At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.
i appreciate your attempts to keep things preventative, rather than merely punitive. however, i don't quite follow your reasoning that about this issue [1]. this issue has been repeating itself for at least 3 months and already both his mentors (discounting the sock) and a good number of more editors noted the user to stop. i believe PR is more than aware of what he is doing but he keeps trying, just as he kept calling me a war criminal after an ANI about that issue was already open. so, personally, i've lost my patience and i'm more than interested in preventative action. post-ANI link [2] (clarifies current issue). Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, why did You revert back incorrect redirect Sokolče-Sokolce? It is usually and due to logic that we have redirects like Zilina-Žilina, Kosice-Košice, Roznava-Rožňava, but make it in opposite way ? We have in Slovakia town Zvolen, so I can make redirects: Žvolen-Zvolen, Zvoleň-Zvolen, Zvolén-Zvolen, Žvoleň-Zvolen, etc... ? Please, delete that, that was created as mistake by non-Slovak user, it is not just incorrect, but also confusing, because in Slovakia existed real village Sokolče (now inundated) and we noticed it in article of Stan Mikita, who was born there. Nice day and thank You for understanding -- kelovy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't bother you with my understanding of what a mentor should be like! PR talk 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marion Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time on Wikipedia and I'm trying to gather the differences of what is needed and what is not. The article in question is for Academic Management Systems. I'm trying to write an encyclopedic worthy article, much like CBS corporation and Pepsi, but am unable to do so due to the deletion. How can I appeal this decision until I'm finished editing the article? I am still learning how to add things like a table and other things and when i was just typing article and tried to save originally, it never saved and deleted all of my work which is why I am saving more piece-meal to make sure my work doesn't get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarskig ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the guidlines and from my understanding and also from my viewing of the other starship pages my page is perfectly in line... tell me specifically what I missed and I'll do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caltair ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
By deleting it, I'm unable to see what was happening. Can you explain in details what happened? Andrew 6 47 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Allright, that was amusing. I guess this means CSBot's activity is now considered so "normal" that even vandals recognize its significance. :-) — Coren (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear GRBeryy, just curious about deletion of this page. It is stated: 08:15, 3 November 2007 GRBerry (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vedanta Society of Western Washington" (WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of [3]
Now, that page did perhaps violate copyright content, at http://www.vedanta-seattle.org/, but certainly none of the material was from the "band history" page you cited. Trust this was an error, and that you meant to put the other site. Sw.my 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sw.my 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, there may have been an error when you deleted the page, Gail Kimbell? The page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. The information on the page was taken from the U.S. Forest's Service's Web Site: About the Chief. This information is public domain. As stated in the policy for speedy deletion ( WP:CSD#G12) there must be "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license" for a page's speedy deletion. The problem is, this information was taken from a government website which under the Wikipedia:Public domain policy is public domain. It is also stated under the U.S. Forestry Service's Privacy Policy that the information presented on the website is considered public information and "may be distributed or copied unless otherwise indicated". Bottom line, it is not copyrighted material and should not have been deleted. If I have overlooked something, since I am still new at Wikipedia, please leave a comment. Thank you, -- Cladestine 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because they seemed so similar in style to the other pages that were definitely copyvios.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lest We Forget.png -- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks. Brian0324 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for catching that typo! Glass Cobra 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input. Brian0324 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious about why you reverted the addition of a death date with reference & the correction of the year of trial, which was supported in the reference? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm just glad to find someone who will say that!! Wildhartlivie 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please unprotect so that I may add this again as I believe it has been deleted for all the wrong reasons. Despite my efforts to look for references the article kept being delete...very frustrating...so here are a reem of references and there are many more to show this IS a term that needs inclusion as it IS a widely discussed anissue in the academic world. Wikipedia is a place many will look for this type of information. It should not be relegated to Googlepedia. Please favourably consider my request ao that we can proceed positively. Thank you 124.120.36.147 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1. Queens University Belfast: http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/CentreforEducationalDevelopment/InternationalisingtheCurriculum/ "....lobal context should therefore be a central aim of an internationalised curriculum."
2. http://pdfdownload.randomlypoked.com/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsn.curtin.edu.au%2Flearn_online%2Fdocs%2FInternationalise.pdf&images=yes "WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN INTERNATIONALISED CURRICULUM?"
3. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php " http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php" "Current teaching practices/your experience in delivering an internationalised curriculum "
4; Oxford Brooks University: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/online/international_curriculum/index.html "The internationalised curriculum
* Book now: 2 April - 2 May 2008
This course is designed to introduce you to the wide-ranging concept of an internationalised curriculum and to work through a practical application to a programme with which you work."
