To be Deleted: I personally don't have an opinion about the Prema Sai Baba Issue, I just didn't know wiki cited predictions of people as biographically mertiable. I understand that I didn't get the procedure right for deletion, then apparently didn't get it right again before someone swiftly deleted the tag. Instead, I think I am just going to write a biography article entitled Jesus the 2nd, since I can quote thousands of people that say he is to be born and cite lot's of references to the same effect. But I am sure that would get a speedy deletion tag in about 30 seconds.--Iconoclast Horizon 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. However, could the old Talk:Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) be merged into Talk:Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria so discussion is preserved for future (and to avoid recreation). Also, FTR, it doesn't matter now but it may have been best to keep this page (due to the non-trivial page history) while redirecting it to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and/or including a notice on it asking people to reach consensus before recreation (both to avoid re-creation).
You can request speedy deletion of your user subpages with {{db-user}}. It would be very much appreciated if you could provide a deletion reason when you use the general speedy deletion tag. Thanks. theProject01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page[reply]
I applied the general deletion tag and the I remebered to give a reason but you deleted the page before I saved it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auriga M36 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2006
Ah, whoops, sorry about that. I guess that must be the main reason why the merge backlog is so big, because a lot of them are opposed. I will be more careful about that in the future. theProject02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the deletion log that you had speedied an article called Michael Scott Smith on August 11. Another article by that name has just popped up, so could you take a look and see if the content is the same as it was before? Regards, ...discospinstertalk02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the same article; however, it is about the same person, was created by the same user (the subject's brother), and now finds itself deleted as a collection of indiscriminate information. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. theProject02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"cleanup"
cleaned up engelmann: "copyediting", iirc, is just another fancy way of saying "cleanup" copied from edit summary
Heh, yes, I agree that copyediting is cleaning up. :) I created another category for just "copyediting" because Uwe Langer's articles often need a native English speaker's eye, and I distinguished this kind of cleanup to the more general kind. Cheers. --Fang Ailitalk14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war. theProject20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. No one is going to add their personal commentary to the Hutton Gibson article. No one is going to add original research to the article. Also, since it is a bio of a Living Person the three revert does not apply because the commentaries are potentially defamatory.--Getaway00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw and I forgot to comment on it that you stated, incorrectly, that I was close to the 3RR limit. I just want to point out that was incorrect, not only because the FACT that the article is a bio about about a Living Person, but because I had only used two of my strikes. But you need to know that if the commentary starts to creep back in I will remove it again and again. The commentary is potentially defamatory and will not be tolerated.--Getaway00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand appears to be whether the fragment would actually be defamatory if untrue. Accusing someone of exaggeration does not appear to be a very strong defamation claim. As for having "only" used two strikes, that would be why I said you were "close" to the 3RR limit, and not at it. theProject01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! In this response, you admit that RobertKS: (1) adds personal commentary (which violates this policy: Wikipedia:No original research), (2) that is potentially defamatory (which violates this policy: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons). However, in your opinion, even though it is personal commentary of a potentially defamatory character you do not believe that it "appear(s) to be a very strong defamation claim." You do not cite any court cases or legal opinions to support your personal opinion. I am just supposed to agree to your assessment without any support to back up your opinion on whether RobertKS has gone far enough to defame Hutton Gibson AND I am supposed to ignore the two other policies that he violates getting there. You don't seem concerned that RobertKS's commentary is original research (you ignore that policy violation) and you don't seem concerned that the commentary is potentially defamatory (you ignore that policy violation), you are only concerned that RobertKS probably did not, in your layman's legal opinion, that RobertKS did make a commentary and it is potentially defamatory, but he just did not go far enough for Hutton Gibson to win a legal suit. I am sorry, but I just do not buy the argument. You want me to ignore obvious Wikipedia policy violations (even though you are an admin) and leave in the article RobertKS's commentary because you do not believe that even though RobertKS potentially defamed Hutton Gibson, by calling him a liar, he (RobertKS) did not go far enough to lose a lawsuit AND you state this opinion off the top of your head without supporting documentation for that legal opinion. I don't think so. I will remove it ten/fifteen times a day if it continues to reappear. It is not up to you to decide whether a little defamation by a Wikiepdian is too much, not enough, or just right.--Getaway14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly see how I admitted anything. In particular, I don't see what the problem is in writing a fact ("he claimed to have won X amount of dollars") and writing another relevant fact ("Y, which is less than X, is the record") which leads to the logical conclusion. It's like providing the fact that Jimmy Hoffa disappeared and concluding that he is presumed dead. At any rate, all I'm trying to do is get you two to discuss this on the talk page. Participating in a revert war doesn't help anything. If you'll kindly noticed, I haven't touched "your" article at all. theProject15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to change the subject. I was talking about RobertKS using the word "exaggerating." That is commentary. It is a violation of Wikipedia rules. That is what I have been talking about and I am not going to allow that commentary in the article. It is potentially defamatory because if we allow it in there then we are basically letting RobertKS call Hutton Gibson a "liar." That is not allowed and I will removed over and over again.