User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Sep

Same Editor

How can you be sure it was the same editor on the Master talk page? They have different IP addresses. Kelpin 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Crane

The article you tagged for speedy deletion, Tony Crane, is notable and I have asserted this. Mattythewhite 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the article. Mattythewhite 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Its good enough. But I've added another. Pleased now? Mattythewhite 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

German municipalities

You tagged several of my recently created articles about German municipalities for speedy deletion, and undeservedly IMO. I think I gave enough context for a stub article: that it is a municipality, and in which district, state and country it is located. Markussep ^Talk 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A1 speedy deletions

Going through CAT:CSD, I've found several articles that you've tagged for A1 deletion ({{db-nocontext}}), which don't meet the criterion. WP:CSD#A1 is used on articles that are so short that there's no way to tell what they're about or to find references or more information on the subject. If an article could be fixed by a search on its subject matter, or by following links from it, then there's enough context to (in theory, at least) expand it, and it's not an A1 deletion; likewise, if it's more than a couple of sentences long, then there's almost certainly enough context to expand it, unless the article has other speediable problems (such as being nonsense). Could you check your {{db-context}} tagging more carefully in future? Thanks. --ais523 15:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD

It is generally considered poor form to nominate an article for deletion within minutes of its creation, particularly when your objections are in part stylistic. Phil Sandifer 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your objection that the article does not clarify its notability sufficiently. It's something that, generally, a bit of time to finish honing the article is appreciated with. Phil Sandifer 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Obscuring the interface

Please note that the banner (bottom-right) on your user page/talk page obuscures the interface, and, in particular, blocks the contribs or GFDL link for some. It would be appreciated if you removed it. Thanks! GDonato (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, the fact that it blocked important links was a concern for some editors, you can use it in a better position. GDonato (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GFDL violation

I think you misunderstand - the banner page itself violates the GFDL, as it displays the banner over the GFDL link. (As the banner page, by its nature, displays the banner.) Please do not restore the banner page, as it would be a violation of the GFDL for which you would be blocked. Phil Sandifer 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It still partially obscures. Perhaps if you rotated it and put it in the upper-left? That, I believe, is more or less safe in every skin. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, this obscures the interface on a small browser (about 800px, which many people still use), and would almost certainly make the page extremely broken on an embedded browser like a PDA, Cell Phone, Wii, or so on. If you want to have the banner on your page, that's fine, but please make sure it stays within the borders of your text. Preferably, just make it a regular image banner, as that will have the best compatibility for everyone. --lucid 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even that's not fine - the biggest problem is that the actual banner page (User:Rambutan/Banner, by the nature of the code, displays the banner, and thus violates the GFDL on itself. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Review (long)

I've reviewed the block (and talk page block) on this account. This was at the request of another admin, who wanted an impartial review by someone who had never come across thiseditor before and had no history with them of any kind. So this is mostly directed to Rambutan himself.

Rambutan's history

Rambutan - you seem to be a fairly well intentioned editor, who contributes. But you have to a great extent made your own position problematic. For example, a history both of 3RR violations, and of near-3RR violations. Also by deleting others comments that you don't like, mislabelling them as "vandalism" [1], and by demanding being asked nicely as the price of removing a problematic banner, or putting it back until asked the way you want to be asked. [2]. This raised the problem from one of "problematic banner design" to "disruptive contributor" [3], and pissed Phil off for no great reason. You then responded to that by again removing it [4], citing incivility and requiring him to ask nicely or go to ANI, then adding a post saying it isn't deliberately disruptive anyhow, which he knew, and describing his term "disruptive" as a personal attack [5]. I don't concur; perhaps the preceding explains why. Fortunately at that point, GDonato did post a request as you wanted [6] and you removed the banner [7] -- a good call, but very evidently most of the rest was a case of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and fairly everyday pointless escalation of a nothing, into a dispute. You knew at the start (because you could check for yourself) that Phil's comment was an accurate statement of a problem about a banner. Let it be. Fix it, comment if you don't like how he said it -- but don't breach WP:POINT until someone does it "how you want it".