5. Griffith University: http://www.griffith.edu.au/landt/goodpractice/pdf/Item%209_Internationalisation%20of%20the%20curriculum%2004_0858.pdf "The Group is responsible for providing the resources for the training of staff in awareness of and commitment to the need for an internationalised curriculum and for process in updating and changing curriculum as required."
6. Univesity of South Australia:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/internationalisation/documents/InternationalisationCurriculumPerth.pdf
"In 1995 a typology of internationalised curriculum was published (IDP Education
Australia 1995)." Also refer IDP Education Australia 1995 publications.
Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to view or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.) Rhammond 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems we've reached a consensus on the disputed point. [4] It's probably ok to unprotected, but that's to your discretion. Thanks for stopping the edit war. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Morning! You may remember speedy deleting the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(Asking you since you closed the DRV) - versions from July 2005 onward do not appear to be copyvio, and the deletion reason given was A7. — Random832 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noticed that David Livingstone gets vandalized on a regular basis. I nominated it for protection a long while back, but nothing happened as far as I know. Could you help? Thanks. Brian0324 ( talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I'm sorry - I didn't know. I thought that tagging it as recreation of deleted material (I use Twinkle) was more appropriate since the page had just been speedily deleted. I'll keep this info in mind next time. Really sorry bout the mistake - didn't know, hence fault committed. I apologise. Thanks for taking the time out and letting me know that. aJCfreak yAk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
i replied to you both on the ANI and also on my page [5].
i'll add that, i can understand how the topic ban suggestions seem to an outsider, however, 4 months, 5 mentors, many policy violations and no rules - in contrast with User:Isarig who's under topic ban and self forced 1RR - and no repeated offenses, makes me feel that the topic ban is in order at least until some ground rules are set. you not liking the suggestion, does not mean you have the right to censor it being raised. you can ask, not threat. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As a known believer in allowing non-admins a great deal of discretion in closing AFD discussions, can you review User talk:RMHED#Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD and the next five sections and let me know if you think I should move this further towards an RfC. (The two prior sections are mechanics lessons, to which the user has responded favorably, not issues with the actual closes being done.) He appears to be promising to repeat behavior for which he has been criticized. GRBerry 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the AfD is:
Of significance in this case is that there appear to be several other recent complaints about this fellow's closes [, and that the close in question was an exceptionally early one (towards the end of the second day).
An experienced AfD closer would tend to let such discussions continue, though there are some legitimate cases for closing certain discussions early. RMHED's judgement here is probably correct, but I don't see any harm in letting it run and, in the circumstances, his response "You'll need an Admin to open it up again" was unhelpful--he could have reverted his own close or temporarily withdrawn it and asked an administrator to review it.
Looking at RMHED's responses to complaints about his recent non-admin closes, I think they show a certain intransigence that doesn't go well with AfD closing. He sometimes (perhaps often) performs early closes and some of these early closes are probably inappropriate, or at least controversial, but he always dismisses the complaints.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance is an interesting one. It's blatantly encyclopedic (if you use UK cable TV it's impossible to escape the advertisements so it would be silly for Wikipedia to avoid coverage). RMHED's close was pragmatically correct (he had suggested a merge and redirect and he formally closed it according to that procedure). A straight numerical count of the discussion would probably have said "delete", but the reasons given for deletion were at best facetious. This is the kind of discussion I would have preferred to see run to full length and closed by an experienced closer. RMHED made the right decision but his involvement clouds the issue. As it happens I would say "keep" to that article because Ocean Finance has a sixteen years history independent of AIG, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss one of the UK's leading debt consolidation firms from Wikipedia. But I'm convinced that this would have become clear during the course of a full deletion discussion.