--Getaway15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The choice of words could be better, but it's not necessarily commentary. Anyways, the main gist of my point on your talk was that you ought to sort out your differences on the article's talk page, and here you've brought it to mine, when I barely have anything to do with the dispute. :-) theProject17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are dead wrong. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I did not bring it here. You went to my talk page. I am only responding to your comments, which were wrong. RobertKS made a comment that in his opinion Hutton Gibson "exaggerated." That is commentary. You have not given any reasoning on why it is not commentary. You just state things. You make large conclusionary statements, but you do not give any sources or reasoning for your opinions. I have given detailed analysis on why RobertKS is making a commentary on the comments of Hutton Gibson, which is not his place to do. I have been on the talk page several times. Once again, you came to my talk page, which I have pointed out several times is unwarranted. And you are just limited your commentary to getting RobertKS and I to talk on the talk page, but you have expressed your opinion several times that when RobertKS calls the comments of Hutton Gibson as an "exaggeration" then, in your opinion, it is not commentary, but of course you have not given any rationale for that conclusionary statement, you just repeat yourself--in the same manner that you gave a legal opinion on RobertKS's remarks without providing any real evidence for your opinion. So please, don't try to make the argument that I am somehow talking to you for no reason. You began this discussion and now you want it to end. Once again, if anyone uses the term "exaggeration" in the article then I will remove and regardless of what you state I will remove over and over again.--Getaway17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I said was that "it would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war". What in that statement interjected myself into your conversation? I only said to discuss it on the talk page. All other content-related matter is none of my business. Sort it out yourselves. My opinion on the article from what I've read of it is that it needs much more cleanup than just a petty dispute over the word "exaggerate". Alright? theProject17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the fact that you believe that use of the word "exaggeration" is petty is your opinion only. However, it is not petty, but it a potentially defamatory commentary by a Wikipedian, Okay?--Getaway18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.
I have seen that you do a lot of work in the transwiki process, and I'd like to help, but I'm having trouble grasping it. Perhaps you could help out? Stubbleboy21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Userpage
I like to have a neat and tidy userspace. I also apologise for typing this message into your userpage. I was not paying attention and mistook it for your talk page. I have since reverted the edit. Auriga M3606:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argentine football
I've discussed the issue with some other admins on IRC, and we concluded that third-tier professional football teams do meet notability; consequently, I have restored 9 de Julio de Rafaela. Just letting you know. DS18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your comments on my talk page - yeah, I noticed that the transwiki log, the wiktionary section, had a backlog reaching back into early 2005, so I went through and handled most of it and archived a lot of it off already. As I'm not an administrator and can't simply delete things myself, and since the prod patrol folks tend to pull prod tags off anything which they think might be remotely worth saving, I tend to end up turning lots of the useless dicdefs into redirects instead of having them deleted. Also, I've done the "soft redirect to wiktionary" thing on a number of them, those which had a wiktionary definition in place (in the wiktionary main space, not in its transwiki space). I personally prefer straight out deletion to redirection most of the time, so I'll leave the transwiki log to you for now and let you delete away. --Xyzzyplugh13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and - per the discussion on Template_talk:Copy_to_Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy and after asking Uncle G's opinion on it, I've renamed all the transwiki categories and templates. They're all now Copy to x instead of Move to x. Template:Copy to Wiktionary, Category:Copy to Wiktionary, etc. Your user page links to the old categories, you might want to change this (assuming you don't strongly disagree with the template/category renaming). It's been about a month since I moved the templates, by now I've gone around wikipedia fixing all the mentions of the old categories and templates, but as we don't redirect categories I've left the old ones in place to point people to the new categories.--Xyzzyplugh14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to get too upset about the A7 deletion. I was just wondering if you had looked at my argument on the article's talk page. The band meets several criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music), so the speedy seems unjustified to me. In fact, the article had a significant number of other articles pointing to it, so more than a dozen red links just showed up in the main space. At the very least, the article deserved an AfD. Casey Abell00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I did have a look at the talk page reasoning (I admit I had deleted the page first before reading the talk, but I did take it into consideration). It seemed though the keep rationale was attempting to stretch itself quite seriously into the notability guidelines. (In particular, I've always felt the "members from other bands" clause has been among one of the weakest in the guideline.) As they are guidelines and not set in stone, I did exercise some discretion in pushing the delete button.
