![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Yes, we do categorize people by common cause of death. It's very logical, aids our users in their research, and I've done it for years. The only reason I can think of for not doing so is a tiny clique of "delete page regulars" trying to get rid of it, and hampering our users' ability to find such information. Badagnani 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're not aware, but we do "get around" deleted categories by placing those articles in categories one level above. That way, the information does not get "orphaned" and our users are able to find the information they need. We do categorize people by common cause of death and if Deaths by pneumonia was deleted, it was deleted wrongly--and you should create a DR entry to restore it, if you have the best interests of our users in mind. I should not have to waste time to create a DR entry because the category should never have been deleted in the first place. Badagnani 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I currently have Stede Bonnet at WP:FAC, and a question over a missing source was brought up. In the article, there is a sentence that says: "Bonnet's flag is featured in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End as Capitaine Chevalle's flag." I could not find any sources verifying this claim. Could you possibly look into this matter? Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving that AfD. I have an additional question if it is alright. I was looking at this link search, for other articles sources to those same military records. Some of the ones I found were Jamaat al Dawa al Quran, Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi, Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, and Hussein Salem Mohammed. All of these are/revolve around BLPs. I'm concerned about those BLP concerns and also notability as well. Would you mind taking a look at those four and giving me just a general feel on whether my concerns are justified? I'm tempted to AfD all four (and there are a great many more, related to this sample). • Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the criteria imposed upon DG at the conclusion of the ArbCom (after one of the editors informed me he was posting to the Jack the Ripper page, I took the time to read up on it as well as the RfCs and the entirety of his User Talk page). I agree that the user has a lot to offer the project inhis vigilance. While I understand that he violated the terms of his restriction, I think that perhaps 3 days is a bit steep for the infraction. He was discussing his interpretation of my actions, and while he was somewhat uncivil, I would propose that we givie him a bit of a break, and lessent the length of the block to a single day, and just ask him to not reintroduce the same bulk edit (instead seeking a new consensus for his edit, which was edited by others over the past month or so). I am not pollyannish enough to assume that DG's going to become less edgy overnight, I think that he needs to see that fellow editors aren't out to get him, which seems to be clearly what he's thinking; why else would he be so defenseive and confrontational?. If we give him a single break, he might act positively on that. Once he starts to understand that we aren't out to get his edits, he might relax a bit, and be a lot more fun to work with. I am just suggesting that we offer him a 'do-over'.
I should state that I have never worked with DG before, do not know him in real life,and have no vested interest outside the above in submitting my requestion for blocking reconsideration. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the brief note you left when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda.
I was frankly perplexed to read that you did not think the {{ blp}} concerns were addressed. It seems to me that they were addressed, in detail, with some of your fellow administrators stating firmly that, in their opinion, there was no valid {{ blp}} concern.
The most vocal critic from the "violating {{ blp}} camp" kept insisting that the allegations would violate {{ blp}} unless third party sources could "prove" the allegations were true. A position that is directly counter to WP:VER -- the first sentence of which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth"
Nominator raised his concern on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Noticeboard) JoshuaZ, who I believe is also an administrator, offered his opinion that there was no {{ blp}} concern.
I asked for clarification on WP:AN/I, as to whether this interpretation of {{ blp}} held merit. Opinion was split. You would have a better idea as to which of the participants there are administrators, and which weren't. ( Here is the last link, prior to the thread being archived. Go to "policy issues".)
So, you can understand why I am perplexed because you seemed to have dismissed all the counter-arguments to this {{ blp}} concern.
So, I would really appreciate you explaining your decision more fully. Geo Swan 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
for the semi-protection. NHRHS2010 talk 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.-- Isotope23 talk 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I posted this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns, which may involve you, too. Bearian 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Check your email, please! Maralia 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm a troll. -- But| seriously| folks 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Karanacs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've never been called a "pernicious harridan" before, so thank you for giving me a new experience and a big laugh :) Karanacs 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you undelete the page for a while. I'd like to go back and look at the information that was lost. Also, I'd like to redirect the page using this text, #REDIRECT [[Minsi Trails Council]] {{Scouting redirect from merge}} I think that redirecting the page would have been better than deleting it, and as soon as we recover from the fallout of user:Minsi Patches nominating seven other camp articles for deletion in retaliation, I might ask for a deltion review. Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of snowclones. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [3] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [4] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [5] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, Could I please get a copy of the deleted article List of snowclones. I don't have any feelings about the article being part of the encyclopedia, but I did want to read through the content again. Maybe this is a "GFDL" request? I think User:Gandalf61 asked for a copy in his user area, and that would be good enough for me. JackSchmidt 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you suggested deletin all Guantanamo articles, all at once, over on WP:AN/I. I see you asked why no one suggested this before. Well, someone did suggest it before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer. Geo Swan 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. I was glad to see you review Arthur Rubin's revert and apologize to DreamGuy. DreamGuy's block log still looks the same, though, and is sure to be pointed at by any future blockshoppers for years to come. Perhaps you would consider putting a note in the log itself, by means of a one-second block? The way Alex Bakharev did here, I mean. I know that note made a big difference to Bonafide.hustla. Regards, Bishonen | talk 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) .