Since several editors have already approached RMHED about his behavior and don't seem to be satisfied with the current situation, of course a request for comment is a good idea. The purpose of such an RFC is to focus attention and resolve disputes over conduct. I think it would be a good idea, if only to pool the feedback RMHED is surely going to get in future into one focussed dollop instead of a load of drips and drops. -- Tony Sidaway 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response over at AN. Do you think you could possibly look at the two cases I was referring to (though I didn't name them over there), and see if those are good examples of where definite blocks would have been better than an immediate jump to an indefinite block? I'm going to just link to the block logs and not say any more. Hope you don't mind me asking for a second opinion from you like this. One case is simple, the other is rather messy. The first one is here, the other is here. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, CitiCat prematurely closed discussion on the AfD for Bruce Khlebnikov, and I boldly reverted the close almost immediately. As I respect your opinion, I wanted your take on if I should have applied WP:IAR in this case. I fully understand that the IAR policy is not meant to create anarchy, but to improve the project, and my question for you is: in your opinion, did my bold move in this case, accomplish what the spirit of IAR actually is? Thanks, Mr Which ??? 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had an indepth look at the article. Please look at Grandique Ferry as well in this incident. As far as I can tell, user:Grandiqueferry is very concerned with adding information about his community, and looking back and forth between here [8], and here [9], two government sources, the page in it's current revision is correct. Therefore I can only state that, while lacking Wikipedia style, Louisdale, Nova Scotia is not a bad article. But can the same be said for Grandique Ferry? Andrew 6 47 06:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I will try to make an extended effort to explain my reasons on the relevant articles, but at the same time I feel that this will be a difficult approach when dealing with an editor like Bless Sins. If you try take a closer look at his contributions and his way of dealing with disputes, it seems to me that it is obvious that he try to get things his way by being extremely persistent, engaging in month long edit-wars against a large number of editors disagreeing with him. Sometimes he even give up for a few weeks or months, but then return to the article and revert to his version. I believe that his approach to editing Wikipedia needs to be confronted one way or another, and perhaps it would be better to start an RfC on the issue. -- Karl Meier ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I'm serious about this. Would you support an unban? He wrote a lot of good content - just ruffled a lot of feathers along the way. — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. 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 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of JAMAA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rhythmnation2004 ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See my most recent post to Ten's talk page. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to the discussion regarding myself. It is really unfair how I keep getting singled out by these editors. I've worked a lot with others to come up with neutral titles and text for these articles. This group, who somehow appear to feel they've lost, continue to try and bash me. It is always the same characters, Rarelibra, PhJ, Gryffindor, and a few others. I came on here a couple weeks ago after taking a break, and got a nice surprise of them slandering me on here to a new Editor. Then I pointed out that they were not innocent in all of this. Then I get profanity from and multiple legal threats from Rarelibra, which were never fully addressed. It was very welcome to hear his apology and leave it at that. But now I believe he only gave that apology because he thought I'd been taken off this topic. You know, it was very difficult putting my foot forward in the beginning to push to get these pages more neutral. Now I have to get these attacks for how long? I know they consider me the one who lead these changes, but I'd really be most happy to just not have to know or hear from these Editors any longer. :( Man, it is all just really childish.. o_O Icsunonove ( talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
May I re-edit it to be completely devoid of self-serving tones of any kind? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
understood. Berry Chill will be hitting the Chicago press sometime this month and we will build the space from there utilizing only printed facts.
thanks! Berry Chill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago" - may I ask which forum that was? I was thinking RfA, but maybe you meant somewhere else? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for helping on sinners in the hands of an angry god. Seth71 ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They have now added Giano as a party, and one ArbCom member has actually placed a proposal to ban Giano for 90 days on the page for a vote, as well as a 1-year stringent restriction on him as well. I think your input could be important in the discussion, as I'm so angry I can not be civil on this issue right now. Mr Which ??? 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[10] - very well spoken. I'm glad someone is aware of the underlying difficulties with the rank and file getting entangled in the dispute resolution process. Catchpole ( talk) 09:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the protocol is for protected pages, but can you fix spelling mistakes there? There is one entry in List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada that reads "shild" instead of "child". It would be good to fix it. Thanks. Tiamut 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (depending where you are of course),
I just can´t believe you´ve supported Zape82 and Verano in that "rewrite" of the article we placed, and all its factual 17 sections now watered down to what, just 5? So, um, "Several judges have complained about inconstitucionality...", such rubbish, the list has now reached 150 judges, 10 a month on average, they´re finding inconsitutionality at the time of applying the law, and that can not be described as just "several". Then its "just a couple of fathers associations complaining", and Zape82 cuts out the update about how the Magistrates Association also filed a formal complaint of inconstitutionality.
Very sad, you´ve just sent a very clear message to a lot of people that Wikipedia allows and supports political extremism and anti-human rights politics - not to mention is anti-democratic.
