This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry for any confusion. I don't recall doing that at all.... I must have just completely miss-clicked while vandalism patrolling, but I'm not sure where or how. I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for pointing that out, Danski14(talk)00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the work
Thanks for the hands on the image deletion. The bad spell of month old backlogged during the past few months almost made me black out several times. Teke07:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The deletion backlogs look pretty daunting at the moment- and its not just at CAT:CSD, there are well over 100 AfDs that need closing at WP:AFDO as well. Sigh, ah well can't say being a sysop doesn't give one enough to do... WjBscribe07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Protection
Thank you so much for protecting my page! --Meaneager
Why did you delete the article named "Free Minds"???
It came as a shoc to me when i saw the article deleted as i wanted to visit it today. I cannot find any reasons as to why that article was deleted. Why has this been done? user:jonnyk1982
The article was deleted following its nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Minds. It was listed there for over a week and there was a consensus that it should be deleted. It was felt that the subject of the article was not sufficiently notable (see WP:WEB for the relevant policy) and in particular that there was a lack of non-trivial mentions in reliable sources to confirm that the subject of the article was sufficiently important for inclusion on Wikipedia. WjBscribe23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OH MAN THERE WERE THREE VOTES IN FAVOR TOO ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE
I did not, but deletion discussions are not votes. It is the qaulity of the argument that is important. The comments ont he talkpage did not give any policy-based reason for keeping the article. In particular, they did not give examples of reliable sources that had covered the subject of the article. The fact that some people would like an article to be on Wikipedia is not enough. We require outside evidence to confirm that the subject is important. We cannot make that determination- if impartial sources have covered the subject, we include it. If not, we don't. WjBscribe00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dev seems to be busy with RL. I'm posting to a couple people to see if anyone wants to contribute anything to the newsletter, since it should go out. Feel like writing anything? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)06:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page.
Project News
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
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. Ralbot05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted Curvemain.jpg on the basis that a freer image could be found. I've yet to find a similarly good image that is freer but more important I've checked with Dean Garcia (once, 1/2 of Curve) he seems to feel that using the image would be fine. I'd like to check with you that reinstating it from http://www.curve.co.uk/images/tdpics/curvemain.jpg would be acceptable. Zetetic Apparatchik12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with any copyright picture is that it is only usuable if it meets Wikipedia's fair use policy. Pictures of living people only used to show what those people look like don't (see counterexample 8), especially if the subject(s) make frequent public appearances. Its clearly possible for someone to take a free picture of those people. WjBscribe04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it's possible to take pictures of Curve as a complete entity anymore, simply because they no longer exist. It [b]is[/b] possible that someone may have taken a free picture previously (but I've yet to find one any freer than curvemain.jpg). I also argue that it being provided on the Curve website (for whatever usage you presume) and that having Dean Garcia's permission makes this a relatively 'safe' free-ish choice. I'll admit it's not perfect, but I think it's acceptable. I'd argue that, as in the case of every modern-ish musical artist, for better or worse, that the appearance or styling of the group is relevant to the article. Zetetic Apparatchik15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There may be an argument for fair use based on whether photos of the group as a complete entity could still be created, though I wonder if such a photo is sufficiently necessary to the article? As to the permission- it would need to be the taker of the photo's permission, and they would need to being willing to license the photo for use by anyone in a manner compatible with GFDL, not just giving permission to Wikipedia to use it. WjBscribe08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that the permission is far from perfect and doesn't resolve licensing conflicts, but I still think it's partially relevant. I don't that the photo is necessary for the article, but I do believe that it serves a useful, illustrative purpose; many band pages feature such promotional material for illustration of the band's appearance (Image:KasabianBand2006.png, Image:Pixies.jpg). Maybe you feel that these actually violate fair use and I have to accept that there is definitely a consideration there, but these images, on pages I suspect are under far greater scrutiny than Curve's have been tolerated. While consensus or perhaps just general toleration isn't enough (not a democracy...), it is note-worthy. Zetetic Apparatchik17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How much can you discuss about that?, quran alone muslims exist and that's the main site one can go to,with an active forum.
there is so much articles about other nonsense issues,why would someone be against this? it makes no sense other than hateful intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperin (talk • contribs)
Thanks for clearing this up for me. I still haven't forgotten how you helped assured me on ProveIt's RfA(It looks like he has been doing a great job as an administrator). Thanks a bunch!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, but I'm for WP:AGF, but because I erred on the side of the new editor, we had to go through this. Unfortunately, I did it because the block summary "usernameblock". You have to treat those like edit summaries so they're not misleading. I apoligise to user:Misza13. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably I shouldn't get involved into the whole thing. But I was only worrying that if John A. Robinson was the mathematician J. Alan Robinson instead of the vandal, we would lost an expert contributor. I feel deeply about this because myself is a student highly interested in math, and I don't want Wikipedia to lose a potential mathematician editor. WooyiTalk, Editor review03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
WooyiTalk, Editor review has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Миша13 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey, thanks for your support on this issue. Apparently, per WP:DENY much knowledge about vandals, their memes and behavioral patterns has been lost in various MfD's (mostly of WP:LTA subpages) and some administrative actions may now seem obscure to a random passer-by. I wasn't even aware that the aforementioned category survived and still existed (and it's not accurate too, since I don't bother tagging those accounts). Миша1309:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your closure comments claiming that no "policy-based" comments were made. The references cited by one user specifically counters your rationale for your closure.
I am still at a loss to see which comments gave policy-based reasons for keeping this list. Your comment for example merely said that it would be possible to create the same list for other Comics, but not why this should be done. There were assertions that the names were the reason for Marvel's success- but they were not supported by references to any reliable sources and seemed in any event an implausible claim. That is until the references brought up by Tenebrae (which I presume are those you refer me to) - about catchphrases and endearments being part of "Marvelmania", this did seem an argument for why the article on Marvel Comics should have a section about cartchphrases and endearments, but not as to why editors should do their own research to document each and every example of the endearments. No one addressed the issue of why a stand alone list was needed when each name was included in the articles about those characters or creators. Documenting the phenomenom (which the article did not actually do) seems fine, but listing each example was not justified.
Of course if you do think I was wrong in assessing the concensus of the discussion, feel free to seek a review of my close at WP:DRV. WjBscribe18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I've seen enough of "sour grapes" responses to discussion closures done to/received by other admins, and I'm not a fan of them. I hope that you do not consider my comments in that light.
