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.
Destination Hotels & Resorts
Can you please help me figure out what needs to be wikified on the Destination Hotels & Resorts article? If you can point me in the right direction I’ll be more than happy to wirkify the ariticle. (K107)
The last section is the only one that is wikified. All of the city names and such throughout the rest of the article can be wikified. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I didn’t wikify all the city names is because I didn’t think it was necessary to do so on any repeating city through out the article. Isn’t once enough? I wikified the city names on the property section which I thought would be enough considering most of the city are repeated else where.
K107 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Generally, items that are wikified are done the first time they appear in an article. Articles are usually read from top to bottom. If I saw a city name near the top and said to myself, "now where is that city?", but it wasn't wikified there, I'd edit the page and wikify it - then it would be wikified in two places which is not generally good. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I edited the article to the best of my knowledge and made sure not to repeat any internal link twice.
K107 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jose Esquevar Sanchez
The article on Jose Esquevar Sanchez is neither inappropraite or a hoax. It is a true story of a real luchadore and if you would just give me time I will post my resources. I think that you should atleast give me a chance to create a detailed and informative page on Jose's short life. He is an athlete, plenty of athletes have pages. Why can't Jose have one? To consder it a hoax is proposterous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honorjose (talk • contribs) .
I can guarantee this is NOT the second time i've recreated the EIP article, this was my first time. Anyway I can also guarantee I personally won't be trying to recreate it.
R Johnson
Why are we salting Rachel St. John when it keeps getting recreated by the same user? Just block him/her. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't think of that. I'll do that next time. (P.S. It may be time for you to archive your talk page) —Mets501 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(crosspost from ANI) Unless there is evidence of vandalism or other nastiness, I'm not in favor of blocking a user that posts a bit of self-promotion. I believe that if we don't "bite" this user but point xem to some indication of what is good content for an encyclopedia, we could turn this person into a good contributor instead of chasing xem off. (besides, if the user is truly bent on adding this article, this is far better stopped by protection than by a block which can be evaded through sockpuppetry). I urge you to overturn this block. (Radiant) 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. I agree with everything you say about people who post disruptive nonsense, but I tend to hope that someone who just wants to write about xyrself isn't malicious (as opposed to e.g. people who add pictures of genitalia to random articles). I'll keep an eye out for this Rhcp; I hope I won't be disappointed in xem. Yours, (Radiant) 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, if she's going to sockpuppeteer over it, then blocking those isn't actually going to help because she'll just make a new sockpuppet. Wouldn't salting then be a better solution? (Radiant) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had the page watchlisted but because of your swift and efficient reaction I hadn't noticed a change. Both pages are now locked. (Radiant) 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beckett Media Company
I'm pretty sure there was a long article about the compnay, but i can't seem to figure out what happened. Does this mean that the article never existed? Thought you could help me on that one. //Tecmobowl 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the article was a straight copy, but then again, i don't remember. I just wanted to make sure i wasn't going crazy so thank you.
I While you're floating around, I'm helping someone with their edits to Baseball card. The person had created Dr. James Beckett which I have moved, per WP:NCP, to James Beckett. After looking at his version, I don't think it is ideal. What is the best way for me to help this person learn about creating biographies? I have tried to point him to WP:LIVING. He (i think it's a he) is an enthusiastic contributor and that's a good thing. // Tecmobowl 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the tips. I have tried to balance the "take it slow" with the idea that a lot of the stuff on hear is in pretty bad shape. I know Sandy Koufax is a featured article right now, and i cannot see why. Thanks for the tip. // Tecmobowl 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Bolo
i checked up my history on my article operation bolo and saw u looked at it
so i have to ask how did u like itTu-49 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lose hope!
People who want to see a change need to stick with it. What happens is a few of us are pushing at any given time, and then some of us give up, so there is never quite enough of us around to get it going. Please, don't give up, this is as close as we've ever gotten, and I think we're going to do it. --Serge 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're ahead 55% to 45% in the poll! --Serge 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
image chaes.jpg
Where does it say that my image is not free? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levg79 (talk • contribs) .
Sockpuppetry
Though I appreciate that the log is definitely one source of information, in most cases I think it's of limited usefulness. For example, when you sent me that message, I logged off, created this new account, and logged back on. Does it show up in any of your logs? It doesn't seem to show up in mine. --ElonkaBot 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reply) Ask me off-wiki, I'll tell you. :) --Elonka 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:195.225.189.7
You've just blocked the above user for 24 hours. This looks reasonable since this is a shared IP. of the Warwickshire County Council. However, if you look at the last entry of this user : [1], you'll see that this wasn't just ordinary vandalism, but a grave accusation against a living person that could cause serious harm to Wikipedia. That entry occurred at 15.33 (my European time zone), while you blocked the IP at 15.34. So it is quite possible that you hadn't seen this edit. I've reverted it at 15.34, so that the possibility that anyone has read this is close to zero. In my opinion a much longer block is warranted, even if it is a shared IP. Even an OFFICE action could be warranted to erase the history of this edit in Chelsea F.C.. You better take a second look. JoJan 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
insound article
i noticed you deemed my recently created article (titled "Insound") to be written to promote a company. i created the article because i noticed that a band's wikipedia article attempted to link to Insound's but the article did not exist. i searched wikipedia for "Insound" and found this to be the case on multiple band articles. having had experience ordering from insound and reading about it online, and being a fan of wikipedia, i felt i could make a good attempt at writing the first incarnation of its article. after receiving your message, i re-read wikipedia's criteria for notability for companies and corporations. while these criteria seem a bit odd, i did manage to find two or three places in the print media where Insound was the subject of the article. it seems strange that a company/web site can be wildly popular in internet culture, including continuous mentions on many respected and praised blogs and web-based news organizations (for example pitchforkmedia, stereogum and tiny mixtapes) and not be considered notable. this is especially strange considering wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and that the audience which reads this sort of blog is likely a sizable subset of wikipedia's audience. regardless, i would still argue that Insound is notable.
i am slightly offended that my article was marked for speedy deletion which eliminates even the chance for discussion on this topic. i wrote it with the intention of sounding unbiased, and i would have been happy to hear advice as to how i could fix it if it did not sound neutral. Rwsdower 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I answered there. Is your big old gun on your page for vandal whacking.--Shella* 21:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance
Hi, I'm having problems with this article and was wondering if you could have a look, especially at the talk page. It appears the author (alternating between user and anon IP, claiming to have no affiliation to the company) it using devisive tactics to make sure the article stays. I see you are an admin on duty, which is why I am asking. Thanks very much, if you have the time, that is. Bubbahotep 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone beat me to it. I was about to delete it per WP:CSD#G11. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I noticed! Actually, they redirected it, but hey! Vive le difference!. Thanks very much for your consideration anyway. Two (or three as it turned out) heads are better than mine I mean one. Bubbahotep 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it's back again, by the way! Complete with G11 tag recreated. Bubbahotep 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have Barnstars, so how about your first STARBAR?
The Bubba Hotep Starbar is awarded to those whose efforts are widely acknowledged, but deserve to be acknowledged again in a unique way. Here is yours for being an great Wikipedian/admin, willing to chip in at a moment's notice. Thanks for the help. Bubbahotep 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you have lots of barnstars (do you?) but this is the award I give to people who have responded to a call for assistance (and sometimes guidance) in this WIKId, convoluted world of Wikipedia. Enjoy, and think nothing of it. :)
DW Article
I noticed that you unprotected the David Westerfield article. You stated that there was no discussion. That is because discussing anything with User:196.15.168.40 is futile. He believes the article is the "David Westerfield is innocent" article. He includes bias and controversial statements that contain no secondary source. He wants Westerfield to sound innocent and that we should feel sorry for him. User:196.15.168.40 edits are in bad faith and he will continue to engage in the same behavior. You will notice that he doesn't care about any other article too. There will be another revert war between us. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 04:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right I will notify you then. I don't know what is wrong with my signature. I think I did something to it by accident in my preferences. I do not know how to fix it however. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you unprotected the David Westerfield article, you said there had been “zero talk activity”. In fact, there was plenty of “talk activity”, but it was on the Biographies [living persons Noticeboard] and the Steel359[[2]] pages, not the Westerfield Talk page. I suggest you read those other two pages, you should find them most enlightening.196.15.168.40 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Needham
Yep — every time the page was unprotected, an IP-hopping vandal would step in adding a line saying "Horrid old man, I hope you died in pain" or a variation on that theme, both on the page and in the edit summary. We semiprotected the page, and he started using aged sockpuppets (see Talk:Roger Needham#Sockpuppet list). I asked for a checkuser, and it seems he's on a shared IP. Every time we remove the protection, he comes back. So it seems we're stuck with full protection. As you figured, Centrx purged the page's history. The vandal is extraordinarily persistent. Not sure what else we can do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider protecting that article against re-creation: the one you deleted was attempt number 3. --Rrburke(talk) 06:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I might try attempt number 4. user_talk: pookie1996. 13:12 28 november 2006 UTC[reply]
195.194.74.26
I reported 195.194.74.26 (talk·contribs) at WP:AIV for continuing to vandalize after still another last warning earlier this week. Since I have found it so hard to get vandals blocked even when they meet all the criteria listed on the WP:AIV page, I went ahead and gave him another "last warning". You then declined to block this vandal with the comment "1 already warned. LIST MT". I have reverted my warning -- can you go ahead and block this person. They will be back again tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that ad inifitium. It would be nice to get a break of at least a few days from cleaning up after them. --A. B. 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, check out the evolution of this article over the last 48 hours. This is what Wikipedia looks like when multiple vandals attack an article. Bots and recent change patrollers revert the most recent vandalism, but there's so much that they end up just reverting back to more vandalism. This stuff is profoundly discouraging for non-admin, rank-and-file editors, especially when it goes on unchecked.
I'm going back to cleaning up after their work. As promised above, I have removed the warning from 195.194.74.26. If you decide not to block him, can you reinstate that warning? That way at least there will be a record of another "last" warning for the next 7 days.
