Hey Hobit, you and I haven't always got along too well I think, and I once lost my cool in a brief discussion with you. I really appreciate you not holding that against me. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Hobit - I really want to appreciate your time and effort in analyzing my First Article "Jeeva Artist". First I want to apologize for the inconvenience caused by me. Next the reason I saved it without complete details was - As you know - In India Power Cut is a common issue. I don't have backup. So I want to make sure the start stays there. Once again Thanks. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvrmagesh ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
RE. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27, probability of this being notable in a few weeks
Yes, we're not a bureaucracy. However, many many times, articles about future pay-per-view wrestling articles have been created, way ahead of the event itself - whilst they are not notable. So, we end up 'advertising' for them.
I can quite understand the attitude that, yep, it'll be notable in some weeks.
But this happens again, and again, and again.
Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment. There's lots more. See also ANI archive.
A large number of fans, related to the wiki project, turn up to blindly vote to 'keep' them.
I also ask you to please skim down the user talk page of the person who created "Slammiversary IX", which is User talk:Supermhj8616.
Now - maybe I should just give up on this; I probably will, soon. Because, it seems due process is just being abused. But I hope this message at least explains to you why I took it to DRV in the first place.
Frankly, your comment there seems to be saying "OK, it should have been deleted (according to policies), but because it wasn't, and because it will be notable in some weeks, it's not worth bothering". I can understand that. The trouble is, the precedent it sets.
I hope that makes sense. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
zorblek (
talk)
05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. Thanks for the RfA support, and for the thought-provoking questions. I'm curious to know where we disagree on 6b, what were your thoughts on that? 28bytes ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I've added what I believe is relevant info in a matter you commented on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bill_Slavicsek-- Cube lurker ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hobit, I'm quite thankful to you for your statements about the recently created attack essay that was made about me. Your views regarding the inappropriate use of essay space as an attack on an editor, is most appreciated. — Cirt ( talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words. You deserve much greater props for working to expand the article and keep it relevant - the effort is highly appreciated and reflects well. I apologize for the early close. And yeah, these types of discussions can flare up sometimes. I do my best to maintain a cool atmosphere and help everyone realize that, while we are trying to improve Wikipedia, we mustn't let ourselves get angry with others just because they have differing opinions. Anyway, cheers. Hope to see you around more often. m.o.p 08:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your comment at VPP, what do you mean about the different kinds of randomness? All articles should have an equal chance of being selected, so our random function (if working correctly) should give a uniform distribution across articles. Isn't IID a subtlety for when you don't know the distribution, but make the assumption that all trials come from the same one? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have raised the issues of the Nation of Gods and Earths article on this noticeboard: [1]. Paul B ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like your username, it is extremely offensive to me. Would you consider changing it please? 2.121.53.66 ( talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
For being a calm, reasonable voice amidst tempests of tea. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
Since you were saying in the AfD that it was Lewinsky's photography that was giving him the best push, I would ask that you look at the additions that I have made and see whether that is enough to strengthen your Keep vote. Silver seren C 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Humm, I came by to say I felt the discussion was pretty clearly a keep and if you are going to close some other way, it would be helpful to explain why in the closing. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies at this point as WP:N is (now, after improvements) pretty clearly met even ignoring the "event" in question. If you feel the discussion concluded otherwise, it would be helpful to know that and exactly why. I don't think any of the remaining deletion !votes addressed the improvements to the article... Hobit ( talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hobit, I have requested a third opinion on Talk:Michelle_Rhee#Rhee.27s_opinion_on_vouchers, which I believe means we leave it alone for six days or so. The request is now listed on the active disagreement section. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "reduce his bandwidth" and "spam the discussion." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk)
Hi,
I saw your post at the RfC on the first sentence of WP:V, and you usually have insightful opinions. Please take a look at WP:Inaccuracy, which is purposed to be a guideline linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV. One of the comments today had words to the effect of "if it were promoted", which makes me wonder if others see this essay as close to being promoted to a guideline. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded (a day or so late) to your comment; I hope you'll take it in the spirit in which it was offered. Take care, Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Not everyone's going to agree 100% of the time. Best to you! Trusilver 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! I would like to continue the discussion if you are interested. I don't think what I quoted is "my" guideline: it's a direct quote from WP:GNG/ WP:N. ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") I argue that if a subject meets WP:N he need not meet the subject specific guideline. And in fact WP:BIO makes that pretty clear ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") I think I'm reading the letter of the law (well of the guideline) correctly. "Rules As Written (RAW)" if you will. It seems very obvious to me, but perhaps there is a different way to read the RAW. If so, I'd like to understand it. Or are you arguing that the "Rules As Intended" (RAI) are something different than the literal reading of RAW? Or are you arguing that the rules are simply wrong? I get the sense, by labeling the quote as "my" rule, that we disagree on RAW. In any case, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
In all cases, thanks again for the thought. I only wish the virtual beer weren't so virtual... Hobit ( talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Oh, if that's what we're doing, I think I can top that. Drmies ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard ( talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Best of luck to you, too! Let me know if you ever need my help with anything on here! There's a few things I can do halfway decent!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image,
Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC.
Nil Einne (
talk)
15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help with the BSN page.
Shall I just start editting the BSN article on your page from now on?
Please also let me know if it is alright to invite other colleagues to contribute to the page editting as well. ( Airuko ( talk) 06:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
Thanks for the feedback at WP:AN, much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed you didn't trust me enough to have thought this through properly and that you challenged the close on my talk before actually reading the reasons for my action. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Normally, I would rather cut off my wrist then be seen to be doing anything like a talkback but I want to make sure you did get the message that the thread two sections up had no bearing on my decision to drop the bit. I sent you a long email. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hobit, I appreciate your feedback on Katie_Harwood. Since this is my first attempt at an article I am still learning my way through. I guess I am still confused about what OR is. Much of the info for the article came from the production notes, official website and interviews on the extra features and behind the scenes portion of the DVD. Are words spoken and concepts demonstrated on a DVD not eligible as an official WP source? Tola73 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please do something about this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_23&action=history. It seems like it has continued forever, without resolution. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As it turns out, this article was successfully relisted over at AfD on the 15th. If you're still interested, would you be willing to help track down an expert in the field? — C M B J 14:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I replied to your query at RAN's talkpage on January 20 [6], indicating that that copyvio was the same in four or five articles, with plenty of evidence, but RAN "archived" (removed) that section and much more the same day, without replying to it [7]. Fram ( talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope everything goes well with you and your kid. When you are back, please help me look at the BSN page. We need some direction whether the page looks alright or what else should be modified. Thank you very much in advance. ( Airuko ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hobit. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
FYI, just a heads-up that I've mentioned you in the course of a discussion about Fae at WP:AN#Moving forward. Prioryman ( talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to have to block you for your comments since they, eh, insult an officer of the court or something like that. This is Wikipedia, Hobit--we can't have people who honestly speak their mind on important matters. I disagree, of course, both on the candidate and on the injunction of WP:V etc., but it's always good to see you're still around. Who knows, one of these days the bug will bite you and you'll create another article! ;) Drmies ( talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Sally_Acorn
I'd like to get your thoughts on this, since you were the one who undid the redirect on the grounds that you'd like some discussion to take place.
Also, for the record, there has already been quite a bit of discussion on it, it just happened to be on my talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Sally
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed broadening there. Please join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which I withdrew roughly one hour prior to the deadline. I appreciate your sentiments — it's great to know that my imput is valued. Hopefully we'll continue to bump into each other around the place.
