User talk:Splash/Archive9

Archive to end 1st August 2005 – Archive to end 17th August 2005 – Archive to 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) – Archive to end 26 September 2005 – Archive to end 22 October 2005 – Archive to end 19 November 2005 – Archive to end 5 December 2005 – Archive to end 3 January 2006

Operation Attila

Why did you delete pics of the Attila operation? They were brilliantly showing all stages... Pics have notes under the pics, and all pics were taken from www.hellas.org , a greek public domain.

Lionel Messi

It is semi-protected. Just to avoid vandalism from anon IPs. Why do you revert?

Sorry, I just understood. Now is fully protected.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

sojombi pinola 3RR violation

please head on over to biff rose and see the violation of 3RR over at biff rose by sojombi pinola. I feel like i should point it out, as when I myself was responsible for erring in regards to the rule, I was promptly, albeit temporarily, banned from the article. I think it only fair that sojombi receive a block for his violations. Jonah Ayers

I'm sorry it perhaps it was User:Will Beback who has broken the 3RR wiki standard. Please take not of his violation over on the Biff Rose page.Jonah Ayers 08:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the pertinent info over at wikipedia adminstrators board/3RR, but felt that these two editors have become tooinvolved in tthe article. i have experienced a block on edits that I don't think warranted a break in 3RR by User:Willmcw who now goes by User:Will Beback. this is not a retribution, but rather a hope that maybe these two editors can stop trying to control this entry andd let it stand out as a shared authorship entry. i hope you can help.Jonah Ayers 08:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty has pointed out on your talk page and at WP:AN/3 that, in fact, the two editors have just edited the article more than 3 times in 24 hours. That's fine: it would only be a problem if they had largely reversed another editors changes 4 times in 24 hours, which doesn't appear to be the case here. -Splash^talk 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that. I don't want to be banned. I am trying to be less outlandish. Can you help me be a better wikip[edian? I want to keep editing this article, but I also don't want it to be so explosive. I feel as if everytime there has been consensus, then i get blackballed. Of course I've acted wrongly on occasion, and i want to end that. I don't want to break the rules, but Ido want to include the information about Rose on this article. thanks for any help and sugggestions you can offer me.Jonah Ayers

• This editor has repeatedly tried to sabotage any attempts to reach consensus simply to aggravate the 2 editors named above who have been working in good faith. This editor also has an RfC filed against him. Please take his comments with a grain of salt. Marcuse 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Semi-protected User talk: pages

Good idea! But if you don't mind, let's rename it to Category:Semi-protected user talk pages. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Owen× ☎ 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I'll be smarter next time! Owen× ☎ 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 Sago Mine incident

We're awful busy this morning I see. Fixing a history forking on a high traffic article is difficult. You gotta time it just right. Anyway, according to Nickptar at WP:RM, it's a disaster if 5+ people die. Source here and I'll read it myself after submitting this comment. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:23, Jan. 4, 2006

Seems to be correct, but I'm pretty sure "disaster" should be lowercase. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:24, Jan. 4, 2006

Yes, but "Sago Mine event" sounds too cheerful and commercialized. "Accident" implies nobody was at fault, and we don't know that yet, do we? "Incident" is best I guess (lowercase of course)? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:32, Jan. 4, 2006

Ok, with your blessing I'm going to unilaterally move it to Sago Mine incident then? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:38, Jan. 4, 2006

Good thinking. Done. All 2+ redirects fixed. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:48, Jan. 4, 2006

Oops on the title, I should have caught that, but I showed up late to work after new years' and got fired. So I've pretty much forgotten what year it is. I think we're pretty much done now, except for pre-emptively protecting any and all titles the article might get cut & pasted to (god I hope i'm joking). Do you use IRC? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:14, Jan. 4, 2006

Sorry, didn't mean to rollback your talk page :). ed g2s • talk 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pish posh!