Thanks in advance for looking into this. --A. B. 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you step through the history of Lanlivery, you'll see it was a coordinated attack by muliple editors to convert the article into a personal attack page directed at two, non-notable real people, one named Phillips (linked to the Satan article) and one named Bonney (incorrectly linked to the Wanker article). --A. B. 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Clark
Have you read the recent history of the Jim Clark article? There isn't going to be any "talk activity". The whole problem with Pflanzgarten is that he refuses to discuss changes - just reverts back to the version he updated in June. It has to be at least semi-protected, so that he loses one of his sockpuppet accounts each time, if nothing else! -- Ian Dalziel 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid blocks on the Pflanzgarten socks. I do hope you manage to keep up with the level of his disruptive activity! I'm in agreement with Ian above that semi protection might be a better idea - at least it stops the ip socks that he has used many times in the past. M100 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check to see if Challenge X was really a copyvio before you removed it from T:DYK? I was checking and wasn't convinced. It's good that you took it off just in case but I think maybe it should go back up. What do you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I was in the process of doing that (I had to go get my A/C adapter, and I was distracted momentarily by some Black Friday browsing). I wasn't convinced either. -- tariqabjotu 02:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in Image:IMG 0887.jpg invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator? -- tariqabjotu 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quadellprovided a lengthy response to the copyright question (which amounts to the image being OK). -- tariqabjotu 05:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text was a slightly reorganized cut and paste of the listed website - which has a very clear copyright statement.--150.203.36.136 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In doubt, I removed it. The lack of any references at all should have prevented it to make it to DYK in the first place. Besides, I was expecting the template to be refreshed anytime when I noticed it turning into a stub link. Circeus 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New account
Thanks for the help. I'm somewhat lost. I did move my talk page and user info from my old account to the new one, but I would also like to delete Reynoldsrapture for good. Is this possible. I've seen tags I believe would do this, but should it be a user deletion tage, or an article deletion tag? Veracious Rey 05:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think is best. Basically, I want my old account deleted or disapeared as much as possible. If no one new my old account ever existed, I'd be happy. Veracious Rey 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, now if someone sees my old name in a prior discussion, and they click on it, couldn't they in theory edit my old user page and add anything they wanted to it? Veracious Rey 05:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you block my old account from being edited? I see now that anyone technically could edit the page if they so desired, so a permanent block would be the only solution. This would be similar to protecting an article from vandalism, right? Veracious Rey 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help. Good to have handy editors around like you. Veracious Rey 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Got it, thanks. (Radiant) 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), we are attempting to have a polite discussion about the wording of a poll -- a poll which multiple editors have requested be re-run, since the original version was very tangled.[3] I understand that you do not agree that the poll should be re-run. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me (again) of disruption, nor to accuse me of violating WP:POINT.[4][5]. Can you please explain just exactly which clause of WP:POINT you believe is being violated? Just to be clear, it is my opinion that your repeated statements against me are falling into the realm of a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Elonka 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything against you at all. I said starting this poll would be a disruption - asking zillions of people to look at a poll question which has already been addressed by dozens of people. You need to read both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Your accusing me of a personal attack when nothing was directed at you personally is itself a personal attack. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anaheim Hills
You are not discussing why you keep reverting it. I kindly ask you to revert it back, and discuss why you are doing this silly revert stuff like the rules state. I did explain myself, but you kept reverting it anyways without any information to back yourself up. What gives? Are you too special to explain yourself, but others need to, or what?68.111.174.76 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting all my articles recently :D not being sarcastic. Nareklm 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Lessing Lake" (WP:CSD#R1 ---- content was: '#REDIRECT Lake Kari' (and the only contributor was 'Nareklm')) 02:22, ...,(and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Nareklm|Nareklm]) 22:26, 18 November 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Russians in Armenia" ..., you diddnt delete those if not Never mind. Nareklm 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much it was copyright since i dont know to many of the rules but now i do :) plus you should delete this to lol Shushi Massacre
Hahaha thanks, Im getting used to this for now i've been going smooth :-) Nareklm 03:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again
Hey i re-made the article but i did not copy except for the quote i dont think were supposed to re-make quotes right?
Also is there anywhere on our user profiles or contributions that say how many edit's we made etc statistics?
Thank you alot.Nareklm 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this article will come through smoothly. Nareklm 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thats funny editits, haahahhaa i need 3 times the number i have now to make the top ten :P wikipedia is a new addiction other myspace.my iq is going down, Nareklm 05:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the United States article, under the infobox at the top of the page under Largest City (New York City, NY) could you kindly add the Smallest City, which is Maza, North Dakota, since it is the smallest city in the United States. I cant do it for I have an IP # and IP's are blocked. I would appreciate it. 68.111.174.76 07:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BernieMac7734
cheers for blocking this foo'. keep up yr good work W guice 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wknight, I got a question regarding an image I recently uploaded Image:LeeSmith.jpg. I just wanted to know if my licensing was right, and if it all legit? I tried checking over other baseball card images and it seems that I can do this, but I'm not totally sure since I got this image from Baseball Almanac. Thanks for looking into it. Nishkid64 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...okay then. I do have a Lee Smith baseball card from 1997 (somewhere around there), but I don't have a scanner. I added the fair use rationale for the image, and hope everything goes well. Does anyone exactly decide upon the image's fate or something? Nishkid64 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Question: that Carlos Delgado image? Was that a MLB.com image? Nishkid64 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you lucked out. About the time of my RfA, Meegs requested me to deleted 100+ images that I got from MLB.com. It was really annoying going to each article and removing the image and then deleting the image afterwards. By the way, it seems there are loads and loads of MLB.com images on baseball player pages. Want to discuss it on WP:WPBB and WP:WPBBP so people will know for future reference? Nishkid64 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed alot of vandalism in the recent changes area im trying my hardest to mark the articles that are nonsense to be deleted but for the regular articles how do i revert? Nareklm 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man i needed that. Nareklm 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tip for the last ten minutes i've been reverting spam and this guy is messing with alot of topics with his opinions. Nareklm 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hopefully i can get most people banned who are trouble makers and the ones who make stupid and immature posts continuously, well the spammers yep. Nareklm 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've been cleaning out the recent changes and new pages so much today i reached 1059 edits, I've been adding stubs, WikiProjects, I reverted spam, im working to improve articles and eliminate non-sense material :-) Nareklm 02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Smith
I'll give it a look see later tonight. Thanks for the message. // Tecmobowl 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stablepedia
Well, to be honest, it started as my own little project (which happened to have documentation in cased others wanted to get involved). I guess if it gets such massive involvement that it should be in the project space... Until then, let's play it by ear and see what direction we should take. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no notability criteria (well, nothing added on to Wikipedia's criteria to having articles exist in the first place). As for reviewing, I created this as the virtually processless sister of WP:ARFA/WP:APPROVE. I know I review my articles when I add them in; hopefully I can review other people's articles. As long as the article is likely to stick around on Wikipedia, and is well-sourced and done well, go ahead and add it. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say "reviewed" as in "I hope someone who's adding the article in took the time to make sure this article is accurate and acceptable." You can do the reviewing yourself, or, if you can't do that, you can post it in the Requests for Assistance and Second Opinions section. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd Wiki-mechanics question here. I personally have no preference as to whether the article is called Tucson or Tucson, Arizona, but I'm a little nonplussed that it seems to have disappeared from my watchlist. The Talk:Tucson, Arizona does appear, and the watch/unwatch tab on the article says unwatch, indicating that it is still being watched. Yet despite the numerous edits made to the article tonight (some of them by me), it's not showing up on today's date. Do I need to do anything, or will it show up again after its first post-move edit? Please advise. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, making an edit restored it to the watchlist. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shushi
Hey someone marked it as POV i think but i used another template i want to take sometime to revise it. Nareklm 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-adding it i just noticed it doesn't affect the page only the talk page i just want to revise everything so it doesn't offend anyone or that POV thingy.Nareklm 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, but there was another massacre called shusha some people might get confused with the words not to sure so theres more flaming for meh. Hopefully they won't take it personally they can write articles about armenians to so theres no heart feelings lol. (ASALA etc) Nareklm 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Captioning for deletable images
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide a link to an example of what you mean? I haven't added any delete tags to any of Chowbok's images, however I have added an RfU tag or two, and also tags specifying that the uploader provide a source. Neither of these templates said anything about adding a second tag {{speedy-image-c}} although I could be mistaken. TheQuandry 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the caption says says "Also consider adding {{speedy-image-c|[[2006-12-03]]}} to the image captions." I guess I took that to mean it was optional? Anyway, I'll add them now. TheQuandry 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you already did it. Nevermind. :-) Thanks for letting me know. TheQuandry 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about that album cover, I didn't realize User:Jaranda was an administrator. Sorry. TheQuandry 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for preventing speedy deletion. I hope that importance is now asserted strongly (not weakly!). Still working on the article. Thanks again. part 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion, I took some time to look at the Lee Smith article. I summarized my thoughts here. I've marked the page on my watch list so if you want to respond I would love feedback. Additionally, a number of the Baseball bios are in bad shape. I've started working on a handful of the "most important" people i can think of and would love to get some more help. These include (but are not limited to): Hank Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Sandy Koufax. So much work needs to be done to those pages. I've taken some time to improve Cy Young, and i think it is a relatively decent article currently. However, it could really use some more meat. My current objective is the Shoeless Joe Jackson and i am working on that on a page in my own user space. If you have any other people that you think would help on some of these articles, that would be excellent. // Tecmobowl 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedy-tagged because the article talks about how great he is and how important he is to Tamil literature and yet his name only gets 177 Google hits in total, this article included, of which only 58 are truly distinct from one another. When "-wikipedia" is added to the search, this number drops to 67, of which 33 are truly distinct from one another. His Pinakalinmukaingal gets 17 Google hits when "-wikipedia" is added to the search, and that includes all hits, not just the reasonably distinct-looking ones. Even this was lifted straight from our Tirupur article, as you can see here. "PINANKALIN MUGANGAL" not in quotes got this: four hits, all of them for Wikipedia and three clone articles. The same is true of Samayalairaikkalayankal and Theener Idaivellai, as you can see here and here.