Take care. =) Master&Expert ( Talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you were a discussant at User_talk:Fram#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
At one point I didn't even care about the article anymore. I couldn't take the hypocrisy of some of the editors I was talking to. I probably could have behaved better, But I was simply acting out of emotion and was upset no one was understanding my points. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your eloquent, comprehensive closure of Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#RFC: To atheist or not to atheist and your generally excellent work at WP:ANRFC. I've noticed that you've cited Wikipedia:Non-admin closure at the end of each of your closures. While I have no objection to your continuing to do so, I don't think it's accurate or necessary. WP:NAC only discusses deletion discussions, so I don't think it's accurate to cite it in an RfC closure. I also don't think admins can unilaterally overturn any non-admin closures of RfCs about content because admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD. This current WP:AN discussion makes for an excellent read if you haven't been following it. In fact, in my observations, I've found that your closures demonstrate policy cluefulness, depth, and insight far superior to a few administrator closures I've seen. Please continue your good work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ ( talk) 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. Ladyof Shalott 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hobit. You may have noticed that I put in a close request for the RfC at WT:U - see this entry. Thought you might be a good choice to look at it since you have the context as the closer of the other one. Have a good one. NTox · talk 03:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating good faith on AN/I. I didn't intend any gloating and I don't see any gloating in the notice, so I would think that the right thing to do would be to ask me about my intentions instead of assuming the worst. If it had gone that route, we'd all have avoided a trip to the drama factory. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Holiday Cheer | |
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Hobit, how is it going? I was wondering what you have done on Wikipedia in terms of content creation. I can't seem to find much, is that correct? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
G'day Hobit. Thanks for your support at AN. If my case needs to be accounted for, then I'd be happy to help you in any efforts to make that happen. I'm concerned with fluffernutter's comments, for example, because he has forgotten that by registering, students may allow themselves to be contacted (through their talkpages). For me personally, unrestricted access to communicate with my students... That seems like a nono against COPPA (which, by the way, does affect Wikipedia because of infrastructure and wikimedia in the US).
For the record, in Australia we have more restrictive laws etc. than COPPA. While I have permission for student work to be published online and elsewhere, allowing students to register at Wikipedia would be a completely different story. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to remember that one of the reasons we forbid role accounts is that there is no way to ensure proper copyright licensing if we don't know which person performed an edit. Unless every single person entrusted with an account's log-in was a signatory to a valid and binding perpetual contract, they have not waived their right to claim copyright in their edits. Nothing is supposed to go into Wikipedia which is not fully licensed under our terms and conditions, in order to facilitate re-use and republication. How could we do that if some parent in Old North Woolloomooloo could come along and say, "Our Deirdre wrote that when she was eleven, and we claim AU$5,000,000,000 for violating her copyright in her edits!"? -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Chang Rickert. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've always had the sense that he "gets it" in terms of copyright, but the CCI mess made it look like he was a satanic copyright babykiller. I took a couple hours today deconstructing that. His early material under investigation, circa 2006 and thereabouts, is a mess with about 46% of the pages edited found problematic (n=258) , but the 10th subpage, with the new material, is almost completely "clean" (99.7%, n=298). In short, he does "get it." He doesn't make his lot any easier by having the typical Grumpy Old Content Creator personality (as do I), but he does "get it." The key, I think, is that he does need to serve time in the penalty box for breaking the topic ban, he does need to have very specific instructions and limitations about graphics uploads and external linking, and he does need to have his creation ban relaxed — because, as you may know, a content-creator who can't start articles is pretty much paralyzed and winds up watching TV instead of editing... You might consider volunteering your services as a "copyright advisor" since I'm clearly a non-starter in that department owing to ANI fisticuffs. Anyway, progress forward, hopefully this will all be resolved rapidly at ANI if ArbCom declines the case. Carrite ( talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
(I think you're up on this, Hobit, this is pro forma...) I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page ( User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman ( talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.
I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your sensible comments regarding my DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to the most recent messages, which includes evidence of the same behavior on Alan's part over the course of at least the past 6 years, and a call for a resolution. Can you please offer your thoughts? Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout
? is wishing you a Happy
Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!
Share this message by adding {{ subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments on my DRV jagger eaton. This seems to be languishing in DVR. Is there anything that can be done to move this forward? Anything you can do to help? Thanks. Labeach2002 ( talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hobit, I just wanted to say thanks for closing that RfC. I think you read consensus well and explained the close very clearly. Good work! Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks from me too for closing it in the first place, and for your explanation and suggestions too. Bencherlite Talk 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Hobit.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Hobit! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM ( EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at User_talk:Johnmoor#Paid_editing.3F. Do you have any evidence, or is this just a WP:DUCK concern? I'm currently considering having his behavior reviewed at ANI given his WP:OWN problems with Grammarly. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've looked a bit closer at his editing, and I think your concerns are justified. Still, did you find evidence or is this a WP:DUCK concern? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at COIN. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Wikipedia I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you asked a question, and got an extremely rude and idiotic response. You were absolutely right to ask the question. You may find some answers to your question here.
Regards. 24.4.37.209 ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
In your closure you didn't make crystal clear which of the proposals, by name, you closed with. There was no clear policy-based consensus, surely. Lots of !votes were purely "I don't like it." Lots of !votes were based on future bad acts. Lots of !votes ignored that the swarm-edits were now totally dealt with by edit filters. So: Did you mean removing the links there before the recent bot-added links (the "over 10,000 links")? Did you mean all IP-added links? Or just blankly "all links"? -- Lexein ( talk) 20:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk)
13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk)
18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just located Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. I have a question on the use of the site.
I understand from the closing statement that the consensus is to remove all links to archive.is - can you clarify; is that consensus on all bot-added links, or does it also apply to links added to an article by talk-page consensus? Even when blacklisted, some specific targeted pages from a site can be permitted via the white-listing process to still be permitted if consensus exists for the specific targeted link - so I wanted clarification on if the closure permits talk-page consensus to allow links, or if the closure should be interpreted as a full ban on use of the site.
We have a discussion started at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section; where the official site is gone, and there is no copy at archive.org (although one existed at one time). That leaves archive.is as the last source I can locate of an archived version of the site. This is why I wanted clarification on if the closure should be interpreted similar to a blacklisting (allowing targeted white-listing if consensus exists) or if it should be interpreted as a full ban on usage of the site. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Barek: I've made a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#archive.is, but I notice that there are over 27,000 links to the site, whereas the text of the RFC correctly but misleadingly said there were "over 10,000". — rybec 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for voting to unblock me. I'll avoid editing Latin American topics to avoid any further drama at AN. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. I am contacting you because you are one of the editors/admins who is still active now, and was aware of the notoriously disruptive editor User:Betacommand, a.k.a User:Δ (Delta). As you probably know, he was eventually banned after a third arbitration case, due to the way he conducted himself in the pursuit of his main interest on Wikipedia, WP:NFCC enforcement.
What you may not know, is that he has evidently returned and has been editing as User:Werieth since 2012, in violation of that ban. After just a year, Werieth is already causing the same sort of disruption that Betacommand did - you may experience some deja vu by reading reports made about Werieth such as the one at the top of this AN archive. There are already several others. A quick perusal of Werieth's contributions will also reveal the same Betacommand-like self-assured approach, grounded in the belief that their edits are always "100% correct and 100% according to policy" (when the reality was that he made basic errors and pushed policy boundaries at a rate that, while acceptable in ordinary users for a time limited period, was found to be unacceptable in an editor with the edit rate and communication issues Betacommand had, especially given their inability to change)
I and others have already tried to expose his return via these sock puppet investigations, although as you can see, it's not getting far. That's not for the lack of an answerable case though - you can see the latest summary in this post. Most of the obstruction can be put down to the usual dysfunctional and counter-productive aspects of Wikipedia governance, which of course will always aid experienced WP:GAMErs like Betacommand.
But you may or may not be surprised to learn that the people obstructing this investigation the hardest are three admins whose own conflict of interest with regard to Betacommand/NFCC is best demonstrated in their own words - Black Kite (repeatedly deflects attention away from Werieth and onto accusers), Kww (blocks accusers, and has already unblocked Werieth once) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (has basically declared all out war on anyone who even whispers that Werieth might be Betacommand).
The purpose of this post is to raise awareness about his return, and hopefully persuade one or more of you to resubmit that SPI with the evidence I'm sure you will be able to compile using your own knowledge of Betacommand's characteristic traits. At the very least to prompt you to put his talk page on your watch lists and regularly review his contributions (although obviously, don't waste your time trying to deal with any issues you see on the flawed basis that he is just any old user).