The standard administrative notice on deletions applies, of course: if you still believe the deletion to be in error, you can take it to deletion review. I won't be offended in the slightest if you do. Hope that addresses your concerns. theProject03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree that my keep rationale "stretched itself", quite seriously or otherwise, into the three notability guidelines I cited. In fact, the band easily meets all three of the guidelines—national touring, significant media coverage, and members of other bands—and I provided specific sourcing for every one of them. You haven't responded to my arguments at all, except to say that you think one of the guidelines is "weak". Fine, that's your personal opinion, unsupported by any objective argument. But the guidelines are there for a reason: to provide specific guidance not subject to the whims of a particular admin.
Again, I don't want to get too upset about the deletion. I've worked on hundreds of articles in piling up my 5,000+ edits. But if admins are simply going to ignore the notability guidelines, why have them at all? Let's be honest and just admit that deletion is nothing more than the passing whim of a particular admin. I'll consider taking the article to DRV, although it's a cumbersome and unpleasant process. But your deletion was unjustified based on clear and specific notability guidelines, which I've cited and supported, and which you've not provided any counter-argument against. The next time you begin many deletions, as you did with the 29 articles you deleted in less than an hour on October 7, please remember that you are eliminating the work of many contributors to the encyclopedia—not to mention creating many red links in other articles, including more than a dozen by this one deletion alone. Casey Abell12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of deletion has always been that admins are to determine what benefits Wikipedia by remaining on Wikipedia. Guidelines exist as, for me, a lowest criteria of inclusion, and as a more concrete way of thinking about "benefit of remaining". Obviously, this idea of deletion ruffles a few feathers, so don't too worry about getting upset. I've had a lot of people get much more nasty over similar circumstances. (I've also seen many admins get nasty for no reason.)
But admins are humans too, and we sometimes make mistakes. I might have here, of course. However, since the whole point of DRV is to take up possible mistakes by admins in deletion, I would advise you to direct your attention there (it's really not that bad of a process). I typically don't undo my deletions unless I've made some egregious error in process (e.g. I once deleted a duplicate article, which should have been merged instead), so I regret I will not be undeleting the page for now. theProject15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete Jeronimo Cacau. Nobody would call him Jeronimo Cacau because Cacau isn't a part of his fullname. Cacau is his artist name. It's like when a actor changes his birth name. The abbrevation of his birth name is Jeronimo Barreto. I'm a German fan of him. Yoda189310:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mistakenly deleted the article User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, which was listed for speedy deletion by a sockpuppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis, a vandal currently under community ban. Moreover, the page was not an attack page as claimed ("Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity"); it was a collection of links to arbitration cases and contributions pages for confirmed vandals and policy violators. The express purpose of this page, listed at the top, was to assist editors in monitoring disruptive activity on Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future when processing speedy deletions. —Psychonaut13:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't deny that keeping notes on other Wikipedians' behaviours is permissible on Wikipedia, I hope you will understand that calling them "problematic Wikipedians" at the top of said page does make it look much like an attack page. Personally, I would rather have that page go through an MfD to determine community consensus about it. Furthermore, I can't find any evidence that User:ArbMan is a sockpuppet of JA; the only claim that said user is a sockpuppet comes from you, and I can't find any further evidence, either from the user's block log or contributions.
I see you have restored the page (if you wish, I can restore the rest of the history for you), but I hope you understand why it was construed, wrongly or otherwise, as an attack page. Thanks. theProject00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ArbMan is suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis because the latter has a recent history of vandalizing my user page and its subpages, including listing them for deletion or speedy deletion. If you had checked the page history you would have seen a link to the checkuser logs confirming that JarlaxleArtemis was responsible (through socks and throwaway accounts) for this recent vandalism. I believe that administrators should check the edit history and talk page of any page listed for deletion to ensure important evidence and discussion is not overlooked, particularly with pages that have been repeatedly vandalized with spurious deletion notices in the past. If you can restore the edit history to User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, that would be a good idea, as it might prevent similar mistakes in the future.