But that´s just in my honest opinion, so hey, erase it quick before anyone sees! Rubén Mar 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
you are too quick to delete important R winston Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil ( talk • contribs)
Ya I put it in the external links. But I had a question. If you go the University of British Columbia page and go to History, Early History, the very first paragraph, you can see that for UBC Archives, they have it linked to a different website. Ive seen them do that in a lot of artists pages as well. This is from the University page:
So I was thinking Id do the same for the poems, just make em link to the forum page. Is what Im saying the same as a redirect? Peoplez1k 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am being accused of trolling by User:Rockpocket. I consider these serious accusations, and I've informed him at his talk page that I consider them a personal attack. I respect you, and if you consider my contribs there "trolling", I will cease forthwith, as well as retract my note from RP's page. If not, could you ask RP to cease with the PAs? Thanks, Mr Which ??? 09:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats the second page I have had deleted which has been relating to my school and some of the things which we create there. Why do you guys always seem to delete them?? Lighten Up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
I´ve justed got a call from Vivaflor and she´s quite upset she´s blocked by Zape82. How is it that Zape82 has so much power on Wiki? He just blocks people and that´s that? Her email address is on the system, she´s Spanish, she is a real person thats quite upset she´s been accussed and judged while she hadn´t even the chance to respond. Rubén Mar 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested that an admin fix a mistake at the bottom of Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Bless sins 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry was of little help with this... my internet access during the day is now pretty restricted as of last month. I added the page to my watchlist in case the issue pops up again. Let me know if I can be of further help, but just be aware that I won't be able to follow up much until the evenings. Hiberniantears ( talk) 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look here for some info I left for Newyorkbrad. He seems a bit busy, and suggested I pass it to you. Regards. - Crockspot ( talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on WP:AN/I and on Talk:Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. I have started a discussion and would greatly appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it, maybe check in from time to time, as discussions on this topic tend to get wild rather quickly and "adult supervision" may help keep things calm.
Many thanks and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 15:56
The discussion on WP:AN/I just kind of died without the real issue being addressed... Would you suggest I take this to WP:RFAR? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:38
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was told that you might have questions regarding Adam Cuerden's block of me. Please let me know how I might be of assistance. -- profg Talk 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still not sure what I did wrong. I've had that problem with protections a time or two before. I try to apply a protection and end up accidentally doing the opposite. It doesn't happen every time, making me wonder if it's some odd artifact of the browser I'm using - that something displays differently at my home computer than at work. By the time I noticed that particular failure, the matter seemed to have become moot. Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For "...an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing." You win the "what should be obvious but some people can't see the forest for the trees" prize! Viridae Talk 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw your latest comments. Do you think it's time for Adam to resign? - Jehochman Talk 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GRBerry:
I would like to know if an Arbcom case (or other type of proceeding) dealing with the blocking of Whig is in process. Can you tell me please? And if the answer is yes, can I have any input?
I'm asking you because of seeing your name on Whig's talk page and other places as apparently having some involvement.
Frankly, I get the impression there is a discussion on, but scattered over various pages.
Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to, but I'm going to need a bit of time to calm down. Adam Cuerden talk 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your statement:"unsourced privacy invading details about a living person are forbidden by WP:BLP, stays out until sourced [11]" Could you tell my why, or give examples of previous editing infractions of others, that what High School a notable person attended (especially 26 years ago) would be an invasion of privacy? Also WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced," It does not say any and all unsourced material should be removed. Thank you for your insight. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), from the folks who gave us WikiScanner.)
GRBerry
18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to yours, I hope it helps clarify some things. Regards, Mercury 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
He has shut it down early, seemingly because support recall comments were starting to pile up. He somehow ascertained that the community still "trusts" him from this sham process, and has now removed himself from the category of admins open to recall, breaking his word given at his RfA. Also, on the talkpage of the recall, when someone questioned why he didn't just stand for a new RfA per standard process, he responded only with "It's my recall" and left it at that. I know you're trying to assume good faith of him here, but I think he's shredded the good faith of the community, from his behavior during the Durova affair to the Angela Beesley DRV, and now to closing his own recall early, and breaking his promise to be in the category of admins open to recall. As you were a "neutral" on the issue, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to take another look at the situation. Regards, Mr Which ??? 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
GRB, it felt to me as if one side, that preferred one particular version, was attempting to run over the other side. I was not attempting to censor their version. It remains, even in the version I restored after Slim's deletion. They're trying to force some kind of "consensus" for their version that just doesn't exist. Several editors arguing for a middle way have just left in frustration. I'm more at the opposite end of the spectrum, but even I left in frustration when a proposal I made was simply shouted down. I wasn't trying to game the system (though I did know where the boundary was), I was trying to protect a version that showed clearly both alternatives for the proposed policy. Mr Which ??? 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.