Also obviously, you should also raise a red flag every time you see one of those three admins trying to further suppress the inevitable exposure of his ban evasion. If his return is to be covered up for an unnecessarily long time, it should at least be done simply through general incompetence, rather than obvious COI based abuse of the tools/trusted position of admin. A few emails to the arbcom members who dealt with Betacommand also probably wouldn't go amiss - if ordinary admins aren't bothered about this particular user's return (and you will remember, blinded by their enthusiasm for having someone, anyone, perform NFCC enforcement edits, a great many of them were unwilling to even admit his particular approach to that necessary work was a problem),
Betacommand's clandestine return to Wikipedia is bad enough as it is given that he has simply resumed where he left off in the NFCC enforcement field, with several users already having wasted a lot of time having to deal with him as if he were a legitimate user. But obviously the nightmare scenario if the cover-up is allowed to continue for another year, is if Werieth/Betacommand decides script assisted batch editing is not fast enough for his liking, and decides to take an altogether faster approach - possibly even trying to beat his "record". HTI 483 ( talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.
Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.
John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ ( talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
After reading [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Does_the_statement_.22A_page_with_this_title_has_previously_been_deleted.22_create_a_BLP_problem.3F|this BLPN]] post today, I was curious to see where some of the project's more infamous BLP battlegrounds wound up. While not terribly high on the hits list, User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana does pop up after a few pages, where the old bio page is just a click away. Would you be willing to G7 this? 3.5 years is probably enough time for a BLP draft to stick around. Tarc ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, The problem at List Of.... is that there is no community-consensed FAQ that addresses the perennial complaints at AFD. If you really want me to run down the 7 issue list in another tag, that's fine by me. As for whether they are problems or not, I direct you to AFD #6's admin closing statement. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
How do I go about starting a discussion to oppose the blacklisting of archive.is? That discussion was not advertised well at all, I've been adding archive.is links for months and without having done anything wrong every link I've added in all that time is about to become a victim of link rot, this is absolutely unacceptable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny you said "Cool", that made me smile. I am the least cool person you could possibly imagine. I am just a bore, really, (you could think of me as E. L. Wisty) but I hope I add some of that kinda boring knowledge to Wikipedia. Si Trew ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I neither misunderstand nor misrepresent WP:BURDEN, and WP:BRD does not apply when the reversion contradicts policy. WP:RS says that an inline citation is required when the material has been challenged. TRPoD has clearly challenged the material's veracity and has clearly cited WP:BURDEN. That means that both of your reversions are in violation of WP:RS.— Kww( talk) 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hobit,
Thank you for your comments on ANI. I appreciate your efforts to come to a resolution on List of countries of where Arabic is an official language. I am wondering though if the recent action on that page was that which was agreed upon. At the close of the ANI post, the admin writes: "Alternative offered and agreed upon to be picked up at the talk page." This action (whether to merge two sections) was never a topic of discussion of the RfC; no editor brought it up, discussed it, or weighed the pros and cons. For that reason I kindly ask for a clarification, because it seems that the RfC did not involve that proposal and because the ANI suggests that such a proposal merits further discussion on the talk page there. Thanks again. -- Precision123 ( talk) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In looking at the RFC for Archive.is, I read the consensus really differently than you did - but let me explain. The RFC was not neutral from its creation, the concept of "illegal activity" and malware were unsupported and dramatic, almost every aspect of the arguments were presented non-neutrally. Its fair to say that it wasn't even represented neutrally. Sorry for the length, but first I will go through all the claims and non-neutral aspects of the past RFC to highlight how the "deck was stacked" against Archive.is instead of the Rotlink user.
Extended content
|
---|
"Over 10,000 links to archive.is remain on Wikipedia" - a poorly noted fact used as if to say the Rotlink bot and such added all these links - many editors did so. Not once did Kww note that in the opening, despite being long used even prior to the bot additions.
The real issue is that Kww acts like this is not his RFC, but it is with this "doom" with an even higher with "I prefer this option. It is based primarily on my belief that the IPs were not being used legally. This makes me distrust the motives of archive.is, and suspicious that we are being set up as the 'victim of a Trojan Horse: once the links to archive.is are established, those links can be rerouted to anywhere. If illegal means were used to create the links, why should we trust the links to remain safe?—Kww(talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" - bolding mine. |
The entire RFC introduction to the conclusion was completely non-neutral and designed to establish a clear preference and remove the more logical options. Rotlink was the problem, not the hundreds of editors who added Archive.is links. The RFC came to the conclusion to purge Archive.is as a whole, instead of Rotlink's contributions. Even the notion that a Rotlink filter or block could and would be done was not presented. The issue has been resolved for many months and the blacklist - which had almost no consensus was created, but the removal of all the Archive.is links were not. In fact, the Rotlink additions should have been gone and only those.
Two users appealed that they would suffer because of Rotlink - not once did their arguments get any representation in the RFC. Some 15 people opted for "removal" action, but to what ends? Most on fear of malware and illicit activity and that Rotlink was Archive.is - a claim that is not supported and by an editor who deviated from all norms and processes to further the blocking and action against Archive.is whilst making errors in their system and server sizes. False flag, perhaps, or just someone who acts irrationally and doesn't care about either Wikipedia or Archive.is's reputation? Either way, the issue has passed and the Archive.is filter was later removed and reinstated by Kww in wheel warring, and did not work completely - it is trivial to bypass to this date. When I noted that the site was at Archive.today (due to a top-level domain issue) it was Kww who proclaimed that they did it to bypass the blacklist. On all accounts, Kww did this during the Admin noticeboard discussion and plopped it on the Bot Approvals notice. Even his BAG was not accurate and added details on May 16 to the mounting opposition - something which should have been present from the get go. Kww may mean well, but he's hardly a neutral party and the claims made have been done with the intention of garnering as much support regardless of the facts of the case.