Katha requests an eminent writer, scholar or critic in each of the regional languages to choose what she/he feels are the three best stories published in that language, in the previous year.
Our Nominating Editors sift through numerous journals and magazines that promote short fiction. Many of them consult their friends or other Friends of Katha in the literary world to help them make their nominations. The nominated stories are translated and from these are chosen the Prize Stories.
Each author receives the KATHA AWARD FOR CREATIVE FICTION which includes a citation, Rs 2000, and publication (in translation) in that year's Katha Prize Stories volume.
The editor of the regional language journal that first published the award winning story receives the KATHA JOURNAL AWARD.
The translators are handpicked from the list of nearly 3000 names we have at Katha. Each of them gets the KATHA AWARD FOR TRANSLATION which includes a citation, Rs 2000, and the chance to translate a prize story.
Shankar Dayal Sharma (President of India in 1993) has an M.A. in English literature according to his severely undercited article but he sounds as if he had better things to do than to take time out to be a Katha Awards judge.
I have prodded the Chayathirai article because it's almost 100% lifted from somewhere that no one has been able to track down and the stated reason, "24 distinct Google hits, excluding this article and its numerous clones." Also, Chayathirai "best novel" tamil nadu gets me 8 hits from Wikipedia, its clones and some blurbage from three sites that are selling the book. One site even tells you that that's just what the publisher says (that it won the "Best Novel Award" from the Tamil Nadu Government). I am beginning to doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu actually bothers with such things, because of the results of "best novel award" tamil nadu government 2/3 Chayathirai (the Wikipedia article and a website that sells the book) and 1/3 clear reference to the Best Novel Award said to be given by the Académie Française.
Those are just the lies I've caught so far sitting on my ass.
I don't want to have Category:Wikify from July 2006 open on December 1, GMT because of this joker. Please don't let this article remain until the end of time.
Is there a way to get that tag back on because of what I just told you?
Sorry to bug you
I hate to bother you, but since you seem to be one of the more interested people on baseball biographies, would you mind checking in on Casey Stengel. There is a very active user who has been making a number of edits. I personally don't agree, but feel that a third party should probably look into it. I believe there are structure issues, content issues, refreence issues and more. Additionally, a number of quotations have been inserted. I have no problem with quotations to an extent, but i believe a) they should be used when they are encyclopedic b) really add value to the article. The {{wikiquote}} tag should make it easy for someone interested in compiling a compendium of quotes. // Tecmobowl 01:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by a quick look through the names and diffs at the "Summary of Discussion" section. If you think others should be added, feel free. --Elonka 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So feel free to add him, as I'm sure it was not Josiah Rowe's intention to deliberately exclude someone who was a legitimate participant. Josiah is human, after all. --Elonka 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am! I didn't mean to exclude any major participants — my original list of 15 members was an attempt to list only those who had made substantial comments in the recent discussions. Chuq hadn't edited WT:TV-NC since November 15, which is why I missed him. I've now added him to the list and notified him. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I esp. don't think Radiant's name should be removed when he put it there. The chaos there can't possibly be how that's supposed to work, is it?! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less my perspective as well. I agree that Radiant's name should be left there, but I'm concerned that reverting Elonka's changes will further diminish the chances of the RfM being accepted. If we can get all participants to agree to mediation and get the case accepted, we can work out our differences in the mediation process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. But if Radiant's name is removed again, I think the page should be protected. It's been removed twice - once after he added it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the participants have to resort to page protection on the RfM, there's a good chance that the mediation isn't going to work. I've asked Elonka to stop editing the page, and I've asked several MedCom members to take a look at the RfM to see if it can be salvaged. Let's hope for the best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a God awful mess now that it should probably just be re-started - with only one person editing the damn thing. Absurd. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No clue. But apparently there are too many people involved to let anyone do anything. I say you should get in there, get it the way you want and tell everyone (including me) to stay the hell out. At least until a mediator shows up. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned that if I go in there and start reverting changes, it'll just escalate the matter further. I bollixed this up, didn't I? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how picky they're going to be. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question... looks like a legit edit. I have multiple windows open, so I may have reverted the wrong page. Nwwaew(My talk page) 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are going to report me, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Administrators are bored kids that have nothing else to do in life except be extreme ass-holes that have absolutly nothing to do with the real world. They play all day "editing" and "warning" like like people that do not have a social life. Admins live hard and borning lives and do not have nearly enough "relations" with females. You were wrong to warn...at least now you can warn for the right reasons.
131.94.216.188 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not block this guy? — Superbfc 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Locking
Please do not lock it. I would prefer an outsider to do it. Locking it would look bad in the face of mediation. -^demon[omg plz]20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate editing...
Hello Wknight94, I was recently scrolling down recent changes and caught sight of this user page. Apparently NandT and some friends of his are using their edits merely for socializing which violates WP:NOT. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Open proxy checking
Hi. I wanted to help out at WP:OP. Is it sufficient to run nmap to prove that an IP is an open proxy? If you get output like I showed at User talk:61.90.228.106, is that proof positive? — Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, is there any documentation on how folks can help with this project? — Wknight94 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I forgot to get back to you on this one. 61.90.228.106 isn't an open proxy as far I can tell. Port 80 is actually running Microsoft IIS (nmap -A told me this) and when you try to set it as your own proxy server (Firefox's SwitchProxy is nice for this), I get "HTTP request refused or failed (400)". And no, there's no general documentation on this, though there definitely should. I'm not actually part of the WikiProject, so you should ask them to write one up. -- Netsnipe ► 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: Sherwin Revestir
Hello, sorry about my bother. Considering about the deletion of the article on Sherwin Revestir, what is the minimum Google search hit points in order for me to retain it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agent paper (talk • contribs) .
The DataCore page
Thanks for moving and not deleting the article. After I get more content on it, how would I go about getting it reinstated?
Stos553 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References and television episode articles
To my knowledge, no, it would not be proper to add {{unref}} to the many thousands of television episode articles around Wikipedia, since by their very nature, the episode effectively is a reference. I think this has been discussed at the talk page of WP:V, you might want to check there and toss in a question if it's a concern, or maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. --Elonka 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:User:Jghfutikdpe3
This user is a sockpuppet of blocked user User:The hobgoblin, identical user page and interest in Mulatto, SqueakBox 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you blocked this account, indef; you might consider another account, User talk:FuzzyBlueGuy92, as well, since they seem to be a tag team. John Broughton | Talk 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me a message saying that you were going to delete Winn O'Donnell but you didn't specify which information you were not in agreeance with or how come there couldn't be information posted to wikipedia by a user. Not all information, and or events link to the public webpage, study, or research database. I am not understanding. A wikipedia user | Talk 18:22, 2 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Log.doc.check (talk • contribs).
Babe Ruth and WP:WPBBP
I thought you could look at the discussion on the Ruth talk page and offer some food for thought. Also, are you not on the list at WP:WPBBP? I didn't see you there and thought you might want to toss your name up. Seeing as you are an admin, i know you've got a lot of duties, but felt it was worth pointing out to you. // Tecmobowl 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patsy Cline
Totally linkspam. I reverted it. Cornell Rockey 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Troll and WP Vanity Malefactor
I decided I don't have the time or the desire to be drawn into a nasty melodrama, but this editor needs to be banned in my view. Brunonia 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Will. I was about to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, in response to Elonka's comment that "An admin's assistance is requested." I was going to note that at least five admins have already agreed that there is a consensus about WP:TV-NC, but I suddenly realized that I could only think of four: me, you, Radiant! and Steve Block. Who am I forgetting? (I'd like to be sure that all five have actually expressed the belief that a consensus has been formed, rather than merely supporting the guideline.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chuq (talk·contribs) makes five, though his involvement was a while ago. IIRC, his position was to keep the guideline as is but create redirects to facilitate linking. – Anþony talk 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I forgot Chuq was an admin. Thanks, Anthony. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Klint
You asked why the {{prod}} tag was replaced - the tag was removed by the author, yet no evidence of notability wa provided. - Tiswas(t/c) 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. - Tiswas(t/c) 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latest shenanigans
Yeah, it's frustrating and exhausting. I just hope that since the RfM page is now unprotected, we can get on with this and bring it to a sensible conclusion. Thatcher131 is certainly right that this issue hasn't been worth the energy expended on it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defence on Elonka's talk page. I appreciate it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dweller 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page move notices
I'm putting them on now...I hope you don't mind me replacing yours so they're all consistent. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll let you finish up. I'll just double check them all. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out with the notifications. I checked them and they seemed OK. I also put one at the episode list and when I got to the main show page, there was already a complaint about the notification not being there. Let me know if you think of anywhere else to notify. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment on my note on Mediation cabal
Per your calling my actions vindictive, I have core policy, WP:NOR, on my side with the request I made. If you'd prefer some other admin handle that particular aspect, feel free to bring it up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Elonka can do the same. If either occurs, I'll gladly leave the issue alone as long as someone is addressing it. At some point, if she doesn't rectify this, I plan to bring it up at one of those places anyway since I know that me personally editing her pages would cause World War III. But her use of original research is a crystal clear violation of core Wikipedia policy. It's not my fault that this ongoing discussion has shone a bright light on her activity and alerted me to this and other policy and etiquette issues. As an admin, it would be a gross dereliction for me to let those go unattended. I've let pass various personal attacks and allegations of stalking, sockpuppetry, and whatever else I've forgotten - none of which have been accompanied by evidence or examples of violated policies - and I'd appreciate if you not pile on even further with public mischaracterizations of vindictiveness. You should also be fair and give an example of comments directed at you since I don't recall that ever happening. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I refuse to get down in the mud on this; I've seen what happens to people who do. The issue I'm raising has nothing to do with core policy or "crystal clear" right or wrong, and I'm not taking any form of stance on Elonka's family tree etc. I am, however, taking a strong stance on your behavior. Especially as an admin, you should be bending over backwards to not get involved in any Elonka-related side issue, given the harshness and general incivility that characterizes the dispute with her on WP:NC-TV. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, it comes off as vindictive and petty. I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. -- PKtm 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're going with that, but there are certain things on Wikipedia that we should never ignore, regardless of the situation. Core policies are one of those things. It's that important. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Welcome
Thank you very much for the warm welcome! I am pleased to be part of the Wikipedia community and looking forward to contribute as much as I can to this website. However, I have a question. I am very interested in the U.S. Congress and I have seen many pages of current U.S. Senators who have "served with: _____ ". It looks really bad and was wondering, how I can create a template, like the on that has "Political Offices" UnitedStatesIndia 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Negima!?