As far as your comments above: Yes, the list could be merged to Marvel Comics, however, it would then immediately be split to its own list page. This is a common thing to do for page length reasons. And as I discovered in my encounters with WP:FA, is often necessary for featured articles (to which I presume the editors of Marvel Comics aspire and hope). The fact that this is verifiable makes it firmly within policy. And in looking over the delete comments, they would seem to be mostly IDON'TLIKEIT. These terms are cultural references, and not just discriminate information. I hope this clarifies what I was saying above.
As for WP:DRV - I'm considering it, but I would prefer to understand your closure more fully, so as to make a more educated decision regarding whether or not it is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate way to go about it.
There are two main points I remain unconvinced by:
Why should there be a list at all? Surely the phenomenon of endearments could be discussed more than adequately without each and every example. The phenomenon may be notable (it was not discussed in the article) but the list does not appear to be...
Actually I don't think the list is verifiable. It would be if for each entry you could point to a reliable source that said "character X was referred to be endearment Y". But it is OR to trawl through the various comics and make one's own judgment. How many times must a character be refered to by the endearment to qualify? What happens if more than one is used? If independent reliable sources have provided the material to compose the list that is one thing, but if editors are doing their own research into the source material that is not.
And to clarify I have no problem discussing the close nor do I think it is wrong for you to question it. I would also not be in any way offended if you wished to raise the matter at WP:DRV, though I believe my close was correct. WjBscribe22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Taking them in reverse order: It's not original research to find examples of "x" in a source work. This is no different than watching the credits of a television show and adding that information to an article. Quoting from WP:OR:
"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
As to why it should be a list... quoting from WP:LIST:
"Information - The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."
This is a list "grouped by theme".
And thank you for this open discussion. It's nice when Wikipedians can discuss without the pitfalls that I think we've all seen : ) - jc3723:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there's still an inherent element of OR here. If I watch film X and see that actor Y played character Z, I could add that to the relevant articles. But if I read a comic and character A is refered to by name B - do I add that to list of endearments? Must I read all other comics to check the name is used again and that no other name is used? My point is that it was never a "list of comic book characters sometimes called by other names", but something more specific. I think a reliable source would be needed to confirm that a particular endearment was used for any given chracter. WjBscribe23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your closing message hadn't addressed my comments of 3/30/7, which were made in good faith and not a casual spirit of "I like it" trivia mongering. Immediately after writing those comments, (a critical "keep"), I made a solid start at revising the page's vagueness, and added what I hope were reasonable explanations of those revisions to its discussion page. Returning a week later, it seems my work had vanished that day, without acknowledgment whether it was even glimpsed prior to its deletion. Rather like "losing" a "race" one didn't know one was in.
As for the list itself, wherever it is. I would tentatively infer from the "delete" comments that some deleters seem to equate literary style, rhetoric and language with "trivia". To them plot descriptions, story histories, lists or articles of proper nouns or proper names from a literary work are fair and objective, facts as it were, but that style is merely an arbitrary means of conveying the facts.
Yet often a style holds more moral information and emotional interest than the objective facts it conveys. We might compare style to a bee carrying pollen from flower to flower -- the bee is perhaps oblivious to the pollen, as all it wants is the nectar, (its own "objective facts"), yet if it lacked that pollen there would be no flowers, and no nectar.
On Marvel Comics, what mostly distinguished it from its rivals wasn't plots or characters, which were derived from similar ones past, but the appropriateness and occasional beauty of its style. Besides the artwork, Stan Lee's influential language and descriptive tastes were a major part of that style, just as Dicken's Wellerisms, Joyce's puns and puzzles, Homer's epithets, the King James Bible's grammar, etc. were inseparable ingredients of these works made famous by style.
One can't objectively describe such a style in a few pithy words, ("Shakespeare's style was X Y Z), as style tends to be, by design, many things to many people. We can quote what people thought of it:
[Shakespeare is] often considered to be England's national poet[5] and is sometimes referred to as the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard")[6] or the "Swan of Avon".
And we can show and contrast some of it, and that's what that article was about, (granted the article as it was a few weeks ago did not do a good job of it). Condemning such efforts seems contrary to the objective purpose of Wikipedia; as an important style, if mentioned at all, is thus relegated to a few such words which are themselves fatally subjective. --AC09:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What percentage did you get when you counted the votes on the MyWikiBiz AfD, which you closed as delete? It looks pretty questionable to me. Everyking06:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been around long enough to anticipate that reply almost word for word, but it's not valid. Your opinion about the article isn't worth more than those of the voters; your job as an admin is to apply the community's decision, not make your own judgment about the article. That is why you need to know the percentage, and that's why I asked. A day or two ago it was at about 66% delete, but with several more keep votes since then (and no new delete votes) I'm thinking that must have been pushed down to around 60% or so, which puts it pretty clearly in the traditional safe zone. Everyking07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments (that is to say, your opinion about their merits). It does have to do with the numbers, and I think you deleted that article without consensus to do so. That you cite the merits of the arguments just confirms to me that you were not concerned with determining consensus, only with determining which side you felt had the better arguments. Everyking07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD process question
Newbie question: I nominated Ctime for deletion, and it's been five days. So do I simply wait for an admin to determine the result, or do I (a non-admin) get to decide? Futhermore, the consensus appears to be to convert it into a disambiguation page, which does not appear to be covered as one of the accetapble outcomes; or would it count as a "merge"? — Loadmaster20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You opposed his adminship based on block log comments for "fairly innocuous mistakes". I don't know the background of all these blocks, so you could you give a few examples of comments you thought punished mistakes? - Mgm|(talk)14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive_5, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Need a mop and bucket
at the Zodiac article. One editor seems to be badmouthing everyone who has ever even graced the page, and it is driving people away. Caould you take a look? I can email you some other pertinent info, if needed. Jeffpw15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I got contacted about this as well and will be looking into it as time permits (which may be before you return from Wikibreak). I'll keep you informed if you are interested.--Isotope2318:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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. Ralbot08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
And due to your absence I got to add the new high vote record to the list ;) NoSeptember 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
IP requests for name change
If you are wondering about all those requests from an IP address, this work in progress might clear things up, I think it looks like attempt to cover tracks. The reason that it's done from an IP is that all of those accounts are blocked for various interrelated reasons --Fredrick day00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
JD Perrin
Alright, I don't know who this JD Perrin guy is, maybe he didn't ever exist... there is no way for me to know... but the Semi-pro team did exist as far as I know... is there anyway it could be reverted back into existence so it can be cleaned up... worst case senario... all the BS removed and at least turned into a stub? DMighton16:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt notability will be an issue. I do not know enough of that league to build the article, but eventually someone will come along. Nevermind the revert, someone will come along to it eventually. Thanks. DMighton16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't delete articles just because we've transwikified them. Hence why that isn't a speedy delete criteria by itself- needs to be the result of an AfD discussion for CSD A5. DGG's comment suggests the article may be able to be more than a dicdef. I think this possibility needs to be discussed before the article is deleted, though I suspect the consensus will be to delete. WjBscribe00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Requests for User talk page move from old username to new username
I just had my username changed from Ohioan to OHWiki. I would like to have my user talk page moved from my old user talk name Ohioan to my new user talk name OHWiki. I was wondering if that can be done because my new name would like to have a history page.—OHWiki02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I completely missed your request here- I would have been glad to sort it for you. Good that its been done though... WjBscribe19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for Reconsideration of Unforgivable Trilogy
I recently came across the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unforgivable Trilogy discussion and was immediately intrigued by the arguments for and against deletion. I, myself, know of these videos, as well as the cultural impact that they have had. These videos have become something of a pop-phenomenon and have amassed quite a cult following in various youth circles. Many people, however, are unaware of the story behind these videos, not to mention the production company who makes them. Having a place where those who are curious about the subject can go to find out more about it would not only be a nice thing to have, but also seems to be the entire point of having a website like wikipedia. I believe having a wikipedia page for the unforgivable series, along with other Hodge-Stansson projects, benefits the site as a whole due to the sheer popularity of them. Having read multiple pages regarding wikipedia guidelines, I believe that what sets wikipedia apart from other, published encyclopedias is that it includes articles on a full spectrum of topics. While having a code, or set of minimum requirements, for submission is a necessity, those requirements should (and often must) have room for interpretation. If the requirements are set in stone, then what sets wikipedia apart from any other encyclopedia will cease to exist. However, if the requirements are more like guidelines, open to interpretation and consideration in individual cases, the concept of wikipedia is furthered in that it would contain articles on topics not typically discussed by traditional reference materials.
