User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2013/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LFaraone. 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.

Log cleanup

Hi LFaraone. Thanks for the log cleanup you did in response to my request at WP:BN. After you suppressed "User:BBH"'s edits, I noticed that the history of at least one of the articles they edited still contained an edit summary of the form "Undid revision xxx by User:BBH". If you are still able to see the list of articles that User:BBH edited (which I no longer can), could I trouble you to check the edit histories for those articles, and suppress any edit summaries which still contain User:BBH's name? (From memory, User:BBH only edited about 10 articles, so hopefully it isn't too onerous a task). And could I also trouble you to suppress my own edit to WP:UAA, where I foolishly included BBH's name in the edit summary (what was I thinking?). Let me know if you'd prefer me to raise an oversight request for these actions; I just thought I'd ask you first, since you were already familiar with the situation. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted the relevant entries, thanks. LFaraone 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion of Shortcut Slant Asymtote

Hi, what are you up to? Signed, Puzzled and Curious, alias —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the page history. Parts of it have been redacted per the oversight criteria. The deletion discussion continues. LFaraone 05:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, was contact info in there? —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't generally discuss oversighted content as a matter of policy. LFaraone 05:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your great work! Puntaalpo (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bowery Street

In July, you deleted Bowery Street based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowery Street but it has been re-created in October. Can you delete this again, please, based on that discussion? I am assuming it doesn't have to go through the deletion process again. Thank you. 69.95.62.178 (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was weak, admittedly, and was split on redirect versus no. As such, I don't think it should be redeleted without discussion. LFaraone 15:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, thanks for looking. Someone else had proposed deletion originally, I just thought the redirect was misleading, but I'm pretty sure the creator does not object to an article. 69.95.62.178 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on hold at Arri's talk page

In [1] you said the discussion at Arri's talk page is on hold, but the main discussion is now being raised at wp:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suburban_Express. I do not see what the discussion at Arri's page cannot go on while there is a private discussion: the discussion on that page is not really about Arri anymore, but SV's discouragement of others' edits. There's simply no other place for that discussion. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant the unblock request specifically, not any other issues relating to the same, so the ANI discussion is nonproblematic. LFaraone 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LFaraone, you probably noticed this, but it appears the user deleted the entire discussion related to their unblock request as "general housekeeping" off of their user Talk page. So you'll have to go through the edit history of the page to see stuff like links to off-wiki harassment and whatnot. CorporateM (Talk) 07:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Thank You

Thank you for changing 'Skeptic's Library' per the deletion discussion. I hoped to do that as a way to learn how to change page names but you saved me the work, thanks :-) Now I know the page is staying I'll start getting Wiki Project Skepticism people involved in adding the remaining ISBNs etc to improve the page. Best wishes Joolzzt (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. I just did the minimum to enact the result of the discussion. You can find the help page on renaming pages at WP:MOVE. LFaraone 20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer :-) Joolzzt (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Leadfoot90, banned user

Hello, you blocked Leadfoot90 as a puppet, referring the interested reader to the investigation of DeFacto. However, in its archive I find no mention of Leadfoot90. However, the investigation archive is about somebody obsessed with metrication, and this does seem compatible with Leadfoot90. So I doubt that there's been any significant mistake.

A skimreading of the investigation archive suggests that this Leadfoot90 is somebody banned over a year ago. If this is indeed so, then it was a banned user who re-created an article on "Active resistance to metrication" (see its history). Before knowing anything about Leadfoot90, I suggested turning this (and its capitalized equivalent) back into a redirect. If he's a banned user, I think his edits can be summarily reverted. (I'm reluctant to do this myself, as somebody might claim that I have a PoV on the matter that I'm enforcing via procedural loophole.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The template used on the user talk page is the generic Template:Sock, which suggests the case as a potential location for evidence to be presented. In this case, I didn't add to the investigation page for DeFacto since I happened to notice the behavioural link which I corroborated with CheckUser evidence prior to blocking. LFaraone 14:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Since you have taken upon it to ban me without any process of law, I have registered a new account. This is completely unacceptable. Anyone who is opposed to metrication is now a sockpuppet of defacto? What did your investigation into my IP address go? How do I complain to your higher-ups, since you are going to censor, block, and erase all of my work without any opportunity to present a defence? This is a God damned Mexican courtroom, a kangaroo court with no opportunity to preent a defence and the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven. It defies due process and democratic principles and displays a streak of corruption that I wonder as to its extent. So anyone who is a metric opposer can be labelled as another "instance of defacto sockpuppeting?" Anyone who shares a banned user's views must be a sockpuppet? It is clear that my pointing out […] struck a nerve. What gives you the right to suppress this information? It should be of great concern to people who REALLY care as to the encyclopaedic validity of Wikipedia, allowing activists to run around on here, tainting every page concerned with metrication. You ought to be ashamed. I think it appears, from your behaviour, that you are more concerned with the appearance of objectivity and maintaining order rather than actually practicing what you preach and adhereing ot the principles to which you allege to adhere. Where do I take my claims of corruption and systemic bias, collusion? I am taking each of your names and recording this pattern. How many other "defactos" are innocent posters who happen to share that user's viewpoints? Is ANYONE who is against forced metrication now his "sockpuppet?" Because that appears to be the abuse you have perpetuated. Then you, without any debate, delete my article and all my work. Would each of you care to state, for the record, your personal involvement with metrication activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadfoot100 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: Additional discussion occurred at User_talk:Leadfoot90. LFaraone 19:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the good work. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)