Phil Sandifer's response and handling

I can't say how Phil is otherwise, but he talked sensibly and appropriately in this case: "I think you misunderstand - the banner page itself violates the GFDL, as it displays the banner over the GFDL link. (As the banner page, by its nature, displays the banner.) Please do not restore the banner page, as it would be a violation of the GFDL for which you would be blocked." [8] No drama there, no attacks (and he's right, the GFDL link does matter). Commonsense, and an attempt to explain once again, a view supported by others [9]

Everyone wants to be asked nicely, but there is a degree of commonsense that says if there's a genuine, obvious, clear problem, deal with it, if necessary saying "You could ask nicely next time. But I have removed it anyway". That would avoid and defuse all the stress of it. In the end, what happened? You broke WP:POINT ("Don't disrupt to prove or make a point"), and pointlessly annoyed others who had genuine concerns.

User page formatting

Then moving on... you did the same thing with reformatting of your user page. Again, "I will revert unless you do what I want, the way I want it". [10] On this one, you're on slightly more solid ground, since within reason your user page is up to you (not others) to manage, refactor, archive, etc, so long as you don't do so to obscure or muddy the water on debates. Reordering others posts is permitted if it doesn't misrepresent the dialog. In this case it probably didn't - you changed an indent to an outdent, is all. So it's allowed, but note - you still stroked others the wrong way by doing so. Some things are allowed, but won't get you brownie points. I do not agree however agree with Phil's comment [11] that this "distorted" the short discussion, and do agree with yours [12] that you have the right under WP:TPG to do so. But damn, Rambutan, you could do it more cordially :) Lucid however is right, and did well, labelling these as "good faith edits" [13]. At that point, Phil blocked you, giving a list of reasons. [14]

Your current block

Moving to the block. You have a record of violation of 3RR, and -- on your user page only -- of being prickly and demanding others ask nicely, reverting if they don't (even if what they ask is reasonable), reverting a banner in breach of WP:POINT that multiple editors had told you was causing problems, just because you hadn't been asked like you wanted (and regardless of problems caused to the readers of the Wiki page).

But I don't agree with Phil's characterization of you. It paints you blacker than you seem to be, from here. The talk page flow change was not nice or as good as it could have been, but was (to me) your right (nothing seemed "obscured" to me as a reader); the disruptive template removal you gamed WP:POINT over instead of just removing, but did remove when asked by GDonato finally and did not reinstate it (and is also in the past), and removal of off topic items is your right, if they truly are off-topic. (It's not clear which edits Phil is referring to here, as no DIFFs are provided for this item, so I can't judge this one.)

Blocks are not issued for cooling off or "taking time off". WP:BLOCK is very clear on this, and Nick's unblock denial (reightly or wrongly) tends to give the impression that's what he means. It's best to review it purely in terms of disruptive editing, whether a months block seems appropriate. A review of your block log tends to support your contention that you have tried to improve by avoiding 3RR slipups since the last block, and indeed from many blocks in June/July, there are none in August at all, until this one.

Blocker's action

It is worth noting that others in the community may feel COI concerns "on principle", when someone's main argument partner is also their blocker, without evidence of independent review. There is minor evidence that your blocker may himself have allowed himself to exaggerate your actions and failed to act dispassionately in his characterization.

That in part is why independent review can be so important, and something that matters to consider.

(Importantly, note that admins are allowed to block users they have disputed with over conduct matters, and all the above are conduct matters. So before you ask, I want to make very clear that Phil was in his rights within policy to block you if it were merited, even though he had swapped words with you beforehand.)

Proposed action and view

Rambutan - this is how I see it. I may be wrong, and if so I will accept any admin overrulling this, since I don't know your history in its entirety and you may have other major recent history I have not been aware of. So that's the first caveat.