Going through the Articles for deletion/Unforgivable Trilogy discussion, the points for deletion most commonly argued are that A.) The Trilogy is not of notable or significant consequence, and B.) there is a lack of sources to attribute the article to. As to the notability of the series, the official post (released by the producers) of the first installment in the series alone has some 900,000 views in the relatively short amount of time it has been up. That figure does not even take into account the various other copies of the video, all of which are under different names, with differing numbers of views. Not to mention the other videos in the series, along with the other Hodge-Stansson videos, which, if considered, bring the total number of views (not counting those of trailers) to a staggering 3,487,388[1]. To put those figures into perspective, 4 out of the 7 winners at the recently hosted "YouTube Video Awards" have around 2,000,000 views to their credit[2]. It seems to me that with this kind of exposure, the argument of a lack of notability is, at the very least, a weak one. A large part of what makes this series such a cultural phenomenon is that it started out largely as an underground video that, for the most part, went unnoticed. However, news of it spread through word of mouth, and the once relatively small, underground following that the video/series had collected eventually became the success that it is today. In my opinion, the fact that the popularity of the video has spread, not through advertisement or articles in well known publications, but through individual testimony, attests to its notability. Which brings me to the thing over which people took issue with the article in the discussion, and that is that no credible sources exist regarding the topic. To me this argument only raises the questions on the intentions of those who would use it. If the sources are simply to establish notability of the topic, I believe i have sufficiently countered this argument. If, however, the issue is(and theoretically it should be) that a lack of sources mean that the information provided in the article may not be accurate then I feel the article should be undeleted, if only temporarily, so that someone is able to verify that information. As for sources, I know for a fact that the producers of this series are very active in communication with fans. Would confirmation of the accuracy of the content of the article from the creators themselves be adequate citation enough. I should hope that it is, considering articles of the same nature (concerning YouTube videos) do not even have that direct of a source, if they have any at all. For example, the The Juggernaut Bitch!! article cites a blank web page and the producers' "Myspace" as sources. So I respectfully submit to you, the editor/deleter of said article, that the series in question is in fact very notable, and that if questions are raised concerning the accuracy of the facts stated in the article, that the article be reposted so that modifications can be made to it. Thank you for taking the time to consider the arguments I have made. Nikoli McFrench05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I cannot overturn the concensus of the deletion discussion even if I wanted to. There was a clear concensus among those who expressed opinions in that debate that the article did not meet our notability standards. In particular that popularity does not equal importance and that there was a lack of independent reliable sources to confirm the notaibility of the subject matter. The fact that there may be similar problems with another article does not mean that the deleted one should be undeleted but potentially that the other should also be nominated for deletion. If you want to argue that the article should be undeleted, you can request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV, but I don't think you will have much luck. If you do decide to go down that route make sure you can point to multiple reliable source that discuss the subject of the deleted article. WjBscribe14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the heads up and protecting Esparanza, it's getting beyond a joke now. Lets just hope the mediation can put it to sleep once and for all Ryan Postlethwaite17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
All I did was change a sentence so that it didnt involve spelling the word "Esperanz(i)an"... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't for you last edit that I protected it :-). It was the back and forth on whether there should be a summary of the keep reasons. Had I known Ryan was mediating I wouldn't have protected. The change in spelling was not the issue. And the consensus at WP:ANI seems to be that Ed is heading towards a block or ban from that apge... WjBscribe18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the mediation isn't going to work. I agreed to it because Ryan asked, but Ed said on Ryan's talkpage three days ago, "I'm no longer interested in a mediation with you as a mediator. I want completely unbiased mediation from people who had no interest in WP:EA." Whether he will change his mind in the face of an imminent page ban remains to be seen.