Not at all, really no need to worry. I was and am glad for your guidance. I was active for the very early stages of the policy's formation and some of its early-middle, but the end stages up until its actual passage I was on wikibreak during, so I wasn't as hands-on with the end formulation as I would've liked to be. So I'm still a little hesitant to use it given how stridently people had opposed the policy at first. I suppose some of the hesitancy has worn off now that it's plain that there are people policing the semiprotected pages to make sure they aren't a) being protected too long and b) aren't being used to unfairly penalize anon editors who might be part of a content dispute. I'm relieved to see that in its actual application, it can have a more broadly usable functionality for fighting pernicious vandalism even beyond a handful of cripplingly impacted pages (like GWB). Thanks again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor's Rfa

Ed emailed me and asked me tell everyone "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." SqueakBox 05:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1.800.Vending unprotection request

Will you please unprotect the 1.800.Vending article? My inquiry as to why it is still being protected has gone unanswered since December 29, 2005. There does not appear to be any threat of vandalism right now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk page of the article. There is a sub-page at 1.800.Vending/Temp that can be worked on to get to a NPOV version. The talk page includes some of Jimbo's thoughts on the subject snipped from an email I received from him. I wouldn't advocate unprotecting the article until we can get a version that Jimbo will not describe as a "hatchet job". --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know

I aplit the "user pages" section on WP:PP into 2...one for FP and SP. We only have 3 pages SP but I thought it'd be worthwhile. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Except re usertalk-sprotect

That template contains wording that says the user themselves have been changing the page after they were blocked. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is not blocked...so I used sprotect. --Syrthiss 17:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We can fix wording on templates if thats an issue, in the meantime I have recategorized per your request Splash.  ALKIVAR™ 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To do thing in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell

Hi. You asked in your edit summary of this edit [1] "where did the "to do" thing come from?". That was my idea. Neto wrote that he needed a reminder to do something. And that was not yet done (intent of nomination not fulfilled). Adrian Buehlmann 19:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. Adrian Buehlmann 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I figure Netoholic's about to post here too: I moved it to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Archives#Special cases. -Splash^talk 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm fine with that. BTW, Your talk is on my watchlist anyway. Adrian Buehlmann 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs

Looks like the slang article again. Unverifable made-up words from all languages. The old VfD failed due to the admin overlooking the HEAVY sock infestation, as usual for troll-magnet articles. What should we do?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we redirect to sexual slur and kill the list. If we somehow have problems with that, then we can try AFD.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes merginh into Sexual slang might be a good idea.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have merged out List of Sexual Slurs's content into Sexual Slang, and made the redirect. I have also fixed the double redirect issues with simalar names (Sexual Slur and List of Sexual Slur).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the user and the IP are reverting again.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

True, it was just a merge, but these kind of people ignore important distinctions.

The page was reverted with no explanation to counter the one you put up. "revert vandalism" (AKA policy) was the only explanation ever given in the list's defense.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sprotect

Umm... isn't the template page itself semi-protected? If so, then shouldn't it be in the category? Matt Yeager 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Matt Yeager 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Three minutes after you unprotected, it was vandalized again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night vandal

Don't bet on that character getting bored. He bides his time and then posts that inane reference to that obscure band as soon as the page gets un-protected. FYI, I have no particular interest in this except I've been watching the page for other reasons, and have been seeing this electronic ping-pong going on for some time. Now, if you could do something about that "User:Projects"/"User:Vesa" character who keeps messing with the George Reeves page... Wahkeenah 04:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! If you've gone to either of those users, you can see that he/she/it seems to have a number of aliases. Since it gets some of us riled, it qualifies as a new term I just invented, combining two or three ideas in one: a "sock puppet master baiter". Yee-hah! Wahkeenah 04:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

George Reeves

That sockpuppet is persistent. Maybe if you protect the page for a month or so, then it will lose interest. Wahkeenah 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you un-protected it. That character was posting his usual stuff on the talk page just today, so you can probably expect him to hit the article itself again soon. >:( Wahkeenah 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It took him 40 hours, but he's back. Wahkeenah 19:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot running under IP address

Hi, the bot that was running under the IP address 71.241.248.89 is my interwiki bot (Vina-iwbot, newly approved for a trial run). I didn't see your message until now since I'm always logged in on the computer that I normally use. Another admin has noticed it as well and contacted me. I've stopped the run. It is the standard pywikipedia bot running on the latest version of the code. Every couple of hours it would make an edit under the IP address rather than the account defined, in the middle of lots of other edits that is done properly under the bot account. I've posted a question to the mailing list for the developers to look at. --Vina 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler vandalism

Sorry, I meant to remove it of course, not to put it back. -- nyenyec ☎ 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Kept at Bay

As long as it takes, we are here to stay.