i appreciate your attempts to keep things preventative, rather than merely punitive. however, i don't quite follow your reasoning that about this issue [1]. this issue has been repeating itself for at least 3 months and already both his mentors (discounting the sock) and a good number of more editors noted the user to stop. i believe PR is more than aware of what he is doing but he keeps trying, just as he kept calling me a war criminal after an ANI about that issue was already open. so, personally, i've lost my patience and i'm more than interested in preventative action. post-ANI link [2] (clarifies current issue). Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, why did You revert back incorrect redirect Sokolče-Sokolce? It is usually and due to logic that we have redirects like Zilina-Žilina, Kosice-Košice, Roznava-Rožňava, but make it in opposite way ? We have in Slovakia town Zvolen, so I can make redirects: Žvolen-Zvolen, Zvoleň-Zvolen, Zvolén-Zvolen, Žvoleň-Zvolen, etc... ? Please, delete that, that was created as mistake by non-Slovak user, it is not just incorrect, but also confusing, because in Slovakia existed real village Sokolče (now inundated) and we noticed it in article of Stan Mikita, who was born there. Nice day and thank You for understanding -- kelovy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't bother you with my understanding of what a mentor should be like! PR talk 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marion Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time on Wikipedia and I'm trying to gather the differences of what is needed and what is not. The article in question is for Academic Management Systems. I'm trying to write an encyclopedic worthy article, much like CBS corporation and Pepsi, but am unable to do so due to the deletion. How can I appeal this decision until I'm finished editing the article? I am still learning how to add things like a table and other things and when i was just typing article and tried to save originally, it never saved and deleted all of my work which is why I am saving more piece-meal to make sure my work doesn't get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarskig ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the guidlines and from my understanding and also from my viewing of the other starship pages my page is perfectly in line... tell me specifically what I missed and I'll do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caltair ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
By deleting it, I'm unable to see what was happening. Can you explain in details what happened? Andrew 6 47 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Allright, that was amusing. I guess this means CSBot's activity is now considered so "normal" that even vandals recognize its significance. :-) — Coren (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear GRBeryy, just curious about deletion of this page. It is stated: 08:15, 3 November 2007 GRBerry (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vedanta Society of Western Washington" (WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of [3]
Now, that page did perhaps violate copyright content, at http://www.vedanta-seattle.org/, but certainly none of the material was from the "band history" page you cited. Trust this was an error, and that you meant to put the other site. Sw.my 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sw.my 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, there may have been an error when you deleted the page, Gail Kimbell? The page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. The information on the page was taken from the U.S. Forest's Service's Web Site: About the Chief. This information is public domain. As stated in the policy for speedy deletion ( WP:CSD#G12) there must be "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license" for a page's speedy deletion. The problem is, this information was taken from a government website which under the Wikipedia:Public domain policy is public domain. It is also stated under the U.S. Forestry Service's Privacy Policy that the information presented on the website is considered public information and "may be distributed or copied unless otherwise indicated". Bottom line, it is not copyrighted material and should not have been deleted. If I have overlooked something, since I am still new at Wikipedia, please leave a comment. Thank you, -- Cladestine 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because they seemed so similar in style to the other pages that were definitely copyvios.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lest We Forget.png -- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks. Brian0324 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for catching that typo! Glass Cobra 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input. Brian0324 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious about why you reverted the addition of a death date with reference & the correction of the year of trial, which was supported in the reference? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm just glad to find someone who will say that!! Wildhartlivie 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please unprotect so that I may add this again as I believe it has been deleted for all the wrong reasons. Despite my efforts to look for references the article kept being delete...very frustrating...so here are a reem of references and there are many more to show this IS a term that needs inclusion as it IS a widely discussed anissue in the academic world. Wikipedia is a place many will look for this type of information. It should not be relegated to Googlepedia. Please favourably consider my request ao that we can proceed positively. Thank you 124.120.36.147 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1. Queens University Belfast: http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/CentreforEducationalDevelopment/InternationalisingtheCurriculum/ "....lobal context should therefore be a central aim of an internationalised curriculum."
2. http://pdfdownload.randomlypoked.com/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsn.curtin.edu.au%2Flearn_online%2Fdocs%2FInternationalise.pdf&images=yes "WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN INTERNATIONALISED CURRICULUM?"
3. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php " http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php" "Current teaching practices/your experience in delivering an internationalised curriculum "
4; Oxford Brooks University: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/online/international_curriculum/index.html "The internationalised curriculum
* Book now: 2 April - 2 May 2008
This course is designed to introduce you to the wide-ranging concept of an internationalised curriculum and to work through a practical application to a programme with which you work."