As for calling JarlaxleArtemis and others "problematic Wikipedians", this is a neutral and accurate description, since the community has judged their actions to have caused problems (that is, they have repeatedly and unrepentently committed vandalism and other policy violations). They were all the subject of successful RfAs and/or long-term blocks and bannings. Some of them continue to create throwaway sockpuppet accounts to wreak vandalism in violation of their bannings. If you still take issue with this wording, then I would advise you to edit the page yourself and/or take your objection to RfC instead of taking the rather drastic step of listing the entire page for deletion. By your own admission, your problem is with this one phrase and not the page as a whole; you don't need a MfD to delete two words from a page. If you can suggest an alternative wording which, to your mind, is less "attacking" but still conveys the same meaning, by all means edit the page. —Psychonaut21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had tried to create a template and category for articles that had been copied over about a month ago, but it was taken apart by a bot within a day or two, and I was unable to find where the discussion took place. Since you seem rather "connected" in the transwiki community, perhaps you could help out with coming up with some solution for pointing out articles that have been successfully imported and need cleanup and/or deletion? Preferably this would just involve a simple template or series of templates we could affix to the articles after importing. --SB_Johnny|talk|books13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thanks for taking care of the repeated vandalism on the Johnny Depp page :)
The AfD for this article was opened at 02:48 and you closed it and deleted it at 05:01 the same day. The nominator said it did not meet the criteria for speedy. I check the AfDs a couple of times a day, and I was denied the opportunity to see the deleted article and perhaps to improve it or to add references showing its notability. Would you please undelete it so it can have the normal 5 days for comments? Thanks Edison16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original nominator was mistaken when stating that there was no deletion criteria for malls. A mall is a business, and hence articles on malls that appear to be spam (the bulk of this article was a not very comprehensive store listing) qualify under speedy deletion criteria G11. I hope that alleviates your concerns. theProject19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please post a copy of the deleted article on my user page? If I recall correctly that mall was important in some historic way, and it might be possible to create an encyclopedic article. Thanks. Edison19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telus
Hi, TheProject. I don't know what your insane interest is in Telus, but the fact that you have protected the Johnny Depp page leads me to think you are not all bad.
Simply put: you need to see that my counter-point is desperately needed not only on the Telus page but in society in general. Stop subverting it. Even if it breaks the precious Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is a shrine to militant objectivism. Nowhere in human history will you find the sentiment that "had we only been more strict about we allowed to be discussed, we would have been better off." THINK ABOUT IT. **HARD**.
Get it?
Well, I'm glad you don't think I'm that evil. :-) I didn't exactly protect Johnny Depp, I just blocked an editor who was vandalizing that page that particular day. At any rate, no, I'm not sure what my interest in Telus (uncapitalized for your sake ;-)) is, either, although it was one of the first POV vandalized pages I ran into when I first joined Wikipedia -- they had just started their labour dispute and unsourced anti-company POV statements were everywhere -- and it's been on my watchlist ever since.
I don't have much to argue with what you wrote, except that I'm not sure objectivism is such a bad thing for an encyclopedia. After all, we are trying to get the facts straight. That means including points of view, but not giving undue weight to points of view that are shared by very few people. If that's not the case, I'm always open to evidence.
Anyway, I don't know if you've been told this already, but you come across as combative every so often. Just so you know, I'm not out to get you. If I was, there are a lot worse things I could do to you. :-) But anyway, thanks for saying hi. theProject05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. It's good to know. That also happens to be a reason you should get away from Wikipedia. It will make you combative too. You see, the objectivist philosophy ultimately backs us all into corners. Again: think about it.
I've dealt with objectivists before. No, it's not useful. It's sick. In any given context, the idea of being "non-partisan" or "cool" or "avoiding an extreme stance" can be said some other way. When you take it in the large, objectivism simply means "not believing in anything". At the risk of repeating myself: Think About It. I am not an uninformed person. I get combative because I routinely deal with pseudo-intellectuals who tout their meagre credentials as justification for elitism. I never do so, so I expect a fight every time I walk out the door, basically. And most certainly every time I post anything on Wikipedia.