What you and other administrators have done is to allow Charles Michael Collins to make such statements regarding other people as to constitute abuse of Freitas and Merkle and others, including me. At no time did any administrator complain of statements made by Charles Michael Collins, nor did you block him to prevent further abuse of other researchers into the field of self-replicating machines. You and other administrators denigrate the complaint which I made but, you seem to have no problem with allowing people to make statements about which a complaint is warranted. On this basis, Wikipedia does not deserve my assistance. You should have blocked Charles Michael Collins so that his postings would not offend others. That you did not do. You and the other administrators who blocked me are hypocrites. William R. Buckley 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grooveshark. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/ c 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think the Hitler pic is offensive, btw (picture bin Laden with a cutsy caption before suicide bombers), and is also unacceptable, because it makes his legacy cute and thus less offensive. But it seems that other people think pro-Hitler material is acceptable.
But I get the impression you called me white. At that I take offense. :) Guettarda 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Schedule - Haha, right on. Scarian Talk 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protectng the article. However, the anon IP now blanked the talk page, could you go ahead and block the anon, they were already warned and (assuming all three IPs are the same person) have been blocked on the other two accounts. Thanks. Aboutmovies 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)"
That's exactly why I went on a nominating spree recently. I figure we'll need at least twice the admins that we have right now. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Resolution: I checked all of my computers, and it's not optimal on any of them. As a voice for the "we are not all teenagers on Wiki" :-) crowd, I'd like to ask you to rearrange that section so that the quote isn't directly opposite the image. Even on my screens that are set at higher than 800 x 600 resolution (which is my preference, even with my eyeglasses :-), I get a 3-column effect that's not great and looks too busy. Guarda del costa is still wrong; I'm sure the PR guys can figure that one out. I'll look at the dashes right now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you're managing to hold it together with Leranedo's edits to this article. I'm pretty sure that I'd have been tearing my hair out by now. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made more edits today, to clear up some of the introduced nonsense and revise wording that I felt I could improve. I found a few issues I wanted to discuss before changing; I'll drop you another note about those after I reread. One potential issue that I recall clearly: is it possible your "Isle Haute in Nova Scotia" is actually Isle au Haut, Maine? Maralia 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Another note about the same sentence: the Isles of Shoals are technically off the coast of both New Hampshire and Maine. In a weird coincidence, I've spent quite a bit of time on these islands (when I first started working on this article you hadn't yet added this fact—plus the islands are 500+ miles from where I live). Small world! Anyway, if I am correct about Isle au Haut above, you could simply refer to all these islands as "off the coast of New England". Maralia 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Something else we can do is create more admins. If anyone wants nominating for RFA, let me know.