5. Griffith University: http://www.griffith.edu.au/landt/goodpractice/pdf/Item%209_Internationalisation%20of%20the%20curriculum%2004_0858.pdf "The Group is responsible for providing the resources for the training of staff in awareness of and commitment to the need for an internationalised curriculum and for process in updating and changing curriculum as required."
6. Univesity of South Australia:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/internationalisation/documents/InternationalisationCurriculumPerth.pdf
"In 1995 a typology of internationalised curriculum was published (IDP Education
Australia 1995)." Also refer IDP Education Australia 1995 publications.
Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to view or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.) Rhammond 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems we've reached a consensus on the disputed point. [4] It's probably ok to unprotected, but that's to your discretion. Thanks for stopping the edit war. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Morning! You may remember speedy deleting the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(Asking you since you closed the DRV) - versions from July 2005 onward do not appear to be copyvio, and the deletion reason given was A7. — Random832 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I have noticed that David Livingstone gets vandalized on a regular basis. I nominated it for protection a long while back, but nothing happened as far as I know. Could you help? Thanks. Brian0324 ( talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I'm sorry - I didn't know. I thought that tagging it as recreation of deleted material (I use Twinkle) was more appropriate since the page had just been speedily deleted. I'll keep this info in mind next time. Really sorry bout the mistake - didn't know, hence fault committed. I apologise. Thanks for taking the time out and letting me know that. aJCfreak yAk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
i replied to you both on the ANI and also on my page [5].
i'll add that, i can understand how the topic ban suggestions seem to an outsider, however, 4 months, 5 mentors, many policy violations and no rules - in contrast with User:Isarig who's under topic ban and self forced 1RR - and no repeated offenses, makes me feel that the topic ban is in order at least until some ground rules are set. you not liking the suggestion, does not mean you have the right to censor it being raised. you can ask, not threat. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As a known believer in allowing non-admins a great deal of discretion in closing AFD discussions, can you review User talk:RMHED#Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD and the next five sections and let me know if you think I should move this further towards an RfC. (The two prior sections are mechanics lessons, to which the user has responded favorably, not issues with the actual closes being done.) He appears to be promising to repeat behavior for which he has been criticized. GRBerry 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the AfD is:
Of significance in this case is that there appear to be several other recent complaints about this fellow's closes [, and that the close in question was an exceptionally early one (towards the end of the second day).
An experienced AfD closer would tend to let such discussions continue, though there are some legitimate cases for closing certain discussions early. RMHED's judgement here is probably correct, but I don't see any harm in letting it run and, in the circumstances, his response "You'll need an Admin to open it up again" was unhelpful--he could have reverted his own close or temporarily withdrawn it and asked an administrator to review it.
Looking at RMHED's responses to complaints about his recent non-admin closes, I think they show a certain intransigence that doesn't go well with AfD closing. He sometimes (perhaps often) performs early closes and some of these early closes are probably inappropriate, or at least controversial, but he always dismisses the complaints.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance is an interesting one. It's blatantly encyclopedic (if you use UK cable TV it's impossible to escape the advertisements so it would be silly for Wikipedia to avoid coverage). RMHED's close was pragmatically correct (he had suggested a merge and redirect and he formally closed it according to that procedure). A straight numerical count of the discussion would probably have said "delete", but the reasons given for deletion were at best facetious. This is the kind of discussion I would have preferred to see run to full length and closed by an experienced closer. RMHED made the right decision but his involvement clouds the issue. As it happens I would say "keep" to that article because Ocean Finance has a sixteen years history independent of AIG, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss one of the UK's leading debt consolidation firms from Wikipedia. But I'm convinced that this would have become clear during the course of a full deletion discussion.