Phew, this thing I have about enforcing consensus and correcting injustices takes a lot of effort - you realise I've been the subject or main participant in about 5 AN/I reports since the 6th (NerriTunn, PatPeter, NerriTunn again, CyclePat, Ed)? I need to actually study at some point... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know there had been issues with NerriTunn again. You do need to study- wouldn't want you to miss your uni offers for Wikipedia! I'll make it clear to Ed that mediation with Ryan is his last option before he's facing a page ban. I think the Community has lost patience here. WjBscribe19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A logged in user did post speculative details and was warned with an immediate blocking, ergo my change. (→Netscott)23:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We do not need big red signs. The information that lead to revisions having to be deleted (i.e. the name of someone claimed to be the shooter and his email address, phone number and a photo) have not been reposted by any logged in editors. Lets try and keep it all calm. If the info can be dealt with just by reverting, it isn't a major problem. WjBscribe23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I searched for the deleted edits you referred to, but could not find any edits that mentioned any names, that were deleted. Perhaps they were reverted. Anyhow, I stand by my decision to unprotect the talk page, at that time. While in hindsight, it wasn't the best decision, my decision at the time was prompted by the fact that the page was protected for 3 some hours at the time, and as far as I knew, or assumed, that the vandalism was of the drive-by type. If, as you say, after I unprotected, vandals inserted the names again, well then, I support the recent protection. Pepsidrinka02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I still think you're being unkind to Matt. I think the criticism of his XfD experience is valid, but I really don't see a connection between his being willing to try a new RfA style and likeliness to be a disruptive admin. WjBscribe03:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Could use some help, please
I'm hoping you can help with a small problem I am having. User: Abu badali seems to be checking my contributions and removing images from articles that I have uploaded. My feeling is that he is doing this in retribution for my support of the Rfc against him. He has stalked me in the past (Theresa Knott has challenged him about this), so I am not surprised. His latest episode has been to remove this image from the article about Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. If one looks at the licensing, it states clearly that the photo is available for use by the public, so long as the RFD (Dutch Information Service) is given credit for it. Its use on Wikipedia fulfills this criterion. The notice from the RFD says Deze foto mag worden gedownload, gebruikt en gereproduceerd zonder schriftelijke toestemming....Voorwaarde hierbij is wel het vermelden van het auteursrecht van de RVD.: This photo may be downloaded, used and reproduced without written permission...on the condition that it is stated the rights are from the RVD"
Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus' or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Wikipedia would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the image yourself and reach your own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support- even a cursory review of User:Domer48's changes show the bias and POV that motivates him. Please put O'Connell's page on your watchlist b/c I can assure you that others will come along and impose their POV as well. Btw- I requested page protection for the O'Connell page.
I would like to clarify a quote in this article, and find that it is blocked on the advice of an editor who is banned, and using a sock. Could this article be unblocked please. Thanking you in advance, Regards --Domer4820:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This user has made accusations about me, and I will not submit to his calumny. An example here [3]. Can these sort of activities be condoned. --Domer4820:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The page protection was not on advice of anyone. It followed my assessment that there were serious problems with NPOV edits from a number of people. The protection will remain until these matters can be resolved. I suggest discussion on the talkpage. As to the diff above, Alison seems to have dealt appropriately with the matter. WjBscribe20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If I can add my two cents here, protecting the page serves no real purpose that I can see. The editor seeking to include the phrase "majoritarianist and intimidatory" is community banned, and his edits should be reverted per WP:BAN. Unless a third party is planning to get involved, there is no editing dispute. One Night In Hackney30321:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The edit history suggests more than one user taking issue with the present text and the edit warring has been going on for some time. Without proof that all other contributing who have been seeking to change the present version are sockpuppets I would not be happy with unprotecting before a consensus on the talkpage agrees the present version. WjBscribe21:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This checkuser confirms two of the most recent accounts to take issue with the present text are one and the same, and this related ANI report shows the 216.194 prefixed IPs are also the same editor. If you check the suspected and confirmed sockpuppets you'll probably find every time that phrase was inserted it was by a sockpuppet. This request for comment will show the anti-Irish/anti-Catholic bias this editor has. If you want to keep the page protected that's your decision obviously, but at least you know more of the background now. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30321:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am in no doubt personally, that the above editors are Robert Sieger. However, I also agree with WJBscribe here that an independent review of the article take place before it's unprotected. At the very least, it may deter RMS from coming back (as he most certainly will) and vandalising it again. Note that protecting an article is not to be inferred as endorsing any particular revision - Alison☺21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In light of the checkuser I'm not sure protection is warranted under present policy, I will unprotect the page. It does need to be independently reviewed though. WjBscribe21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for unprotecting the article. For the record I have no real idea whether the article has POV issues or not, my only real involvement has been to sort out this version to something more aesthetically pleasing, and to revert obvious vandalism and sockpuppetry. One Night In Hackney30303:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: VA Tech
I unprotected because it's ridiculous to have the article and the talk page of a rapidly changing article on the main page protected from anon and new users. It's easy enough to revert and purge the history if necessary. Protecting it was just the easy way out. I didn't contact either of you because the post I read at AN/I said both of you were offline. John Reaves(talk)20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of why it was protected. I'm also aware that stuff like that is added to Wikipedia everyday and dealt with accordingly. Why you feel that this should be the exception, I don't know. It was in the best interest of the encyclopedia to have at least the talk page unprotected. This "need" for protection was manufactured out of paranoia. John Reaves(talk)21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how seeing the revisions would make a difference. Just because three admins felt it was the right move, doesn't mean it was the right move. It had been protected for over 3 hours, it should have been a short, timed protection anyway. And since I don't see you going back and protecting it again, I don't see why you're making it such a big deal. John Reaves(talk)21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, my response to him was from an issue on my last RFA, which is why I don't know why he opposed me since the whole point of running again would be to be forgiven for your mistakes of a long time ago. Thanks, --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree if Nichalp had just opposed you straight away, but he gave you the opportunity to explain whether you still held the opinion when he asked Q.6. You chose to defend that comment, so I don't think you can say it was an old issue. I would have been more comfortable (as I guess would he) if you had distanced yourself from it instead. Still I'm sorry your RfA didn't succeed and I'm sure its only a matter of time before you are an admin. WjBscribe22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I don't remember if I still said I agree with it. Now that I think of it though, I don't think I ever said that I don't agree with it anymore :). I of course wouldn't say I still agree with it (I'm pretty sure you saw what it got me on my last RFA.), and when I originally said it, I think I said it in the wrong way. I don't think anyone totally understood what I meant. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
...but I accidentally recreated The Church Of The Hat after you had deleted it for the second time. I'm using VandalProof, so I guess I clicked the "db-repost" button right after you deleted the article. Sorry! -- P.B. Pilhet23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, firstly the general concensus is that AfDs should only be relisted by the admin who reviews the discussion after 5 days where they believe further discussion will help in reaching concensus, though there is technically nothing to prevent a non-admin from relisting a discussion. As to how someone physically goes about relisting them. They add the template {{relist}} to the bottom of the discussion, remove the link to the discussion on the AfD's current page and readd that link on the bottom of the discussions on the present day's page. Hope that answers your question. Is there any discussion in particular that you think should be relisted? WjBscribe02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No...not in particular. I was just curious, considering you do quite a bit of AFD relisting. Sr13(T|C) 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Rash and Hasty Deletion
Perhaps next time you could try talking to the creator of a page and let others have a say before deleting it when you obviously have no background knowledge of the content. 60.241.51.7806:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss any article deletion but am not a mind reader. You will need to tell me what article we are talking about if this conversation is to go anywhere. WjBscribe12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
HELP!!!!!