Its clear that a new and neutral RFC needs to be done - I'd like someone experienced and independent to make it. There should be no discussion of malware and illicit activity and it should focus on the fact numerous editors use Archive.is and it has thousands of GameSpot links which are not held by Archive.org or Webcite due to issues. Robots.txt is not applicable to manual snapshots either, but that's more "debatable". Sorry for the extremely long post, but this was just the beginning of how the past RFC had numerous red flags that should be avoided next time. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
To answer a few questions above, there are 4559 hits on filter 559 to date. The reason I referred to myself in the third person in the RFC is not to pretend that I'm not me, but to make it clear when the reason something had happened was because I had formed a conclusion and other people had listened. There's a big difference between "the IP's were being used illegally, leading to their edits being rolled back" and "Kww came to the conclusion that the IPs were being used illegally and called for them to be rolled back". The first states my conclusion as fact, the second states the actual fact: that me coming to a conclusion led to activity.— Kww( talk) 04:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I had a hard time making sense of that discussion. Did you see anything there which you interpreted as either an explicit confirmation or denial of being responsible for the bot edits?—Kww(talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)" I think I understood the discussion, and the point is that who is responsible for the "bot edits" is irrelevant. If Denis is responsible and admits it, then Wikipedia blacklists the site because of his bad-faith edits. If he says that he is not responsible, either Wikipedia calls him a liar and blacklists the site because he is untrustworthy, or believes him and still blocks the site because he can't control the "bots" making bad-faith additions of links to his site. By the same logic we should ban all free archive sites because, by definition, none of them can ever guarantee themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be trustworthy. I think I basically agree with Denis' comment "
I think, if the Wikipedia government are so concerned even about illegality of proxy lists, they should remove all the free archives, buy pagefreezer.com's subscription and use it instead." Surely the WMF has the money to do this; I'm puzzled why a "pagefreeze" of any linked citation isn't made simultaneously and automatically with the saving of the citation-link itself. Any link can potentially be maliciously changed the minute after an editor saves it, in a manner that could reflect negatively on that editor. An emergency "pagefreeze" restoration might be needed to restore that editor's reputation. "Pagefreeze" copies would initially only be viewable by administrators, which would protect Wikipedia from BLP issues, etc. and only be restored by edit-request and admin review after the actual content link went dead or was (possibly maliciously) changed, if such restoration did not violate anyone's "right to be forgotten". Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles and reasons for being in the Wikipedia:
Does that give you somewhat of an idea as to reasons for having an article in the Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a directory or random data. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. If an article has no reason there is no context. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
You seem to have some skill at coming up with sources. Do you have anything you could add to improve Cerebro? BOZ ( talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry folks, real life has been busy (fun, but busy). I'll be back here on Monday. Hobit ( talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 ( History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
Hey, Hobit. I have found that keeping the "Article Alerts" pages of my favorite wikiprojects watchlisted is very helpful regarding PROD, speedy, and AFD debates, so I keep an eye on the AA pages for RPGs, D&D, and board and table games. :) Would also be good on the rare occasion when one of these gets put up for GAN or FAC, too. ;) BOZ ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
After reading your remarks at the DRV I looked at your user page (I'm rather ashamed that I was wondering where you lived!) and found your thoughts about sandcastles. I then recalled an occasion several years ago when we were visiting a medieval castle. In the grounds was an outdoor chess game and my two young sons (8 and 6?) starting playing – not too seriously but they did know the moves you can make. Then another family arrived and their son of about the same age starting arbitrarily shifting the pieces around and ended up kicking the pieces away. His parents did not try to stop him but seemed to think he was adding to the fun of the game. My boys just watched and didn't appear to be upset. Looking back on it I think I should have told their boy to behave himself. Best wishes! Thincat ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to ask whether you and the other contributors to this discussion have examined the edits of the article creator (not "Gabepage"). Justin Waters is a political campaigner for Gabriel Rothblatt and has already created three different user pages to ensure his interests get full coverage. Please can I request that you have another look before I refer this contributor for a sockpuppet investigation? Deb ( talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to your change at all, but I can fill you in on a bit of background. The sentence "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." was added in 2006, shortly after the criterion was first agreed, in response to a large number of speedy deletions of articles about notable British and Australian (chocolate) biscuits by a single admin. They were sent to DRV and from there to AfD where almost all were speedily kept. The sentence was thus added to clarify the intent of the criterion - i.e. it applies only to promotional articles, not to articles about commercial companies or products that are not promotional. If you want to know more, search for "biscuit" in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I was involved at the time (I closed the DRV), but by complete coincidence I happened across a couple of those discussions while looking for something else last night! Thryduulf ( talk) 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee ( talk) 14:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
Thanks BOZ. Hope you are having a wonderful Christmas. I'm actually fairly nearby (assuming you haven't moved) visiting relatives in Chicagoland! Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello Hobit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Hobit,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User:BOZ#Saving the Lost Children is just a taste. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for your help in reviewing and revising the article about Computer Economics? I am a COI editor and should not edit the page directly, but I have left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Fscavo ( talk) 23:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed that you stated in this section ( link) that the discussion about my topic ban could really stand to be closed, but nobody closed that discussion. Do you perhaps have some advice what to do now? Do you think that this discussion might be relevant for the appropriate closure of my ban appeal discussion?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe ( talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. -- Iamozy ( talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. -- Iamozy ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I planned on DRVing this discussion soon. I've expanded some sources from the other article is there any other sources you could find? Valoem talk contrib 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to FFD discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hobit, you seem like someone who is open to having a serious discussion, so I wanted to follow up with you away from the present DRV that is generating more heat than light. In your last comment, you wrote "You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that?" I don't know to what "my alternative" is a reference, and I could not find an obvious antecedent in this discussion thread. What did you mean by your "alternative"? I would be happy to share my thoughts, but I am at a loss to do so. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hobit,
Thanks for your support on the Draft:Alex Gilbert article, though there was no outcome on the deletion review. I have given up on trying to get this to the mainspace. I will just keep on working on the draft more and more as more sources are no doubt going to appear. One of the sources on a TVNZ video said "Watch out for this full story in 2016". I will do my best to work on this article. I don't want to annoy people and editors, but I won't ever let this go. It is a clearly notable article. Is there anyone I can contact about this? I can't get it to the Mainspace as it has been deleted previous times for different reasons. Thanks -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 04:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem Hobit. Thank You! Sorry I should have shown you 3 strong sources. I apologize. I will keep you updated with the progress on the draft. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your last comment to me on the AfD. I took breaking up my post as altering it, as I wanted my reasoning whole, and not broken up by comments within the text. I have taken your points into consideration, but I just don't agree with you. As I am sure you don't agree with me. Perhaps I was abrupt and could have been more civil and just moved your comment, and I apologize for that. Take care. Dave Dial ( talk) 18:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hobit,
Several new sources have arose for Draft:Alex Gilbert since we last talked. Though I am going to wait until this New Zealand broadcast has played and see if any more come by too. The subject has a new broadcast playing on NZ TV this Sunday (31st Jan)
I would like us to keep in touch and updated. If these sources are good below and with more to come hopefully after the broadcast, how do we go ahead with trying to get this onto the mainspace?
They are here;
I also found this one from the Mirror, though I know we can't use that as its not a website that is considered a reliable source [17]
Thanks! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hobit .Here [18] is the new TV Show that played in NZ. It shows extensive coverage on Draft:Alex Gilbert which I believe this article should be in the mainspace now. The coverage now has been going on for almost 2 years. It also does talk about his I'm Adopted project. Thanks! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 07:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Updated - I also found the same source here of the show if you can't watch it [19] - Its an alternative link to it. Still embedded from the TVNZ link I have above. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Updated. I have had a small search again and I have also found the new sources. From Japan actually; [20] and [21] Thanks -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 21:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) - Updated. More sources found from Newstalk ZB NZ - See [22] and [23]. I think that you should listen to it as it goes into alot of detail. Can we get this article straight to the Mainspace and see if it gets another deletion nomination. That is the best way going forward with this. Thank You! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For noticing that there was something quite askew in our WP:PRESERVE policy, and humbly pointing it out. Most excellent! -- Kendrick7 talk 07:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your understanding and fixing it! Hobit ( talk) 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Katie Rodan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 14:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Hobit, as you were one of the open disucssion participants, I come to you for some feedback as I'm kind of confused what happend in the Red Eclipse deletion process. First, it seems it was ignored that no consensus was reached by the deleting admin User:Sarahj2107. Still, she kept on following the majority interpretation ignoring that a faction has serious doubts. (from WP nocon In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.) Is my interpretation wrong? According to Consensus and Closing discussions an admin can only ignore policy non-conform discussion aspects. Debating if soemthing is or is not notable according to our policies is very central and not non-ambigue. Also, the deleting advocating editors didn't even cared to address the brought up sources specifically and indiviually but made pretty clear with glaring misinterpretations that they have not reviewed the sources properly. Second, in the delete review the missing consensus was not discussed. Third, the deleting admin switched now to stubborn mode and started to revert my request on a page move despite that she before agreed on doing so after the review. I have to say I'm currently pretty annoyed with WP and its processes. :( Shaddim ( talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Shaddim: -- sorry just realized how old your message was. I'm sorry I'd missed it before. I missed the notice somehow and rely on that to check my webpage. Hobit ( talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining to User:Jgstokes why he's off-base. I'm very miffed at him for two reasons: a) he completely misconstrued what I said (I never said I'd AfD if the DRV closes with consensus to restore/overturn), and b) he insists on calling me a bigot. p b p 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if you would be willing to write a short Stub for DataCore Software? I noticed that you said you would be willing to do this in the deletion review as you are knowledgable about the topic. I am a representative of the company and therefore can not be able to write one. Thank you. TaraLynn ( talk) 16:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me know if these work or if you need more. Thanks again! TaraLynn ( talk) 18:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have gotten a chance to look at this yet? User:Hobit Also there is another Forbes Article that has recently been released: https://forbestechcouncil.com/blog/2016/10/26/forbes-technology-council-member-company-datacore-software-partners-with-supermicro-on-enterprise-class-hyper-converged-network-solutions/ Thank you again for your help TaraLynn ( talk) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on International Symposium on Computer Architecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Was this reverted due to block evasion, or something else? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Hobit, you and I haven't always got along too well I think, and I once lost my cool in a brief discussion with you. I really appreciate you not holding that against me. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Hobit - I really want to appreciate your time and effort in analyzing my First Article "Jeeva Artist". First I want to apologize for the inconvenience caused by me. Next the reason I saved it without complete details was - As you know - In India Power Cut is a common issue. I don't have backup. So I want to make sure the start stays there. Once again Thanks. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvrmagesh ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
RE. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27, probability of this being notable in a few weeks
Yes, we're not a bureaucracy. However, many many times, articles about future pay-per-view wrestling articles have been created, way ahead of the event itself - whilst they are not notable. So, we end up 'advertising' for them.