Since several editors have already approached RMHED about his behavior and don't seem to be satisfied with the current situation, of course a request for comment is a good idea. The purpose of such an RFC is to focus attention and resolve disputes over conduct. I think it would be a good idea, if only to pool the feedback RMHED is surely going to get in future into one focussed dollop instead of a load of drips and drops. -- Tony Sidaway 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response over at AN. Do you think you could possibly look at the two cases I was referring to (though I didn't name them over there), and see if those are good examples of where definite blocks would have been better than an immediate jump to an indefinite block? I'm going to just link to the block logs and not say any more. Hope you don't mind me asking for a second opinion from you like this. One case is simple, the other is rather messy. The first one is here, the other is here. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, CitiCat prematurely closed discussion on the AfD for Bruce Khlebnikov, and I boldly reverted the close almost immediately. As I respect your opinion, I wanted your take on if I should have applied WP:IAR in this case. I fully understand that the IAR policy is not meant to create anarchy, but to improve the project, and my question for you is: in your opinion, did my bold move in this case, accomplish what the spirit of IAR actually is? Thanks, Mr Which ??? 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had an indepth look at the article. Please look at Grandique Ferry as well in this incident. As far as I can tell, user:Grandiqueferry is very concerned with adding information about his community, and looking back and forth between here [8], and here [9], two government sources, the page in it's current revision is correct. Therefore I can only state that, while lacking Wikipedia style, Louisdale, Nova Scotia is not a bad article. But can the same be said for Grandique Ferry? Andrew 6 47 06:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I will try to make an extended effort to explain my reasons on the relevant articles, but at the same time I feel that this will be a difficult approach when dealing with an editor like Bless Sins. If you try take a closer look at his contributions and his way of dealing with disputes, it seems to me that it is obvious that he try to get things his way by being extremely persistent, engaging in month long edit-wars against a large number of editors disagreeing with him. Sometimes he even give up for a few weeks or months, but then return to the article and revert to his version. I believe that his approach to editing Wikipedia needs to be confronted one way or another, and perhaps it would be better to start an RfC on the issue. -- Karl Meier ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I'm serious about this. Would you support an unban? He wrote a lot of good content - just ruffled a lot of feathers along the way. — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. 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 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of JAMAA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rhythmnation2004 ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
See my most recent post to Ten's talk page. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to the discussion regarding myself. It is really unfair how I keep getting singled out by these editors. I've worked a lot with others to come up with neutral titles and text for these articles. This group, who somehow appear to feel they've lost, continue to try and bash me. It is always the same characters, Rarelibra, PhJ, Gryffindor, and a few others. I came on here a couple weeks ago after taking a break, and got a nice surprise of them slandering me on here to a new Editor. Then I pointed out that they were not innocent in all of this. Then I get profanity from and multiple legal threats from Rarelibra, which were never fully addressed. It was very welcome to hear his apology and leave it at that. But now I believe he only gave that apology because he thought I'd been taken off this topic. You know, it was very difficult putting my foot forward in the beginning to push to get these pages more neutral. Now I have to get these attacks for how long? I know they consider me the one who lead these changes, but I'd really be most happy to just not have to know or hear from these Editors any longer. :( Man, it is all just really childish.. o_O Icsunonove ( talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
May I re-edit it to be completely devoid of self-serving tones of any kind? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
understood. Berry Chill will be hitting the Chicago press sometime this month and we will build the space from there utilizing only printed facts.
thanks! Berry Chill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago" - may I ask which forum that was? I was thinking RfA, but maybe you meant somewhere else? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for helping on sinners in the hands of an angry god. Seth71 ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They have now added Giano as a party, and one ArbCom member has actually placed a proposal to ban Giano for 90 days on the page for a vote, as well as a 1-year stringent restriction on him as well. I think your input could be important in the discussion, as I'm so angry I can not be civil on this issue right now. Mr Which ??? 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[10] - very well spoken. I'm glad someone is aware of the underlying difficulties with the rank and file getting entangled in the dispute resolution process. Catchpole ( talk) 09:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what the protocol is for protected pages, but can you fix spelling mistakes there? There is one entry in List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada that reads "shild" instead of "child". It would be good to fix it. Thanks. Tiamut 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon (depending where you are of course),
I just can´t believe you´ve supported Zape82 and Verano in that "rewrite" of the article we placed, and all its factual 17 sections now watered down to what, just 5? So, um, "Several judges have complained about inconstitucionality...", such rubbish, the list has now reached 150 judges, 10 a month on average, they´re finding inconsitutionality at the time of applying the law, and that can not be described as just "several". Then its "just a couple of fathers associations complaining", and Zape82 cuts out the update about how the Magistrates Association also filed a formal complaint of inconstitutionality.
Very sad, you´ve just sent a very clear message to a lot of people that Wikipedia allows and supports political extremism and anti-human rights politics - not to mention is anti-democratic.