Recently, I've seen an unsourced paragraph in the ending of the overview, as is protected.
The following part of the entry:
However despite the new look from the old series and manga this series has been getting a lot more flak from critics and fans alike than when the 1st series aired. Many complaints stem from the fact that most of the characters have been redesigned to look different than from the old anime series and the manga. Most of which center around Nodoka and her new hairdo that essentially looks almost totally different than from the manga and 1st anime. there has also been complaints about her so called "Cosplay Card" that gives her a pair of reading glasses. Also for the reason that Asuna no longer has her signature heterochromia (2 different colored eyes). Many people also are complaining about it because it has nothing to do with the original Manga story line what-so-ever. Many Professional critics have complained that despite that it's a retelling of the story, the story-line itself seems to be totally incoherent and just plain not well thought out. There have even been calls for it's cancellation altogether. And there are rumors that Akamatsu may just pull his license out of the series, effectively canceling the show.
The following section was unsourced, and has no proven facts. I ask upon you to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.13.132 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
A lot of unsourced POV was added into the Negima!? page, and that is why the edit war was going on. I was trying to remove the POV contents while at the same time trying my best to communicate with the user who was adding his own comments into all of the three pages he is trying to edit. The current protected version of Negima!? contains a lot of sentences like this angered a lot of fans, many see these characters as useless. Which are all POV statements made by the user Animedude, without sources, even after I have repeatedly asked for them. If possible, can you please edit the page to reflect a more NPOV version of that page? Thank you. MythSearchertalk 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered: 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
blocked user
Hi there, probably not my business but I'm wondering (at the risk of getting myself put on some suspicious persons list...) why was the user User:Techmobowls blocked? I'll condede that he can be difficult/downright stupid when people disagree with him, but is that blockworthy behavior? Maybe it is, I don't know WP policy well enough, but if it's just an issue of vandalism/trolling I don't really think he qualifies as either. Thanks for hte clarification! Avraham 09:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all, thanks for your reply. I actually was loking at User:Techmobowls and just his edits, which didn't seem seem like vandalism, however I did not realise that he was impersonating another user, that puts a whole different spin on things. As for my NPA violation, I suppose you're right, though I didn't mean it as a personal attack. More like: "I understand how he could have rubbed some poeple the wrong way but does that really merit blocking?" Anyway, thanks for your reply. Avraham 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it because I too am a sockpuppet. Kidding! I just found it by pure chance on the Hank Aaron talk page. I found [exchange] Too weird to not look into, so I checked out Techmobowls's user contribs. which seemed weird but didn't explain the block. Avraham 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of International Relief and Development
Hello- noticed you deleted a page i created for an organization: International relief and development. Just wanted to know why. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annpincus (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Resusal
My current 'plan' for mediation after reading the statements is to propose a compromise all can agree with, my request for someone to be blocked is not at all linked with the case. Merry Chrismahanakwanzaka WikieZach| talk 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes I see what you mean. The pywikipedia framework, which my robot uses, apparently does not remove duplicate categories, and duplicate categories will therefore result from the category clutter that was on those articles before. My robot and I have closed hundreds of CFD debates, but this is perhaps the first one where the categories have been piled on the articles so. The problem which my robot is clearing, which was identified in the CFD debate, was category clutter. In my opinion duplicate categories are an improvement over category clutter.
Any other automatic robot will probably do the same as mine. The only alternative is moving all these categories by hand. Are you up for that? Another solution might be to find someone with WP:AWB willing to run through the categories when I've finished to remove duplicates from the articles? Or if you really want my robot to quit the field, I can submit the rest of the merge for implementation by another bot, but the same is likely to occur. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is what you're looking for
This has Cburnett explaining the reasoning behind the pre-emptive disambiguation and why subsequent page moves are acceptable. Jay32183 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe this diff is also extremely important and should be included somewhere in the ArbCom evidence, mostly because it made me crack up laughing looking through the archives just now. Spock. You quoted Spock. Awesome. I need sleep. – Anþony talk 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stoner rock
What are your thoughts on the 18 speed tranny spamming? Think it's worth nominating the URL for the pan-wiki spam blacklist? Deiziotalk 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Template Related
Sure! If you look at the page of Sen. Blanche Lincoln and go all the way down to her Political Offices space, it says "Served With Mark Pryor". I think that really looks bad. Therefore, I was thinking, if there is a possible way to make a "template" like the POLITICAL OFFICES one, but this was is titled "Served With" and there, the names of people can be written who actually served with him/her. Hope you understand! UnitedStatesIndia 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Hey Wknight94, someone keeps on putting information on Armenian related articles such as "Urartu" and putting non-sense like he's trying to say that there not Armenian and all these other random things someone has complained on my page i reverted about 3-4 articles from that guy and theres two people actually one with a user name and one with a i.p address doing very similar things.
Dacy69 and 70.235.224.33 Thanks man! Nareklm 07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hildanknight
Thanks for the heads up, that sounds like his modus operandi. And per further evidence I gave on the AN thread, my suspicion has only increased. Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image
Can you delete this too its a old one i uploaded and forgot. Nareklm 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 votes against 4 were at least in favour of getting rid of the seperate articles. Could they at least be merged? This sets an awful precedent for Wikipedia. The creator of the articles also went around asking seemingly unconnected people to vote. Charles 18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. Thank you. Charles 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was "Dual Moons" deleted?
Hi, just wondering why the final outcome of the deletion debate for "Castlevania: Dual Moons" was a deletion? The argument against it was that it was a "non-notable prank", however, several hundered websites across the globe have info on it, and a simple web search can verify this. So what's the problem? I see tons of internet hoax pages on Wikipedia, and this was probably bigger than several of those.
Thanks for your response. You can email me if you wish. enterprisegame@aol.com
Thanks for administering AfD, it seems like a mostly thankless and sometimes tedious task. Can I request that you review the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVE Trainsim? It is true that a majority of contributors expressed the opinion that the article should be kept. However, it does not appear that there was a consensus to keep the article. Thanks again, -- Chondrite 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, arguments opposing deletion consisted of unverified claims that the subject "is popular in a niche," whereas the arguments for deletion were based on policies and guidelines. But I am not suggesting that the there was a consensus for delete, only that there was no consensus. This would also seem to be consistent (by the evil numbers at least) with the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The angrez, where 4-2 was considered no consensus. Thanks for your consideration. -- Chondrite 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. It's no big deal, really. I just thought that the summary should be accurate. I understand that you are busy, thanks for your time. -- Chondrite 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppets of dual moons?
I didn't ask anyone to come to wikipedia to back up the deletion argument. Although I'm glad people did. And I don't see anyone making new accounts just to vote on it. I looks like people simply didn't log in and it just registered their IP's instead. I myself can account for 3 of those "keeps" since I was point-for-point rebutting the arguments made for deletion. So if this entry was deleted because of that, then I think that is a bad call. The facts still stand that this was a big enough AFD joke for the creator of Castlevania to publicly deny it, and for several major gaming sites to report on it as if it were fact. Deleting it just to delete is not really a benefit to Wikipedia. I guess people will just have to rely on the hundreds of other news sites that still report on this for their enlightenment on the subject. It's a shame they can't just come to wikipedia to get the whole story at once.
Also, someone suggested merging it with another hoax page. Why wasn't that option considered?Nonresonance 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Thanks
Thank you for the quick permanent block of the vandalism only account User:Weberavin. Pete Orme 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
I was considering making a joke about how I didn't inhale, but decided it would be inappropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move info
Thanks for explaining that anyone can undo a move right afterwards, I did not know that. - Peregrinefisher 05:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Article
I am wanting to request the delete of the article Vic Ramono as it is about a character whose history is not delved into deeply of in the show MXC, and also the name of the character is spelled wrong. The article has only one sentence, which pretty much sums him up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs).
Deletion of article
Hello, this may be old news, but I'm wondering why you deleted the article London finance group? The reason I'm asking is that me and my friends were having great fun about it over on the other side of the swedish coast. I'm just wondering if somebody directed you to delete it since that might mean we have a mole in the student organisation :) anyways, there are no grounds for deletion, the article was exaggerated but it still represented a real, if oh so silly, little organisation. It could have been edited from all the bullshit and left as a stub of sorts. Maybe somebody could have added a pic (http://www.piccadillyhotel.net/hostel-london-images/pods2-beds-big.jpg) of the beds in the wonderful hostel they will be staying at on their bigshot trip to London. My point is, there are ways to shoot people down without resorting to downright deletion of the content, if nothing else it makes for funnier reading for other people. Well those were my two cents. Keep up the good work.
The_Snackmaster
What the hell?!!
Why did you send that Sandler message to me? I've never even visited that page. Could somebody have the same ip as me? What are the chances of that happening? Thanks. 20:29, 16 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.131.165 (talk • contribs)
Page Deletion
I felt that I had the right to delete the page on Alby Grant, for I solely wrote the article. I am a little displeased by it and wanted a total rewrite.Mdriver1981 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, you can request that an article for which you are the only significant author be entirely deleted (rather than just blanked) by following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you wish to remove content you're displeased with and continue working on the article later, you may do so, but please leave enough information to establish context for readers. Wikipedia calls such articles stubs. – Anþony talk 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the Talk:1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia
Hi,
I would like to notice you that TheFEARgod has unexplainedly deleted your ruling on the request to change the article name, overpassing your administrator powers. I just reverted the tak page to the version prior to deletion.
