Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎FYI: new section
→‎Communist terrorism: Igny this time
Line 265: Line 265:


Alas - one editor (Andy) has now completely moved the article in his preferred direction - you might wish to see how it looks. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Alas - one editor (Andy) has now completely moved the article in his preferred direction - you might wish to see how it looks. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And Igny has again decided to war. Sigh. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


== FYI ==
== FYI ==

Revision as of 00:29, 6 November 2010

please stay in the top three tiers

Generation X

Hi, Beeblebrox.

Thanks for protecting the Generation X page. The arguing back and forth was getting ridiculous. I left a message on the talk page. Do you mind either responding there or on my talk page?

Also, can you please fix the title of the reference I added? Number 14: by Timothy Smith. The title is The Seven Cries of Today's Teens: Hear Their Hearts, Make the Connection. Thomas Nelson. The first word is missing the "T." It accidentally got deleted when I was adding another source. I appreciate it. Have a good weekend. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Talk:Generation X.
Message added 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at CreativeSoul7981's talk page.
Message added 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SHAYCARL REVIEW

I apologise in advance if i am sending you a message wrongly but i cant find a function to send you a mail etc. I was just asking could you review a deleted article called shaycarl?. Youtube is a huge organisation with millions of followers and this man is a very successful person there, with over 1.2 million subscribers spread through his 4 channels i think he is well known enough to have his page back. I am not forcing you to review it I am merely suggesting it. regards, sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.19.248 (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are asking me in particular, but Shaycarl has been deleted nine times, so anyone wanting to recreate it should probably construct a subpage draft that has multiple reliable sources cited, the lack of which being the main reason the article was deleted so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PG2

Hi. Thanks for un-talk-blocking PG2. To avoid excess traffic at the noticebaord I'll ask here rather than there: can you say if PG2 was in fact tp blocked? His logs say:

    * 2010-10-18T18:57:11 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Polargeo 2 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (allowing talk page access to request unblock)
    * 2010-10-15T00:39:43 Hersfold (talk | contribs) blocked Polargeo 2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{checkuserblock}} - Abusing multiple accounts / block evasion - User:Polargeo)

You can read the logs better than me. From that it looks to me like H just blocked the account, and PG2 had talk page access? (it is probably the range block casuing his inability to edit there, I'm guessing).

Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is somehow not noted in the log, when I opened up the block options "allow user to edit their own talk page" was not checked. It is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that. A bug, maybe. –xenotalk 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lil help?

{{helpme}} I don't know where I went wrong, but I made a mess trying to cite the same source multiple times at Indian Hill, Ohio. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Just missed the " / " at the end of the reference <ref name="Close to Home"/> CTJF83 chat 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ctjf83, you beat me to it! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How silly of me. Thanks for the fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chionoecetes bairdi

RlevseTalk 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re-talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Talk:Shane Dawson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Terrorism

Sorry I think you made the wrong call there. We have two IPs which were created simply to edit war on a single edit which had been disputed. The fact that one has gone way past 3rr kinda proves the point. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were their edits blatant vandalism? That wasn't indicated in your protection request and does not appear to be the case. I can't be taking sides in an edit war, and you passed 3RR yourself. If you prefer I could remove the protection and hand out some blocks... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect you to take sides and I'm relaxed about the page being frozen as it is generally in a mess. My point was that the New Jersey IP was created (in a few forms) just to insert the disputed text. That to me is vandalism and I broke my normal self imposed 2RR restriction to revert three times (so I didn't break 3RR, but yes I do know its not an entitlement). This (and a few other articles) are suffering from a small group of editors determined to state that genocide and terrorism are an essential consequence of communism. There have already been long term blocks, ANI reports and RfCs around this issue. The tactic of using single purpose IPs to avoid engagement on the talk page just makes it very difficult to make any sensible progress. Raising SPI reports, writing 3RR reports is tiresome to the point where editors trying to work with the evidence just give up. Personally I think any article which gets controversial should be semi-protected or put under the new review process. So I'm not protesting, I am flagging this as an example of a wider issue. --Snowded TALK 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a bigger problem then it needs to be dealt with in a different manner than just a one-line request at RFPP. If the scope is as wide as you say at the very least an WP:RFC is called for to determine if some sort of sanctions need to be applied to these articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it just seemed a straight forward way of getting rid of one of the hassles.--Snowded TALK 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010

You think you could possibly create an article on this piece of legislation when you have time? It would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talkcontribs) 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain why you are asking me in particular about this as I have not really written a legislation article in the past. Have we met before? You can request an article at WP:RA. As a confirmed user you could also write it up yourself. It doesn't have to be perfect, just make sure you cite some reliable sources and it should be fine. A quick googling of this act revealed several possible sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wasn't sure how to go about doing it, and was afraid that I would mess up. But I'll try to create an article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talkcontribs) 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FCliffmore.
Message added 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Topic Banning for Dummies"?