You've auto blocked me because my school ip was used by a vandal only account. Check my contribs and my user page to prove I'm legit! Please help. --Pupster21Talk To Me15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT wikiproject template has been removed from the talk page[4]. Is Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln still a LGBT wikiproject? --Knowpedia01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if that article isn't within the scope of the LGBT Wikiproject I dunno what is... Even the article's critics would I think agree that the project tag belongs. WjBscribe01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Left comment at bottom of talk page to let editors know this is still within the scope of LGBT wikiproject. --Knowpedia01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Darrin Powers AFD
Hi, I wanted to ask you about the possibility of overturning and relisting this article. Based on the upset that the nominator had because I put an article he worked on up for deletion I believe he searched through my edits for an article I created and nominated it out of spite in violation of WP:POINT. His snarky comment about it on my talk page also leads me to this conclusion. Given that only one person other than the nominator commented I don't think it's unreasonable to relist. Thanks. Otto471104:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go offline so won't be able to look into this fully until I'm next online. But a quick look at the article shows that the the only source was IMDB. I'm sorry if the nomination was vindictive but I'm not in favour of process for process's sake. What arguments would you make for the keeping of this article if I were to undelete it? Can you provide reliable sources to confirm his notability? I'd like to see a reasonable argument before I put the community to the trouble of a fresh AfD. WjBscribe04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, you recently closed an AFD I had started here with the consensus being to keep. Several of the commenters suggested changing the name of the page from People wrongly convicted in the United States to something along the lines of Overturned convictions in the United States (paraphrasing). Additionally, most of the commenters agreed that any convictions listed as "disputed" must be removed. Shortly after the AFD was closed, Danras who started the page and has added practically all of the content, moved[6] the page to Convicted persons in the United States, which is apparently an attempt at an end-run around the comments made during the AFD. Per the discussion, I moved [7] the page to Overturned Convictions in the United States and removed[8] the "disputed convictions". Danras has moved[9] the page back to Convicted persons in the United States and reverted[10] my changes. I haven't changed anything back because I don't want to get into an edit war. As the admin who closed the discussion, I would be interested in any suggestions you may have. Thanks! Tufflaw21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved back and move-protected. I want to see a consensus for a new title before any further moves are made. WjBscribe21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to help. When we reach a consensus on the article title, I'll drop you a line to unprotect if that's OK. Tufflaw00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm Kkrouni and I made this account to become the new Sony trademark vs dell trademark host. I read the directions a day or two ago and thought it said make new account, so this account was intended to be my change of name. Is there any way that I can change my old account to this one? --Kkrouni 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC) and --Sony trademark vs dell trademark 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you --Sony trademark vs dell trademark21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear WJB
Dear WJB, it is true that I haven't been blessed to cross your path until now
but I'm happy, because that only means that I have a new friend from today on :)
Thank you so much for the beautiful message, and your sweet email
(as well as the info you provided me! ;)
If you ever need my help, or if you just feel like talking,
you know just where to find me, right? You'll always be welcome there :)
Love,
I'd heard of the user, but this was the first time I'd actually seen a sock puppet of his editing.... it looked like he was making a threat rather than asking for protection! --SunStar Nettalk15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure he was but I still think he needs to make more than one edit before forcing us to protect a page. Besides that account was created today so semi-protection would have stopped it from editing that page. If accounts admit to being socks of banned users, just report them straight to WP:AIV. WjBscribe16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree to postpone the RfC immediately and discuss this with Ryulong, however, the gross and blatant disregard for policy, the fact his actions potentially worsened a situation, and refusal to assume good faith by accusing those using temporary socks as trolling leaves me wondering what the outcome could be if it was brought to him as a discussion. I highly doubt he would agree to voluntary desysop. In my mind, that leaves us all with a "I'm sorry, I'll never do it again" response. I may be missing a course of action that would be appropriate for this case, so if you can think of something that would generate something more than a simple apology, then I would be all for postponing, even ending the RfC. CASCADIAHowl/Trail02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe, I'm going to ask for your advice on this, because I feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place In regards to the discussion with Ryulong. He appears to have decided that "I'm sorry and It will never happen again" is plenty sufficient and has gone on his merry way. For many people on here, that's plenty acceptable. For me, that's the equivalent of anyone disregarding policies and , IMHO, abusing their powers. If anyone else in any role, such as a Police Officer, manager, etc., had taken an equivalent action, they'd be standing in the unemployment line.The major problem I have is allowing a continuing attitude of "I can really really screw up, say I'm sorry, and that will be it".
However, I feel as if I went forward with an RfC, it would not be supported because of the protectionist attitude of tenured contributors and support of "Well, he apologized, everything is perfect" attitude. Your thoughts? CASCADIAHowl/Trail14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Formating Usurp Headers
Since it always seems that HagermanBot signs when you insert the header on CHU/U, just use !NOSIGN! in the edit summary and it won't sign the edit. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks- I always forget what the code is for that. I'll give it a go. Otherwise it might be worth my while just opting out from HagermanBot altogether... WjBscribe01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not the decisions, it's the fact that I made the decisions for April 16 nominations, which is listed as an "archived discussion" on the AFD page. I didn't know if that meant I should have left them alone. fishhead6406:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
BN and Cydebot
Don't think this is needed, traditionally unapproved bots, or bots violating their constraints are dealt with by blocking, not by deflagging. Removing the flag would not stop the operation, simply flood even more logs. — xaosfluxTalk07:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, My block reasoning was that this bot was working outside of the controls approved by the community. To that end I recognize that the community has plenty of methods for chaning policy, and perhaps it needs reviewing--but not by just a handful of editors. — xaosfluxTalk07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the outcome of the AfDs was to keep the articles as they were, not to merge. If you want to merge them there needs to be a fresh discussion on the relevant talkpages that reach that conclusion. You cannot simply overrule the outcome of the AfDs because you disagree with those outcomes. Merging may well be the right course but at the moment the community seems to have rejected that options- I think further discussion is needed before any merges are done. WjBscribe02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There will not be any discussion. The "community" you refer to seems to be a group of editors who were not able to get along with the REAL community of editors who have long protected these pages from fancruft and vandalism. These stubs were created 2 years ago by a disruptive editor who was not happy with the REAL community of EEnE editors. He went under user names of Bobber1 or Bobber2. You can look this up in the archived talk pages. Since then, other editors who have not been happy with the decisions of the REAL community of EEnE editors have embraced these pages. I wasn't even aware of them until they tried to link them into List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. I then proposed these stubs for AfD. To my dismay, the decision was "keep." Why do we have an encyclopedia when the rules and policy and protocol are not followed? Why should these stubs be allowed to exist, which fly in the face of the official stated guidelines for editing Wikipedia? Why should an encyclopedia have dual pages for characters of a fictional series, in which the stated info often clashes?