I assumed good faith on the edits, until he/she started deleting official sources just to change numbers to his/her own content. MythSearchertalk 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Antarctic Treaty (Gundam), I have given the numbers on the official page, yet he/she at least deleted the information 3 times this pass week end. And I did not count the last few self reverts. In Universal Century Technology, changed 16 to 1250 and added his own speculation on the semi-transparent coating part with the following comment why could the mobile suits with stand the full force of the solor ray blast for a few second if they did not have it (Please have a look at the history for the comments). In the Universal Century page, kept changing the sentence even though source was given, at least in the comments. In Global Defense Initiative, it is a good demostration of what the user is trying to do, self-reverts while changing a little bit of information until his/her points is left inside. It is very hard to think that these are not purposedly done, especially the IP user do have history of changing numbers randomly without source in the F-35 Lightning II page (believed to be same user since the poor spelling problem). Your revert at Mobile weapons] page is also a good example of him/her randomly changing numbers. MythSearchertalk 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Mythsearcher. While this user has made a few helpful contributions, this user typically follows the pattern Mythsearcher describes. In Factions of the Cosmic Era they posted unsourced figures and then reposted different unsourced figures. In Bloody Valentine War they deleted all information on one side's forces twice, with the comment to big com up with new numbers and then please come up with numbers scence i highily doubt those numbers. (Actual posts by this user are just as bad in spelling, punctuation, and grammar as the comments they have made.)Edward321 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on 24.118.153.134’s habit of revising several times, I think checking people’s reverts is the simplest way to see the quality of 24.118.153.134’s contributions.
Late Universal Century where 24.118.153.13 is reverted by Mythsearcher (12/6, 12/12), Egan Loo (12/3, 12/4, 12/5, 12/6), StoptheDatabaseState (12/5), Asams10 (12/5), and 65.29.156.70 (11/12)
M16 rifle where 24.118.153.13 is reverted by Asams10 (12/17)
So in the last five weeks, 24.118.153.13 has been reverted by myself, yourself, Asams10, BarroColorado, BillCJ, Egan Loo, Khukri, Mythsearcher, Silver Edge, StoptheDatabaseState, Wompa99, Zouavman Le Zouave, and 65.29.156.70.Edward321 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today, this IP user has done the following edits that are wierd in nature:
[6], which at the end changed nothing but left a lot of edit history that are pretty much pure speculation if not self invention. (One can hardly make those speculation since there are no such things in the series or any official settings)
[7] I have not much knowledge in this article but his edits were reverted with reasons, yet he kept reverting the page without a good explanation.
[8], Removed content twice, to my knowledge, the content removed was pretty much as clear as it can be, there should be no alternative.
Somehow he ignored WP:NOR and think of wikipedia as a self research blog or something. MythSearchertalk 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as of now, the edits I have seen by this IP seems to be either adding nonsense to the articles(like changing numbers randomly), adding speculation into articles(which are normally written in very poor grammar and spelling), and occasionally adding repeated information in the articles. The dozens of reverts seems to be useless, but from this series of reverts, we can see that his ultimate goal is still mixing in his own speculation, thinking that having a lot of reverts people will not be able to track back the change in the article. (Probably without the knowledge of using the history page to compare versions). MythSearchertalk 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again showing reverts, due to this users habit of changing things several times in close succession.
[9] Where he changes real world theories on O'Neill cylinders based on uncited claims that he heard different numbers in one of the Gundam animes.
[10] where his change removes information and is gramatically incorrect/
[11] where he also removed information. Edward321 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tranny
Beautiful, good work. Let's hope it sticks.. Deiziotalk 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question on that very topic.....what happened? I didn't think we were going to see that link again and....oops! :) Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't block the myspace link I don't see much option but to protect the page. It does appear that the page receives few substantive contributions from IPs. Deiziotalk 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, tricky. I detect I have a slightly more protective attitude than yourself, but agree it's not the ideal long-term solution. Abuse is another option but could be just as frustrating if not more so than the spam blacklist. Well, I'm going to sleep on it... Deiziotalk 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...
...for the correction re: Leflyman. I'd been under that misapprehension for a long time, probably ever since he nominated me for adminship last February. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia because of disruptive edits."
The removal of incorrect information from Wikipedia is not a disruptive edit.
"You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired,"
The removal of incorrect information is a constructive edit.
"but please note that vandalism, including page blanking or addition of random text, spam, or deliberate misinformation; privacy violations; personal attacks; and repeated and blatant violations of WP:NPOV will not be tolerated."
The removal of incorrect information does not constitute vandalism. The placement of delibrate misnformation in Wikipedia does constitute vandalism, and Wikipedia has been tolerating the placement of deliberate misinformation by Draginol, Crculver, and WarthogDemon, among others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.13.36.211 (talk • contribs).
While I have your attention
Thanks for the "tranny" update...sneaky! While I have your attention I could really use some admin help. I've been trying to do a much needed cleanup on the Terry Kath article it was riddled with poetic fanboy fluff and in need of a sweeping. Problem is...there is an IP series, 128.100.219.XX(the guy that filled the article with crap in the first place), who keeps rv'ing it back to his own horrible version. I tried to show the editor originating from those IP's a WP:POL link and links the the policies that were being ignored. The response I got was that the article didn't require any verifiability and that everything there was "well known to Chicago fans" and didn't need to follow policy. I can work around his apparent ownership of the article...but he's taken to leaving personal attacks on my talk page and is making any article improvement quite cumbersome. Is it possible you can throw a "Semi-P" on that article? The IP user works from several IP's all originating from the University of Toronto. Trying to deal with the IP range directly could have collateral damage(although all the edits coming from that range so far have been "Pro-Chicago" edits so I don't think there are any other users to deal with. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The more eyes on it the better. The edits that come from that IP are the typical fanboy "widely regarded as one of the greatest in the world", "described by many as" + the usual "poetic adjective...poetic adjective"...bubble gum content. Any attempt by me to rm policy vios and do general article cleanup are ignored(despite my offers to "policy tutor"). If you read the IP's comments(now removed) on my talk page you'd see what I am up against. I really appreciate any/all help you can chip in. Again, thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t think the fanboy worshipping is going o end any time soon. This is what was left on my talkpage this afternoon. Apparently a curse has been placed on me. Oh well. Thanks for your article coverage earlier today BTW. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found an 18 Speed Tranny - MySpace Clone
Would you mond keeping the Anchored Cross and Neo-classical metal articles on your radar. They are both being hit with a MySpace "band-spammer" similar to our 18 Speed tranny pusher. And, like 18 Speeder, they have a floating IP. I have suspicions that the IP in this cas may be E tac (talk·contribs) but I don't have enough evidence yet to ask for an IP check. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essay of relevance
Elonka is now complaining that you have been "issuing unjustified warnings".[12] See also WP:KETTLE. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And some useful diffs
You might want to incorporate these diffs into your "passive incivility" section: they show editors asking Elonka to respond to my "Reasons for exceptions" post, while she keeps pushing for a poll. [13][14][15][16] This, combined with her posts over the same period, demonstrate a pattern of ignoring opposing arguments, as I indicate here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of useful diffs, [17] showing Cburnett (who Elonka listed as supporting her) doing a page move to remove disambiguation back in March. -- Ned Scott 08:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, what we're witnessing here is called "grasping at straws". Among other things, her evidence is now over 4,000 words so I'd be surprised if ArbCom even bothered to read most of it.
I'll add some of these diffs above if one of you doesn't first. I've heard this case may be coming up soon so, God willing, this will be done soon and we can *gasp* actually write an encyclopedia! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your rapid response on the article linked from the main page
You nominated Annette Richardson Dinwoodey for deletion. I think she might be notable as a singer, even if her other accomplishments are not themselves notable. --Eastmain 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking my own talk page.
Is there a wikipedia policy against blanking my own talk page? I just ask because you seem to have reverted my changes in a hurry, so I'm assuming that it was an important matter. 68.189.255.6
Thanks
If you ever need access to census material I have a subscription. If you like writing biographies, there always good clues in the census that are usually missed by the biographers for people on the B-list. I also have a subscription to the New York Times archive. Did you read my 10 point system? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steelersfan35
Heh... The automatic edit summary makes it easier to spot, and he was unlucky enough to hit a page on my watchlist. Although I do check the history when I speedy delete something like that. Are you telling me that this guy has spent 70 socks doing this for a year and a half? Why?? Grandmasterka 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Dragon Ball sockpuppet?
No, I don't have any information of the sockpuppet. If he is now exhibiting the same distruptive behaviour now, then block him as a distruptive sock. I just lifted an autoblock, which was also done by User:HighInBC a little while before. I don't remember seeing any distruptive edits with a quick check. With nothing in his personal block log I WP:AGF'd. If he is a distruptive sock, block him. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 06:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are obviously stalking me and my contribs, and I am hugely offended. You should be desysopped immediately. ;^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately? Shouldn't we conduct a poll first? =P --`/aksha 09:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moves over a redirect
Now I understand. Thank you for the explanation. Its always best when cool heads prevail. Yes, the topic was raised at the Biography page, but still there is no objective method to determine "the most common name" for someone. Its easy when its a name everyone knows, but for historical figures beyond the top 1,000 most, people don't know whats common. It become subjective. You can also see a recent discussion here: Talk:Frederick_T._Frelinghuysen --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New York Mets
I edited the New York Mets article to give more detail about the 2006 NLCS. Why did you delete what I put and say that it was spam? -Jamaljenkins (talk)
Hello there. Do you remember that you unprotected this article in November? Well, I think it might need protection again. My edit war with User:196.15.168.40 is heating up again. He is continually adding information from the defense side of the case. He now wants Westerfield's children described as "college age" instead of adults. You can look into the article's history if you wish. But please do something about this problematic user. Thank You. Fighting for Justice 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions.