Are the dummies to be topic banned those who cannot spell properly in their [1] edit summaries? I thort I wuld ask... LessHeard vanU (talk)

Yeah, I seem to be having a problem with my keyboard, I keep getting a "p" when I press "o," and there is no way to edit a summary once you press enter. I guess I could make sure I preview my edit summaries as well as the actual edits. If I was really vain (and wanted to get in a lot of hot water) I suppose I could suppress it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. =)

So, am I doing good so far? =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...So far, the majority of your edits appear to have been turning your "status" on and off, but what actual edits you do have do not appear to be edit warring, so that's a good sign. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User CreativeSoul7981

This is not a criticism, just an inquiry. I have no interest in the Generation X article or the dispute involving CreativeSoul7981, nor do I wish to defend CreativeSoul7981 or any other editor. I am only concerned about Wikipedia in general. Here's my inquiry: Do you think maybe you overstepped your bounds as an admin in blocking CreativeSoul7981? Perhaps I missed something and I would welcome being corrected. But in a quick look at the matter, CreativeSoul7981 did not violate 3RR (and I understand edit warring can occur without a 3RR vio). If there is a consensus in the dispute, it did not appear to me to be overwhelming. And finally, it seems to me that you expressed an opinion in the dispute; I'm not sure if your taking admin action by blocking CreativeSoul7981 involved some conflict of interest, but it did cross my mind. I also wonder if a warning before a block would have been appropriate. Again, maybe I've missed some things because I'm not involved with the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I did hesitate because I had expressed a bit of an opinion on the talk page, but I think the block was justified. As you can see the talk page is very TLDR, but if you look closely you will see that in the past week I had repeatedly noted that everyone on the page could consider themselves warned for edit warring. CS is clinging to an "old" consensus and refusing to acknowledge that the current consensus does not favor his interpretation. On top of that he keeps making vague threats at the other users by telling them it is their "last warning," as if he has permission to edit war and they cannot revert anything he edits. It seems like a case where ego has overridden common sense. As I mentioned when I blocked him, he repeatedly acknowledged in his edit summaries that consensus was currently against his position, and yet he re-inserted the material anyway. He did this with his eyes wide open and with more than sufficient warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks. Have a good day! Cresix (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at CreativeSoul7981's talk page.
Message added 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dustbowie.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dustbowie.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision Deletion request

Would you revision delete the edits by 173.14.47.193 (talk · contribs) at Oakland Christian School beginning from this edit? The IP's first edit to the article is constructive (the correction of one of the school colors from white to gold), though the subsequent edits contain BLP violating content. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1

Would you remind responding to this? I understand that it might be completely annoying but sometimes the principle makes things touchy.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(replied at User talk:Mbz1 Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

RevDel

Yes it would,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Yes - I do agree. Thanks :) --Addihockey10e-mail 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(replied at User talk:Addihockey10. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Clarkbarlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clarkbarlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC

Extended content

William M. Connolley also has an authorized alternate account User:WMC. I don't know how these things are handled. Should it also be blocked? --TS 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are on the user, under any identity. I'm sure Mr. Connolley is aware of this a former admin, but just in case he decides to pretend he isn't I blocked WMC as well. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Log needs updating [3] -Atmoz (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The whole Arb enforcement thing is kind of a new field for me, but so many users have been clamoring for more admins to come over and issue blocks to these CC banned users... Anyway thanks for reminding me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block early and block often needs to be the modus operandi for enforcing the CC decision. Thanks for stepping into the AE snake pit. -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC asked me to bring this to your attention: He prefers to be referred to as either WMC or Dr. Connolley. You called him Mr. Connolley, and he took offense to that. Would you please consider addressing him by his preferred means in the future? I know you're not technically required to do so, but it would go a long way in having a favorable effect on him. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Also, he has appealed his block to AE, and requested that I notify you as required for sanctions appeals. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his pointer to the essay he wrote about how to properly address him. All I can say is that he seems to thrive on pointless drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His preferred method is idiosyncratic, I know. However, since he has made his preference clear, there is really no reason not to follow it. It is a fairly reasonable standard, and it would be pointlessly inflaming to run contrary to that, now that you are aware of the issue. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I would deliberately ignore this concern, just that it seemed a bit frivolous. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. Yes, it is somewhat unusual, but essentially harmless. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's English? That's my rationale, anyway.
However, though there has been some discussion with some opinions raised on what the topic ban means, I don't see where arbcomm actually decreed anything to the extent that what WMC did was wrong. William is not one to break rules, formally construed. Since you are the blocking admin, I would appreciate if you would seek to clarify your actions with arbcomm to see whether or not they agree with you in order to guide future action in this case in a way that can be accepted as appropriate (if not liked) by all.
Also, EngineerFromVega burst onto the scene with some good 'ol fashioned wikilawyering know-how. That makes me concerned about motives / former accounts. This is tangential to my main two points, however. Awickert (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really interested in rehashing this here on my talk page, but I will say that WP:TBAN makes it clear that a topic ban is what I am claiming it is, a ban from the topic, to be construed as broadly as possible, and that it's funny how blocking WMC is such a big deal while Marknutley's block was at least as far removed from any actual editing of a CC related page. He doesn't seem to have as large of a fan club as WMC. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for the clarification. FYI I am not much a fan of Mark's ban either, and left him a note on his talk page to that effect. Maybe he and WMC understood that what they were doing is wrong, but I think that a clarification would have been enough. Ah, well, but that's arbcomm's thing to do. I only pay sporadic attention to these things, which is why I missed Mark's. I hope you don't mind if I ignore the snarkiness I interpret in your "fan club" comment -- either I'm sure you've heard more than enough in the past day to deserve a little leeway in that direction, or I'm tired enough of this to interpret nonexistent snarkiness. Either way, thanks for your response. Awickert (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly it is one of the (many) reasons admins have been hesitant to wade into this so far. There are a few obvious lightning rods involved. Yesterday there was a good talk on WP:AN about how to proceed, and there was a general agreement that talk time was over. So, of course the very next day as soon as I checked to see if anyone was at AE with a report, here was this one. I think I would have preferred someone a little more low-profile for my first AE block, but thems the breaks. I apologize if I incorrectly implied you were a member of said fan club. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:AN thread really seemed inconclusive to me (except for its hatnote, which strangely enough suggests it is). Mark's ban, on the other hand, was decisive, as TS points out at the hatted thread, and may well be the reason for the contents of the hatnote.
William and I get along well, but I don't like living under the implication that I'm out for my buddies. I was genuinely confused as to why both blocks were issued (and in part still am: though WP:TBAN is clear in this regard (thanks again for the link), the local discussions were not.
In all honesty, I'd be better off ignoring this area of WP completely, and am really considering doing so... or maybe just taking a looong break. I like writing articles, and all the controversy too often leaves me feeling too cynical to do that. Awickert (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very, very strange format error

{{helpme}} Ok, you help regulars know when it's me it's going to be some type of wiki-coding issue, and usually it's something dumb that I missed, but not this time. Look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Under the link for Cla68 there is a seemingly blank entry. It is the link for User:GregJackP but it is somehow transposed way down the page. Now look at my subpage User:Beeblebrox/CC workshop exact same issue, even though I used {{userlinks}} instead. How could this one username be generating this same error repeatedly? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought about this and I realized that I had also copied the div formatting from the ArbCom page. I removed it and now the links are normal. I still don't get it, but it is fixed on my subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References.

