substantial, but the primary argument for retention was based on an essay and did not refute deletion arguments stating that actual guidelines/policies were not satisfied. There is little more I can say, and if you are still not satisfied that consensus was met you can of course bring this up at DRV. As an aside, please do not perform copy-paste restorations as you did at User:LeadSongDog/TAM Flight 8095 - edit history is lost and this creates problems with attribution. I am always happy to userfy deleted articles upon request and have done so in this case to preserve the integrity of the edit history. Shereth 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the userfy. At least the key points can be rescued when the investigation is completed. FWIW, I agree that the essay shouldn't matter, but the history of AFD on aviation accidents says otherwise. Hence when it was cited as a reason to delete, I felt I had to challenge the point.LeadSongDog come howl 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I disagree with the decision to close Wal-Mart (disambiguation) as delete. True, there were around 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But deletion discussions are not based on votes and consensus seeks joint agreement. I do not see this as a full consensus, and therefore, this should be overturned to no consensus. I am about to go to deletion review, but first, I am bringing this up with the closing admin. Tatterfly (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it back to DRV (again) will not be productive but I cannot forbid you to do so. Please note that the closure is based not merely on the numerical superiority of those arguing to delete but the individual strength of the arguments. Shereth 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I came here to say how impressed I was with your reasoning and the obvious thought and effort that went into your summation. I am rarely impressed enough with anything around here to tell someone about it but in this case, I felt compelled. Thanks for doing such a good job. Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words - I really appreciate it. Shereth 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

At least I know my decision isn't crazy. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some de-ja-vu at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison for Some Video Converters? :) Shereth 16:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, oops! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be a little more problematic if we were trying to close them differently. Given that you also deleted Russia – Saint Lucia relations while I was closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – Saint Lucia relations as a delete, it looks like we're on the same brainwave or something! Shereth 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Yale a cappella group pages

Hi Shereth. I understand the consensus reached concerning the deletion of the article Out of the Blue (Yale University), and given Wikipedia's guidelines, I do not disagree with them.

In your deletion statement, you mentioned that "If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place)." Would it be enough to begin a Yale singing groups article, and suggest on its talk page that the individual articles of Yale singing groups be merged there?

Finally, would you mind clarifying what it means for a reference to be 'independent and reliable'? I ask this because the presence of references from 4 different notable media sources as well as the American Embassy in Ukraine was deemed insufficient.Thanks for the help! Equartey (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable approach to me, yes. As for independent and reliable sources, I did not make a full review of the sources in the article (I was seeking to judge consensus rather than passing judgement on the article itself) but many of the participants in the discussion felt that the given sources were either too intimately tied to Yale to demonstrate notability, or that they did not provide in-depth coverage. Shereth 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasonable question at WP:UAA

User:R2c2h2 tha artivist, the account in question was creating spamlinks to an online excerpt from a book "Told through the artistic talents and literary skills of the 'artivist' known as R2C2H2"; in other words, it's a spamusername for his/her nom de plume. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Portoro

Greetings. I am wondering was this really necessary? It's a user that I welcomed to Wikipedia, so I kept his talkpage on my watchlist. If the name had been obscene or offensive, I'd understand the block without warning. But it seems this was an innocent, technical violation of a policy that he was unaware of. Nothing in his edits indicates bad faith or that the project would have been harmed by allowing him to edit for a day or two longer under that name while explaining the policy and asking him to change. So why could he not have been simply asked to change his username? A block without warning, in the middle of well-meaning edits (which didn't need to be reverted) seems like slapping a newcomer in the face for no urgent reason, and may give a bad impression of Wikipedia or make him not want to contribute even under a new name. Rigaudon (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that it is rather bitey to be slapping apparently well-meaning editors with blocks for having a username that is a technical violation of the username policy. So why do I block them nonetheless? The username policy is pretty unambiguous about how to handle usernames of this nature, and it specifically mandates a softblock in cases like this. If I'm not the one blocking them, someone else will - there are users who have made it something of a personal mission to eradicate all semblance of spam on Wikipedia, and while that's generally a good thing, I feel that sometimes "innocent" editors get swept up in the crusade. Anyway, when I am the admin who is issuing the block, it allows me the opportunity to notify the user with a cordial, professional and easily understood message explaining the reason for the block, and I can encourage them to rejoin under a new user name. If I leave the blocking to other administrators, there is a chance that the user will be notified with a confusing message that does little to explain what the problem is, or perhaps even a nasty template that is outright accusing them of being an intentional spammer. I don't think these kind of notifications are very conducive to encouraging users to start over. In short : I disagree with the policy about these kinds of usernames, but realize that since it must be enforced, perhaps I can enforce it in a way that is somewhat gentler to the well-meaning user. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Shereth 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could explain why this username "appear[s] to represent or promote a company, group, other organization"? The principal meaning of "portoro" is a type of marble. Is there also a company of this name? If so is there a good reason to suppose that the user name referred to the company? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user's (now deleted) user page stated "Portoro is a group of Classical Music Professionals ..." Shereth 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: that is clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Just wanted to say thanks for helping delete those articles. Much appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you could use a little bit of help. I'd have done some more but I got distracted :) Shereth 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish moggy controversy