You have lived here by making a lot of contributions, to many places - articles, discussions, vandalism and user name issues and so on. But you have adopted a style of aggression to others, slightly - if they ask a right thing a wrong way, if you want to stand on your rights, and so on, if you don't like their response and want to label it vandalism, and so on. That's really minor stuff, but it adds up. I'm going to ask, please consider whether this, like 3RR issues, is an approach that holds you back from actually being quite a good editor here. It's a collaborative project, but I get the feeling you're tackling it like a lone editor, not considering others input needs to be worked with and accepted too. At times your prickliness has led others to respond a bit too reactively, or mislabel you back -- what else is to be expected. Its unnecessary.

Proposed decision

I have reached after considerable thought "what should be done", a decision about your block. I think that for reasons above, a month's block is excessive (I'm having difficulty seeing grounds for a block at all, from here), and characterizing you as a 'disruptive editor' is not entirely the whole of it. You removed the banner when asked finally (and that was in the past), you didn't reformat your talk page (in this case) in a way that breached WP:TPG, the constant 3RR blocks are in the past mostly, possible concerns exist over the blocker's action, and so on. Although I think Phil has made an important point, and one that you need to listen to:

Wikipedia editing isn't just about your rights and how you want to be treated. Its about working with others, and you are singularly failing to do that right now. That alone is a source of disruption, as is refusing to do what's right unless your need for civility is met. If they are incivil, thats one thing. If you respond by using that to prove a point or unreasonable stubbornness back, that's a second thing - and WP:POINT is policy too.

So I'll remove the block - there really is/was little basis for a block anyhow. The banner issue had been resolved, the 3RR was not ongoing, and so on. A factor in this is that you have shown you can and do change past behavior when blocked for it. However note this: you have disrupted and annoyed others, by playing the game with WP:POINT. Don't. WP:POINT and disruptive editing, as you can see, are solid grounds for blocks.

Final words

Make no mistake, you have been disruptive and annoyed others, and caused stress in the last week. If you're thinking "they did it to me too"... I don't buy it as a justification.

Please -- go forth and avoid Phil, ask Phil to avoid you, and if others act wrongly, seek outside opinions in a calm, non-dramatic way, do not try to prove the point, or anything. Okay?

Case dismissed, user unblocked.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: This opinion was passed for rechecking to two other uninvolved administrators before posting, to ensure it is not just "one person's view". Both (without knowledge of each other) concurred. One of these has also volunteered to endorse the decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this summary of events and the decisions made by FT2. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

Hi Rambutan, I've reviewed a number of your speedy deletion candidates together with pages which you prodded before taking to AfD. I understand that some of the articles, in their present form, may verge on being unsuitable for Wikipedia, however if a subject is genuinely notable, such as Victoria Quay then there's really no good reason to delete the article, there's always a good change someone will come along and expand the article. If, however, you do nominate an article for deletion, can you try to provide a more useful explanation instead of something like "Completely non-notable and uninteresting site." which isn't helpful and likely to raise tensions between the nominator and those editing the article. I'd also recommend quickly Googling before nominating items for deletion, the sheer number of articles you've tagged recently does suggest you're not taking enough time before clicking on a button to tag the page. There's no real rush to delete pages, if it takes 5 or 10 minutes to tag a page rather than 1 minute, what's the harm, especially if the subject really is an uninteresting building. Nick 19:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment on my talk page, "I'm leaving well alone now - Judd can deal with it himself", was probably the single wisest thing you could have done at that point. I think that is appropriate to let you know, given that yesterday hopes were expressed that you would learn rather than clash with others.

That said, I am still reviewing what happened, and will summarize shortly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Update:

What happened

This relates to Judd Bagley, currently up for AFD. The AFD by Rambutan (Sept 5) is a fair one: it has had several "delete" views added, so it was certainly not WP:SNOW.