Good night, TheProject. No hard feelings despite the fact I think you really need to a) leave the Telus page to me, and b) leave Wikipedia for your own personal happiness. (As do we all.)
Well, I can only suggest, without any malice whatsoever, that if you're looking for something where subjectivity is more welcomed, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. I don't know -- you'll have to make that judgement for youself. theProject01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi once again. Now that I've cooled down on this issue, I just wanted to go back to my previous statement: "Nowhere in human history will you find the sentiment that 'had we only been more strict about we allowed to be discussed, we would have been better off.'" I realize Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, but the Telus page as at least one good example where the line following policy and censorship is getting blurry, don't you think? You may see this as an inconsequential issue, but I don't.
In any case, if I were to convince you to back off, someone else will censor me the same way. I certainly want the Telus Advertising section to be balanced - the very fact that someone added their little "happy pig story" to that section proves that it contains a bias in favour of the ads - but I'm not going to waste my life battling on Wikipedia in order to enforce that. You, for example, kept finding more details of policy to justify the removal (by you or whoever) of my edits. Either you know full well you're using policy to subvert what I wanted to add to the page, or you're a fool who does not see your own bias, and that by obeying policy, you're removing valuable context. And then you wonder why I'm combative. Deleting someone else's work (versus revising it) is a personal attack. And if you weren't actively doing it, you kept digging up rules to use against me. Am I supposed to be happy?
You'll also have to make a judgement here. Up until now, you have obviously been thinking I deserve to have my edits removed, either because I break the rules or because what I add to the Telus page is somehow objectionable to you (a "fringe" view, was it?). As I said before, it's not cool to subvert other peoples' views (directly or indirectly). After seeing that I am, on the whole, a reasonable person, you will have to decide if you want to be in the position of oppressor. It's one thing to omit the words of people who don't care what they say. It's a whole other thing to censor people who do care what they say. You have been contributing to the latter. Make the judgement, then. Are you happy doing that? And is Wikipedia worth it? I thought it was cool for about five minutes. Now, I just see it as a prime example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Now, please don't reply unless you actually have a counter-point. You keep saying dismissive things that address about 1/4 of what I say. I'm not going to keep meeting you more than half way. Just think about it all, okay?
Sure, I'll think about it. And no, I don't have anything to say in response other than to say again that if you seek a project in which subjectivity is encouraged, perhaps Wikipedia is not what you're looking for. theProject23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on that much... Wikipedia is definitely not what I'm looking for. But don't kid yourself, it's full of subjective content. The biases are just more subtle, and the Advertising section on the Telus page is the perfect example. It doesn't explicitly endorse the ads, but by its very presence, it works to do so. If you deny that, your judgement is likely impaired, and you should not be relied upon to contribute to any major body of documentation.
P.S. I didn't want to reply yet again, but you kind of forced me to. Unless your next words are going to be "Yes, I'm being subjective, and yes, I'm using policy to justify removing your edits because I don't like them", just drop it!
Hey again :). I had been adding them to the transwiki log, but as it's apparently ignored, I just use templates on the articles instead that adds them to Category:Articles copied to Wikibooks in need of cleanup. The transwiki logging on the wikipedia side seems like unneccessary makework, since the GFDL requirements are satisfied by the import tool itself (I do log them on the wikibooks transwiki log just for good measure, but even that's not really necessary). --SB_Johnny|talk|books13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay off my talk page unles you have a constructive comment to make. I am fully aware of how Ms Martin opperates, and if you bother to do your homework you will see I am not intimidated by anything. Please do mot accuse me of being sarcastic, I am also quite capable of assessing a situation without unput from you. Giano07:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page is a place for people to talk with you, so that's where I went. I fail to see how what I wrote constituted intimidation. I see you've removed our entire exchange as "harassment" (a label with which I vehemently disagree), however, so I'll leave you alone; I would, however, appreciate it if I wasn't snapped at in our next exchange. theProject08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom vote question
Heya -- I noticed your oppose vote for User:Will Beback, which says I dislike this reaction by the candidate to the above-mentioned admonishment by the Committee... But that's User:Willmcw, not User:Will Beback. Am I missing something myself? (Normally I wouldn't dream of commenting on another editor's vote, but you did suggest you yourself might be missing something.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the inquiry, and in fact, for a moment, I did think I was missing something. But it appears to me that Willmcw and Will Beback are the same user -- the admonishment mentioned in Will Beback's statement of candidacy links to a warning for Willmcw, and the statement also totals Willmcw's edits as part of his edit count. Unless there's obvious evidence to the contrary that I'm missing, I'm inclined to believe that they are in fact the same user. theProject02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even I get confused sometimes ;). TheProject - May I ask if you've read the whole talk page that you linked? The editor was being intentionally uncivil. While I think that I was in the right in the matter, I nonetheless followed the ArbCom's request by "extending forgiveness". The editor tried to use it as an opportunity for more conflict but I avoided escalation. I think I showed maturity and responsibility in the matter. You're welcome to your own view, but I hope it's based on all the evidence. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read through most of the talk page -- my gripe with that response seems to be much the same as what was pointed out on the talk page, and that's that to reproduce the ArbCom statement, except to stick in the words "that you wrote", seems awfully sarcastic. At the very least, it came off as sarcasm, and I didn't think it was a very good way to end a dispute (which, of course, ArbCom is all about).