What issues do you have? Provide examples so I can see. Leranedo 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I really am flattered - this has been the second propsal in as many months, but I really feel I must decline again sorry. I know I'm up to the task, but I don't feel I've earnt back some of the crap I've caused here over the years and I'm not thinking about adminship for at least another 2 months at least. I don't think I'd be wise to allow myself to get nominated yet, and I'd hope people would appreciate my wisedom later down the track - people want intelligent admins and I don't me running would fufill that. I know I'll get a million opposes in the first day. You are very kind, and later down the track, you are very welcome to ask again, but right now I don't think it's a good idea. Your quest for new admins is noble, but if you really wanted some great ones, try getting users such as SandyGeorgia to come around - she's been declining for ages and she's simply brilliant. She could make 'cratship if she wished. Cheers and keep in touch. :) Spawn Man 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through old images to learn from my mistakes and so forth. I have a big concern about why File:Shinyblack.jpg was deleted and also that there is now a permanent edit history entry stating that it was deleted becuase it was a "photograoh of private person who probably doesnt realize she's here". The photograph was taken by me of a girl I dated and the picture was completely my property. I have had many image difficulties but I dont see this one being one of them. I'm also a little bothered that someone might see this and think I knowingly uploaded some picture of some stranger to the internet which can open the door to some very serious things espeically since she was wearing a provocative outfit. Any advice about this? This one just doesn't seem very fair and implies I actually committed an offense against this girl. Thanks for your help. - OberRanks 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same situation with File:LadiesTights.jpg. Personal photograph, taken by me, at a party. See no reason why it should have been deleted under the clause "privacy concerns" as it again implies I violated the rights of the people in the photo. I don't feel that I did since it was my picture to begin with. Thoughts? Thanks AGAIN for your help. - OberRanks 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [15]. BTW- all is well in other areas we talked about. Sent my e-mail, got a cold response but understanding is there and I did my best to state no bad feelings at least on this end. Also e-mailed OTRS about the page we discussed. Guess we'll see. - OberRanks 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you're now a Q? :) Acalamari 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And because someone pointed it out to me! Thanks a lot for the defence (even tho I was unaware of it). I've posted to Viridae too as he has a point - such advanced behaviour from such a new person would now have me on quite a high alert - it can be explained if you know where to look! - another case of rebranding I guess - maybe it's a UK thing! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I read about allowing I.P.'s to make new pages... Was that just an idea being put through the village pump or was it a discussion about it actually being implemented? [I recall you writing something about it somewhere, apologies but my memory fails me] I was just wondering for clarification's sake... Cheers in advance. Scarian Talk 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Could you have a quick look at the history here, people keep striking & unstriking User:Professional Deletionist's opposition, which I doubt is helpful? -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That was hysterical. However I'd laugh harder if it wasn't for the unmerciless pile of utter crap and the unmanageable backlog at CAT:CSD we're all looking forward to. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I've just made a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters which involves a user you've blocked a couple of times, Asgardian ( talk · contribs). I'd appreciate your input in the request as an uninvolved blocking admin, if you can find the time, Appreciated, Hiding Talk 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I respect you.
I think your edits to the talk page were off the mark. You are correct, opposition to any standard is fine, but there is a point where it becomes tendentious and trollish. Look at the comments on various forums for the past few months, and look at the contributions. Tell me if you still see it the he same. Very respectfully, Mercury 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Adopting Barnstar | |
For adopting a user I User:Swirlex give you this adopting Barnstar. |
I think he's just trying to browbeat me into submission now...trying to make it easier to give in than to just fight it out. The blatant disregard for the entire concept of community consensus from a community servant is troubling, to say the least.
As long as I've been here, I've never been involved into an Arbcom case, and in all this time I've done my damndest to avoid finding out how it works...I don't want to be involved in schoolyard spats; I want to write. Can I just refuse to participate altogether? It just seems like even responding to it would be a form of giving to him, by implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of what he's doing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments as a neutral admin on General (United States) would be welcome. Please see Talk:General_(United_States)#Investigation_into_non-consensus_merger. Thank you very much. - OberRanks 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I am sorry to fill your page with this. SJ isnt willing to work with me and has gone so far as to ask forr my banning from Wikipedia [18]. Your opinion is welcome in the original complaint, i.e. 3 carbon copy articles created to circumvent a failed merge vote. Thanks and soprry again about your page becoming a battle ground for this. - OberRanks 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the splash of cold water. I reported all this becuase I thought the user was breaking policy on purpose and still think that. But, Ive done what needed to be done and got others involved per WP:CON which we seem to be reaching. I think a warning to the other user is called for, especially in light of calling me "self centered" in an edit history as well as the pretty obvious attempt to hide a merge by carbon copying the same article onto three different pages. But, beside all of that, thank you for your help. I've done what I can here and will move on and work with the very same user now to make the article better. - OberRanks 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. This is concerning [20]. Any user stating that they will space out edit warring to circumvent WP:3RR is disruptive I feel. I dont know what else to do about this user, especially in light of this "warning". Thoughts? - OberRanks 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As requested, have tidied up the comment. Regards. Asgardian 05:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I damn near woke the whole house up when I burst out in laughter after reading your donation banner here. I must say it is blunt and to the point, my one regret is that it doesn't meet size requirements for our Featured Pictures becuase that definiately deserves to be one :) -- an unlogged in TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone reverted one of my edits because they thought my edit was incorrect [21]. I asked them what part of my edit they thought was incorrect, and they explained their objection. My edit was correct and their objection was invalid, so I explained that and restored my edit [22]. They have never responded to my explanation, but OberRanks continues to revert my edit [23]. I have warned him multiple times that he was violating Wikipedia's dispute resolution by reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page, but he continues to do it. Therefore I request that you ban him. You have suggested that we resolve this dispute by talking on the talk page. And I'd be happy to do it. I've tried to do it. But if he refuses to respond to my comments on the talk page, then there's nothing I can do. Note that the discussion is located here [24].