User:Vesa a.k.a. User:Projects (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. "These" users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that "they" are the same user, despite "their" denials. Wahkeenah 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to vandal Wakkeenah

To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.

Sexual slurs

Bah...I have just AFDed the article.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by that; it currently redirects to Sexual slang and appears to have been moved in between... -Splash^talk 19:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is reverted back to the horrid list and is AFDed. The inclusionist are rallying keep votes so this looks like a no consensus; I contacted some admins myself in response. Please vote.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

CfD vote

In the CfD for Category:Ulster Unionist Wikipedians, you voted to rename the category, adding "expand abbreviations almost always". However, there was no proposal to rename the category (the nominator simply suggested to delete it) and the category name was already unabbreviated. You probably added the vote accidentally, with the four abbreviated category names below it. I just wanted to let you know this :) Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I removed my comment. -Splash^talk 00:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes

Hi, I'm not quite sure I understand your comment ("As soon as someone starts namecalling ..."). As you posted it directly below my statement, I suppose it refers to something I've written, but I don't understand it. Please ignore this message if I'm mistaken. All the best, <KF> 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this was a reference to the use of the word "deletionist". - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But that's not why I came

I was just noticing that your patience exhausted indicator was flashing. Now I'm off to help shovel out some sexual slurs.
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... much stronger than I'm used to from you. - brenneman^(t)(c) 16:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. btw, the puppety notice has done a vansihing trick already ;) --Alf ^melmac 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My rfa

Hi. Thanks for your vote on RFA... and yes, I'll be cautious.

I'm curious about I thought the answer to the 3RR question could have been a bit better, personally though... and indeed anxious to get this right... what would you have said differently? William M. Connolley 11:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you delete?

Talk:Mario Kart Super Circuit and Talk:Donkey Kong 64 are blank because the soapbox comments were removed. Could you delete those talkpages, or is there a specific place to list talk pages for deletion? - Hbdragon88 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask for some advice?

Hi Splash. Hope you don't mind me asking you for some advice. Last night I closed a few debates at WP:MFD. It was quite late and one of them turned out to be slightly problematic, so after sorting that I decided to tidy up the next day. However, I also left a note at WP:AN in case someone else wanted to do that tidying up. I returned to Wikipedia today and it appears I have offended someone with my failure to delete instantaneously after closing. It has also been alleged that such an action, (to delete instantaneously after closing), is so obvious it doesn't have to be mentioned in policy. Have I erred? This closure also seems to be causing a problem elsewhere, since my closing of it as delete has caused someone to question how I arrived at such a conclusion. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote (2nd nomination) and tell me whether you can see a rough consensus to delete? Obviously I don't mind being questioned on this, but it has also been pointed out that I should explain my decision in the closure notice when such a contentious decision is made. Is that the case? I'd appreciate your opinion in these matters, because I'm still relatively new at all this and don't yet have the confidence or experience to know exactly whether I'm right or not. Thanks for any help or insight you can offer, Steve block talk 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The reason I userfied it was because of the advice at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, but rereading that I can see it applies to the main name space. My mistake. Steve block talk 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I also had in the back of my mind moving it to meta, but the export page wouldn't spit the history out, and isn't it part of the GDFL to carry that over? That's why I thought it was worth userfying until someone could work out how to do that. Sorry, I'm a little worse for wear today and not quite thinking straight, staying up until 1 and then getting up at 6 is not something I'm young enbough to do anymore. Steve block talk 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think (and that's all, since I have never executed a transwiki, either) that what is most usually done is that the history is pasted onto the new talk page with a comment "Page history from en.wikipedia", or somesuch.