The characters do not meet notability standards to have separate pages, even for fictional charcters. These articles have been protected for years by faithful editors, who have unceasingly deleted fancruft and vandalism, often MANY times in one day. It seems that some sockpuppets proposed "keep" to the original AfD, but it also seems that the admin who rendered the decision only counted "votes". Others have since commented that these characters do NOT meet notability standards to merit having their own pages. I suggest that you look at the complete picture of the history of all these articles before rendering any such decision. -- Elaich05:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be violating WP:OWN with your comment about people "protecting" the page. You are also forgetting to assume good faith because you accused some of the users on the AFD of being sockpuppets without any evidence. How are those supposed to be "votes" anyways, Elaich? Squirepants10112:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Elaich, I am sorry you think the AfD reached the wrong conclusion. But I most certainly did not close it by counting votes. A number of experienced editors expressed the view that they believed the characters were sufficiently notable as central characters to have their own articles. If anything the single purpose accounts in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy) were the advocating the deletion of the articles. There was not a single merge opinion. You disagree with the outcome- I get that but community consensus is how things are done here. I could simply say that the AfD result will be followed and leave it at that. But in deference to the fact that regular editors of these articles may have a different view, I think a merge may still be appropriate if a consensus is reached on the talkpage. So if your aim is to achieve a merge there will be a discussion. WjBscribe13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care if the articles are merged or not. My point is that whatever we have, we should have only one of it. Currently, there is the info on the page List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy, and the separate character pages. We should have one or the other, but not both. That's why I proposed them for AfD. If they are not merged, then we will have to delete the info on the bio page, and put links to the separate pages. I'm not criticising your decision on the AfD, but it does seem like you just considered how many people wanted to keep as opposed to how many wanted to delete. For instance, this from WP:FICT seems so clearcut to me that I can't see how it doesn't apply to these characters:
"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article."
Certainly, the bios on List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy are not so long as to justify separate character pages, as defined in that statement. If I am missing something, please enlighten me. The editors who wanted to keep did not give any reasons except that "He's a major character and should have his own page," as if the character is alive and his feelings might be hurt. Anyway, the decision is made, and whether the pages are merged or not, I will keep editing as I always have. Fighting vandalism on this article is a never ending job. It gets hit a LOT. Thankfully, quite a few people watch this page, and don't let it remain very long. There are also the editors with poor communication skills who post childish comments like "wun time jimy spend teh day with eddy and he was tuff" (to be expected with an article about a cartoon show.) As far as the discussion, like I said, there is not likely to be any. If there isn't, at what point do you make a decision? Thank you for your time. -- Elaich01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Shall we say that if no one opposes the merge for one week after it is proposed then it can go ahead? If there is oposition then you can make a merge request and the outcome will depend on the balance of the arguments. WjBscribe01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Shall we say that I have decided to challenge you on the basis that you completely ignored the editing guidelines in WP:FICT when you decided to keep the stubs, and decided to reinstate the stubs, even though it violates established Wikipedia guidelines. You took a vote. Pure and simple. The evidence is all there. You stated that " the will of the community should prevail" while ignoring the fact that established and published Wikipedia guidelines explicitly say that these pages are not notable, and should be expunged. The will of the community cannot and should not violate the editing guidelines. Otherwise, we would have chaos. -- Elaich05:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No, we will have chaos if everyone who doesn't like the fact that their AfD nomination ended in keep decides to merge the content anyway. You cannot disregard the outcome because you did not like it, or because you think those who contributed were wrong about the relevant policies. If you want to challenge my decision and gain input from other administrators you can do so at WP:ANI. In the meantime, do not merge those articles without gaining a fresh consensus. WjBscribe11:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
From WP:MERGE:
"There are several good reasons to merge a page:
There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject."
True.
"Merging is a normal editing action, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed; if you think it improves the encyclopedia, you can simply be bold and perform the merge, as described below. If you are not sure where or how to merge, or there is disagreement about this, it helps if you propose, advertise and discuss it."
I do not intend to merge the pages. As I stated above, I will accept whatever is decided by the community, and will continue to edit as I always have. What I do suspect is NPOV on your part, or lack of it. It's a moot point right now. However, I did definitely get the idea that you were threatening me if I did merge the pages, and that is something that I WILL pursue. I question your neutrality on this subject, since you are so willing to ignore WP:FICT, and I will be pursuing that. Out of here for now. -- Elaich21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I am pefectly willing to support a merge when you are able to point towards a consensus for such a merge- I have no opinion on how best to present the information so I'm not sure what POV you are suggesting I have. I have nothing further to say on this matter. If you have a problem with my conduct you may of course seek the opinion of other administrators on the relevant board, though I don't think you'll have much luck. WjBscribe01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. You decide to merge or not to merge, even though the guidelines say I should. I will edit as I always have. The guidelines say I should merge boldly, and that an admin input is not needed. You have repeatedly ignored posted Wikipedia editing guidelines, and by saying "you won't have much luck," you seem to suggest that all Wikipedia admins are as blind or are as biased as you are. I don't think so. -- Elaich10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines do say you should merge boldly- but not if a community discussion has determined otherwise. I consider this to be the end of our discussion. I have been nothing but helpful to you despite the fact that you demonstrated only sour grapes that the AfDs did not go your way and have been rather rude in your discussions with me. Take this to WP:ANI if you have a problem with me but this discussion is over until you can show me a consensus for the merge you propose that might override that at AfD which was clearly not to merge. WjBscribe13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A personal attack?
Look what comment Elaich left on my talk page:
I am getting pretty sick and tired of you following me around and leaving snide comments on others' talk pages. If you want to communicate with me, please do so on MY talk page. I hate to say this, but you are beginning to show signs of becoming a NetNanny or NetKop. You seem more concerned about holding people to a fine line of compliance with niggling rules and regulations than the content of pages, or making viable edits. I wonder why it does not seem to bother you at all that these stubs do not meet Wikipedia guidelines to exist, but my efforts to do away with them seem to be a major concern. to you. Once again, I am getting tired of it.