OberRanks might respond with some objections he's raised in the past about other disputes, having to do with merges, consensus, ownership, and personal attacks. Those objections are invalid, as I've explained before. But I won't bother explaining that again here, because they're not relevant to this particular dispute. - Shaheenjim 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost laughable and I'm not even going to offer a response. But I will add that SJ has had problems with more than one editor [25] [26] and has shown heavy article ownership tendencies. And as far as not working with him or talking, I think the lengthy talk page discussions on three different articles, as well as where I have asked this user to work with us and not against us, have proven where I stand. I will say nothing further on this. Apologies to Neil for taking up his time. - OberRanks 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My final answer to all of this can be found here [27]. Neil, thank you for your patience and the best to both you and SJ. Good night. - OberRanks 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To my big surprise, it seems my RfA was relatively uncontroversial and now that less than an hour remains seems very likely to pass. I of course attribute this in whole to your excellent nomination, and I would like to say I'm very grateful. I have a few days to learn the ropes before the great flood (which hopefully wont materialize). If you see me doing anything wrong, I implore you to give me a good whack on the head as soon as possible. I guess this technically should go into your spambox (yes, I have read your talk header), but as this isn't a mass message, I hope you won't mind me making an exception. henrik• talk 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Neil, I didn't expect you to delete the article ME/CVS Vereniging since no concensus was reached and the article was still being edited by Neozoon. Could you explain your decision? Regards, Guido den Broeder 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If, as part of the deletion decision for REVOLUTION MOTHER, you decided to put a block on its persistent re-creator, be aware that he had two IDs: user:Stevenearl and user:Lraesiemanymnevets - which, read backwards, is a charmingly innocent confession of sockpuppetry. JohnCD 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i would like to know why you have blocked the Revolution Mother page?skate1234
Hi,
You forgot to put an {{afdfull}} notice on the Talk Page of EuroBasket 2007 Final after you closed the AFD. I did it for you. Please remember to do so in the future.
-- Richard 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you're online and watching ANI, so I thought you might be willing to take over a thread I've been helping on. Every so often I'll help out and work on ANI queries that don't necessarily require sysop tools to resolve, and up till now, " Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing and personal attacks by single-purpose account" was one of those. However, one of the users involved in the dispute has just created a mind-blowingly obvious sockpuppet to continue an edit war (or someone else is trying to set this user up to be blocked as a puppetmaster), and I think one of you admins would be better suited to work the developing weirdnesses at the article in question. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NE2 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed an AfD and deleted this topic on the basis that most keep arguments were based on schools being inherently notable and that other schools exists. The majority of the delete arguments were made prior to a substantial change to the article with seven references being added. The only response to these references was one user who claimed that the material in the references were trivial, rather than the topic being mentioned trivially. On this basis, could you please considering reviewing the basis of your decision to delete. Assize 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wahroonga Public School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize 12:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. Could you userfy Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) and Regis (Forgotten Realms) for me please? I've already requested undeletion of Companions of the Hall. I also note that the deletion of Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) left several redirect pages with no targets, meaning there are bluelinks where there should be redlinks in other articles -- is it standard practice to clean those up when a page is deleted? Powers T 13:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might want to see this. [28], [29]. Should the talk page be protected and the blcok enforced on the talk page as well? The repetitive pleading is one thing but the selective deletion of comments is another. This is clearly a user who insists on disruption. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made a vectorized version of your image Giveit.jpg. — Random832 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has been overturned. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment; now that I think about it that restriction is not useful - it is supposed to stop vandalism, and that doesn't really work well, so I am going to change it :) Feel free to copyedit my userpage anytime :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Yes, we do categorize people by common cause of death. It's very logical, aids our users in their research, and I've done it for years. The only reason I can think of for not doing so is a tiny clique of "delete page regulars" trying to get rid of it, and hampering our users' ability to find such information. Badagnani 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're not aware, but we do "get around" deleted categories by placing those articles in categories one level above. That way, the information does not get "orphaned" and our users are able to find the information they need. We do categorize people by common cause of death and if Deaths by pneumonia was deleted, it was deleted wrongly--and you should create a DR entry to restore it, if you have the best interests of our users in mind. I should not have to waste time to create a DR entry because the category should never have been deleted in the first place. Badagnani 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I currently have Stede Bonnet at WP:FAC, and a question over a missing source was brought up. In the article, there is a sentence that says: "Bonnet's flag is featured in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End as Capitaine Chevalle's flag." I could not find any sources verifying this claim. Could you possibly look into this matter? Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving that AfD. I have an additional question if it is alright. I was looking at this link search, for other articles sources to those same military records. Some of the ones I found were Jamaat al Dawa al Quran, Muktar Yahya Najee Al Warafi, Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, and Hussein Salem Mohammed. All of these are/revolve around BLPs. I'm concerned about those BLP concerns and also notability as well. Would you mind taking a look at those four and giving me just a general feel on whether my concerns are justified? I'm tempted to AfD all four (and there are a great many more, related to this sample). • Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the criteria imposed upon DG at the conclusion of the ArbCom (after one of the editors informed me he was posting to the Jack the Ripper page, I took the time to read up on it as well as the RfCs and the entirety of his User Talk page). I agree that the user has a lot to offer the project inhis vigilance. While I understand that he violated the terms of his restriction, I think that perhaps 3 days is a bit steep for the infraction. He was discussing his interpretation of my actions, and while he was somewhat uncivil, I would propose that we givie him a bit of a break, and lessent the length of the block to a single day, and just ask him to not reintroduce the same bulk edit (instead seeking a new consensus for his edit, which was edited by others over the past month or so). I am not pollyannish enough to assume that DG's going to become less edgy overnight, I think that he needs to see that fellow editors aren't out to get him, which seems to be clearly what he's thinking; why else would he be so defenseive and confrontational?. If we give him a single break, he might act positively on that. Once he starts to understand that we aren't out to get his edits, he might relax a bit, and be a lot more fun to work with. I am just suggesting that we offer him a 'do-over'.
I should state that I have never worked with DG before, do not know him in real life,and have no vested interest outside the above in submitting my requestion for blocking reconsideration. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw the brief note you left when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda.
I was frankly perplexed to read that you did not think the {{ blp}} concerns were addressed. It seems to me that they were addressed, in detail, with some of your fellow administrators stating firmly that, in their opinion, there was no valid {{ blp}} concern.
The most vocal critic from the "violating {{ blp}} camp" kept insisting that the allegations would violate {{ blp}} unless third party sources could "prove" the allegations were true. A position that is directly counter to WP:VER -- the first sentence of which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth"
Nominator raised his concern on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Noticeboard) JoshuaZ, who I believe is also an administrator, offered his opinion that there was no {{ blp}} concern.
I asked for clarification on WP:AN/I, as to whether this interpretation of {{ blp}} held merit. Opinion was split. You would have a better idea as to which of the participants there are administrators, and which weren't. ( Here is the last link, prior to the thread being archived. Go to "policy issues".)
So, you can understand why I am perplexed because you seemed to have dismissed all the counter-arguments to this {{ blp}} concern.
So, I would really appreciate you explaining your decision more fully. Geo Swan 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
for the semi-protection. NHRHS2010 talk 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.-- Isotope23 talk 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I posted this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns, which may involve you, too. Bearian 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Check your email, please! Maralia 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm a troll. -- But| seriously| folks 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Karanacs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've never been called a "pernicious harridan" before, so thank you for giving me a new experience and a big laugh :) Karanacs 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you undelete the page for a while. I'd like to go back and look at the information that was lost. Also, I'd like to redirect the page using this text, #REDIRECT [[Minsi Trails Council]] {{Scouting redirect from merge}} I think that redirecting the page would have been better than deleting it, and as soon as we recover from the fallout of user:Minsi Patches nominating seven other camp articles for deletion in retaliation, I might ask for a deltion review. Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of snowclones. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [3] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [4] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [5] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, Could I please get a copy of the deleted article List of snowclones. I don't have any feelings about the article being part of the encyclopedia, but I did want to read through the content again. Maybe this is a "GFDL" request? I think User:Gandalf61 asked for a copy in his user area, and that would be good enough for me. JackSchmidt 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw you suggested deletin all Guantanamo articles, all at once, over on WP:AN/I. I see you asked why no one suggested this before. Well, someone did suggest it before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer. Geo Swan 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. I was glad to see you review Arthur Rubin's revert and apologize to DreamGuy. DreamGuy's block log still looks the same, though, and is sure to be pointed at by any future blockshoppers for years to come. Perhaps you would consider putting a note in the log itself, by means of a one-second block? The way Alex Bakharev did here, I mean. I know that note made a big difference to Bonafide.hustla. Regards, Bishonen | talk 11:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) .