• Would it then be bad form to move it to meta and delete it from the user space? Steve block talk 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keyra Augustina

Saw you discussed this before, people are trying to delete it AGAIN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keyra_Augustina_%28third_nomination%29

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Genius home collegiate school

First, I'm sorry to bug you about a school AFD. But, I have a slight dissent on the school this AFD close. Three of the five keeps were conditional on verifiability. I would suggest that you re-open, (maybe relist) the AFD, and ask each of the people to explicitly state their final decision. A couple indicated they needed more time. If more time is needed, the AFD should stay open till they have the requisite time (up to a reasonable point). I feel if the "conditional keeps" are not made explicit, they should count as abstains. In such a case, there would be only two deletes, and a consensus to delete. --Rob 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

I quote, "I've noticed several questionable applications of admin power recently and, on writing him a note asking about them, have been soundly ignored. Much more practise and interacting is needed. -Splash 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

I haven't received any such "note"? NSLE _(T+C) 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; apparently I had already archived your comment, this would be about Quadell's RFB, then. Even though I have no intention of making you change your vote, nor expect you to do so, I'm just going to say I semiprotected it because of the request on the talk page. It was unilateral, yes, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but it's almost impossible to keep up with AOL IPs. Likewise, newbie votes, even when not "illegal" per se, are likely to be discounted. Anyway, thanks for voting, even if it was oppose. NSLE _(T+C) 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Debates on afd that arn't really a debate

Hi Splash - on an article or two lately we've seen debates that come down all delete without an opinion at all from the keep side. In terms of this I feel kind of bad - do you think we should have some sort of afd-style relist in those cases that have information - i.e. keeping the previous delete-discussion and just relisting with the comment from VfU? It's an idea, anyway. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the message :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you chime in on Gerard Way on WP:PP?

Hall Monitor just protected it again even though there were a scant 3 vandalism edits in the 3 days between semi protections. Please chime in at WP:PP about it. Yes the article was left in a vandalized state for many hours a few days ago, but I don't see the SP policy covering that do you? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But. :) When you went to remove unprotected articles, you removed 4 that are still protected. Bad Splash. Baaaaad. :-) Just so you know, the SP tag is still on GWB but someone made the tag very small so it's not noticeable. I usually don't like that kind of thing, but...since SP is mostly permanent on that article, I guess it's ok. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you putting a notice up on AN about this. I just removed pornography from the PP list. It had been unprotected since the 7th! We really shouldn't have to be checking this list every single day. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my posting on AN about it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Relisting Afds

Thanks for the tip. enochlau (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking

Not long enough, apparently. -Will Beback 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only had one edit since I unprotected it...and the 6x IPs are from different cities, so it's probably not someone lying in wait. -Splash^talk 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that there is more than one editor who adds the info, regardless of how many IPs he uses, or how broadly they appear to be spaced. However, if it doesn't go back to being a habit then it isn't a problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've re-added the protected. I'm going out of town for few days, if you remove it again please watch the page for more of the same. Thanks, -Will Beback 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against scientology

Hi. You moved that template to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 though there was no consensus on TfD to delete that.

It had actually been deleted before closing the nomination. Nevertheless I think it should be logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/January 2006 as this was the outcome of the TfD process. I think the fact that it was deleted outside the TfD consensus does not matter.

Please note that my personal opinion is irrelevant so please do not assume anything about my personal opinion from this posting here. Adrian Buehlmann 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your clarification. Please note that I'm absolutely neutral in respect to that particular box itself. I was just interested in the process. So in fact you disagree with my closing decision I wrote in top of that nomination and instead executed your decision. I accept your disagreement. Sorry for intervening in the closing process. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review

• • As per wiki undeletion: "to use its content elsewhere" seems to be sufficient for a temporary undelete. (Off the record: to answer your question, it is possible to have a category of photos in the "commons." (ie.: commons:category:mopeds)) back on the record: Please move a copy to Gallery of motorized bicycles so I may begin trans-wiki. Thank you. 04:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~

Houston, we have a major problem

I just added NINE pages to the protected pages list that the admin failed to list...plus 4 more Brady actors that weren't listed. That. Is ridiculous. Main culprit is Curps (6 articles) but the blame goes around. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: (gallery of motorized bicycle)

please see my reply to your comment on my user talk page --CyclePat 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Motorbike2.jpg

I don't deal with images anymore, because I get lost in terms of what is ok and what isn't. So. What fair use template could I use? As for CyclePat, oi. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha. Didn't realize it had been taken off of motorized bicycle. It can be deleted then. Sending you an email. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup! It was removed :(... I guess it needs deletions. I realy don't see where we could put it unless we had a gallery!!! (LOL)  :) --CyclePat 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, this is not a game. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, this is like a big chess game, and it's great because you can observer all the millions of edits that happen on wikipedia. But, for your info, I ask user:JzG and he left a response somewhere along the lines that he removed the photo. Anyway, bishop A8 to ??? just kidding... sorry. Cheers! --CyclePat 03:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Need help on WP:SEMI