Hi Shereth. You were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Cat Naming Controversy - closed with a recommendation to discuss a merge with the main article on the cat itself. Following "discussions" (I use the word advisedly) on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy and Talk:Turkish Van, there does not seem to be any agreement among the parties currently editing those articles that the two articles can be merged. I have no desire to continue to wade through the heartfelt but not always terribly readable outpourings of User:Zara-arush, nor to provoke User:Meowy into any more responses that may have undesirable consequences for him/her (given history), so do not intend to continue efforts to find a means to merge the article. I have indicated on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy that I would have no objection to her relisting that article at AfD, if s/he continues to feel strongly - I presume there would be not problem with this action? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would not be against the rules, so to speak, to list it at AfD again. Some might consider it a little tendentious for the same editor to nominate an article for deletion again so quickly but if the parties involved are in agreement regarding the lack of progress, there is no real prohibition against doing so. Shereth 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know what Meowy intends to do. None of the other parties wants to see the article deleted, but they seem to want to turn it into a debate on the origins of the Kurdish and Armenian races, so I can't see much future for it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear the discussion is getting sidetracked by what appear to be other issues. If Meowy intends to put it back up for deletion, as I stated they are free to do so; you have handled this situation well up to this point. It is possible that they will simply lose interest and a better solution can be found down the road. Only time will tell. Feel free to contact me if there is anything I can assist you with. Shereth 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of IolympicCommittee (talk · contribs)

Hi. While you were certainly within your rights to block this user, if you look at his (his name appears to be Mark) contributions, he seems to be working in the best of faith. In a case like this, I find it much more constructive to leave a note saying something like:

==Username sounds like an organization==
{{subst:uw-username|It sounds like a [[meta:role account|role account]] which we don't allow.}} You should take the time 
to read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:ADVERT]] as you seem to be here to constructively contribute and we'd hate for you to have 
an unpleasant experience like finding yourself blocked from editing. Best regards, ~~~~

as most folks in a case like this will respond pretty favorably. It's much more welcoming and less bitey. Just a suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an extraordinarily difficult situation to dance around, this whole issue of "promotional" user names. Read a section a couple above on my user page for my thoughts on the matter. I agree with you in principle that it's not really necessary to block these kinds of accounts on sight, but in my experience, when I have tried to address them in a different manner I get overruled by administrators with a more narrow view - and in those cases, the user tends to get slammed with templates that accuse them of outright intentional spamming. I have adopted a kind of middle grounds as a compromise. I'm willing to try stepping back again and seeing how it works out, but if I continue to get stepped around by others with a more strident block message I will have to resume my current modus operandi when dealing with these accounts. Shereth 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I wasn't trying to say you didn't anything wrong. Thanks for the follow-up. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Arthouseent

Hiya Shereth. I see you're adding this to {{uw-shortublock}}: "If you wish to continue editing, please consider reviewing our username policy more thoroughly and then creating a new account." My preference would be not to link to the entire username policy page, because that warning already links to WP:ORGNAME, the relevant section of WP:U, from the word "policy". It seems unlikely that they'll violate some different section of WP:U on their second try, and if they do, we can always deal with it then. I was thinking that half of the point of uw-shortublock was that I didn't want to ask the newbie to read an entire page of Wikipedia policy before making their second edit. Thoughts? Suggestions? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right - there's no reason to link to the whole policy. The link remained as a little artifact from my little version of the template. Don't take the fact that I'm not using the template as is to mean I don't like it - I very much do - I just have a couple of minor preferences that I don't see the need to push on everyone else, so I just use my little modified version. Thanks for pointing out the extraneous link. Shereth 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I recently reverted someone who added the link to the full page to uw-shortublock, and I wanted to make sure I'm on firm ground. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Maps