What you and other administrators have done is to allow Charles Michael Collins to make such statements regarding other people as to constitute abuse of Freitas and Merkle and others, including me. At no time did any administrator complain of statements made by Charles Michael Collins, nor did you block him to prevent further abuse of other researchers into the field of self-replicating machines. You and other administrators denigrate the complaint which I made but, you seem to have no problem with allowing people to make statements about which a complaint is warranted. On this basis, Wikipedia does not deserve my assistance. You should have blocked Charles Michael Collins so that his postings would not offend others. That you did not do. You and the other administrators who blocked me are hypocrites. William R. Buckley 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grooveshark. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/ c 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think the Hitler pic is offensive, btw (picture bin Laden with a cutsy caption before suicide bombers), and is also unacceptable, because it makes his legacy cute and thus less offensive. But it seems that other people think pro-Hitler material is acceptable.
But I get the impression you called me white. At that I take offense. :) Guettarda 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Schedule - Haha, right on. Scarian Talk 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protectng the article. However, the anon IP now blanked the talk page, could you go ahead and block the anon, they were already warned and (assuming all three IPs are the same person) have been blocked on the other two accounts. Thanks. Aboutmovies 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)"
That's exactly why I went on a nominating spree recently. I figure we'll need at least twice the admins that we have right now. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Resolution: I checked all of my computers, and it's not optimal on any of them. As a voice for the "we are not all teenagers on Wiki" :-) crowd, I'd like to ask you to rearrange that section so that the quote isn't directly opposite the image. Even on my screens that are set at higher than 800 x 600 resolution (which is my preference, even with my eyeglasses :-), I get a 3-column effect that's not great and looks too busy. Guarda del costa is still wrong; I'm sure the PR guys can figure that one out. I'll look at the dashes right now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you're managing to hold it together with Leranedo's edits to this article. I'm pretty sure that I'd have been tearing my hair out by now. :) -- Malleus Fatuarum 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made more edits today, to clear up some of the introduced nonsense and revise wording that I felt I could improve. I found a few issues I wanted to discuss before changing; I'll drop you another note about those after I reread. One potential issue that I recall clearly: is it possible your "Isle Haute in Nova Scotia" is actually Isle au Haut, Maine? Maralia 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Another note about the same sentence: the Isles of Shoals are technically off the coast of both New Hampshire and Maine. In a weird coincidence, I've spent quite a bit of time on these islands (when I first started working on this article you hadn't yet added this fact—plus the islands are 500+ miles from where I live). Small world! Anyway, if I am correct about Isle au Haut above, you could simply refer to all these islands as "off the coast of New England". Maralia 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Something else we can do is create more admins. If anyone wants nominating for RFA, let me know.
