![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello John:
I see that you have indefinitely blocked Whig, and I'm wondering what process led to this action.
I know there was a RfC-Whig 2, followed by discussion in the Administrator' Notices, but my impression is that that discussion ended inconclusively.
Please let me know what has lead to an indefinite block.
Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for swift revert on my talk page. cheers! West Brom 4ever ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If there was a Barnstar for the fastest vandal revert ever, I'd give it to you for reverting that last one on the WGA Strike. Great job! Snowfire51 ( talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might be able to help me because you closed this AfD re Supreme Court cases. When doing New Page Patrol, what should I do with an article about a legal case, such as Commissioner v. boylston market association? Are there any notability guidelines for these? Thanks for any advice you can give. -- Coppertwig 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are moving a bit fast with the RodentofDeath case. Dispute resolution is just getting started, and the weak response to the Community Ban suggestion (tho it was given less than 16 hours, on a weekend) probably contraindicates escalation to ArbCom. Also, you do not seem to have endorsed a position in the RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for mediation on the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and you are invited to comment. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanbryce ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a thread here in which I linked to your comments, so I thought I should draw it to your attention. As I say there, I'm neutral about the situation. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi John. I certainly don't personally object to your closing the DRV of the photo of Emily Sander but you should be aware that DRV nominations should only be closed by an admin [1]. We generally allow DRVs to run their full course unless there is a good reason to ignore this (ironically I'm one of the worst offenders for closing them early). Process is very important to many denizens of DRV and you may already be aware that lots of perfectly closed xFDs get reversed on procedural grounds even though everyone agrees with the outcome. I'm afraid that having a non-admin close a DRV early may well lead to more drama than strictly necessary. Please take this the right way but I genuinely think that you shouldn't close any more DRVs until you become an admin. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed the AfD on Diane Garnick and removed the AfD notice per policy, but I didn't see a note on the article talkpage that it had passed an AfD, I don't know how to add one, would you be able to ? Mbisanz ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 19:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your role as a closing admin is to interpret the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached, not to add in your own two cents after closing off the discussion to everyone else. Thanks! - Chardish ( talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally, taking out those distracting underlines doesn't affect the viability of the links at all. Sorry if it did so in this instance. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it still says that the Mycomorphbox is up for deletion at Phallus indusiatus. Can you check it out? Thanks, Badagnani ( talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear John254, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi John,
I was just curious how/why you decided on keep. You didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. Thanks. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not reverse any of Betacommand's actions until there is consensus to do so. I realize that Betacommand did not discuss his actions first, but (1) an admin can rollback the edits much faster if needed in the future, and (2) reverting them at this moment may only lead to another reversal in the future, which simply wastes time and resources. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath are now banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your questions on my RFA| [3]. Thanks! -- Ohmpandya ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You give me a warning of reverting edits in the manos page? Wtf is that? It's my godamn edits that are being reverted!!! And if user levin reverts them again it will be his third time not mine... 91.132.224.196 ( talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
John,
I think it is very important that we proceed very slowly on these BLP items. Now I want you to know that I mean nothing about you personally on that debate, however, I am only addressing the arguments you presented to me. I believe you are a good editor, and I want you to continue to do what you do for this project. Very warmly, Mercury 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Djsasso ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you saying my message is a personal attack when it wasn't even in English and you can't even read Spanish?
I would like to get a reply.
-- 220.239.180.212 ( talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think that you're so smart, translate what I said then!
P.S. That message wasn't a threat, I was just returning what he said to me. I have had some other serious problems with him in the past over some neutalitiy issues. Can you please warn him?
-- 220.239.180.212 ( talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, I appreciate the notification. You are of course, most welcome to comb my deletion logs, if you feel the need. Thank you also for your helpful comments in my RfA. Warm regards, Keilana talk (recall) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point I will support any change to greatly restrict or eliminate CSDA7 if you can find a way to still let us delete the articles on people who think that facebook type information makes them notable. Suggestion: eliminate organisations , companies, and groups other than musical groups and clubs. DGG ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi John254. I have fulfiulled your request for rollback, after discussion with other admins. Nest Wishes. Pedro : Chat 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed your report because in my opinion it was premature, and I don't think any administrator would block a user that quickly. VOA bot supplied a first tier warning; you jumped straight to a fourth tier warning. Please try to be more patient, as we're not seeing who can report IPs the fastest; instead, try to supply as close to a full range of warnings as you can. Anyway, I'm sorry if you took offense to my removal of your report, but I hope you understand why I did so. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, if a user has engaged in at least two acts of vandalism, the minimum level necessary to satisfy the description "repeated vandalism", he is no longer entitled to an assumption of good faith. Thus, a harsh warning can be issued, followed by a block if the user engages in further vandalism. John254 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism...