I put a request up for help on the talk page at WP:SEMI. We have admins using this "% of good edits" criteria. We need to tighten up the policy so that stops. Age of Enlightenment was protected for that reason. Your input would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames just made a 5th revert

I think he should be blocked then. I am assuming you will support me on this.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhppp...You just did it, too late.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if Tznkai has also over-reverted. I'm trying to work through the hsitory, but I don't think he has — his changes appear to be edits not reverts. -Splash^talk 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also afraid to block admins too. I always get the "can this be", "did he revert some vandalism I just didn't catch".Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just unprotected the template he just protected, which would have let him own the template in his way. His protection summary was "Edit conflict--edits and reversions without talk page participation".Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that. Very poor form. This way lies trouble. I hope Thames cools off now. Thing with blocking, of course, is that it only restricts editing. You can still admin while blocked. -Splash^talk 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So true, and he knows that Tznkai can't revert again, so he can lock it up. I will watch his log [2] for a day. You should watch it too, just to be safe.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Linux - protected

Your edit summary suggests it was one IP causing the problem, in fact it was multiple IP's by (we assume) one user. Linux talk has the most recent discussion on it, admins noticeboard has a good summary of the history, and the full history shows it's used up more than its fair share of editors time. To have the page protected, while perhaps overkill, is a good solution considering the continued interruptions this person is causing. Waiting for the 3RR rule to kick in allows them unnecessary latitude. We all hope it's been enough, but don't be suprised if they bounce right back. — Graibeard 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

linkspammer is back from another ip, spam notice added to User talk:195.56.8.125. Note also left with User talk:Stevenj — Graibeard 08:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

Could you revert/protect the page to its 24 Dec 2005 status (ie. before the first anon edited)? One of the anonymous editors appears to have been Schwartz and he is threatneing me, Wikipedia and my university with libel. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 06:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Stephen Schwartz (journalist). -Splash^talk 15:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's some directive about this then I see that you have some sort of obligation for you to handle things the way you have, but if not, rving to the pre-Christmas version would be helpful for figuring out what to make of Schwartz's substative points. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted too soon: thanks for rving this. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the text was running into four lines with two alkward breaks. Secondly the claim that no sentence begins with because is hilarious in the extreme. Have you ever read any legislation enacted? Because is used at the start of sentences in over one-third of all laws enacted in English. It is in every textbook and has been used to start sentences since old english!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How and why did you decide to block Schwartz? If a subject of an article, generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but complaining of specific libelous assertions in their article is blocked without warning, isn't that going to make the legal situation just that much worse? Was there a particular guideline or policy that you folowed? As you can see, Jimbo seems to take the complaints quite seriously. I would urge you to at least point out the wikipedia policy on no legal threats as a polite warning before summarily blocking anyone complaining of libel again. --James S. 09:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness! The warning you pointed me to was a redlink, but I believe you. I hope you enjoy my pertinent edit to Wikipedia:Autobiography. I'm so glad so many admins think. --James S. 02:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash, I have a concern that blocking victims of libelous content under your strict interpretation of WP:NLT may end up quite badly for Wikipedia. In the United States, legislation largely protects ISPs from liability for content published by its subscribers. Arguably the same should apply to Wikipedia. But there is a movement in some quarters to restrict that protection. When we prevent an aggrieved person from giving a typical notice like "remove the defamatory material by x date" because that implies a legal threat, we are forcing them to bring the Wikipedia Foundation into the picture. While I don't want to see legal threats either, we need to deal with assertions of libel as serious matters and not turn the victim into the "bad guy." We are just giving fodder to those forces that think Wikipedia should be held legally responsible for the content. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

placement of tfd-top

I saw you moved them so the title is included. I belive I was reading from somewhere else that it was better to let the title to be outside so you can edit the header if you use the edit for the title _→AzaToth 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

tfd top/bottom again

Sat an played a bit, perhaps this is a bit of a overkill: User:AzaToth/X9 :) _→AzaToth 16:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Your actions are being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it doesn't look like anyone has told you here yet, I just thought you might like to know. --W.marsh 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming for Category:United States Students' Unions