I can quite understand the attitude that, yep, it'll be notable in some weeks.
But this happens again, and again, and again.
Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment. There's lots more. See also ANI archive.
A large number of fans, related to the wiki project, turn up to blindly vote to 'keep' them.
I also ask you to please skim down the user talk page of the person who created "Slammiversary IX", which is User talk:Supermhj8616.
Now - maybe I should just give up on this; I probably will, soon. Because, it seems due process is just being abused. But I hope this message at least explains to you why I took it to DRV in the first place.
Frankly, your comment there seems to be saying "OK, it should have been deleted (according to policies), but because it wasn't, and because it will be notable in some weeks, it's not worth bothering". I can understand that. The trouble is, the precedent it sets.
I hope that makes sense. Cheers, Chzz ► 05:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
zorblek (
talk)
05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. Thanks for the RfA support, and for the thought-provoking questions. I'm curious to know where we disagree on 6b, what were your thoughts on that? 28bytes ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I've added what I believe is relevant info in a matter you commented on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bill_Slavicsek-- Cube lurker ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hobit, I'm quite thankful to you for your statements about the recently created attack essay that was made about me. Your views regarding the inappropriate use of essay space as an attack on an editor, is most appreciated. — Cirt ( talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words. You deserve much greater props for working to expand the article and keep it relevant - the effort is highly appreciated and reflects well. I apologize for the early close. And yeah, these types of discussions can flare up sometimes. I do my best to maintain a cool atmosphere and help everyone realize that, while we are trying to improve Wikipedia, we mustn't let ourselves get angry with others just because they have differing opinions. Anyway, cheers. Hope to see you around more often. m.o.p 08:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your comment at VPP, what do you mean about the different kinds of randomness? All articles should have an equal chance of being selected, so our random function (if working correctly) should give a uniform distribution across articles. Isn't IID a subtlety for when you don't know the distribution, but make the assumption that all trials come from the same one? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have raised the issues of the Nation of Gods and Earths article on this noticeboard: [1]. Paul B ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like your username, it is extremely offensive to me. Would you consider changing it please? 2.121.53.66 ( talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
For being a calm, reasonable voice amidst tempests of tea. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
Since you were saying in the AfD that it was Lewinsky's photography that was giving him the best push, I would ask that you look at the additions that I have made and see whether that is enough to strengthen your Keep vote. Silver seren C 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Humm, I came by to say I felt the discussion was pretty clearly a keep and if you are going to close some other way, it would be helpful to explain why in the closing. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies at this point as WP:N is (now, after improvements) pretty clearly met even ignoring the "event" in question. If you feel the discussion concluded otherwise, it would be helpful to know that and exactly why. I don't think any of the remaining deletion !votes addressed the improvements to the article... Hobit ( talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hobit, I have requested a third opinion on Talk:Michelle_Rhee#Rhee.27s_opinion_on_vouchers, which I believe means we leave it alone for six days or so. The request is now listed on the active disagreement section. Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "reduce his bandwidth" and "spam the discussion." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk)
Hi,
I saw your post at the RfC on the first sentence of WP:V, and you usually have insightful opinions. Please take a look at WP:Inaccuracy, which is purposed to be a guideline linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV. One of the comments today had words to the effect of "if it were promoted", which makes me wonder if others see this essay as close to being promoted to a guideline. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded (a day or so late) to your comment; I hope you'll take it in the spirit in which it was offered. Take care, Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Not everyone's going to agree 100% of the time. Best to you! Trusilver 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! I would like to continue the discussion if you are interested. I don't think what I quoted is "my" guideline: it's a direct quote from WP:GNG/ WP:N. ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") I argue that if a subject meets WP:N he need not meet the subject specific guideline. And in fact WP:BIO makes that pretty clear ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") I think I'm reading the letter of the law (well of the guideline) correctly. "Rules As Written (RAW)" if you will. It seems very obvious to me, but perhaps there is a different way to read the RAW. If so, I'd like to understand it. Or are you arguing that the "Rules As Intended" (RAI) are something different than the literal reading of RAW? Or are you arguing that the rules are simply wrong? I get the sense, by labeling the quote as "my" rule, that we disagree on RAW. In any case, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
In all cases, thanks again for the thought. I only wish the virtual beer weren't so virtual... Hobit ( talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Oh, if that's what we're doing, I think I can top that. Drmies ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.
I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard ( talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Best of luck to you, too! Let me know if you ever need my help with anything on here! There's a few things I can do halfway decent!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image,
Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC.
Nil Einne (
talk)
15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison ( talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help with the BSN page.
Shall I just start editting the BSN article on your page from now on?
Please also let me know if it is alright to invite other colleagues to contribute to the page editting as well. ( Airuko ( talk) 06:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
Thanks for the feedback at WP:AN, much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed you didn't trust me enough to have thought this through properly and that you challenged the close on my talk before actually reading the reasons for my action. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Normally, I would rather cut off my wrist then be seen to be doing anything like a talkback but I want to make sure you did get the message that the thread two sections up had no bearing on my decision to drop the bit. I sent you a long email. Spartaz Humbug! 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 17, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hobit, I appreciate your feedback on Katie_Harwood. Since this is my first attempt at an article I am still learning my way through. I guess I am still confused about what OR is. Much of the info for the article came from the production notes, official website and interviews on the extra features and behind the scenes portion of the DVD. Are words spoken and concepts demonstrated on a DVD not eligible as an official WP source? Tola73 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please do something about this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_23&action=history. It seems like it has continued forever, without resolution. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As it turns out, this article was successfully relisted over at AfD on the 15th. If you're still interested, would you be willing to help track down an expert in the field? — C M B J 14:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I replied to your query at RAN's talkpage on January 20 [6], indicating that that copyvio was the same in four or five articles, with plenty of evidence, but RAN "archived" (removed) that section and much more the same day, without replying to it [7]. Fram ( talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope everything goes well with you and your kid. When you are back, please help me look at the BSN page. We need some direction whether the page looks alright or what else should be modified. Thank you very much in advance. ( Airuko ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hobit. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
FYI, just a heads-up that I've mentioned you in the course of a discussion about Fae at WP:AN#Moving forward. Prioryman ( talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to have to block you for your comments since they, eh, insult an officer of the court or something like that. This is Wikipedia, Hobit--we can't have people who honestly speak their mind on important matters. I disagree, of course, both on the candidate and on the injunction of WP:V etc., but it's always good to see you're still around. Who knows, one of these days the bug will bite you and you'll create another article! ;) Drmies ( talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sudo Ghost 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Sally_Acorn
I'd like to get your thoughts on this, since you were the one who undid the redirect on the grounds that you'd like some discussion to take place.
Also, for the record, there has already been quite a bit of discussion on it, it just happened to be on my talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Sally
Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed broadening there. Please join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which I withdrew roughly one hour prior to the deadline. I appreciate your sentiments — it's great to know that my imput is valued. Hopefully we'll continue to bump into each other around the place.