I like the split you made of East -> Central and East. And the realignment of the West/Southwest - it is a better geographic division - thx! --Trödel 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! It is always nice to know your work is appreciated. I'm not sure why I didn't just split them up this way when I originally re-did the templates, but as I was looking at them the other day, I thought they seemed a little balanced (East in particular was crowded looking) and it only seemed natural to redivide them the way they are. Shereth 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreedomFireCom

User:FreedomFireCom has requested to be unblocked. I'm willing to grant that, given that freedomfire.com is not an active webpage, and the rational seems reasonable. I'm concerned that FreedomFireCom has only contributed linkspam thusfar. Hopefully, the user can become a productive wikipedian. However, first offensive linkspamming is not an indefinite block offense, thus my willingness to unblock. So I'm contacting you to see if you agree, or have further comment. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the unblock, as long as the user understands that they are to request a namechange. They should probably be given a firm reminder to avoid further linkspam, and to be careful not to run afoul of WP:COI, but as the block was a username issue alone, there is no problem with the unblock, assuming they are changing names. Shereth 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted regarding the linkspamming already. However, a namechange was not discussed. The unblock request made a clear case why the user wants to use the name, and as there is no webpage at freedomfire.com, nor was that the intention of the user name, I was willing to let it fly. Am I missing something in WP:UN? I can always see if the user is open to requesting a rename as well, but I personally didn't think it was necessary, given the unblock rational. Oh, by the way. Thanks for a quick response, and taking the time to review this!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links (s)he was posting went to a site that was apparently owned by "Freedomfire Communications", so that would qualify it as a spamname. Unfortunately they really will need a new username that is in line with WP:U. Shereth 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Didn't realize the name was being used like that, seems to be contrary to what was mentioned in the unblock request. I've asked the user to consider another name, and denied the request for now. Thanks for your time and input. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi Shereth. I noticed you opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on maturity concerns. If you have the time, would you mind giving me an editor review, so I know if I've made progress on the issues that most concerned you? Thanks. Tim meh (review me) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question a while ago, in case you weren't watching the page. A review would be appreciated if you have some extra time, though I would of course not take any offense if you did not. Tim meh (review me) 15:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking a while to get back to you. I will try and set aside some time this weekend to do a review for you. Shereth 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks. Tim meh (review me) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, and thank you for participating at my RfA. I just have a quick question about your comment: "I'm not sure I want to see more anti-spam hawks at UAA at this time." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Thank you, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA is, in my opinion, a rather nasty place where first-time editors suddenly find themselves being bitten in the behind for having failed to meet a policy that is not, in all cases, immediately obvious. Almost every other type of blockable behavioral offense - spamming, vandalism, incivility, etc - the user gets a warning before they are hit with a block. Many users reported at UAA are not given the same courtesy. Granted, a great many of them are probably mindless spammers and it really doesn't matter, but in some cases (such as User:Seoulphil, who clearly has a poor grasp on the English language) it is possible the user simply does not understand. I am always disappointed to see that no one has attempted to point out to them that their username is a violation and instead goes straight for a report. In any event, back to the "hawk" comment - I'm not sure if you pay much attention to the goings-on at WT:UAA or WT:U, but there is this old back-and-forth between those with a strict/literalist interpretation and who are out to eliminate spam at all costs, and those who try to take a softer approach to username issues. I am personally in the latter category, and have at times found dealing with the former extraordinarily stressful. I apoligize if I have misconstrued your intentions, but I am always wary of an avowed spam-fighter who intends to do work at UAA. Shereth 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to WT:UAA or WT:U. I understand what you mean, actually, when it comes to immediate username blocks. Perhaps the policy is applied too strictly, and warnings should be issued first, as with vandalism. However, in instances where the COI and intention to spam is obvious, I think a block is warranted, and the block template politely, but firmly explains the problem and how it can easily be solved - if the user in question truly is not a spammer. I think it treads a careful line between WP:BITE and the need to discourage those not here to build an encyclopedia. I truly do think the rise in self-promotion and COI spamming is one of the biggest problems we face in building a neutral, reputable encyclopedia, but I also don't want to scare off good faith newcomers who may just not be aware of policy. Cheers and happy editing, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult line to tread and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I will amend my comment at your RfA accordingly. Shereth 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration. I will be paying closer attention to WT:UAA and WT:U to see where the community is regarding username policy. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pah-Ute County, Arizona