But that´s just in my honest opinion, so hey, erase it quick before anyone sees! Rubén Mar 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
you are too quick to delete important R winston Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil ( talk • contribs)
Ya I put it in the external links. But I had a question. If you go the University of British Columbia page and go to History, Early History, the very first paragraph, you can see that for UBC Archives, they have it linked to a different website. Ive seen them do that in a lot of artists pages as well. This is from the University page:
So I was thinking Id do the same for the poems, just make em link to the forum page. Is what Im saying the same as a redirect? Peoplez1k 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I am being accused of trolling by User:Rockpocket. I consider these serious accusations, and I've informed him at his talk page that I consider them a personal attack. I respect you, and if you consider my contribs there "trolling", I will cease forthwith, as well as retract my note from RP's page. If not, could you ask RP to cease with the PAs? Thanks, Mr Which ??? 09:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats the second page I have had deleted which has been relating to my school and some of the things which we create there. Why do you guys always seem to delete them?? Lighten Up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind ( talk • contribs)
I´ve justed got a call from Vivaflor and she´s quite upset she´s blocked by Zape82. How is it that Zape82 has so much power on Wiki? He just blocks people and that´s that? Her email address is on the system, she´s Spanish, she is a real person thats quite upset she´s been accussed and judged while she hadn´t even the chance to respond. Rubén Mar 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested that an admin fix a mistake at the bottom of Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Bless sins 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry was of little help with this... my internet access during the day is now pretty restricted as of last month. I added the page to my watchlist in case the issue pops up again. Let me know if I can be of further help, but just be aware that I won't be able to follow up much until the evenings. Hiberniantears ( talk) 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look here for some info I left for Newyorkbrad. He seems a bit busy, and suggested I pass it to you. Regards. - Crockspot ( talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on WP:AN/I and on Talk:Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. I have started a discussion and would greatly appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it, maybe check in from time to time, as discussions on this topic tend to get wild rather quickly and "adult supervision" may help keep things calm.
Many thanks and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 15:56
The discussion on WP:AN/I just kind of died without the real issue being addressed... Would you suggest I take this to WP:RFAR? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:38
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was told that you might have questions regarding Adam Cuerden's block of me. Please let me know how I might be of assistance. -- profg Talk 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still not sure what I did wrong. I've had that problem with protections a time or two before. I try to apply a protection and end up accidentally doing the opposite. It doesn't happen every time, making me wonder if it's some odd artifact of the browser I'm using - that something displays differently at my home computer than at work. By the time I noticed that particular failure, the matter seemed to have become moot. Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For "...an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing." You win the "what should be obvious but some people can't see the forest for the trees" prize! Viridae Talk 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw your latest comments. Do you think it's time for Adam to resign? - Jehochman Talk 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GRBerry:
I would like to know if an Arbcom case (or other type of proceeding) dealing with the blocking of Whig is in process. Can you tell me please? And if the answer is yes, can I have any input?
I'm asking you because of seeing your name on Whig's talk page and other places as apparently having some involvement.
Frankly, I get the impression there is a discussion on, but scattered over various pages.
Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to, but I'm going to need a bit of time to calm down. Adam Cuerden talk 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your statement:"unsourced privacy invading details about a living person are forbidden by WP:BLP, stays out until sourced [11]" Could you tell my why, or give examples of previous editing infractions of others, that what High School a notable person attended (especially 26 years ago) would be an invasion of privacy? Also WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced," It does not say any and all unsourced material should be removed. Thank you for your insight. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help), from the folks who gave us WikiScanner.)
GRBerry
18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to yours, I hope it helps clarify some things. Regards, Mercury 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
He has shut it down early, seemingly because support recall comments were starting to pile up. He somehow ascertained that the community still "trusts" him from this sham process, and has now removed himself from the category of admins open to recall, breaking his word given at his RfA. Also, on the talkpage of the recall, when someone questioned why he didn't just stand for a new RfA per standard process, he responded only with "It's my recall" and left it at that. I know you're trying to assume good faith of him here, but I think he's shredded the good faith of the community, from his behavior during the Durova affair to the Angela Beesley DRV, and now to closing his own recall early, and breaking his promise to be in the category of admins open to recall. As you were a "neutral" on the issue, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to take another look at the situation. Regards, Mr Which ??? 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
GRB, it felt to me as if one side, that preferred one particular version, was attempting to run over the other side. I was not attempting to censor their version. It remains, even in the version I restored after Slim's deletion. They're trying to force some kind of "consensus" for their version that just doesn't exist. Several editors arguing for a middle way have just left in frustration. I'm more at the opposite end of the spectrum, but even I left in frustration when a proposal I made was simply shouted down. I wasn't trying to game the system (though I did know where the boundary was), I was trying to protect a version that showed clearly both alternatives for the proposed policy. Mr Which ??? 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)