Previously, Phil Sandifer had sprotected this page against IP vandalism, and after some edits, user:Tom harrison stubbed it due to BLP [15] and then fully protected it [16]. Once protection was reduced to sprotect by JzG [17] (IP vandalism only), Phil de-stubbed it, reverting Tom harrison's edit, and stating there were no BLP issues [18]. Rabbutan then restubbed it, reinstating Tom harrison's action stating (rightly or wrongly) that Phil's action was against consensus [19]. Phil then re-unstubbed again [20].

Three messages were then posted:

1. Rambutan left a message on Phil Sandifer's talk page criticizing the restubbing as being "against the following policies: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons".[21]
2. Phil left a mesage on my talk page that Rambutan was "immediately back to jumping into raging disputes and targetting me directly" [22], and
3. Rambutan left a message on my talk page that "I undid an anti-consensus BLP vio, and Phil immediately reverted it without explanation or dialogue. I'm leaving well alone now - Judd can deal with it himself". [23]

The dispute then ended.

Comment

I think this one has self-closed, resolved by both parties. Rambutan had a legitimate interest in the article (he had nominated it at AFD previously); it was not a case that he followed Phil there or any such. Phil also had a legitimate interest - he had previously protected it from vandalism.

The stubbing for BLP purposes was -significantly - performed by another admin (not Rambutan), who had explained it carefully on the talk page. BLP anticipates a high degree of caution for BLP's. Phil disagreed (which was his right) and Rambutan reverted back to the other admin's stub (which was his right too) and left a message for Phil. The message could have been more tactful, given that they already have bad blood, but it was civil and neutrally worded (although open as to whether 100% accurate, I haven't checked that).

The actions of both on that article were well, well within reasonable action as anticipated by policy. It's only a problem if it worstens into an edit war. Neither was out of line.

Phil over reacted, citing this as immediate disruption ("jumping into raging disputes and targetting me directly"). I don't agree. Rambutan reverted back to another admins stubbing, a critical difference. He didnt revert for the heck of upsetting Phil, or target Phil. He then stated after it began to escalate (probably one of the wisest things he's ever said on the Wiki) that he would drop that article, avoiding all conflict on it, and let it sort itself out.

Conclusion

In this spat, both edited well within normal discretion and judgement expected of an editor. Neither was unreasonable in their editing, neither "followed" the other. Both may have over reacted - Phil certainly, Rambutan perhaps (depending upon accuracy of message left for Phil). Rambutan also showed poor judgement in reverting an edit he knew would cause conflict, however fair the revert was. There were better ways to do it. However Rambutan immediately quit editing the article rather than enter conflict with Phil after that.

Considering 6 weeks ago Rambutan was picking up revert war blocks like they were going out of fashion, that is beyond doubt a more satisfactory method of responding (if it endures). Happy ending - so long as Rambutan does in fact remain within reasonable editorial conduct and avoids conflict where possible. And learns some tact :)

Final thoughts

For the record, I will re-affirm that if there is a genuine issue then I have no problem with any admin overriding my unblock, or blocking for new offences. Thats normal, no need to ask me about it. But I strongly advise Phil to double check not to accidentally over-react, as it seems he's really easily goaded by Rambutan and has mischaracterized his actions before, and I also advise Rambutan to utterly avoid trouble as best he is able, since as far as many are concerned he's completely skating on extremely thin ice with the community.

Also to note I have affirmed to Phil, if Rambutan genuinely does act up and a block was fair, I would, myself, reblock for it. I am in no way prepared to shield Rambutan from the consequences of any future actions he may undertake. I am prepared to double check for a while that his actions are characterized fairly, which is a courtesy anyone should have here, for the time being, as this was asked of me by another uninvolved (concerned) editor. But I would like not to be dragged into it otherwise.