Should I just warn him with a warning about being civil or should I actually report this to WP:ANI? Squirepants10115:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a personal attack, no. Though it isn't very civil. I think issuing warnings etc. is only likely to inflame things. Tensions seem to have gotten a little high and it may be best just to let things calm down a bit, though it's obviously up to you... WjBscribe01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Now he's suspecting that I never took a wikibreak at all. I did, it's just the fact that it was shorter than I intended it to be and that I dealt with the wikistress. The template did say short wikibreak. He also said, "Good faith, eh?" I believe that those comments are uncivil. It's not harassment, though. Squirepants10117:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Kelly Martin is claiming that BAG actions involved "conspiring to protect their own power base" (ludicrous and untrue, I have had no off wiki discussion on the matter with xaosflux), and has referred to us and me as "much less qualified and competent" than the self appointed IRC participants who decided to approve CydeBot without telling us. I am really quite shaken up and upset by the baseless accusations of bad faith, incompetence and idiocy, and believe it might be appropriate to file an RFC citing Kelly Martin and David Gerard, and possibly gmaxwell and Cyde. To file an RFC, two members need to certify the dispute and show diffs where dispute resolution was attempted. As somebody who has attempted to resolve the dispute, I wonder if you would be willing to so certify? If you are, perhaps we can work in my sandbox. --kingboyk14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I think it's best to just let the issue fade away. Thanks for your time and sorry to bother you. --kingboyk22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew van de kamp
He is in character. Look at this page. They're all labelled as their characters, because that's who they are intended to be. Shawn Pyfrom doesn't look or dress like that when he is not filming, look at his website. I don't know why Matthew keeps saying I haven't refuted his point about it not being his character - it seems clear enough to me it is. There are also links on the page where the image is used to show what Andrew Van De Kamp looks like, not Shawn Pyfrom. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot07:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
RFD
I wasn't even aware of the redirects or the RFD. Feel free to delete. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-17 14:23Z
South dakota Senate Election 2008
I created the article, and was "upset" when it was put up for deletion. I just had a comment and question. The comment is thank-you for taking it off. The question is why? Please leave your comment on my talk page. Politics rule 8:48pm EST.-4/18/2007.
Got message. Thanks. Politics rule 9:01pm EST. 4/18/2007.
Professional Information Security Association
Thank you but I don't think a discussion is necessary, given the prominences of the Society; nonetheless I'll leave it for them to consit the merit. Thank you for your prompt responses.
An alternate link is listed here for you to consider undeleting it without much further discussion with other non-essential parties.
Please reconsider and recover the aforementioned page at your earliest convenience.
I do appreciate your point of view and I'd further appreciate if you would attempt the following google link and search for our organization. It comes out with more than 10,000 links and citations from different sources after being established since 2001.
Please state your grounds for deleting this article on 13 April. We are certainly a notable group in the Information Security arena.
The page was deleted on 19 April 2007 and the grounds weren't justified. Per se it is not a CORPORATION. It is a Society for non-profit and non-charitable purposes. It has aimed to promote the skilled use of information society.
We do have enough justification and is notable locally in local press. We have been advisors of government bodies, agencies, and have enough coverage under local press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailcpathetsang (talk • contribs)
Oops. I meant to request semi-protection. I agree that full protection wouldn't be appropriate. I use twinkle and I'm kinda new with it. Sorry for the error. Thank you for protecting. MECU≈talk17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I usually do. :) Didn't notice the prior autoblock... they didn't give us an IP address, looks like, but if they had, my first instinct would be to check if it's shared. They seem to be making decent edits most of the time. Guess we can see if this happens again? – Luna Santin (talk)18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My, that'd be awkward. Definitely a big entry in the (-) column for the roomie's scorecard (not that I keep score, or anything...) – Luna Santin (talk)18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Professional Information Security Association
Further information have been provided in regards of the association. Please continue with the discussion. I'm waiting for further feedbacks from the contributors.
MailcpathetsangTalk 4:55 2007/04/25
Per instruction received earlier from WJBscribe, this talk has been cut from the top and pasted down to the bottom.
MailcpathetsangTalk 5:14 2007/04/25
Thank you. I am keeping an eye on the discussion and may comment further. Ultimately the discussion will not be closed by me, but by an uninvolved administrator who will assess the consensus reached. WjBscribe21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think possibly you could have joined one of several discussions that was ongoing about
this site for consensus before lopping it off. Without talking to me about it, I will just reinstate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlcook (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
The Talk was not over, but Alison deleted the speedy deletion talk page I am assuming accidentally
Actually, I think that was my fault. When looking at WP:CSD, I interpreted G3 to mean that if an article was recreated after being speedily deleted that it then had to be deleted through AfD. Since there was originally an AfD discussion about Worldofbags on April 24 (before it got retagged for speedy), I {{relist}}ed it on April 25. While I think the page should certainly be deleted (given that the subject isn't notable and that there's no assertion of notability in the article), it seemed to me that a discussion needed to be had before it was redeleted. If that was an incorrect assumption on my part, forgive me! Esrever02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The AfD discussion is pretty irrelevant here. Articles that do not assert the importance of their subject are speedy deleted per CSD A7. Unless someone can point to something that makes this bag trader in any way significant, there is no need to undelete it. If people disagree with my decision, the proper place to challenge it is at Wikipedia:Deletion review not by continuing discussion on the old AfD page. WjBscribe02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly my interpretation of it. The article does not assert its importance or notability in any way; it's just another retailer and isn't particularly encyclopedic - Alison☺03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccurate media reports of the virginia tech massacre poll
Hi, I couldn't find a summary of the poll and when I counted, not including my own vote, there were 38 Keeps and 32 deletes. If you assume the merges to prefer keep or require a fair high majority to remove the article then I don't see how it could be interpreted that the poll favored deletion. Is ther anything more that I could see of your reasoning? Youngidealist04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think my reasoning is pretty clear. You should note that Articles for deletion is not a vote and that quality of opinion counts over number of opinions. For example simply saying that one likes the article isn't likely to be counted much by the person closing the discussion. Also higher weight is given to comments made by regular editors than those who have only edited the discussion page- especially as they could be the same person using several accounts. I don't agree that those who advocated merging would necessarily have prefered keeping to deletion- that falls to be decided by considering the comments they made in suggesting a merge. WjBscribe05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. This has been quite the parade of socks and spas. It goes without saying that "its interesting", "I like it" and "its true" are not good reasons to keep content. The fundamental concerns of those arguing for deletion have not been met. Innacurate media reports are common to news that emerges shortly after major incidents. Discussion of such reports relating to the massacre (and in particular those of Michael Sneed) has not taken place in multiple reliable sources such that an article can be based around them. Those who are not just passing through that advocate keeping do so mainly on a "wait and see basis" but one can just as easily wait until a topic has become notable before covering it- indeed that is our standard practice. There are also valid WP:BLP concerns about an article which, even with a substantial rewrite, still emphasises the error of one person who is not otherwise notable.