I've responded to your comment on my talk page, as it appears the discussion has moved over there. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need a little admin assistance
Sorry to bother you. My talk page is being trolled by (90% reformed) vandal E tac (talk·contribs). He is former vandal who has discovered a new, more positive interest in Wikipedia. Problem is that every now and then he falls off the wagon and does something dumb(vandalism, a few NPA vios, talk page trolling...etc) which I usually catch and rv. I suspect he may also be the IP MySpace spammer on the Anchored Cross article but haven't been able to make a positive ID on that yet. He has been leaving numerous, unwanted messages on my talk page culminating with an fake NPA warning. If you have time could you intervene/mediate for me so I don't have anymore whiny notes left on my page. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind
it is not a big deal --E tac 05:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: MLB season articles
Good. Can you direct me to the link for the Minnesota Twins articles so I can try to follow their pattern? I hope to do this for the team w/ the worst name ever, the Los Angeles Angels of Disneyland. Nice to have you in assistance. Ksy92003 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here is an article for one of my hockey articles: 2006-07 Los Angeles Kings season. This is how I have done this hockey articles, as well as the other 4 articles in hockey for these team articles that I am the main editor of. Also, here is the link to the article which I have created for the Angels 2007 season. Remember that this is a preliminary format and changes to the format may change on an as-needed basis.
What you said about the transactions, that is a good idea, but for my team the Angels, there aren't that many trades that are made, so I don't know if I can help with that. Ksy92003 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball projects
I'm not involved with either, but looking at them, the Baseball players project is a sub-project of the main Baseball one, which will presumably deal with stadia, rules, history, teams, competitions, etc, as well as the players. I don't see any problems with them being separate, but if you want to propose a merger then bring it up on both talk pages and see what the participants think. Thryduulf 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: MLB Season articles
I can understand your concern, and I agree that there is a fair bit of overlap at present, however I don't think unilaterally redirecting the MLB articles was the right way to go, especially without discussion on the matter. There certantly is a lot of fixing and moving that needs to be done - particularaly with 2003 in baseball, which is really the MLB season article in disguise. However, the 2005 in baseball article is about right, IMO. It simply offers an overview of the MLB season - who won the divisions, playoff results, etc. While 2005 MLB season can, and should offer much more detail - final standings, batting leaders, etc. Ideally, the years in baseball series should include far, far more detail about minor league results, Japanese and European baseball, etc. Something similar to what I tried to do with 2005 in ice hockey (though that article is woefully incomplete). This is probably something that should be discussed with WP:Baseball. Resolute 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the inferences by columbus'.. it is not vandalizing at all.. and stop threatening me, or I will report this barbaric act. The serb theory is listed in the book and you can buy it if you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.136.19 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Barnstar
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For all your work with vandalism tonight (New Years Eve), I, Sharkface217, hereby award you with this barnstar. Some of these guys never seem to quit, but we shall prevail (hopefully).S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be honored if you reviewed me at my Editor Review, found here. I would be most appreciative. Thanks! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Want to pass on my thanks. . .
I have been fighting the anonymous IPs on Christopher Columbus all day. It got a lot of edits today. I happened to catch one of the first earlier this morning when an IP inserted something to the effect, CC had "a big Colon" thinking no one would notice it, followed by the Serb theory comments with a book that is out of print. Then another IP inserted that he was Cuba or one of the other "New World" islands he discovered followed by the Serb theory. Kind of amazing to vandalize a page and then expect someone to take your other contribution seriously (albeit one with a book out of print). I requested semi-protection on both pages as several IPs have inserted the same comments today. You saw what the last IP did. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs).
About anonymous IPs
I kinda wish Wikipedia would change its policy on anonymous IPs. Yes, you want everyone to be able to freely contribute and edit pages but in a case like this (and with about 20 other pages I watch), there are anonymous IPs that like to come in and deface them like vandals. I'd like to see a change along the line that your first five contributions have to be approved. Once approved, if you vandalize a page you go back on supervised status. Reversing the edits on Christopher Columbus really took away from the football games today . . . Ronbo76 04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scuff mark
Hello,
I am not trying to be a pain, just trying to learn since I am new. Can you tell me why the scuff mark article that I created was deleted? You can answer this on my talk page, or even here if it's easier. I will mark your talk page on my watchlist. Thank you in advance. Teh Janitor 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Open proxies
I noticed that you just indef blocked 125.141.64.184 as an open proxy. If you have a few moments, would you mind checking out the other IPs who have been linkspamming World Social Forum? (which I just sprotected temporarily). Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, how do you check for open proxies using Firefox? Just curious. Thanks in advance, Asteriontalk 14:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a report was issued earlier, saying that the wreckage was found (ITN carried this news too). But it was later taken back by the officials. Regards, thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please expalin Why did you roll the article back to the earlier version and reverted all my edits? Each and every one of them is well sourced. You actually helped Eupator and Fadix to achieve their goal, i.e. keep the article at their preferred version. Could you please explain what was wrong with the quotes from Strabo, Buzand, Kalankatuatsi, Hewsen, etc.? I can explain each of my edits, and removing well sourced edits is not gonna help resolve the dispute. Regards, Grandmaster 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've being doing for quite a while. Eupator and Fadix ignore the talk page, they simply undo all of my edits without any reasonable explanation. If you have any questions with regard to my edits, I can explain each of them. Please ask. Grandmaster 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wknight94, I am answering here to defend myself from Grandmaster false charges against my person. My revert, as explained in the summary, is justified by the added Azerbaijani name for a historic geographic place. My revert had nothing to do with the rest of the materials which were reverted with it. I am not involved in the dispute, while I have been by mistake added in the mediation. In fact, I haven't even read what is going on in the talk page. The justification of my revert was that it is in opposition with a guideline which both me and Grandmaster have commented during its creation and both as far as I am aware of agreed. The reason why the Armenian name is included in the lead is because it was written like this when that province was part of Armenia, it is a historic and relevant name according to the name conventions. Grandmaster added the Azerbaijani name simply because there was the Armenian name. The Azerbaijani name is a modern name, that province had fallen and wasn't called that way when the Azeris script was invented. There is no justification for the Azeris name to be there, it is against the naming convention, but Grandmaster is taking the pleasure to add an Azerbaijani name simply because the Armenian name was there, which in this cases could only be considered as POV pushing. This was my only justification to revert, the rest of the material reverted in the process, it is to Grandmaster and those disagreing with him to handle, I am NOT involved. Fad(ix) 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-)
¿Why1991ESP. | Sign Here 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}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
23:43, 31 December 2006 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Peanut Island" (WP:CSD#A3 ---- content was: 'Peanut Island is an island in Florida, United States.{{florida-geo-stub}}Category:Islands of Florida')
I'd like you to reconsider whether "is an island in Florida, United States" qualifies as No content whatsoever? The article was an awful sub-stub by a newb, but I don't think it qualified for speedy on WP:CSD#A3 grounds. Judging by the article history, two admins (me and Grutness) came across that article before you, and we both tried to improve the article rather than seeing it as speediable. Hesperian 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "Peanut Island is an island in Florida" is not an article. It wasn't even sourced. I have a better idea: create an article called List of Florida islands and add a single line, "*Peanut Island" - that would provide just as much context but add a lot more value. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article has no value then take it to AfD, or propose a merger. Don't speedy-delete it citing a criterion that doesn't apply. "Peanut Island is an island in Florida, United States" is not an article with "No content whatsoever". It is not "an article consisting only of links elsewhere". It is not "a rephrasing of the title". It is not "an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title". It simply doesn't meet CSD#A3. The reality is, you speedily deleted it because you thought it was a crappy stub with no merit. That's not appropriate. Hesperian 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is this about? You're starting a fuss over a nine-word article? The point of the A1/A3 combination is that it applies to an article that adds no value to the encyclopedia. We're not losing anything by deleting that article as it was. On the contrary, any blue links to it would have misled people into thinking an actual article existed there. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A1 goes out of its way to avoid being interpreted as grounds for deletion of articles like this: "Little or no context.... Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub."
I can see where this is going. I'll say "that deletion was out of process", and you'll say "but the article was crap", and then I'll say "but the deletion was out of process" and then you'll say "but the article was crap", then I'll say "but the deletion was out of process", then you'll say "but the article was crap". I guess neither of us wants to waste our time on this any further. See you 'round the 'pedia.
"Crap" was your word, not mine. As far as being out of process, I can wikilawyer too: WP:STUB suggests "Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics, and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs". I don't see how an entire popular island near West Palm Beach would qualify as a narrow subject - therefore the article didn't even qualify as a stub - therefore WP:CSD#A1 would certainly apply. If you'd like me to restore it and then delete based on A1 instead of A3, I can - but let's keep in mind that, in the time we've already wasted on this ridiculous thread, we could have created 10 actual Florida island stubs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well! That's the first time I've ever been accused of wikilawyering. Listen to yourself. You think A1 says you can delete really short articles, when A1 says, and I quote, "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete". That's not Wikilawyering; that's grade-school English. Hesperian 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish the grade-school English quote for you, "...if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." I disagree that it qualified as a stub according to the passage in WP:STUB that I quoted. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read A1 again. All of it. It doesn't say you can delete articles that you don't think qualify as a valid stub. If says you can delete articles that have little or no context. You don't get to delete articles because you think they're too short. You're abusing your admin tools, man. Hesperian 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differing interpretations of speedy deletion criteria do not warrant such serious accusations as sysop abuse. Please desist and assume good faith or I'll be bringing this up at WP:AN/I. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing so on purpose; for that I apologise. But I do think you're misusing your admin tools. If that doesn't satisfy you, I guess I'll see you at AN/I. Hesperian 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still a serious charge in my opinion, esp. when I think I'm right and that that article was a perfect example of an article with too little context to bother keeping. If you look through any admin's logs, you'll find something you disagree with. For example, your deletion of John Cornforth with the edit summary of "...we don't use disambig pages when there's only two pages". First, we have plenty of dab pages with only two entries: e.g., John Seigenthaler off the top of my head. Second, since that article had been moved to a dab page just three days earlier, I wouldn't consider it a non-controversial move so it should have gone to WP:RM. Third, your move edit summary implies that WP:CSD#G6 applies as a deletion reason but that criteria specifically mentions "...removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article" while the disambiguation page you deleted pointed to two articles, not one. Maybe my use of the phrase "wikilawyering" was a bit much, but my general rule of thumb is that, if you need to read a policy that closely to determine if there's a problem, the least you should do is leave phrases like "misusing your admin tools" out of the conversation.