Glad to be of help and happy to see somebody else paying attention to articles dealing with Arizona Territory. My interest is in having the article in a state were I feel good about using it as part of a Did You Know hook I am planning to submit in the next day or two. Hopefully you should see Pah-Ute County mentioned on the Main page in the next few days. --Allen3 ^talk 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 65.246.126.130

I agree w/ the block but the length strikes me as excessive. I don't know how long their lease on that IP is but a better bet for length would be 6mo-3yr if you are sure they are using the IP to evade blocks. No immediate attention is required, but give it some thought. For some reason I have the IP talk page on my watch list, that's how I found the discussion and the block. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after going back and looking at the situation I'm pretty sure he's back again : [1] and [2], different IP addresses making liberal use of the revert/undo feature, across multiple articles. Take a peek at the contribs. I'm pretty sure it's User:Mbhiii who has some kind of axe to grind and has a lot of IP addresses at his disposal, often acting in concert to evade 3RR or the like. He's been investigated for sockpuppetry in the past. Perhaps the issue needs to be dealt with more aggressively ... Shereth 15:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Would you mind taking a look at Public opinion on health care reform in the United States? I gave user:Mbhiii two warnings, including one for 3rr. With his/her IP's s/he is now at 5rr (2rr including 2 reversions by using his/her main account). Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one is an "Undid revision" while others are attempts to address criticisms and suggestions.

Those are probably me, and the only ax I have to grind is the deletion of useful, sourced, relevant info. 3RR has gotten me in trouble, more than once, so I must redouble my efforts not to do that again, in the several ways possible, across the IPs I've used. Stop worrying; I'm on it. You might want to consider, as well, how such procedural topics can divert from substantive debate on the articles themselves and how this will always be so, so long as anonymous editing is allowed. -MBHiii (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mbhiii, you need to understand something about 3RR - it does not necessarily mean the use of the "undo" button and covers a manual revision of the article, even if the revisions are marginally different. The problem is a broader one of edit-warring. I will grant that you are probably not the only one guilty of tendentious editing but you have been the only one to do it using multiple IP addresses, which is why people are accusing you of socking. I am going to stretch good-faith to the extreme here and accept your explanation that you are trying not to run afoul of 3RR, but it really is not that difficult. I am going to very strongly urge you to do two things. First, please log in and edit under your proper username, particularly when editing contentious articles like these. Secondly, I'm going to kindly ask you to severely limit your use of reverting, either with the "undo" feature or by manually undoing edits. If you make a change to an article that subsequently is reverted, please try discussing it on the talk page and reaching a consensus rather than wearing out the undo button. Please. Read and adhere to our dispute resolution processes. I do not want to impose formal restrictions on you but I am going to be keeping an eye on these articles and if I see you beginning to flirt with crossing the 3RR line, engaging in tendentious editing - especially under the guise of multiple IP addresses - I will be left with no choice but to seek a more formal solution to this problem. If I see other editors acting in a tendentious manner I will engage them as well, but for your own sake, you need to stop trying to abide by 3RR and just start doing it. Shereth 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this matter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Squicks, where pot and kettle are both black. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies

Since you are designing an automated currency converter, I thought you might be interested in this discussion at MOSNUM. --___A. di M. 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editor review

Hi, Shereth. I just noticed that you must have missed my question in response to your advice at my editor review. I was wondering if you'd have any particular suggestions as to what areas could use some extra help from a non-admin, as you suggested I branch out into other Wikipedia-space areas. I doubt anyone's interested in nominating me at RfA again, so I'd like to make sure I'm as prepared as possible before nominating myself in a few weeks. Tim meh (review me) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:U#Hoaxy names

I hope "Anyone else have a position on this?" didn't come across as dismissive. I need to know where everyone is. This isn't a major problem ... people who look like they might be promotional always wind up being promotional, and we deal with it then. But I'd like to see if people get what I'm saying ... if not, I've got a solid couple of months of wikiwork to do before I'll have time to come back to this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I understood what you were asking even before the clarification. I'd like to see some more opinions as well, it's not really the sort of thing for just the two of us to decide. Still, thanks for the clarification all the same. Shereth 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this OK?