Hi. As an editor who participated in the discussion regarding renaming Category:United States Students' Unions, I am writing you to let you know that while there was consensus to rename the category there was no clear consensus for the final name. If you would like to revisit the discussion on Category talk:United States Students' Unions I am willing to consider an agreement there and rename the category. I won't be monitoring your talk page so if you have to reply to me directly please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Syrthiss 19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

dels

Hi Splash! I just bumped into this : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese monarchs family tree. What did you mean by there was nothing on the article? I had a tremendous work to compile 3 or 4 figures. Where they still there?? I'm afraid i cant check it for myself because i'm not an admin here anymore. Cheers, muriel@pt 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK... But arent people deleting images suppose to warn the uploader? I had already a few notes of this kind but none for these ones! muriel@pt 12:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no point in going after Solitude now! :) Thanks for your help. muriel@pt 13:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

Hi Splash, I thought I ought to bring this to your attention. Before the whole affair with Template:Christianity and User:Tznkai I was involved in another editing dispute. In this case I also engaged in too many reversions and a page protection, which I now realize was a conflict of interest. I'm telling you this because I unprotected the page today, and immediately the user re-inserted the disputed block of text. My principal concern is that by taking four very long excerpts from another author and inserting them verbatim into the Neoconservatism article that User:Jacrosse is exposing Wikipedia to a potential copyright violation for overstepping the bounds of fair use. Myself and other editors have expressed a number of other concerns, which Jacrosse has roundly ignored, despite being implored multiple times to discuss on the talk page. I don't want to get out of line again by using my admin status poorly or violating 3RR again. So I thought I'd get an outside opinion. I would be grateful if you'd take a look and advise me. Thanks.—thames 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Splash, I thought I'd update you. After being warned about copyvio content (here: Talk:Neoconservatism#On_the_Leftist_Origins_Subheading, and [3]) Jacrosse re-inserted the copyvio content [4]. I updated the admin noticeboard incident report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fair_use_violation.3F and left a note on Jacrosse's talk page inquiring as to why he re-inserted the content after being warned User_talk:Jacrosse#Neoconservatism. Ought I proceed with a block?—thames 18:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Didn't really mean to call you a vandal. Sorry. --Doc ^ask? 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: More speedies

Hi there. With reference to some of your speedy deletions, I am concerned that you are not implementing the CSDs as they are written. In addition to the one above, you speedied several as "advertising", which appears nowhere on WP:CSD, although spam is vandalism. But note that both A6 and WP:VAND have a strong reliance on external links in that case. It is better to leave such articles to AfD. I get the impression that you looked through AfD for things to speedy: it is better to look in CAT:CSD and leave AfD to its work. I have restored the following articles and reopened their AfDs, since they were, imo, considerably out-of-process as speedies:

• Tim Storms, has a very clear assertion of notability, and that is easily enough to save it from A7
• Libyan Arab Airways Flight 388, hoaxes are not and never have been a speedy criterion

These I restored without taking them to AfD, since they had never been thus tagged:

• Dipak C. Jain, being dean of a Grad School is an obvious assertion of notability. It is for AfD to decide if it is sufficient.
• Phexin. This was not deleteable under any CSD, and simply needed to made into a redirect as I have now done. I've restored the history behind it, as it is perfectly legitimate.