I agree that I could find something I disagree with in any admin's logs, and I'm not surprised that you found one in mine. I considered your deletion an error, but not something to get bent out of shape about. What upset me was your defence of it while leaving it deleted. When someone comes to me and say "Hey I don't think you got that one right", and has a legitimate argument, I undo my action immediately, even if I disagree. Only then do I engage in further debate or alternative action. I believe most admins do the same, and consider it a basic courtesy, especially to fellow admins, who are under obligation not to wheel war with them.
Some context: the Cornforth issue was discussed here.
Well that's an interesting philosophy that I'll admit I hadn't considered. To me, when I'm right, I'm right so I'll take action and not undo that action unless I've definitely misread a policy or a policy has changed. On the flip side, I won't take offense if another admin disagrees with me and simply undoes my action. I don't consider that a wheel war unless I feel strongly enough about it that I mention it - but they won't even explain their action. To me, an admin is allowed one revert of another admin's action. You disagree. That's fair and a fresh viewpoint for me - something I will definitely consider in the future. I still think I was right in my original action but I suppose I could have undone it first and discussed second instead of vice versa.
Funny you should say that. About a million years ago, when I first got my admin tools, Zoe speedily deleted an article; I disagreed so undeleted and let her know. I figured this was part of the usual BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but Aaron Brenneman let me know it was bad form. Since then I have stuck firmly to a policy of not undoing other admin's actions, and of always undoing my admin actions when challenged, pending resolution. I do believe that this is the common practice among admins, but I should not have assumed it was obvious to you, given it was not obvious to me originally.
Having had some time to think about this, I withdraw unreservedly my claim that you are misusing your tools.
I am glad that we have got past the tone of our earlier discussion, which was... undignified, and am looking forward to a more pleasant exchange next time we bump into each other. Shall we wrap up this interminable thread?
Nice stub. By being the first of us to turn your back on this tedious argument and go do something useful, I hereby declare you the winner. :-( Hesperian 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't want to be the winner. I want Wikipedia to be the winner. Arguing over whether an article's value was 0.0 or 0.1 is not even worth mentioning, let alone fighting over, and Wikipedia doesn't win if we do either. We should always resist the urge to pursue such arguments and just get the article to a 10.0 ASAP. Good night... —Wknight94 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that last message I thought to myself that if someone said this to me I would reply that I don't argue to win - I argue to get the best outcome for Wikipedia. But I posted it anyway. And I like your reply. Good night. Hesperian 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
protection request
Unfortunately, since you unlocked the entry Silver Chips Online, the user Cerberus has resumed vandalizing its content. Please protect the page again in the version without his unwarranted contribution.
Although I have been invited to discuss Cerberus's proposed changes, engaging in dialogue would only legitimize his vandalism.
It is wholly unreasonable for a page about a high school newspaper's history to include the ad hoc complaint of a disgruntled reader with a political ax to grind. If a section on "gifted and talented reporting" were approved, it would set a precedent transforming the Wikipedia page into a forum for anyone to air their complaints about articles they simply don't like.
Cerberus is simply seeking revenge after the newspaper published factual information that challenged his preconceived opinions.
Once again, please prevent Cerberus's renewed vandalism by locking the page in the version without his addition.
for the record
The vandalism is on the other side:
removal of factual content from Wikipedia while refusing to talk.
I have made several offers to talk,
plus I started a discussion page and invited comment.
No response.
I have attempted to add factual content,
appropriate to an article about the newspaper's history.
In my contribution I include links for verification of the content I added.
(The content can be seen on the discussion page,
but the user has once again without explanation deleted it from Silver_Chips_Online.
I am happy to remove any content judged nonfactual or inadequately neutral in POV,
and have repeatedly so stated. I continue to be ready to talk.
Yes, I'm still a member of Wikipedia. I've just been extremely busy lately and I haven't been able to get on to Wikipedia and make some serious contributions.
You mentioned that you were interested in my Baseball 1876 WikiProject, and I was wondering if you could help me get it started again, because it got deleted and you seemed to be the only person interested.
Yeah, I was a bit hasty there. However, I actually reverted the then most recent edit by the vandal, too—only not far enough. At least now we know the article is well-watched. :) —xyzzyn 03:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pipe trick
The pipe trick removes everything before the colon and everything in parentheses. What I didn't know is it also removes everything after a comma. I wrote
My guess is it must be a new feature designed to let us use the pipe trick on comma disambiguated place names e.g. using the pipe trick on a link to Perth, Western Australia would yield Perth. Hesperian 04:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Error in AWB edit
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you with this, as it's almost surely not your fault, but your AWB-assisted edit to URI scheme inserted a '[' erroneously. It looks to me like it mistook part of the syntax example for an attempt at a link, and "fixed" it, when in actual fact it was supposed to be that way (and, because of the < and >, couldn't become a link anyway).
Not knowing anything about the tool, I don't know if this is a bug, or something that you manually turned on, or what, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so that you (and anyone else using a similar feature) could watch out for it. It's not a big deal, but it is exactly why that kind of [semi-]automatic edit has to be checked quite carefully. - IMSoP 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who Gon Make it Encyclopedic?
During a desultory vandal patrol back in November I tagged Who Gon Stop Us with a {Db:band} tag. You kindly decided to give it a chance and put clean-up tags on it. Every now and then some wikignome appears and tidies up something, but it remains a list of allegedly notable songs, with a single link to the band page (which only links to.. well you can guess.) I'm not trying to make a point, but I do have a question for future reference. How long do you think uncited lists of possibly non-notable material should have, and what to do about them? I don't have an interest in this kind of music, but if such a thing should appear in an area I do have an interest in, can you point me in the direction of some protocol or other? It's a trivial issue really. I'll watch here and there for a few days for a reply or some action/ comment. Thanks, by the way, for your anti-vandal work on the Scotland page, which is much appreciated. Ben MacDui(Talk) 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said Godwaud not blocked. Doesn't seem that offensive to me (might even be a real name!) in the edit summary. I agree. I was wandering about on various dictionaries to see if it's actually a word - it looked as if it might be Dutch (it isn't) or Danish or something… Whatever next? Will "Godwin" be blocked as "offensive"? An AfD for Godthab in Greenland? This reminds me of the time when people from Scunthorpe or Penistone in England, and Marseille in France couldn't register with AOL as the AOL obscenity filter thought they were using rudeness ;-) Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)![reply]
The list's kind of endless. Mohammed Al-Fayed would have a problem, and as a pagan I'd definitely indefblock "Diana anything", Sol Campbell, anyone calling themselves after almost any god or goddess from any pantheon you care to name… Personally I think WP:UCS is a very under-read page :-) Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BDORT
Hi Wknight94, I believe the throwaway account has now gone over WP:3RR. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Warning
Hey Wknight94. I know this won't change the fact i got a warning about vandalism but i did think it'd be worth giving you a heads up as to why.
During the Giants vs Eagles playoff game i was reading the Giants wiki and noticed some Eagles fan had VERY blatantly vandalized it in an offensive manner. For minutes on end i tried to find a way of contacting moderators to remove the vandalism and bring some justice to those responsible but wiki does not make it very clear on how to do this (if it's possible) so i did the only justifiable thing i could think of and ('subtly' might i add) vandalized theirs in return.
Two wrongs don't make a right i know but it wouldn't have happened if it was clearer how people can report vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanjj (talk • contribs).
What about selectively removing and blanking other other user's comments? Shouldn't that be blockable or reverted? Does 3RR apply to comments on user talk page? Certified.Gangsta has broken the 3RR by deleting comments on his talk page many times after the final warning.
Actually, WP:HA states that we shouldn't be forcing a user to leave warnings on his/her talk page. For 3RR on other pages, use the diffs on his/her talk page as proof of a 3RR warning. Then bring those to WP:AN3. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
for the vandal reverting. Murderbike 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
heh, it was a particularly dirty edit to my userpage. a second time at that. cheers! Murderbike 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 not blocked (only one edit since last block and it was almost 2 hours ago - pointless). NOT MT
Could you elaborate? This is my first time recommending AIV, and I'd like to understand how my recommendation was inappropriate. In particular, what does "NOT MT" mean? Thanks.
Vandalism returns after a temporary block expires ... ?
Please see [23]. Maybe I'm mistaken; maybe I'm not. Please advise. Thanks! Keesiewonder 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
For blocking the vandals I reported extremely quickly. Please have a delicious Japanese rice cracker. I know you have probably already gotten about five of these by now :-), but I hope you still like it anyway! Dar-Ape 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Due to this edit while reverting :) --Brandспойт 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
block user
your block of [24] led that editor to sockpuppet using 70.232.140.196 as evidenced by his reply here [25], and his contribs, including USER page, not user talk, vandalisms/rants/screeds/ Thank you for your efforts, hope you can help again. ThuranX 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the same editor, at various IPs, has been responsible for numerous vandalisms of the fair use Heroes opening logo graphic we use onthe page, despite it being fair use tagged. He's been reverted numerous times. As well, if you look at his edits to my user page, that rant of his is really weird. he's got some sort of persecution complex regarding gays onthe show or something, nad a really wild take on it. It's really a shame he couldn't substantiate any of the Freudian babble he used, cause if it were true, great info. but it's babble. Anyways, thansk for the follow up. I suspect he'll hit Heroes again within minutes, as it took only minutes to get a new IP already today. He might have a dial-up provider like AOL. I don't know. Thanks though, and if you can, please check in on the Heroes page for a while. ThuranX 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I called that. He's at it again. User:69.150.85.94. I'm telling Asterion as well. ThuranX 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I blocked that one a couple seconds after he edited. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Wonder if he'll go for four.ThuranX 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[26] see there, he's at it again, same 'ace ass shadow' and 'thugs' comments. definitely the same, despite the religio-philosophic rhethoric he's cut n pasting around. (also posted to Asterion.) ThuranX 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been quiet on the Kath front. But class is back in at the University of Toronto and that means the Kath fanclub(of 1) has returned to his post. No chance of blocking that ent...Ohhh don't mind me...just wishful thinking :) . Some help, if you have the time, would be appreciated though. Thanks, cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to be specific, the pictures of the historic places in/around Charlotte County and such. I'm on a mission to get pix for all the Florida nationally registered historic places, you see, and living in Ocala, I figured it'd be a while before I got down to that neck of the woods. So your pix gave me a sigh of relief! :) Are you planning on taking more in the area? Whatever you could do would be wondermous. Thanks again! Oh, and you can reply back here, 'cause I put a watch on the page. Better to keep the conversation all in one place; I confuse so easily. ;) -Ebyabe 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well glad to hear it! My in-laws are down in Charlotte County so I'm in that area quite often. Plus a kind soul bought me a new digital camera for Christmas which is nice. The NRHP I'm having trouble with is Villa Bianca. Any clue where that is? I can't find its exact address on a map. Also, it doesn't appear that the Mott Willis Store still exists. Charley blew right through that area and a lot of things on that side of US 41 didn't fare well. If El Jobean Hotel was about 5 miles east of where it is, it would have been long gone from Charley - it's nearly condemned as it is.