"Next time I catch either of you ~~serially~~ reverting one another..." This is that. We'd been working back and forth, but when I added something new he didn't like, he stopped modifying and reasoning, but reverted the whole thing. It's what he's done over and over. He also calls the fact you've effectively blocked us from doing that "a lie." Could you refresh his memory? User:Verbal also worked on the same article which is why I wrote him. -MBHiii (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look - the point of my requiring you two to stop reverting one another was to prevent these nonsensical revert wars that have been going on. I will clarify that on the AN/I page. You've both been guilty of one revert after another and it is beyond tiresome. I can't really in good conscience block him because he's doing what really ought to be done, which is to open up a discussion on the talk page about what he is doing (I would have preferred the discussion came first, not the edit, and I will address him on that issue). I would really like to see you engaging in discussion on the talk pages, as well. Squicks is hardly blameless in this matter but he has at least made some effort at discourse, and that is something I would like to see from you, as well. Trying to canvass support from editors that you believe will be sympathetic to your viewpoint is not what is meant by "seeking cooperation and dispute resolution". If you have never read it, read WP:BRD. If you have, read it again. It is highly applicable to this situation. Shereth 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia crashes

I was unable to refresh my watch list for a few minutes. If this happens again I will log off to wait for Wikipedia's servers to recover completely. -- allen四names 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your suggestion for a new template

A new temple based on {{Mergeto}}, but for converting articles to redirects, would be welcome. Thank you. -- allen四names 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am low on time today, but I will see about putting one together tomorrow and let you know. Shereth 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- allen四names 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey Shereth. I had a question and was wondering what your view was on it. It is again regarding the criticism article of the LDS movement, particularly the title. I came across this info under the NPOV section. "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So, considering that Wikipedia directly states "or implies" here that the very word criticism is not neutral, do you feel it would be appropriate to perhaps rename the article considering that the title is "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement"? In your honest opinion, do you really feel that the article is neutral? Especially when it contains content like this? "It is a fact so well known that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business … and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths to keep from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them effect the ruin of those whom they insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from the world." If you feel that such content is neutral and unbiased, then I simply must disagree with you. I also disagree with the concept that the article is written according to Wikipedia policy. Many times during our discussion you referenced me to Wikipedia policy, but most of what I found supports my view that the article needs to be re written. Look at the article makeup. " Criticism of sacred texts, Criticisms of Joseph Smith, Allegations of Smith's slander of women who refused plural marriage, Allegations that Smith allowed abortions for plural wives, Different accounts of the First Vision, Criticism that prophecies of Joseph Smith have failed, Money digging activities, Kinderhook plates, Criticism of temple ceremonies, Temple admission restricted, Baptism for the dead, Doctrinal criticism, Endowment ceremony allegedly copied, Endowment ceremony changed." I'm sure that you remember that WP policy states that articles are not supposed to be for or against any pov. If you honestly feel that the article is neutral, unbiased, well written, well sourced and encyclopedic worthy content, then there is no point for me to even attempt to edit wikipedia, especially if administrators such as yourself contradict any attempt I make to create a neutral article. You were quick to cite wikipedia policy in disproving my argument, yet when it comes to the article in question, it sits openly without correction from you. I am not going to edit the article. I'm not here to push my views on other people, and if an admin considers "monsters in human shape" to be unbiased and neutral, then I will still continue to use wikipedia, I just wont attempt or consider editing it. I don't want to spend my time trying to contribute to WP if others are so anxious to defend what clearly seems to be a biased view. Your response will be my indication as to whether or not contributing to WP is merely, for myself, a waste of time. I respect the efforts you put forward to contribute to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has always been one of my favorite sites for information, in large part, due to editors such as yourself. But if you will not take any action in enforcing its policies as an admin, then that gives me a general idea of what I can expect from the majority of the community, considering that admins are supposed to be selected by the community. I am not going to write again on your talk page either, unless you suggest it. Despite how it appears, I'm not trying to create an argument or attack you. If I have your support to edit the article, I will. If you oppose, then like I said, I will go back to reading WP instead of attempting to contribute. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding here. I was never, either explicitly nor implicitly, endorsing the current content or title of the article. I was intentionally trying to address your original questions in an unspecific manner precisely so that I could avoid trying to pass judgement on the article content itself. That said, I would like to address your concerns/points individually.