With that said, I've given it a bit more thought and realized that, since I've very much considered you as a trustworthy editor, I will reconsider my vote before election's end -- I'm currently on a bit of a Wikibreak for exams, which means I shouldn't even be surfing Wikipedia -- if you just assure me that this was not your intended meaning. (That, of course, is not necessarily a guarantee of support -- I haven't supported anybody yet, so I may instead abstain.) Thanks, and I hope I haven't caused you too much grief. :-) theProject22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I was not intending to sound (or be) sarcastic. That was more than a year ago. After the ArbCom decision I could have done nothing, but on reviewing it I decided that I should make a positive statement that I'd fulfill the ArbCom remedy. I think it was factually accurate, though perhaps unnecessary, to note that he was the author of his own biography. Unfortunately nothing I ever said to that editor seemed to be acceptable to him. So I fell back on one of the basic DR techniques - disengagement. I think I've been very forthright about the case and even added a link to it. I'd also mention that the exchange occurred nearly a year ago. My interactions with even the most irritating editors have been civil and non-sarcastic.
You're welcome to oppose my candidacy if you think I'd be a poor arbitrator, I just wanted to explain that I wasn't being sarcastic. -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm quite aware I can oppose your candidacy if I believe you'd be a poor candidate for the job, but I'd like to think I'm fair as well -- I most certainly won't oppose you at my whim. For that reason I abstain from evaluating your candidacy for now; best wishes for your candidacy. theProject02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I just went to go start up an article for Kid Beyond, a singer who has been gaining notoriety lately. I saw that he's already failed an AFD. This actually doesn't surprise me, given the time of the AFD (it was done in September). Since then, he's toured nationally with Imogen Heap, a very well-known singer in the electronic/emo/indie music circles. I was wondering if you might provide me with the text of that article so that I could rewrite it, and assert his notability. If that's not possible, then just let me know if you have any problems with me starting up a new page. Thanks! tiZom(2¢)04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vedette SS
Hello, this message is regarding your deletion of an article I made, Vedette SS, under G4. Just an hour after i made it i recieved this:
"Your recent edit to Vedette SS (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 05:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"
I did as he said and edited and deleted the link to the video on Youtube. Thats the only reference I made to one of the websited he named.
Could you please put the article back online? or at least send me the text so I can do it?