The tenor of this debate is fundamentally in favour of deletion. The matter would appear from the discussion to deserve a brief mention at Virginia Tech massacre if anything. WjBscribe 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To start, I never cared that there would be a main article for the inaccurate reports, but I placed the information on there, because another member removed my contribution because there was a main article for it. Is there a way that I could get the text summary and sources back to mention in the related section on the virginia massare?
My second point is that while inaccurate media is common, it should be noted for the sake of people who wish not to be dissuayed or misinformed by speculation that is stated as fact or propaganda. To show you that it is a highly disputed subject what must I show you? do you need 'official' publications or comments from reknowned media sources or would showing you forums or famous commedians or talkshow hosts be enough as well? I'm not in this to bash Michael Sneed or anyone specificly, only to clarify what is known from what is unclear or premature. Youngidealist05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, nevermind, There are others who are cleaning up the section on inaccurate media reports on the vt massacre page. Youngidealist05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of errors in the comments you made when closing the discussion. I did not correct them but wanted to bring them to your attention.
1. "Those advocating outright deletion where..." That "where" should we "were." Just a typo. No big deal.
2. "It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is a memorial..." The missing "not" before "a memorial" drastically changes the meaning so I wanted to give you a heads up.
Hey, I just want to thank you for your explanation of how you came to the decision on this AfD. All too often admins close discussions without explaining their decision, & people interested in the AfD don't have any idea of what criteria were used, or else explanations are so brief as to give no real explanation or even to give rise to accusations of bias (& hence deletion reviews or other appeals). I really appreciate how you handled this one... independent of my pleasure at the decision made, which I feel was quite fairly judged. --Yksin00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD tag procedure question.
Hello,
About a week ago, you informed me that tags are to placed above titles of AfD discussions for closed sections. However, I have discovered (while closing many IfDs) that the header shows up at the bottom of any discussion above one which has been closed.
Now, I probably should have asked about this, but I was under the impression that something was amiss (perhaps IfDs are handled differently than AfDs?) In any event, I stuck the tags below the title, so that each discussion would be self contained.
Could you please explain what I may be missing here? Is it actually intended for one discussion to "spill over" into others? --Aarktica14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the very informative [and timely] reply. Up until now, I was unaware of the templates you referred to. :(
Are you familiar with {{at}} and {{ab}}? I was under the impression that this template was used for closing all such discussions. Did I miss something?
Do you think I should go undo/repair the mis-applied templates? It could take a while, but... Anyway. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for all the info. --Aarktica16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Best uses
Per your suggestion, I have taken IfD pages off my watchlist. Any suggestions on where my time would be best spent? --Aarktica16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is up to the relisting editor. I've been doing this for quite some time because there have been cases in the past where nobody noticed and relisting went for more than 2 weeks. Traditionally AfDs at the top get the most attention/discussion and consensus quickly reached. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The way Calton acted in that deletion article [14] is his "general approach" to all discussions, not just deletion articles. He does not seem to want to change that either and has gotten more and more rude over the almost year I have been on Wiki. I would steer clear of Calton, cause the rants from him are never-ending. Take care...SVRTVDude(VT)18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if he was just removing Dobson that might have been a valid excuse, and I see another editor removed him. But I don't see how the removal of the other two entries [15] can possibly be justified by BLP- that seems like plain edit warring. WjBscribe06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately checkuser evidence is only stored for a couple of months. The vandal who has created a vast number of sleeper accounts based on these patterns appear to (a) use a number of IPs and (b) to have been creating them for at least a year at random intervals. As they are all against username policy, I'm doing it the hard way... WjBscribe01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion on the Talk page of this article. Sanchez is not inclined to listen to anyone and keep blanking sections of the page. Everything in the article is sourced at this point, so there should be no remaining concerns about BLP. Aatombomb04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes because he admitted to being a prostitute on a National radio show. Then he opened his big mouth in a Salon editorial where he likened himself to Jeff Gannon. Furthermore, there is a lot of corroborating evidence that he was a prostitute. Now he's trying to revise the record, removing well-sourced information that is clearly not in violation of any policies. One of his edits was to remove a direct quote in the Military Times saying he was under investigation for prostitution. Aatombomb04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Adoption
I agree. I have been here for a short amount of time and its not feasible for me to adopt all those users. Yet to some extent that was not the purpose of my messages, nor do I feel that the amount of time I have been a registered user signifies my knowledge of an area.
The adoption center has be neglected for some time with the exception of one primary adopter, Killing sparrows. I have found that I most enjoy serving Wikipedia internally, with helping new users and patrolling recent changes for vandalism. With that said, I had wished to clean up the adoption center, as I feel it is not being used properly or with the best resources.
I went through EVERYONE on the list.
Those who have been banned or no longer need an adopter, I have removed the adoptee tag.
Those who have found an adopter, I ask to remove that tag as well.
Those without any message at all I asked them if they were still in need of an adopter and if so to contact me.
My intent is to organize the adoption center and get the new users the help they need. Many of them havent received an offer for adoption for some time now, or any message at all! At the same time without the unity of the adopters or standards, you get messages like this (this is an actual message left on an adoptee's talk page)
I'm offering to adopt you. I Know some stuff that can help you. Don't expect to learn to much if you accept me to Adopt you.
In conclusion, I wish to get the adoption center back in motion. My messages were to get things up and running, get the adoptees active. Tomorrow I plan to go through the adopters and get them up and moving. When \ If i get responses from the adoptees then i can start matching them up with the active adopters (after i wake them up). No worries my friend, in fact i'll keep you updated every couple of days as to the progress of the adoption center. Sound good ? any other concerns ? let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Matthew Yeager05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
MFD
Hello, I would like to apologise for my out of order actios of nominating Real96's sandboxes for deletion, you were completely right, I agree that users should have sandboxes but I wasn't assuming good faith when I saw this, so I'd like to thank you for your honest comments, if you decide not to reply, I can understnad that.Thank you. Tellyaddict11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Thank you, WJBscribe, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
I'll try to keep IAR in mind, since you and a few other good users seem to support it, but I still can't think of any examples where I'd use it... Ah well, time will tell. Thanks for "dropping by", I appreciate it. :) · AndonicOTalk20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