With regards to the title, you are correct in saying that a title itself should be neutral. Keep in mind that "Criticism" may include positive criticism, but you are correct as well in saying that it does carry with it negative connotations. There used to be a lot of articles of the "Criticism of X" variety. Many of them have been successfully condensed and redirected back to their parent articles; for example, Criticism of McDonald's is now simply a redirect to McDonald's and the relevant information is shown there. There are still a lot of articles of the "Criticism of X" variety, however. If you feel that the relevant points in Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement can be successfully summarized and merged into Latter Day Saint movement, that is one possible avenue to pursue. Alternatively, the idea of coming up with a more neutral sounding title for the article, perhaps something in the vein of Societal views of the Latter Day Saint movement, but given the existence of numerous articles like Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Catholic Church you may encounter a lot of resistence. If it is something you would like to pursue, I would suggest proposing it in a discussion on the article's talk page (or following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you would prefer a more formal process]]).
You ask my honest opinion as to whether or not the article appears to be truly neutral. After reading the article more thoroughly, my answer is : Probably not. The distinction is not entirely clear, as the article itself maintains a largely neutral tone, but the quotations it employ most certainly do not. It seems to make a rather disproportionately heavy use of direct quotes in comparison to other articles, but then again, the same methodology of extensive quoting is evident in Criticism of Islam and Criticism of the Catholic Church. Interestingly, I find the following instructions in WP:QUOTE, under "When not to use quotations" : The quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. It would appear to me that this is precisely what is going on in this case. The quote that you point out above with regards to plural message could easily be paraphrased in a manner that would remove the use of passionate and inflammatory rhetoric. You should not feel restricted from editing this article (or any other article for that matter) to try and weed out these kinds of unecessary statements. In fact, you should be encouraged to do so. For what it is worth, I will point out that even if I was of a dissenting opinion and felt that it was neutral, that my opinion as an administrator is no more important anyone else's, even yours as a new editor. Please, do not feel like you need the blessing of an administrator to edit articles!
To that effect, I feel a need to point out a couple of things regarding administrators that you seem to be misunderstanding. As I stated above, the opinion of an administrator is no more or less important than any other editor; a key, ruling philosophy on Wikipedia is that this is a collaborative effort where anybody can contribute, regardless of who they are. Administrators do not serve as a kind of superuser, judging articles for their adherence to policy. Rather, we operate on a model of decision by consensus. It is neither the duty nor the right of administrators to go around correcting articles as we see fit - that is the duty and right of every Wikipedia editor. If you have never done so, please read WP:BOLD. Please don't feel hamstrung or discouraged by the inaction of other editors or administrators. If you see a problem that needs addressing, then go for it! I never meant to discourage you from this previously; I was only trying to make the point that critical viewpoints may be included so long as they abide by policy. If they don't, then remedy the situation.
As a general caution, I will preemptively warn you that you are likely to be opposed by someone at some point down the line. User:Storm Rider mentioned on the talk page that the article is something of a sacred cow for some editors and there is a high probability that they will oppose and wind up reverting any changes that you make to the article. Don't be discouraged by this, either. It is a normal process; see WP:BRD which is a good representation of how disputes are ideally handled. If the situation does arise where your edits are disputed or reverted, I am confident that level-headed discussion among the editors will arrive at a satisfactory solution. While I would be happy to support you should such a situation arise (primarily because I agree with your concerns), just be aware that ultimately, it is not up to me as an administrator to make the final call but is ultimately a product of how the community decides. Do not hesitate to correct these issues or any others that you find, and do not hesistate to ask for assistance should you run in to any questions or concerns along the way. Good luck with this, Shereth 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for assuming you took stances on topics we haven't even discussed. I also commend you for how calm and collected your reply was whenever mine was not. I have to admit that I was considering the article to be a general consensus of Wikipedia editors, and the reality is that it is a minority who maintain the page. You hit on one point though that describes my view entirely; everything in the article can be stated without a negative tone. For instance, polygamy. Everyone knows polygamy was practiced in the earlier years of the LDS church, but is it really necessary to have a quote from Sidney Rigdon that is so condemning? There are a few other quotes that fall into the same category. I would like to get the name of the article changed also. Even the word controversy is significantly better than the word criticism. I am going to attempt to make some changes on the page. I also think it would be better to cite sources instead of directly inserting the name of the same people over and over again. Thanks for your help. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Feel free to contact me if you require any additional assistance. Shereth 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message

hey this is kristina BigPadresDUDE Wife jake (BPD) told me about your message and i went ahead and registered how am i gonna make sure this account isent taken away or my husbands? anyway hope to see ya around KristinaPadres (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks man cool see ya around wikipedia KristinaP (Contact Me) --Work-- 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