Actually, that's a message from a bot which tries to detect links to MyGeoFaceTube et al, which are, as the bot said, are generally to be avoided. However, it's got nothing to do with the deletion of the article. Actually, I deleted the article because it was recreation of previously deleted material (it had been deleted once already and recreated), although I also agree with the original reason for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and I regret I will not be restoring the page at this time. Thanks. theProject18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I deleted it originally because it did not satisfy WP:MUSIC given the information in the article. Also, as for your other question, all Commons images NEED to be either Publc Domain or under a Free Liscense. If it is copyrighted in anyways, it should be deleted from commons. Sasquatcht|c18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're going around in circles here! I'm busy appealing to Wikipedia under Deletion Review, they say I can recreate the article so long as it doesn't resemble a how-to guide. But I've tried, twice, it's been deleted, twice. This is very frustrating because there is no reason to delete it like it was. It may have contained SOME reposted contents, BUT, it's original reason for deletion was that it was a how-to guide, but I've made certain that it no longer looks like a how-to guide. You heavy-handed admins are not being fair!!! Please undelete the article. I am being driven from pillar to post in a world of beaurocracy because you people won't let me get an article right! Rfwoolf23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't include sources the original didn't have, right? The author is complaining that evil admins deleted his article for G4, and I'm checking to make sure that it was valid. -Amarkovblahedits23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, could you just give me the orignal copy and the new one, so I can compare? Sans pictures, if possible, I have no interest in seeing them. -Amarkovblahedits23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that you prodded Alexander (cocktail). I don't know if you saw the notice on the talk page or not. The WikiProject Cocktails is currently doing a massive Cleanup Project on all articles related to mixed drinks and cocktails. That pathetic little stub of an article (Alexander), falls within the scope of the project. It really would help us out if you could refrain from flagging cocktail and mixed-drink related articles for deletion until March 1st. That is the deadline for completing the cleanup project. Please realize that we are not asking anyone to ignore stubby little articles like this, but we try to do our work in a somewhat logical order. Chasing down articles that are being prodded or AFD'ed interferes with that, causing the entire project to slow down and risk failing to complete the goals we have set.
There was a flurry of deletion activities earlier this month, but they seem to have let up a bit, and I think that is mostly because people are seeing real progress being made in our cleanup effort (look at the history of List of cocktails for an example). Since people have given us a little break, we have been able to make some real headway. This is a multi-wiki project, because we cross-reference with non-English wikis, Wikibooks, Wikicommons, and more in an attempt to improve the entire wikispehere (I'm not sure if that is a real word yet or not). Since that takes time and there are somewhere between 200 and 300 articles and categories we have to sift through, we really appreciate it when we can work without interruption. Deleting articles prematurely on us, is a big interruption.
As we finish salvaging good information from bad articles, we go ahead and prod them ourselves. Or, we sometimes redirect them to more appropriate locations. It all varies. And it takes a really good understanding of what is located where throughout the mixed drink areas of Wikipedia to know what is best to do with each article. For more information, please see my talk page for a similar discussion with another admin.
As to the Alexander article, I fully agree that it should be deleted, so I will go ahead and salvage the information now and let things proceed from there. Thank you for helping to make Wikipedia a better place by flagging articles like this for deletion. However, please check the talk pages first, and if you see our project banner, it would be great if you could leave it alone for a bit longer. Additionally, if you are interested in mixed drinks, I'd love some extra help cleaning these things up. Sign up as a participant, and let's work together to clean things up. Have a happy new year! --Willscrlt08:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no problem. I have to admit that while I did read the talk page, I didn't notice the date on the Wikiproject tag. Two months, I guess, isn't too long. :-) I see you've changed it into a redirect, which is more than good enough for me.
Anyways, for my part, I'm trying to clean up or otherwise deal with the articles listed as transwikied to Wikibooks and awaiting cleanup on Wikipedia. As such, the list of articles transwikied to the Cookbook currently includes quite a few cocktails (I sent a whole bunch of these back in May and June or so, and almost all of them were prodded, it ought to be added). I'd just be interested in knowing what the scope of this project is, so I can remove the Wikibooks cleanup tag from the articles that you plan to deal with; if I should remove the cleanup tag from every single article for which the Wikiproject Cocktails tag shows up on the talk page, just let me know, and I'll be more than happy to reduce the backlog of articles marked Wikibooks cleanup in the good faith that it'll be taken care of. Thanks! theProject18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I had requested that the redirect be made, but someone deleted the article. I just recreated it as a redirect. It all works out. :-)