Take care. =) Master&Expert ( Talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you were a discussant at User_talk:Fram#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
At one point I didn't even care about the article anymore. I couldn't take the hypocrisy of some of the editors I was talking to. I probably could have behaved better, But I was simply acting out of emotion and was upset no one was understanding my points. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your eloquent, comprehensive closure of Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#RFC: To atheist or not to atheist and your generally excellent work at WP:ANRFC. I've noticed that you've cited Wikipedia:Non-admin closure at the end of each of your closures. While I have no objection to your continuing to do so, I don't think it's accurate or necessary. WP:NAC only discusses deletion discussions, so I don't think it's accurate to cite it in an RfC closure. I also don't think admins can unilaterally overturn any non-admin closures of RfCs about content because admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD. This current WP:AN discussion makes for an excellent read if you haven't been following it. In fact, in my observations, I've found that your closures demonstrate policy cluefulness, depth, and insight far superior to a few administrator closures I've seen. Please continue your good work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ ( talk) 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. Ladyof Shalott 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hobit. You may have noticed that I put in a close request for the RfC at WT:U - see this entry. Thought you might be a good choice to look at it since you have the context as the closer of the other one. Have a good one. NTox · talk 03:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating good faith on AN/I. I didn't intend any gloating and I don't see any gloating in the notice, so I would think that the right thing to do would be to ask me about my intentions instead of assuming the worst. If it had gone that route, we'd all have avoided a trip to the drama factory. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Holiday Cheer | |
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Hobit, how is it going? I was wondering what you have done on Wikipedia in terms of content creation. I can't seem to find much, is that correct? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
G'day Hobit. Thanks for your support at AN. If my case needs to be accounted for, then I'd be happy to help you in any efforts to make that happen. I'm concerned with fluffernutter's comments, for example, because he has forgotten that by registering, students may allow themselves to be contacted (through their talkpages). For me personally, unrestricted access to communicate with my students... That seems like a nono against COPPA (which, by the way, does affect Wikipedia because of infrastructure and wikimedia in the US).
For the record, in Australia we have more restrictive laws etc. than COPPA. While I have permission for student work to be published online and elsewhere, allowing students to register at Wikipedia would be a completely different story. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to remember that one of the reasons we forbid role accounts is that there is no way to ensure proper copyright licensing if we don't know which person performed an edit. Unless every single person entrusted with an account's log-in was a signatory to a valid and binding perpetual contract, they have not waived their right to claim copyright in their edits. Nothing is supposed to go into Wikipedia which is not fully licensed under our terms and conditions, in order to facilitate re-use and republication. How could we do that if some parent in Old North Woolloomooloo could come along and say, "Our Deirdre wrote that when she was eleven, and we claim AU$5,000,000,000 for violating her copyright in her edits!"? -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Chang Rickert. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've always had the sense that he "gets it" in terms of copyright, but the CCI mess made it look like he was a satanic copyright babykiller. I took a couple hours today deconstructing that. His early material under investigation, circa 2006 and thereabouts, is a mess with about 46% of the pages edited found problematic (n=258) , but the 10th subpage, with the new material, is almost completely "clean" (99.7%, n=298). In short, he does "get it." He doesn't make his lot any easier by having the typical Grumpy Old Content Creator personality (as do I), but he does "get it." The key, I think, is that he does need to serve time in the penalty box for breaking the topic ban, he does need to have very specific instructions and limitations about graphics uploads and external linking, and he does need to have his creation ban relaxed — because, as you may know, a content-creator who can't start articles is pretty much paralyzed and winds up watching TV instead of editing... You might consider volunteering your services as a "copyright advisor" since I'm clearly a non-starter in that department owing to ANI fisticuffs. Anyway, progress forward, hopefully this will all be resolved rapidly at ANI if ArbCom declines the case. Carrite ( talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
(I think you're up on this, Hobit, this is pro forma...) I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page ( User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman ( talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.
I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your sensible comments regarding my DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to the most recent messages, which includes evidence of the same behavior on Alan's part over the course of at least the past 6 years, and a call for a resolution. Can you please offer your thoughts? Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout
? is wishing you a Happy
Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!
Share this message by adding {{ subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments on my DRV jagger eaton. This seems to be languishing in DVR. Is there anything that can be done to move this forward? Anything you can do to help? Thanks. Labeach2002 ( talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hobit, I just wanted to say thanks for closing that RfC. I think you read consensus well and explained the close very clearly. Good work! Mark Arsten ( talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks from me too for closing it in the first place, and for your explanation and suggestions too. Bencherlite Talk 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Hobit.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Hobit! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM ( EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at User_talk:Johnmoor#Paid_editing.3F. Do you have any evidence, or is this just a WP:DUCK concern? I'm currently considering having his behavior reviewed at ANI given his WP:OWN problems with Grammarly. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've looked a bit closer at his editing, and I think your concerns are justified. Still, did you find evidence or is this a WP:DUCK concern? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at COIN. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Wikipedia I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you asked a question, and got an extremely rude and idiotic response. You were absolutely right to ask the question. You may find some answers to your question here.
Regards. 24.4.37.209 ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
In your closure you didn't make crystal clear which of the proposals, by name, you closed with. There was no clear policy-based consensus, surely. Lots of !votes were purely "I don't like it." Lots of !votes were based on future bad acts. Lots of !votes ignored that the swarm-edits were now totally dealt with by edit filters. So: Did you mean removing the links there before the recent bot-added links (the "over 10,000 links")? Did you mean all IP-added links? Or just blankly "all links"? -- Lexein ( talk) 20:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk)
13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!.
Dogmaticeclectic (
talk)
18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just located Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. I have a question on the use of the site.
I understand from the closing statement that the consensus is to remove all links to archive.is - can you clarify; is that consensus on all bot-added links, or does it also apply to links added to an article by talk-page consensus? Even when blacklisted, some specific targeted pages from a site can be permitted via the white-listing process to still be permitted if consensus exists for the specific targeted link - so I wanted clarification on if the closure permits talk-page consensus to allow links, or if the closure should be interpreted as a full ban on use of the site.
We have a discussion started at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section; where the official site is gone, and there is no copy at archive.org (although one existed at one time). That leaves archive.is as the last source I can locate of an archived version of the site. This is why I wanted clarification on if the closure should be interpreted similar to a blacklisting (allowing targeted white-listing if consensus exists) or if it should be interpreted as a full ban on usage of the site. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Barek: I've made a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#archive.is, but I notice that there are over 27,000 links to the site, whereas the text of the RFC correctly but misleadingly said there were "over 10,000". — rybec 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for voting to unblock me. I'll avoid editing Latin American topics to avoid any further drama at AN. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
Hello. I am contacting you because you are one of the editors/admins who is still active now, and was aware of the notoriously disruptive editor User:Betacommand, a.k.a User:Δ (Delta). As you probably know, he was eventually banned after a third arbitration case, due to the way he conducted himself in the pursuit of his main interest on Wikipedia, WP:NFCC enforcement.
What you may not know, is that he has evidently returned and has been editing as User:Werieth since 2012, in violation of that ban. After just a year, Werieth is already causing the same sort of disruption that Betacommand did - you may experience some deja vu by reading reports made about Werieth such as the one at the top of this AN archive. There are already several others. A quick perusal of Werieth's contributions will also reveal the same Betacommand-like self-assured approach, grounded in the belief that their edits are always "100% correct and 100% according to policy" (when the reality was that he made basic errors and pushed policy boundaries at a rate that, while acceptable in ordinary users for a time limited period, was found to be unacceptable in an editor with the edit rate and communication issues Betacommand had, especially given their inability to change)
I and others have already tried to expose his return via these sock puppet investigations, although as you can see, it's not getting far. That's not for the lack of an answerable case though - you can see the latest summary in this post. Most of the obstruction can be put down to the usual dysfunctional and counter-productive aspects of Wikipedia governance, which of course will always aid experienced WP:GAMErs like Betacommand.
But you may or may not be surprised to learn that the people obstructing this investigation the hardest are three admins whose own conflict of interest with regard to Betacommand/NFCC is best demonstrated in their own words - Black Kite (repeatedly deflects attention away from Werieth and onto accusers), Kww (blocks accusers, and has already unblocked Werieth once) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (has basically declared all out war on anyone who even whispers that Werieth might be Betacommand).
The purpose of this post is to raise awareness about his return, and hopefully persuade one or more of you to resubmit that SPI with the evidence I'm sure you will be able to compile using your own knowledge of Betacommand's characteristic traits. At the very least to prompt you to put his talk page on your watch lists and regularly review his contributions (although obviously, don't waste your time trying to deal with any issues you see on the flawed basis that he is just any old user).