(I sent this same request to Stormrider. Kindof lazy to copy and paste but...) Thanks for your help earlier. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the criticism of the LDS movement article, specifically the talk page, under the Title section. My view may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you would let me know. Its a long debate and I'm sorry for how tedious it may be to read, but If I am wrong, I'd prefer not to spend hours and hours debating about it, which is why I'm requesting your input on the talk page. Thanks Shereth. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again but

The above requested task User talk:Shereth#Straw polls has not been completed. I have been holding off on major work on these 3 articles for this reason, but there are now intervening edits also. I still think that deletion, restoration of original history, and then userfication, while ignoring the intervening edits, will do the trick. Hoping you or another admin can work this out, thanks! JJB 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to clean this up for you, but it should now all be done properly. Let me know if there are any issues. Shereth 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squicks

Here he goes, again. -MBHiii (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my later clarification, I am enforcing a WP:1RR rule, not a no revert rule. This is not a violation of 1RR. Shereth 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked my addition. Am I allowed to add it back? -MBHiii (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:1RR. "If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." Directly or on the article talk page, either way. The restriction that you two are under is basically no re-reverts. Shereth 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should not have reverted me, but taken it to the Talk page. How about enforcing your policy w.r.t. him? -MBHiii (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the page that I've linked to twice? 1RR means you are allowed to revert an edit, but you are not allowed to revert back. No undoing any reverts. Not sure how I could be more clear than that. Shereth 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have listed two policies here, WP:1RR to apply to us generally and no re-reverts to apply to us w.r.t. each other. Is that correct? -MBHiii (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:1RR is not a policy but is typically a voluntary editing restriction used by editors who wish to avoid getting caught up in revert wars. What I am doing is enforcing it as an editing restriction due to exactly those kinds of revert wars that you two had been engaged in. "No re-reverts" is basically what WP:1RR says. Shereth 16:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that MBHiii appears to be going back to his old ways (e.g. distortion of sources, refusal to comment about issues on talk pages, personal insults, sockpuppet use, etc), I have a proposal.

Block both of us, for life, from editing any topic relating to health care. I would be more than willing to accept this if it would mean that I could preserve the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The Squicks (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am loathe to consider a permanent topic ban on the two of you - not only that, but I can't really enforce something like that unilaterally. It'd require broader consensus from the community. Not only that, but since the whole kerfluffle came up and I came up with the WP:1RR restriction, I haven't seen any edits/patterns from you that would warrant a block. I for one appreciate your willingness to try and work things out on the talk pages when disputes come up, a measure that I wish User:Mbhiii would avail himself of more often. Shereth 16:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to get on one knee and beg you to please block us both. It would end all the drama, and it would help us both move on and edit better things. The Squicks (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would entertain the possibility of a mutual agreement to refrain from editing health care related topics for a reasonable period of time as a means of de-escalating the issue. If User:Mbhiii would be willing to abide by a voluntary restriction against editing these topics for a reasonable amount of time, there would be no need to apply formal sanctions or gather any widespread consensus - we could just call it good right here and now. By "reasonable period of time", I am thinking something in the 1-3 month range, but open to suggestion. I'm really, really not comfortable with a permanent ban, however. Shereth 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, can you get him to stop calling people "teabaggers" and making silly, out-of-place anti-Christian comments?