Note that there were very many others that, if challenged on WP:DRV would be overturned. The only reason I have not restored them is because they have almost no chance on AfD: that is expressly not a reason to speedy things. Please tread carefully, and do take another look through WP:CSD. Thanks. -Splash^talk 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have read through the criteria on WP:CSD and I do often use CAT:CSD rather than looking through AfD for speedies. However, since advertising is listed on WP:NOT and does not meet WP:CORP coporporation notibility guidelines, I thought that they could be speedied. As for Tim Storms, a Google search provides only Wikipedia, Answers.com (which gets its data from Wikipedia dumps), and a few not trustworthy websites to prove the claim that he is in Guiness. No sources were cited, either, so I thought he was not notable and the article was deletable under CSD A7. As for Jain, only one person edited it before it was speedied, only one page linked to it, and the article was one line with no links. The Phexin article provided no context and very little content. These are both CSD criteria. As for the airplane flight, I could not find any sources in a Google search, making it non-verifiable. --M@thwiz2020 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that being non-verifiable is not a reason to speedy delte. Please look through some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. In general please interpret the WP:CSD page strictly and narrowly. For example, a claim of notability, even if not supported on a google search, is generally held to prevent an A7 speedy. Aside from the limited scope of A7, lack of notabiloity is not a speedy reason. DES ^(talk) 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll interpret the guidelines more strictly in the future. Thanks for letting me know! --M@thwiz2020 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I figure you've worked out now, being something in WP:NOT does not create speedies; the articles must explicitly meet one of the (very narrow) CSDs. Also, A7 (nnbio) only requires an assertion of notability. Now I personally allow myself some leeway on what I will accept: the plainly ridiculous I will not. But a Guiness world record? That's a bit much to dismiss as no assertion — if you had to Google for it, then it should have gone to AfD where others can check your Googling and do more research, just in case. I don't understand why the features you describe in the Jain article would make anything speediable. I have written full articles that only I have edited and which have a single other link — that in no way reduces their value, and no such article should be summarily deleted. Phexin provided enough content and context for me to work out what to do with it, as a complete non-expert, so it was not a speedy. As DES has pointed out, there is definitely no case for "non verifiable" being a speedy — verification is one of the principal tasks for AfD, even if it isn't very good at it sometimes. With that all borne in mind, you can see why I said a number of your other speedies were very questionable: they might be WP:NOT, but that doesn't render them immediately deleteable. Unfortunately, many things that get tagged by well-meaning editors actaully have to go through AfD, so just having a tag isn't a license to delete. -Splash^talk 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the guidelines above, would Aaron's Postulate of Numerical Relevance and Anthropithicus, both listed on CAT:CSD under G1, patent nonsense, be speediable? They are not verifiable, yet, in my opinion, are not nonsense either and I cannot find any other criteria under which they fit. They both, to me, are obviously vanity articles writen by Aaron and Corey, respectively, but, as unverifiable articles are not speediable, should I instead list them under AfD? --M@thwiz2020 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - Some Photos of Newfields, NH and Sourabh are tagged for CSD and both meet WP:NOT (repository of images and dictionary, respectively) and someone tagged Soulescape and Soulescape.com as CSD with a reason of "advertisement". So, none of these are speediable, but should instead be AfD'd, correct? --M@thwiz2020 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many CSDs tags are done when CSD is not actually met.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions - Soulescape.com

As I noted in my request, the original tagger did put an AfD notice up. The author of the article took it back off. The guidelines for speedy include "pure vandalism". On the page defining vandalism (which links directly from the criteria for speedy deletions page), spam and advertising is clearly listed in a few different spots. So is removing delete tags. This entire page was a case of clear vandalism, and since he was removing delete tags I didn't think it was unreasonable to put them on speedy. I still don't. It doesn't take that long to look at the speedy deletions and say, "Nope, I'm not going to do that," or better yet, "Hmm, maybe in this case I should." I spent quite a bit of time chasing him around, reverting all his crap, making and posting him a warning, and sending his articles to be deleted. Rather than thanks, I get you telling me I'm wasting your time. Thanks. Kafziel 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony's tool

I've responded to your removal of a link to my vandalism tool from Wikipedia:Semi-protection. I think it's a useful tool for the purpose and on the talk page I've tried to answer your concerns about abuse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied there. -Splash^talk 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick note...

Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate showdown

You were the closing admin, so I thought I would let you know there might have been a problem with the deletion associated with this AfD. In the middle of the AfD the article Ultimate showdown was changed into a redirect to The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny with the later being the article that was actually deleted. A request is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny if you wish to comment. --Allen3 ^talk 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooooooooh

You've joined the Gibraltarian club! Would you like the honorary hankie? :-D You reverted him on RfP today and then he called you a vandal. He was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks in December...the arbcom is about to confirm the banishment. We get hit by a different IP by him every day. Here is the listing. I'm letting you know this because the next time you revert him, you can block him. All in the range of 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255. It's dynamic but I still do 3 hour blocks usually. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:64.230.113.29

Thanks for helping me over at User talk:64.230.113.29 earlier. — Moe ε 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! -Splash^talk 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)