Also obviously, you should also raise a red flag every time you see one of those three admins trying to further suppress the inevitable exposure of his ban evasion. If his return is to be covered up for an unnecessarily long time, it should at least be done simply through general incompetence, rather than obvious COI based abuse of the tools/trusted position of admin. A few emails to the arbcom members who dealt with Betacommand also probably wouldn't go amiss - if ordinary admins aren't bothered about this particular user's return (and you will remember, blinded by their enthusiasm for having someone, anyone, perform NFCC enforcement edits, a great many of them were unwilling to even admit his particular approach to that necessary work was a problem),
Betacommand's clandestine return to Wikipedia is bad enough as it is given that he has simply resumed where he left off in the NFCC enforcement field, with several users already having wasted a lot of time having to deal with him as if he were a legitimate user. But obviously the nightmare scenario if the cover-up is allowed to continue for another year, is if Werieth/Betacommand decides script assisted batch editing is not fast enough for his liking, and decides to take an altogether faster approach - possibly even trying to beat his "record". HTI 483 ( talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.
Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.
John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ ( talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
After reading [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Does_the_statement_.22A_page_with_this_title_has_previously_been_deleted.22_create_a_BLP_problem.3F|this BLPN]] post today, I was curious to see where some of the project's more infamous BLP battlegrounds wound up. While not terribly high on the hits list, User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana does pop up after a few pages, where the old bio page is just a click away. Would you be willing to G7 this? 3.5 years is probably enough time for a BLP draft to stick around. Tarc ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, The problem at List Of.... is that there is no community-consensed FAQ that addresses the perennial complaints at AFD. If you really want me to run down the 7 issue list in another tag, that's fine by me. As for whether they are problems or not, I direct you to AFD #6's admin closing statement. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
How do I go about starting a discussion to oppose the blacklisting of archive.is? That discussion was not advertised well at all, I've been adding archive.is links for months and without having done anything wrong every link I've added in all that time is about to become a victim of link rot, this is absolutely unacceptable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny you said "Cool", that made me smile. I am the least cool person you could possibly imagine. I am just a bore, really, (you could think of me as E. L. Wisty) but I hope I add some of that kinda boring knowledge to Wikipedia. Si Trew ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I neither misunderstand nor misrepresent WP:BURDEN, and WP:BRD does not apply when the reversion contradicts policy. WP:RS says that an inline citation is required when the material has been challenged. TRPoD has clearly challenged the material's veracity and has clearly cited WP:BURDEN. That means that both of your reversions are in violation of WP:RS.— Kww( talk) 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hobit,
Thank you for your comments on ANI. I appreciate your efforts to come to a resolution on List of countries of where Arabic is an official language. I am wondering though if the recent action on that page was that which was agreed upon. At the close of the ANI post, the admin writes: "Alternative offered and agreed upon to be picked up at the talk page." This action (whether to merge two sections) was never a topic of discussion of the RfC; no editor brought it up, discussed it, or weighed the pros and cons. For that reason I kindly ask for a clarification, because it seems that the RfC did not involve that proposal and because the ANI suggests that such a proposal merits further discussion on the talk page there. Thanks again. -- Precision123 ( talk) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In looking at the RFC for Archive.is, I read the consensus really differently than you did - but let me explain. The RFC was not neutral from its creation, the concept of "illegal activity" and malware were unsupported and dramatic, almost every aspect of the arguments were presented non-neutrally. Its fair to say that it wasn't even represented neutrally. Sorry for the length, but first I will go through all the claims and non-neutral aspects of the past RFC to highlight how the "deck was stacked" against Archive.is instead of the Rotlink user.
Extended content
|
---|
"Over 10,000 links to archive.is remain on Wikipedia" - a poorly noted fact used as if to say the Rotlink bot and such added all these links - many editors did so. Not once did Kww note that in the opening, despite being long used even prior to the bot additions.
The real issue is that Kww acts like this is not his RFC, but it is with this "doom" with an even higher with "I prefer this option. It is based primarily on my belief that the IPs were not being used legally. This makes me distrust the motives of archive.is, and suspicious that we are being set up as the 'victim of a Trojan Horse: once the links to archive.is are established, those links can be rerouted to anywhere. If illegal means were used to create the links, why should we trust the links to remain safe?—Kww(talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" - bolding mine. |
The entire RFC introduction to the conclusion was completely non-neutral and designed to establish a clear preference and remove the more logical options. Rotlink was the problem, not the hundreds of editors who added Archive.is links. The RFC came to the conclusion to purge Archive.is as a whole, instead of Rotlink's contributions. Even the notion that a Rotlink filter or block could and would be done was not presented. The issue has been resolved for many months and the blacklist - which had almost no consensus was created, but the removal of all the Archive.is links were not. In fact, the Rotlink additions should have been gone and only those.
Two users appealed that they would suffer because of Rotlink - not once did their arguments get any representation in the RFC. Some 15 people opted for "removal" action, but to what ends? Most on fear of malware and illicit activity and that Rotlink was Archive.is - a claim that is not supported and by an editor who deviated from all norms and processes to further the blocking and action against Archive.is whilst making errors in their system and server sizes. False flag, perhaps, or just someone who acts irrationally and doesn't care about either Wikipedia or Archive.is's reputation? Either way, the issue has passed and the Archive.is filter was later removed and reinstated by Kww in wheel warring, and did not work completely - it is trivial to bypass to this date. When I noted that the site was at Archive.today (due to a top-level domain issue) it was Kww who proclaimed that they did it to bypass the blacklist. On all accounts, Kww did this during the Admin noticeboard discussion and plopped it on the Bot Approvals notice. Even his BAG was not accurate and added details on May 16 to the mounting opposition - something which should have been present from the get go. Kww may mean well, but he's hardly a neutral party and the claims made have been done with the intention of garnering as much support regardless of the facts of the case.