This was added with a reference. However, when scrolling down to the references and clicking the first link, it takes the user to a page cannot be found page. However, the "Malcolm joins TeenNick" link works, which is basically the same link. I'm not exactly sure what to do, so do you think you could fix it so the reference shows up correctly? Thanks in advance. - Zhou Yu (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not really interested in having this conversation

Please read the above decision carefully. I point, in particular, to Wikipedia:ARBCC#Casting_aspersions and Wikipedia:ARBCC#Battlefield_editing. "We should all be so lucky as to have an army of followers who will support us no matter what and relentlessly attack anyone who is seen as opposition" is not acceptable. I appreciate that this is a high-stress situation. However, I believe you actions are ill-considered and not covered by policy or consensus (they may enjoy a plurality at the moment). I reserve the right to criticise actions I consider wrong without being the subject of comments like the above. You might remember "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". That holds in the plural, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go warn WMC for referring to me and others "twats" on his talk page? I let that go in the interest of not escalating this any further, but if you are going to make an issue out of an innocuous comment that is not directed at a particular user while WMC makes clearly directed personal attacks I guess we could go down that road. Personally I'd rather not. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you supposed to be the good guy? "I'm still better than Sadam" leads both sides down to the lowest level quickly. William has been under years of organized on- and off-wiki attack. Nevertheless, I don't always support his language or style, and have told him so on occasion. Your actions have been criticised, rather mildly, for three days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When our kids were little we never accepted "But Johnny did it too! Don't punish me, punish him!" Apparently it's okay for admins, though. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a message to WMC"

I have nothing further to say on this matter

I am posting here mainly because, as I read it, any attempt to reply to you in the "uninvolved administrators" section would be moved elsewhere, as I am not an administrator. (I have never applied to be an administrator, and I respect the people who have the time and the motivation to be able to say that they want to be an administrator.) What I mainly object to is the suggestion that WMC has been blocked "as a message". In my experience, WMC is a scientist who has not needed "messages". He may be his own worst enemy sometimes; he may push the limits sometimes (especially recently); but in my experience he understands clear statements. His problem has been that he sees things in a black and white way and won't back down unless it's laid out in an equally black and white way. I genuinely don't understand what has been achieved by blocking him for 2 weeks on an issue which is still considered unclear by many editors. If the only point was to "send a message" to anyone else who disagreed with the recent ArbCom ruling, then I think it was achieved in a way which opens the adminstrators and ArbCom to accusations of arbitrariness and draconianism. I believe the correct approach would have been to get ArbCom to clarify its ruling, on WMC's talk page if necessary. And if he still wouldn't back down... well, I'm not going to defend the man to the death. But I am not convinced that the current block should have been imposed. --Merlinme (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with the outcome, but I'm afraid we will have to just agree to disagree. It seems clear that the block will stand and not be reversed at this point, and I have already discussed this matter at great length. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"not interested in having this conversation"; "discussed this matter at great length"; having gone back through the discussion pages, the closest I could find to a definitive statement from you was: "Talking for several months didn't work. Warning them not to try and find holes in the ban didn't work. Blocking is all we have left." You also said that you would be prepared to block "the other side", however I am disappointed by the statement "blocking is all we have left". You have still not persuaded me that the block achieved anything that a warning wouldn't have. The statement "blocking is all we have left" seems to be abandoning any attempt at reason, with an editor who is not irrational. I do not expect to change your mind, however I would ask you to consider how your actions come across to others. It is highly unclear to me what has been achieved by a 2 week block that could not have been achieved by a clarification. It may even have actually raised the temperature, in an area where I would hope we are all trying to promote calmer discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared Autoblock

Here. There apparently is all of CSR plc behind this IP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

My talk Thanks for the {{unsigned}} and the explanation. I took a quick look at the contribs, but it wasn't important enough for me to start looking at dozens of diffs to see if I had reverted using Huggle. I appreciate the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)TCM20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA ping

  • Please pardon the intrusion. Your response at my RfA showed dissatisfaction with my answer to question #1; I believe question #17 may be relevant. Thank you for your time and trouble. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you had to be asked four times, and had to have a user spoon-feed you a possible answer before you replied with any degree of specificity I'm afraid my opinion remains the same. By all accounts you are a fine editor of content, but as I have said, candidates are supposed to have at least a passing understanding of admin work and the criteria under which the admin toolset should be used before applying for adminship. As many others have suggested, if you could get some experience in these areas while at the same time striving not to let your "dark side" come out you might be a more acceptable candidate in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. I thought I had already very clearly said (in my self-nom statement, and repeating myself in Q1) that I wanted to start out with gnomish tasks, then move up under mentorship. But anyhow, thanks for your swift reply! :-) Cheers. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, "gnomish tasks" is incredibly vague and covers a wide spectrum of editing, much of which does not require admin tools. I myself have been using WP:HOTCAT in on-and-off doses over the last few weeks to work on categorizing the ten thousand or so uncategorized articles we have, something any user can do if they want. You may find that you can get the variety you crave and the experience people like to see in admin candidate at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Lynn Sailors