Please see Talk:Worldchanging to get some inkling of what he's talking about. I view his offer as a sort of poison pill and reject it. A 3-month semi-protect on health care related articles would benefit them all, and I request zero blanking apply to us w.r.t. each other. -MBHiii (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were out of line at Talk:Worldchanging - those kinds of comments are unhelpful, unecessary and anything but collegial. Please refrain from subsequent comments of this nature and remain focused on content not contributors. I do not see what benefit there would be to semi-protecting the article(s) either. Right now I am enforcing a 1RR restriction - I will not expand it to a 0RR restriction unless I see problems continuing, which I do not. Shereth 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even as we write, his blanking of my additions continues. -MBHiii (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That change is almost an hour old, not as we write. I told you, I am not enforcing a 0RR restriction. Shereth 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

temple lists

thanks for me showing the grouping functionality --Trödel 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map help request

I'd like to create a county/city map similar to the one you did for Seattle but for Fairbanks, Alaska, and I was wondering if you had any sort of step-by-step guide for that or could guide me on how to create one. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maps I created (such as the one for Seattle) are based on boundary data provided by the United States Census Bureau; they are available, along with other boundary data, here. Note that a lot of it is becoming outdated, as are my maps (they are only accurate as of 2000). To create my maps I basically wrote a script to extract the geographical coordinates, project them onto cartesian coordinates (I used the Albers equal-area conic projection if you were curious) and finally translate them to a .SVG file. Unfortunately it is exceedingly hard to walk someone through doing this step-by-step, unless you are familiar with scripting/programming, map projection and .SVG file specifications :) The Census bureau does have the data in shapefile format, so if you have any access to GIS software you're in luck. Another, more tedious option would be to get PDF maps (also available from the Census Bureau here) and manually convert them in to SVG files. A good, free SVG editor, if you are looking for one, is Inkscape. Finally, when I generated the maps you have seen, I did so for the entire country (including Alaska) but due to various issues did not upload all of them - primarily due to differences in the way "incorporated places" are handled in varying states. I may still have the Alaska maps, I can take a peek when I get home. Lemme know if you have any other questions. Shereth 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as if it'll be a process of trial and error, emphasis on the error part. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squix still at it

Please note his 2RR here. His 1st edit was a revert, which I reverted, which he re-reverted, which I re-reverted, but then he re-reverted it a 2nd time, in his last edit, putting something, somewhat related, somewhere else, but it was a revert of my edit, nonetheless. -MBHiii (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a revert. I did not remove your material. I merely moved it to a different section. I wish that you would learn to read. The Squicks (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you came off your block immediately edit warring in pages where editors besides me have had to deal with your POV-pushing, unhelpful edits, this section is best titled: Migby still at it. The Squicks (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His second edit was not a revert. It may have modified your original edit but did not revert it. Shereth 14:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Not too concerning stuff, really ... but glad to be made aware of it. Shereth 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus MacTroll

Hello, last evening I created an account as part of the WP:NEWT project as noted in this week's Signpost. You were one of the people who posted to the account's user talk, although you did so a few hours after the experiment ended. The account created ten new articles about Antarctic moss. You can view my full report here. If you have any questions or concerns please discuss them at my user talk page, or at the project NEWT talk page. Best regards, Durova³⁶² 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You recently made a comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Municipal authorities/special district governments, a topic that I have moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Municipal authorities/special district governments to establish notability.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Settlement

Hi there,
Just to let you know, I have noticed that since your edit to the timezones section on November 11, all infoboxes show daylight savings time to have the same value as standard time. I tried a few edits to articles to correct this, but to no avail. Could you please have a look at this to see how we can fix this? Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, it should be fixed. Please let me know if there are still issues caused by the change. Shereth 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still messed up, here's an example. I copied the UTC lines from an article where all was good - Atholville, New Brunswick and pasted them into the Bathurst, New Brunswick article. Previewing changes nothing. But by going into the affected article and saving it without changes, the proper numbers appear! Strange. But this would have to be done with an incredible amount of articles. So it's not there yet. Gordalmighty (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at both articles and they appear normal to me? It might be a cache issue however since you had visited (at least one of) those articles previously. Try clearing your browser cache, reloading the pages and let me know if they still look off to you? Shereth 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay now. Mind you, I took a few days off so my browser cache had better be clear! :) Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Yale a cappella page - follow-up

Hi, Yale University's a cappella group Out of the Blue was one of the groups that had its page deleted. With their recent success winning the ICCA Northeast Semifinals (heading to ICCA Finals), a CARA Nomination for Best Arrangement, and unique trips to locales such as Singapore, where we were invited to perform for the U.S. Ambassador, it would be good to have a place where they can exist on Wikipedia. Given that other Yale a cappella groups have pages, including the Duke's Men, who also competed in the ICCA in 2009, it would be great to have the opportunity. Could you reconsider the merger and allow us to occupy our own page? 128.36.208.88 (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)tcd[reply]