Last -- to Rambutan: Next time, consider leaving Tom harrison a simple and civil message on his talk page, "Phil Sandifer has reverted your BLP stub, can you check if that's ok. [DIFF]". This would have avoided the conflict completely. You didn't need to be the "doer" this time. It was a fair revert, but avoiding conflict does matter, and that was always going to cause a major reaction given recent history. Far far better to ask someone else (like the original stubber) to check it out for you.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dioceses

I would like a deeper explanation of why you feel the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Bungoma is not notable for inclusion in wikipedia. I would also welcome your input on how to determine whether of not a diocese is notable or not. My personal feeling is that every diocese article provides important information regarding the Catholic Church in any given area. Npeters22 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AGF template

I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about (I just happen to watch Ernst's talk page because I sometimes talk to him about film articles and images), but this edit, where you used Twinkle to leave him a warning template, was probably not the best idea - not as a violation of policy, but as a general etiquette thing. I've learned the hard way that templating the regulars, especially someone as experienced as Ernst who probably understands Wikipedia policies better than anyone, tends to inflame rather than diffuse the situation. Just my two cents - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videmus Omnia (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this edit worrisome. I appreciate the cleanup work you're doing, but refusing to interact with someone, other than dropping templates on their talk page and nominating their articles for deletion, isn't very conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you have a look at Barclays plc#Key management and tell me what I've done wrong in my last edit I put a citation on for the Board of Directors (a vandal keeps changing one of the names and I wanted to make it clear it was vandalism) and now the headings gone all funny and I don't know how to fix it. Thanks. Kelpin 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll remember that next time! Kelpin 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleg AfD

Howdy, I noticed the AfD you created for the Deleg article. I don't quite see how it is a second nomination; the other AfD you listed is for a now deleted article on Delegative democracy. I don't quite understand the relation between the articles. Perhaps you can clarify on the AfD page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did it by WP:TW - the program must have messed up.--Rambutan (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that makes sense... I ran into my own strange Twinkle bug the other day. Thanks for the note. --TeaDrinker 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops regarding the above AfD. Cities and villages are always notable, I encourage you to withdraw the nomination. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld of SPECTRE

Please, I beg you, step away. The edits and comments you are making are only inflaming the situation. I appreciate the much-needed cleanup work you are doing, but I think you can safely assume that Ernst is not a vandal or a spammer, and comments and edit summaries that imply he is such are not constructive. Also, you do not own your talk page, please see WP:TALK - you can't tell people they are "blacklisted" from posting here. Please assume good faith on his part, and press on with your constructive work. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy partner. I have done some work with Blofeld on films on Argentina. I must admit he can be quite rude at times but he means well and can be quite protective of his own work I've noticed if he is criticised. Assume Good faith and don't let it get to you. Chao The Wild West guy 12:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful

It's not really a good idea to talk about people behind their backs while sending an unrelated message to another editor[24]. I know that your experiences with Phil haven't been very pleasant, but such comments don't serve any purpose other than to inflame the situation, and it's best to leave them out. I'd appreciate it if you could retract the first bit of that message. Thanks, and best wishes in whatever you're up to. Melsaran (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you were not unblocked so you could call people names. I agreed with the admin who unblocked you, please don't make me feel foolish for doing so. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I was informing someone that their actions were against policy, while distancing myself from any notion that I'm on Phil's side.--Rambutan (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, calling someone a "git" is not. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see some of the things I've been called..... but I take your point.--Rambutan (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that the other side was wrong as well, but try to remain civil anyway. Melsaran (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My point...

Hehe, no seriously, I was only joking. I heed your warning about the check boxes, friend. :-) - Have a nice evening! Scarian^Talk 21:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarkets in Canada

Could you please specify your rationale for deleting the article? I didn't really understand your reasoning. Melsaran (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent AfDs