If you think of WikiProject Cocktails as really being WikiProject Mixed Drinks, that much better describes the scope (at least as I have come to redefine it). Originally everything half-way related to cocktails (or imagined related) was listed on the List of cocktails page, so it was logical to call the project responsible for all those things the Cocktails project. I think the Hierarchy of Articles and Categories will give you the best idea of what the topics are. Essentially anything falling under the Barkeepinng Wikibooks, along with Drinkware (actually Commons:Category:Drinkware is a better example, and non-alcoholic punches and mixed drinks, and some soft drinks. I tag all the articles I come across with various stub tags at the bottom of the articles (if applicable) and the talk pages of all Project articles. Unfortunately, I have not made it through the entire List of cocktails (which has been further split into related lists now) yet, and I have found a modest number of articles within the scope that were never listed on the list. If you happen across any, it would be wonderful if you could tag them for me (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cocktails/Tags. The {{cocktail-micro}} (for articles) and {{cocktail-micro-talk}} (for the related talk pages) would be especially helpful for the pages you would normally tag. In fact, you could just swap the Cookbook tags with that set of tags, and it will notify me to deal with those quickly and then prod them. It's probably not much extra work for you (1 extra tag?), but it would really help me out. Now that I know what you are doing, I will be happy to do the same, if that would help you. Cheers! --Willscrlt21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you and BH have some time before the 8th (when my schedule gets tight again) maybe we can actually figure out that meetup. Oh, and I'll spoil it for you, Canada's 3 and 0 - though Germany did scare me, a lot today -- Tawker04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're dedicated. :-) Unprotect at your own leisure, although I can't see why anybody except yourself should have to move your talk page. Cheers! theProject00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Chris Hansen, by Dcorbe, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Chris Hansen is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Chris Hansen, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Chris Hansen itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 203:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rach2
Hello. I didn't really mean that the description of the rhythm needed a citation. The article claims that this rhythm is his "signature 4 note ending", which would need a citation. I really should have made this clear in the edit summary. --Alexs letterbox10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Priscilla D has been copying copyrighted text from websites in Spanish to the English Wikipedia, most likely using an online translator. I've been tracking her creations and taggin them for speedy deletion. If you want I can show you in more detail how the articles are clear copyvios... --Victor1204:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:To Catch a Predator III.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:To Catch a Predator III.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daylight overdraft
I see that you merged the "daylight overdraft" article into the main overdraft article. This is an example of "playing the float" and one must be aware of his deposit-account holder agreement to know whether such behaviour is safe. I'm the one who added the reasons for overdrafts. It's largely based on the reasons for checks being returned NSF, since there's so much overlap. I am a customer of Sovereign Bank, which has hundreds of branches in Northeastern US states and is "safe for daylight overdrafts," since cash deposited to a teller is immediately available and the overdraft fee is not assessed unless the balance remains negative when the ledger is settled at 3:00 PM US Eastern Standard Time. Such grace comes in handy in case of an unexpected debit-card charge discovered in time, cash accidentally left at home which can thus be used to cover a debit-card purchase, or a having less than the minimum amount of an ATM withdrawal available in the account at the time and returning enough cash to the bank in time after a small withdrawal. All three reasons have prevented overdrafts for me, but not all banks allow this. Heff0103:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the article because daylight overdraft was an expired prod article and I felt it was the best course of action to take. If you feel there's a better way to go about this or you can make the newly merged article clearer, please do so, because you likely have much more expertise in this field than I. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need any admin work done. theProject05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
XMeeting
Hi,
Can you elaborate on the deletion of XMeeting? This is the only entry I see,
08:41, 18 November 2007 TheProject (Talk | contribs) deleted "XMeeting" (G11. page is dominated almost entirely by a "features" section.)
Since it was my first article I am trying to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia and its protocols, so any light you can shed on this is appreciated.
I have edited the article on Byron Moreno as I did not feel the previous version presented an accurate version of events. If I recall correctly, the outcry from the Spanish after their match against South Korea, which was also marred by controversy, was not labeled as 'whining', and they even went so far as to provide an explanation for exactly how the referee was bribed and by whom. Articles are expected to be NPOV, accusing Italians of 'whining', or on the other extreme trying to prove allegations of match-fixing, doesn't belong in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
Just had a look again, and yeah, my bad... heh. Editorial slant in general just gets on my nerves, whichever way it goes. My apologies for assuming it was you...
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nekrogoblikon
Hi,
I'd like to write an article for Nekrogoblikon but it's been protected from creation. The article will be sourced, clean, have NPOV. I accidentally already created the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekrogoblicon
if you want to get in touch please email me at delosreyes.charles@gmail.com
I'm an occasional wikipedia editor, not an expert, so thanks for your help!
In August, 2006 you deleted a page for Kofi Jantuah. I wanted to find out if this page was for the boxer of that name and why it was deleted. On May 15, 2006 Kofi lost to Arthur Abraham for the IBFmiddleweight title. This qualifies him for WP:NBOX (see first criterion). Before creating the page I wanted to find out more about the previously deleted page. RonSigPi (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe(talk)13:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Entwistle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}