What issues do you have? Provide examples so I can see. Leranedo 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I really am flattered - this has been the second propsal in as many months, but I really feel I must decline again sorry. I know I'm up to the task, but I don't feel I've earnt back some of the crap I've caused here over the years and I'm not thinking about adminship for at least another 2 months at least. I don't think I'd be wise to allow myself to get nominated yet, and I'd hope people would appreciate my wisedom later down the track - people want intelligent admins and I don't me running would fufill that. I know I'll get a million opposes in the first day. You are very kind, and later down the track, you are very welcome to ask again, but right now I don't think it's a good idea. Your quest for new admins is noble, but if you really wanted some great ones, try getting users such as SandyGeorgia to come around - she's been declining for ages and she's simply brilliant. She could make 'cratship if she wished. Cheers and keep in touch. :) Spawn Man 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through old images to learn from my mistakes and so forth. I have a big concern about why File:Shinyblack.jpg was deleted and also that there is now a permanent edit history entry stating that it was deleted becuase it was a "photograoh of private person who probably doesnt realize she's here". The photograph was taken by me of a girl I dated and the picture was completely my property. I have had many image difficulties but I dont see this one being one of them. I'm also a little bothered that someone might see this and think I knowingly uploaded some picture of some stranger to the internet which can open the door to some very serious things espeically since she was wearing a provocative outfit. Any advice about this? This one just doesn't seem very fair and implies I actually committed an offense against this girl. Thanks for your help. - OberRanks 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same situation with File:LadiesTights.jpg. Personal photograph, taken by me, at a party. See no reason why it should have been deleted under the clause "privacy concerns" as it again implies I violated the rights of the people in the photo. I don't feel that I did since it was my picture to begin with. Thoughts? Thanks AGAIN for your help. - OberRanks 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [15]. BTW- all is well in other areas we talked about. Sent my e-mail, got a cold response but understanding is there and I did my best to state no bad feelings at least on this end. Also e-mailed OTRS about the page we discussed. Guess we'll see. - OberRanks 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you're now a Q? :) Acalamari 19:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And because someone pointed it out to me! Thanks a lot for the defence (even tho I was unaware of it). I've posted to Viridae too as he has a point - such advanced behaviour from such a new person would now have me on quite a high alert - it can be explained if you know where to look! - another case of rebranding I guess - maybe it's a UK thing! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 09:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I read about allowing I.P.'s to make new pages... Was that just an idea being put through the village pump or was it a discussion about it actually being implemented? [I recall you writing something about it somewhere, apologies but my memory fails me] I was just wondering for clarification's sake... Cheers in advance. Scarian Talk 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Could you have a quick look at the history here, people keep striking & unstriking User:Professional Deletionist's opposition, which I doubt is helpful? -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That was hysterical. However I'd laugh harder if it wasn't for the unmerciless pile of utter crap and the unmanageable backlog at CAT:CSD we're all looking forward to. Pedro : Chat 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I've just made a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters which involves a user you've blocked a couple of times, Asgardian ( talk · contribs). I'd appreciate your input in the request as an uninvolved blocking admin, if you can find the time, Appreciated, Hiding Talk 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I respect you.
I think your edits to the talk page were off the mark. You are correct, opposition to any standard is fine, but there is a point where it becomes tendentious and trollish. Look at the comments on various forums for the past few months, and look at the contributions. Tell me if you still see it the he same. Very respectfully, Mercury 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Adopting Barnstar | |
For adopting a user I User:Swirlex give you this adopting Barnstar. |
I think he's just trying to browbeat me into submission now...trying to make it easier to give in than to just fight it out. The blatant disregard for the entire concept of community consensus from a community servant is troubling, to say the least.
As long as I've been here, I've never been involved into an Arbcom case, and in all this time I've done my damndest to avoid finding out how it works...I don't want to be involved in schoolyard spats; I want to write. Can I just refuse to participate altogether? It just seems like even responding to it would be a form of giving to him, by implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of what he's doing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments as a neutral admin on General (United States) would be welcome. Please see Talk:General_(United_States)#Investigation_into_non-consensus_merger. Thank you very much. - OberRanks 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I am sorry to fill your page with this. SJ isnt willing to work with me and has gone so far as to ask forr my banning from Wikipedia [18]. Your opinion is welcome in the original complaint, i.e. 3 carbon copy articles created to circumvent a failed merge vote. Thanks and soprry again about your page becoming a battle ground for this. - OberRanks 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the splash of cold water. I reported all this becuase I thought the user was breaking policy on purpose and still think that. But, Ive done what needed to be done and got others involved per WP:CON which we seem to be reaching. I think a warning to the other user is called for, especially in light of calling me "self centered" in an edit history as well as the pretty obvious attempt to hide a merge by carbon copying the same article onto three different pages. But, beside all of that, thank you for your help. I've done what I can here and will move on and work with the very same user now to make the article better. - OberRanks 10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. This is concerning [20]. Any user stating that they will space out edit warring to circumvent WP:3RR is disruptive I feel. I dont know what else to do about this user, especially in light of this "warning". Thoughts? - OberRanks 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As requested, have tidied up the comment. Regards. Asgardian 05:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I damn near woke the whole house up when I burst out in laughter after reading your donation banner here. I must say it is blunt and to the point, my one regret is that it doesn't meet size requirements for our Featured Pictures becuase that definiately deserves to be one :) -- an unlogged in TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone reverted one of my edits because they thought my edit was incorrect [21]. I asked them what part of my edit they thought was incorrect, and they explained their objection. My edit was correct and their objection was invalid, so I explained that and restored my edit [22]. They have never responded to my explanation, but OberRanks continues to revert my edit [23]. I have warned him multiple times that he was violating Wikipedia's dispute resolution by reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page, but he continues to do it. Therefore I request that you ban him. You have suggested that we resolve this dispute by talking on the talk page. And I'd be happy to do it. I've tried to do it. But if he refuses to respond to my comments on the talk page, then there's nothing I can do. Note that the discussion is located here [24].