Anyway, I'm definitely planning on getting some more pictures whenever I can. If you have any special requests, let me know. I'm personally in Pasco County but I go down south quite often. This weekend, I may have time to drive around downtown Tampa for some of the NHRPs there - I know there's many to choose from.
Keep up the great work on those articles in general and I'll try to keep up on the picture front! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One does become somewhat of a detective trying to find some of these places, what with the typos and other goofs they have for some of the entries. The gummint don't believe in proofreading, that's for sure. *sigh*
As far as Villa Bianca, I see there is at least a Shore Drive here[27]. Don't know how the street numbering is, but maybe Charlotte Street is in the 2000's? There are places I've gotten pix of that I've had to deduce like that, like this one. No address on it, but from the addresses around it, it couldn't be any other. Hey, just found a resource! Maybe you could pop in here; I'm sure the folks there would be delighted to help.
I was down in Tampa around Halloween, and got most of the downtown, I think. Some of Davis Island, too. And most of the spots off US 301 between Wildwood and Tampa. I am nothing if not systematic! :) I can getcha a list of what I got, so as not to duplicate effort. But the old buildings downtown are cool to see anyway.
I'm looking to get at least one good pic for each article's infobox; more than that is gravy. Mind you, gravy? Gooooood! ;) TTFN --Ebyabe 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those Josselyn House pictures are very nice! How did you get the pictures so nice? I'm a beginner at best when it comes to photography.
I drove by the Charlotte County Historical Center but didn't have time to go in. If you notice, their address is 22959 Bayshore Road while the Mott Willis Store's address is 22960 Bayshore Road. Should be right across the road, right? Nothing there. That's another reason to visit the Historical Center - I'm sure they'd know what happened to the store across the street. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me! I uploaded some, but got engrossed in other projects and forgot about the rest. When I got to Davis Island, it was late in the day, so I focused on the "name" places (like the Palmerin Hotel, etc.). I got a few of the "House at"'s, but not many. And I made myself point-to-point directions to get to them all and everything. Yeah, I do need to upload the rest of what I got. Now that I think of it, I need to put some of your shots on the list page too. I wanted to have one or two for each county (more if they'll fit).
I thought the Josselyn House pix turned out well too, but nice to have independent confirmation. Mind you, all the photos I've taken so far have been with $5 disposable cameras. I'll be getting my first digital camera soon, and then baby, watch out! It's also about the weather; I've been very lucky in that regard. Tend to have road-trip fever every month or so; when it looks to be nice, I go picture taking.
Btw, I've found it less hassle to store the ones I've taken myself on WikiCommons. Mine can be found here. Yep, been around. ;)
True, the history folks should know. The Willis Store address could be wrong (wouldn't be surprised if it was really 2960, or 2296). Or it could have been demolished, which has happened to a number of places on the list. Registry isn't a guarantee of preservation, sadly. -Ebyabe 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially for the ones in Charley's path. My in-laws' house had over $120,000 in damage and it's pretty sturdy. A few of the old rickety houses in the Punta Gorda Residential District had to be torn down. (There was one where the entire roof came off - frame and all. You could see a sad lonely antique office chair sitting in the open air on the second floor of this house for months afterwards.) I've got a few pictures of my in-laws' house the day after Charley and they're very sobering.
I have a few I need to upload as well, including the residential district. Some of them have metal rooves now (also a byproduct of Charley). I've also been meaning to throw a few pictures into the listing article but feel free to do it if you get to it first. If I have time, I'll probably look for some of the House at's in the hopes that they're clumped together somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for all of us to keep track, I made a list of the RHPs here needing pix, at User:Ebyabe/NRHPs in FL pix needed. Plus they can be sectioned further there, for travel arranging. I'll add state parks in a while, 'cause if one's in the area of some RHPs, why not? Plus some are RHPs in their own right (like Torreya). --Ebyabe 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I make updates to that page? We can also keep discussion on the subject at that page's talk page. I'll put it on my watchlist. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update away, it's all good. :) --Ebyabe 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.
I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]
Actually he tried to draw attention to the fact that Wayne is a Canadian American. He is a sockpuppet because Wknight94 has banned several user names. Also there is more than one person trying to edit from this IP address, after all it is shared by thousands, some of which work together and see the injustice being done here.
Why is Wayne not a Canadian American? What about the fact that Gretzky became an American citizen 20 years ago and has lived in America for 20 years. I immigrated to Chicago from Russia as a child, but I consider myelf to be American because I have lived half my life here, my children are americans, my wife(brazilian born) is a us citizen, etc... Or perhaps I'm Russian American, whatever you want to call me, labeling me as purely Russian is not an accurate description. Even my grandmother considers herself to be American, but that's just what her silly passport says. Are you going to ban all users at this IP address again? драчево!
I agree, precedent is a grey area, and I can see arguments both ways for a merge/redirect and for keeping the article as a standalone. I just wanted to point out to those claiming that "XYZ is here so this should stand" that there is another argument. Either way, I don't think speedying is appropriate (if you disagree you have a broom!).
I'm going to the pub now (it's getting on for pub time here in the UK ;-) ) - let's see how the article develops. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
196.15.168.40
Hi Wknight94! Nothing bad to report or anything, but I just want you to check out the David Westerfield talk section. It's really hilarious. 196.15.168.40 has been writing in it all week long, even though no one as responded to him. It is like he's arguing with himself. I swear, the guy loves to hear himself talk. Fighting for Justice 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Livingston Airline Destinations
Livingston Airline Destinations on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Livingston Airline Destinations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vegaswikian 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
request
Please post a description of how you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bean queen. I do not see that the reasons given for deletion were ever rebutted by those voting "keep". --JWSchmidt 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was to keep. Reasons for keep had more evidence than reasons for deletion. The article is more than a dictdef and is verifiable. Notability is subjective - neither side gave a great argument in that case. For what it's worth, I'll bet the vote would have have been different if nom. hadn't chosen the mass-AFD copy/paste tactic. I'll be happy to write this at WP:DRV if the need arises. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia is not must mean something different to you than it does to me. Wikipedia is not some dictionary of slang terminology. "the mass-AFD copy/paste tactic" <-- this is irrelevant. Each Wikipedia page should be evaluated on its own merits. --JWSchmidt 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The community doesn't. I don't put one person's opinion - even mine - over the community's. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problems with Image:Leesmitha.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Leesmitha.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Hey i have a question when i upload an image with the appropriate license do i need a source? because I've seen many without any sources well most. Also the baseball one i usually upload images sometimes with the wrong license but i go back to the "Tags" area and get the right one. Nareklm 03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Albanian_stone.jpg but I'm scared they might start accusing me of stalking them i warned one user about the 3RR rule and there getting mad at me for no reason a friendly one i suspect he is a sock puppet though eh what can i say. When this was my first warning to him ever and most articles he edits are in my watchlist to and he threatens me about the wiki stalk code. Nareklm 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey when you get sometime please check your mail i sent you an email regarding an certain issue maybe you can help this controversy end, Nareklm 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Livingston Airlines destinations again
Hi, on the DRV for this article you wrote "If folks want the deleted content to merge in, I'll supply it". I myself put in a "overturn and merge" on this one, and would like to accept your offer to get the content. Can you restore the content, and if neccesary put it as a subpage of my userpage? Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Thanks for restoring the list, and I have now merged it into the Livingston Airlines article (with a few additions and some more subtractions, based on what I saw on the website). Do you think it is a good idea to move the list back into article space and make a redirect there, or should I just leave it in my userspace? Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism blocking templates
Hi Wknight94, I saw you blocked this user for vandalism. I'm guessing that because of the nasty backlog at AIV, you didn't have time to issue a block notice on the talk page. I'm wondering, first, is block notice mandatory when a user is blocked, and second, would it be appropriate for a non-admin to add the template if the blocking admin was too busy? Cheers. Robotman1974 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked on the WikiProject Baseball talk page about starting up a subproject about pre-1900s baseball. I got it started and it is called the Old-time Base Ball Taskforce. Since you seemed to be interested in my Baseball 1876 WikiProject, I was just wondering if you wanted to help out, since we don't have many members. Oh, and sorry about the whole deletion thing. I think I just got a little confused about what I should do.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eraser (software). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Frap 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.
It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.
Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.
Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.
Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 04:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the unneeded warning. I am using VandalProof and did not see the note about a closed AFD. I am learning the program and will be more careful in the future. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFI backlog
Hey, I’m writing because I’ve seen your good work on WP:AIV. Is there any chance WP:RFI could get some love? I know RFI is a lot more work, but it’s no less important. The reports are about editors who undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole, and the efforts of productive contributors. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)“‘é’”[reply]
Moved to User talk:Quarl