You recently closed an afd discussion. Please reconsider your decision. User:dewelar started a discussion of the issues involved in this afd at the sports notability talk page and asked those of us who wanted to save the article to suspend afd discussion until the larger issue was resolved there. It is yet to be resolved there and it has been suggested that this will affect dozens of minor league season articles across several sports. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinston eagle is correct. There is ongoing, although stalled, discussion at the link above regarding determination of notability of individual minor league seasons not just for baseball, but for team sports in general. While the general track of the discussion seems to be that we should simply use the general guidelines, I don't consider the discussion complete. While I may not personally think that the Sailors article, as it stands, passes GNG, I do think that your decision to close this AfD with a result of delete may have been premature, and also request a reconsideration on that basis. -Dewelar (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I based my close on the consensus at the AFD. If policy is changed in the future to include this type of article it can easily be undeleted or recreated at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I believe Kinston eagle's concern was that others, like himself, may have refrained from commenting due to my request for discussion at the sports notability talk page. I just don't want my good faith request to have -- or, indeed, to appear to have -- resulted in a false consensus. There are, after all, a number of other such pages, for which the result of this AfD will likely be used as a precedent, and some pains should probably be taken that the precedent is as clear as possible. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't see it that way. This purpose of this afd was to decide the fate of this one article according to current guidelines as policies. AFD is not for doing "test cases," if a policy or guideline needs to be changed it can be discussed elsewhere. If there is a future change in policy that invalidates the arguments to delete I would be happy to restore the article at that time. This request to restore now is a bit to hypothetical for my taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally fair, and understandable. After all, I agree with the result. Just know that it is because I agree with the result that I want to ensure that my appeal to put the AfD on hold did not weigh too much in the decision to delete. I do not want to be seen as having "shut down debate", as some might put it, because that was in no way my intention. In fact, my intention was the opposite. Also, it's so much that this was meant to be a "test case", but that there were other articles that would have been added to this AfD, that may not have been added to it due to my original appeal. In any case, I will not pursue the matter further vis-a-vis this particular article. Thank you for your consideration. -Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi. I wonder if a RevDel of [redacted] might be in order? It seems especially obnoxious considering the subject is only 13 years old. Thanks in advance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would have said that it is fairly normal idiotic vandalism, but given their age I decided to err on the side of caution. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - and yeah, I'd have just left it if she wasn't a minor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you declined this user for a username violation last night. Although having "sock" in and of itself isn't a username violation, in this case it was either a reincarnation or an impersonator of a banned user, User:Cy Q. Faunce. User:Sandstein blocked him after he opened a DRV for his hoax article for that reason. Thought I'd let you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the time, all that stuff is outside the scope of a report on a username violation. It's preferable to block for the more serious problem if the username is just an clue and not blockable unto itself, which is what happened in this case. So, in my view the system worked properly here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought impersonation usernames (which is almost certainly what this was) would fall under disruptive, but what you say makes sense. Duly noted, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEGW

Hi There, I have been researching DEGW for a while now and would like to submit some information to Wikipedia, but due to some failed attempts I believe it is blocked.

Before I pull the page together fully and push it out, could you please take a look at the current rough draft. This still needs a lot of work to make it fully Wikipedia friendly, but I would like some guidance so that I am moving in the right direction. Can you help? The draft is here: User:Mzimmerman/DEGW Thank you MZimmerman (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can take care of this, I'll leave a message on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Allow me to extend my thanks again for offering to take this on. I know it's a big task. I am just checking in to see how things are coming. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything or give you more context. SYS... Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been a while, sorry about that. Every time I try to read it over and finish the close I end up getting called away, I've been trying to find an hour or two when I know I'll be able to read the whole monstrosity and summarize it. 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's okay. We're just eager to keep moving. Get to it when you can. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; that may or may not have any impact on your read of the RFC. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usual gang seems intent on removing large sections in an edit war. Kindly examine. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - one editor (Andy) has now completely moved the article in his preferred direction - you might wish to see how it looks. Collect (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Igny has again decided to war. Sigh. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Somebody who can't spell doesn't like you very much. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]