OberRanks might respond with some objections he's raised in the past about other disputes, having to do with merges, consensus, ownership, and personal attacks. Those objections are invalid, as I've explained before. But I won't bother explaining that again here, because they're not relevant to this particular dispute. - Shaheenjim 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is almost laughable and I'm not even going to offer a response. But I will add that SJ has had problems with more than one editor [25] [26] and has shown heavy article ownership tendencies. And as far as not working with him or talking, I think the lengthy talk page discussions on three different articles, as well as where I have asked this user to work with us and not against us, have proven where I stand. I will say nothing further on this. Apologies to Neil for taking up his time. - OberRanks 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My final answer to all of this can be found here [27]. Neil, thank you for your patience and the best to both you and SJ. Good night. - OberRanks 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To my big surprise, it seems my RfA was relatively uncontroversial and now that less than an hour remains seems very likely to pass. I of course attribute this in whole to your excellent nomination, and I would like to say I'm very grateful. I have a few days to learn the ropes before the great flood (which hopefully wont materialize). If you see me doing anything wrong, I implore you to give me a good whack on the head as soon as possible. I guess this technically should go into your spambox (yes, I have read your talk header), but as this isn't a mass message, I hope you won't mind me making an exception. henrik• talk 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Neil, I didn't expect you to delete the article ME/CVS Vereniging since no concensus was reached and the article was still being edited by Neozoon. Could you explain your decision? Regards, Guido den Broeder 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If, as part of the deletion decision for REVOLUTION MOTHER, you decided to put a block on its persistent re-creator, be aware that he had two IDs: user:Stevenearl and user:Lraesiemanymnevets - which, read backwards, is a charmingly innocent confession of sockpuppetry. JohnCD 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
i would like to know why you have blocked the Revolution Mother page?skate1234
Hi,
You forgot to put an {{afdfull}} notice on the Talk Page of EuroBasket 2007 Final after you closed the AFD. I did it for you. Please remember to do so in the future.
-- Richard 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you're online and watching ANI, so I thought you might be willing to take over a thread I've been helping on. Every so often I'll help out and work on ANI queries that don't necessarily require sysop tools to resolve, and up till now, " Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing and personal attacks by single-purpose account" was one of those. However, one of the users involved in the dispute has just created a mind-blowingly obvious sockpuppet to continue an edit war (or someone else is trying to set this user up to be blocked as a puppetmaster), and I think one of you admins would be better suited to work the developing weirdnesses at the article in question. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Grant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NE2 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed an AfD and deleted this topic on the basis that most keep arguments were based on schools being inherently notable and that other schools exists. The majority of the delete arguments were made prior to a substantial change to the article with seven references being added. The only response to these references was one user who claimed that the material in the references were trivial, rather than the topic being mentioned trivially. On this basis, could you please considering reviewing the basis of your decision to delete. Assize 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wahroonga Public School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize 12:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Neil. Could you userfy Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) and Regis (Forgotten Realms) for me please? I've already requested undeletion of Companions of the Hall. I also note that the deletion of Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) left several redirect pages with no targets, meaning there are bluelinks where there should be redlinks in other articles -- is it standard practice to clean those up when a page is deleted? Powers T 13:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you might want to see this. [28], [29]. Should the talk page be protected and the blcok enforced on the talk page as well? The repetitive pleading is one thing but the selective deletion of comments is another. This is clearly a user who insists on disruption. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made a vectorized version of your image Giveit.jpg. — Random832 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has been overturned. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment; now that I think about it that restriction is not useful - it is supposed to stop vandalism, and that doesn't really work well, so I am going to change it :) Feel free to copyedit my userpage anytime :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)