Its clear that a new and neutral RFC needs to be done - I'd like someone experienced and independent to make it. There should be no discussion of malware and illicit activity and it should focus on the fact numerous editors use Archive.is and it has thousands of GameSpot links which are not held by Archive.org or Webcite due to issues. Robots.txt is not applicable to manual snapshots either, but that's more "debatable". Sorry for the extremely long post, but this was just the beginning of how the past RFC had numerous red flags that should be avoided next time. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
To answer a few questions above, there are 4559 hits on filter 559 to date. The reason I referred to myself in the third person in the RFC is not to pretend that I'm not me, but to make it clear when the reason something had happened was because I had formed a conclusion and other people had listened. There's a big difference between "the IP's were being used illegally, leading to their edits being rolled back" and "Kww came to the conclusion that the IPs were being used illegally and called for them to be rolled back". The first states my conclusion as fact, the second states the actual fact: that me coming to a conclusion led to activity.— Kww( talk) 04:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I had a hard time making sense of that discussion. Did you see anything there which you interpreted as either an explicit confirmation or denial of being responsible for the bot edits?—Kww(talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)" I think I understood the discussion, and the point is that who is responsible for the "bot edits" is irrelevant. If Denis is responsible and admits it, then Wikipedia blacklists the site because of his bad-faith edits. If he says that he is not responsible, either Wikipedia calls him a liar and blacklists the site because he is untrustworthy, or believes him and still blocks the site because he can't control the "bots" making bad-faith additions of links to his site. By the same logic we should ban all free archive sites because, by definition, none of them can ever guarantee themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be trustworthy. I think I basically agree with Denis' comment "
I think, if the Wikipedia government are so concerned even about illegality of proxy lists, they should remove all the free archives, buy pagefreezer.com's subscription and use it instead." Surely the WMF has the money to do this; I'm puzzled why a "pagefreeze" of any linked citation isn't made simultaneously and automatically with the saving of the citation-link itself. Any link can potentially be maliciously changed the minute after an editor saves it, in a manner that could reflect negatively on that editor. An emergency "pagefreeze" restoration might be needed to restore that editor's reputation. "Pagefreeze" copies would initially only be viewable by administrators, which would protect Wikipedia from BLP issues, etc. and only be restored by edit-request and admin review after the actual content link went dead or was (possibly maliciously) changed, if such restoration did not violate anyone's "right to be forgotten". Wbm1058 ( talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles and reasons for being in the Wikipedia:
Does that give you somewhat of an idea as to reasons for having an article in the Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a directory or random data. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. If an article has no reason there is no context. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
You seem to have some skill at coming up with sources. Do you have anything you could add to improve Cerebro? BOZ ( talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry folks, real life has been busy (fun, but busy). I'll be back here on Monday. Hobit ( talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 ( History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
Hey, Hobit. I have found that keeping the "Article Alerts" pages of my favorite wikiprojects watchlisted is very helpful regarding PROD, speedy, and AFD debates, so I keep an eye on the AA pages for RPGs, D&D, and board and table games. :) Would also be good on the rare occasion when one of these gets put up for GAN or FAC, too. ;) BOZ ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
After reading your remarks at the DRV I looked at your user page (I'm rather ashamed that I was wondering where you lived!) and found your thoughts about sandcastles. I then recalled an occasion several years ago when we were visiting a medieval castle. In the grounds was an outdoor chess game and my two young sons (8 and 6?) starting playing – not too seriously but they did know the moves you can make. Then another family arrived and their son of about the same age starting arbitrarily shifting the pieces around and ended up kicking the pieces away. His parents did not try to stop him but seemed to think he was adding to the fun of the game. My boys just watched and didn't appear to be upset. Looking back on it I think I should have told their boy to behave himself. Best wishes! Thincat ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to ask whether you and the other contributors to this discussion have examined the edits of the article creator (not "Gabepage"). Justin Waters is a political campaigner for Gabriel Rothblatt and has already created three different user pages to ensure his interests get full coverage. Please can I request that you have another look before I refer this contributor for a sockpuppet investigation? Deb ( talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to your change at all, but I can fill you in on a bit of background. The sentence "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." was added in 2006, shortly after the criterion was first agreed, in response to a large number of speedy deletions of articles about notable British and Australian (chocolate) biscuits by a single admin. They were sent to DRV and from there to AfD where almost all were speedily kept. The sentence was thus added to clarify the intent of the criterion - i.e. it applies only to promotional articles, not to articles about commercial companies or products that are not promotional. If you want to know more, search for "biscuit" in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I was involved at the time (I closed the DRV), but by complete coincidence I happened across a couple of those discussions while looking for something else last night! Thryduulf ( talk) 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee ( talk) 14:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
Thanks BOZ. Hope you are having a wonderful Christmas. I'm actually fairly nearby (assuming you haven't moved) visiting relatives in Chicagoland! Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello Hobit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Hobit,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User:BOZ#Saving the Lost Children is just a taste. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
May I ask for your help in reviewing and revising the article about Computer Economics? I am a COI editor and should not edit the page directly, but I have left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Fscavo ( talk) 23:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed that you stated in this section ( link) that the discussion about my topic ban could really stand to be closed, but nobody closed that discussion. Do you perhaps have some advice what to do now? Do you think that this discussion might be relevant for the appropriate closure of my ban appeal discussion?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe ( talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. -- Iamozy ( talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. -- Iamozy ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I planned on DRVing this discussion soon. I've expanded some sources from the other article is there any other sources you could find? Valoem talk contrib 22:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I invite you to FFD discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hobit, you seem like someone who is open to having a serious discussion, so I wanted to follow up with you away from the present DRV that is generating more heat than light. In your last comment, you wrote "You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that?" I don't know to what "my alternative" is a reference, and I could not find an obvious antecedent in this discussion thread. What did you mean by your "alternative"? I would be happy to share my thoughts, but I am at a loss to do so. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hobit,
Thanks for your support on the Draft:Alex Gilbert article, though there was no outcome on the deletion review. I have given up on trying to get this to the mainspace. I will just keep on working on the draft more and more as more sources are no doubt going to appear. One of the sources on a TVNZ video said "Watch out for this full story in 2016". I will do my best to work on this article. I don't want to annoy people and editors, but I won't ever let this go. It is a clearly notable article. Is there anyone I can contact about this? I can't get it to the Mainspace as it has been deleted previous times for different reasons. Thanks -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 04:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem Hobit. Thank You! Sorry I should have shown you 3 strong sources. I apologize. I will keep you updated with the progress on the draft. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your last comment to me on the AfD. I took breaking up my post as altering it, as I wanted my reasoning whole, and not broken up by comments within the text. I have taken your points into consideration, but I just don't agree with you. As I am sure you don't agree with me. Perhaps I was abrupt and could have been more civil and just moved your comment, and I apologize for that. Take care. Dave Dial ( talk) 18:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hobit,
Several new sources have arose for Draft:Alex Gilbert since we last talked. Though I am going to wait until this New Zealand broadcast has played and see if any more come by too. The subject has a new broadcast playing on NZ TV this Sunday (31st Jan)
I would like us to keep in touch and updated. If these sources are good below and with more to come hopefully after the broadcast, how do we go ahead with trying to get this onto the mainspace?
They are here;
I also found this one from the Mirror, though I know we can't use that as its not a website that is considered a reliable source [17]
Thanks! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hobit .Here [18] is the new TV Show that played in NZ. It shows extensive coverage on Draft:Alex Gilbert which I believe this article should be in the mainspace now. The coverage now has been going on for almost 2 years. It also does talk about his I'm Adopted project. Thanks! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 07:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Updated - I also found the same source here of the show if you can't watch it [19] - Its an alternative link to it. Still embedded from the TVNZ link I have above. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Updated. I have had a small search again and I have also found the new sources. From Japan actually; [20] and [21] Thanks -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 21:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) - Updated. More sources found from Newstalk ZB NZ - See [22] and [23]. I think that you should listen to it as it goes into alot of detail. Can we get this article straight to the Mainspace and see if it gets another deletion nomination. That is the best way going forward with this. Thank You! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For noticing that there was something quite askew in our WP:PRESERVE policy, and humbly pointing it out. Most excellent! -- Kendrick7 talk 07:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your understanding and fixing it! Hobit ( talk) 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Katie Rodan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 14:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Hobit, as you were one of the open disucssion participants, I come to you for some feedback as I'm kind of confused what happend in the Red Eclipse deletion process. First, it seems it was ignored that no consensus was reached by the deleting admin User:Sarahj2107. Still, she kept on following the majority interpretation ignoring that a faction has serious doubts. (from WP nocon In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.) Is my interpretation wrong? According to Consensus and Closing discussions an admin can only ignore policy non-conform discussion aspects. Debating if soemthing is or is not notable according to our policies is very central and not non-ambigue. Also, the deleting advocating editors didn't even cared to address the brought up sources specifically and indiviually but made pretty clear with glaring misinterpretations that they have not reviewed the sources properly. Second, in the delete review the missing consensus was not discussed. Third, the deleting admin switched now to stubborn mode and started to revert my request on a page move despite that she before agreed on doing so after the review. I have to say I'm currently pretty annoyed with WP and its processes. :( Shaddim ( talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Shaddim: -- sorry just realized how old your message was. I'm sorry I'd missed it before. I missed the notice somehow and rely on that to check my webpage. Hobit ( talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Gaming the system?. Thank you.
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining to User:Jgstokes why he's off-base. I'm very miffed at him for two reasons: a) he completely misconstrued what I said (I never said I'd AfD if the DRV closes with consensus to restore/overturn), and b) he insists on calling me a bigot. p b p 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering if you would be willing to write a short Stub for DataCore Software? I noticed that you said you would be willing to do this in the deletion review as you are knowledgable about the topic. I am a representative of the company and therefore can not be able to write one. Thank you. TaraLynn ( talk) 16:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me know if these work or if you need more. Thanks again! TaraLynn ( talk) 18:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have gotten a chance to look at this yet? User:Hobit Also there is another Forbes Article that has recently been released: https://forbestechcouncil.com/blog/2016/10/26/forbes-technology-council-member-company-datacore-software-partners-with-supermicro-on-enterprise-class-hyper-converged-network-solutions/ Thank you again for your help TaraLynn ( talk) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on International Symposium on Computer Architecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Was this reverted due to block evasion, or something else? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)