Hi there. I was looking through some recent AfDs, and noticed that your basis for nomination occasionally came down to the article being unreferenced (as in this case). Generally, a lack of references is not automatic grounds for deletion. If a particular unreferenced fact is challenged, it can (and should) be removed, but we generally don't break out the nukes for lack of references for source-able articles (unless there's a strong COI/POV/BLP/COPYVIO issue that needs immediate attention). Please check WP:AFD#Before_nominating_an_AfD before you nominate articles in the future. Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this request; while a lack of references is certainly an issue with many articles, it is not automatic grounds for deletion. You seem to think that unsourced material is by definition original research[25], but that is not always true. It may be better to tag an article with something like {{OR}} or {{unreferenced}} than to instantly nominate it for deletion, and to do some independent research on whether the article subject is notable before nominating it for deletion. Please take this as constructive criticism :-) Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've de-prodded some of the pages you marked for deletion, for the same reasons as above. (Not all, as some do deserve deletion, but I don't think all do). Just letting you know. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I third (?) this request. Prod's should only be used "for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia", but you have prodded several articles with long(ish) histories and several contributing editors. Lack of references is not a good enough reason to prod an article. Thanks.--Michig 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: a lack of references can be evidence of a non-notable topic; it's not inconceivable that an article could last a while, with multi-editor input, and yet not be suitably encyclopaedic (witness Camp PALS).

And let's not all pile on Rambutan, ok? There doesn't need to be a flood of criticism to get a point across. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Minister Articles for Deletion

In the future please use the multi-article AfD for this sort of thing. Second, if you're wanting to merge them instead of actually deleting, why not just create the list article and merge them? It seems like a waste of everyone's time to go through an AfD for this. Horrorshowj 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the copy edit on the merged article, you beat me to it. :) Horrorshowj 19:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB

Sure, I've approved your new username. Happy editing! Jogers (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I was thinking about it but I didn't know how to do it - I'll read the page you referenced over the weekend and get it sorted. Thanks. Kelpin 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving set up with the bot. Thanks for the info. Kelpin 15:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...--Porcupine (prickle me!) 09:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi,

I'm going through the VP backlog (very slowly however). I just want to let you know that when it will came the time to review you application (I'll go through the list in order, to be fair ;-) ), I'll ask Betacommand to review it (he's probably the most experienced VP moderator).

Best Regards,

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Porcupine. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: I've talked with Betacommand and we decided to deny the application. Twinkle abuse is serious. Sorry. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• First, I don't have to show you any diff about your misuse of TWINKLE, there are two block for this. I have better things to do than check your whole contributions for something you have been blocked for.
• Second, I don't see why you are interested in a private conversation between me and another moderator. I have already told you what the decision is.

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Edvin Mattiasson

Can you stop this... Every Olympic competitor is notable! There have been enough discussions in the past (E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Murray (athlete)). And winning a bronze medal is in any case notable. Thanks Doma-w 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edvin Mattiasson

I think Bfigura has the predetermined consensus on this one. I learned this by trying to speedy national soccer players just because I didn't think it was notable. Was a bit more courteously educated, but i think maybe you're biting too hard yourself. I think it would be civil to give the opportunity for names that are already on record to be researched before coming after them for AfD, etc. - CobaltBlueTony 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

Hi again. I'm not trying to be uncivil here, as I can see that you've made plenty of good deletion nominations. However, nominating a bishop, and University chancellor for speedy deletion seems somewhat unwise. Please, review articles carefully before nominating them for deletion (I'd suggest searching google and wikipedia to see if articles already exist, or can be sourced/templated). Please take this as constructive criticism. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar sentiments to my above comment. :-) - CobaltBlueTony 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will not badger you again. But you are invited you barger me when ever you want! Have fun! Doma-w 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

After thinking about it, my last note might have been unclear. I was suggesting that Doma was being uncivil (for the psuedo-taunting), not you. Cheers. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

wiki tips?

Hello, i was really impressed with your user page, the best bit is the box at the top with (Talk (new post) Email Contributions Edit Count Logs Subpages) I tried to get it on my page but it didn't work, how would I make it avalable on my user page?

much thanks --Wiggstar69 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for that, but yeah it didn't work! if you cant figure it out dont worry its not a problem :) thanks --Wiggstar69 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah! thanks so much, thats really helpful, my userpage look much better now! thanks for doing that for me! --Wiggstar69 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please see your email, and act thereon when you do.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)