John, there's been something of an issue today with a pile of notable articles nominated for deletion. See [8]. I've put the worthy articles among them for speedy keep. See the current AfD log. I'm not an admin, but I think if you quickly close the lot... AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
You have been keeping me extremely busy at WP:AIV these last few days. Keep up the good work. Trusilver ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. John254 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
John Carter ( talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello John. I noticed you started the most recent request for arbitration. With regard to Scrubs episodes, I just discovered the following AfD discussion regarding these that took place in October 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image. The result of the discussion was to keep these articles - however they are now all redirects - I think this overriding of consensus may be relevant to the case you make. Catchpole ( talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [9]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi John254. I noticed that you know your way around Wikipedia's BLP policy. I wonder if you could have a look at Alex Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, and Tri-City Skins. I believe these articles were frought with rampant BLP abuse. I tried to clean it up to the best of my abilities but I am not a BLP expert. Compare this version with Alex Kulbashian with the current version and you get the picture. There was a fair bit push-back for the changes but I wouldn't put it at the level you normally see at some of the other articles I've been involved in. However AFD's for these articles seem to be frought with vote stacking. See the AFD for Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, the AFD for Tri-City_Skins and also see the same people involved with votestacking in another article of the same category|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canada for Us]]. What I see abusive in these articles is that the subjects are barely notable and they are only notable for one thing, that they were involved with 1 or 2 antisemitic websites that are now defunct and these websites were fined in a Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal. This was referred to in the press as precedent setting however some might argue that the precedent was already set in a previous case Zundel v. Citron. In reality we shouldn't have four articles about these subjects when they are all about the same thing and are only notable about one thing. I think we should have one article called something like Kulbashian v. Warman. Another thing I should add that it seems these articles use tabloids like Now Magazine as there third party sources. Can you help? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear John254, as you can see, I compiled a chronology of events regarding the history of that dispute, but I also have two suggestions that you may wish to consider: 1) as the previous arbitration case also included fictional characters, you may wish to retitle the case to include this related dispute over fictional characters and maybe even include a 2 or 3 in the title to acknowledge the previous case(s); 2) you may wish to expand the involved party list by looking here and here, as the discussions I have observed involve more than just those currently listed in the current request. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit ( talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. -- Bark ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
subst:Vangel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nburden ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your RfA! I hope you will be succesful after all the great effords you've done! You might have noticed my support was "weak", but it is nothing personal. I just wouldn't give you a "complete support" and sadly enough, there is nothing inbetween the both options. 18,000 edits in just 18 months is very impressive. Enormously impressive. I therefore wish you the best of luck. Yours sincerely, Ramtashaniku ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What a great surprise to find the digital phase converter page cleaned up! I had every intention of trying to do more, but looks like you beat me to it. I also wanted to express my appreciation for your support in keeping the page as well. Soothsayer2 ( talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I deleted User:John254/Public health effects of pornography as per your request. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You can block him anytime. It's a vandal only account. 156.34.220.66 ( talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:
For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message ( link) have been notified of this injunction.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [12] is not simply a single study, but a review of the results from several controlled studies.
Thanks for the quick vandalism clean up on my user and talk page. Much appreciated. Bashen ( talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you routinely seem to file RFARs that you have no direct involvement in? Lawrence § t/ e 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the relief on my Talk page. But it didn´t help for long, as you see here. Could you help again? Thanks, -- Joachim Weckermann ( talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi dude! I kinda wound up at u cuz I really don't know who to ask this. I want to request a block on a IP adress, but I don't really see where I can request a block. It's about IPs 65.164.151.75, they've been vandalizing a lot, by faking album sales without reference [13], and constant capitalization of words like "of", "in" and stuff in song titles [14] [15], constanly removing pictures with good fair use with other picturs [16] on the article Empezar desde Cero, amongst others... (I'm just mentioning one/two examples of everything). Like an obvious one is the following [17], deliberately ignoring the wikipedia standards of having those kind of words in lower case. Now I can keep continuing to revert his edits, but after a while, I get sick & tired of it, and that point has come. So I would like to request a (temporary?) block on this IP. Can u help me with it? -- Luigi-ish ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your questions - this is just a quick note to let you know I have posted my responses. Regards. GB T/ C 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi John -
I have declined to act upon the AIV report that you entered for Betacommandbot. AIV is so for vandalism only (as defined by WP:VANDAL) - in this case, I think the report best belongs on WP:ANI. - Philippe | Talk 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed this AFD as Keep. I'm not going to argue with your decision, but I'm not sure what to do now. While there is no obviously no consensus to delete Albanians in Serbia, there is also no apparent consensus to delete Albanians in Kosovo or Albanians in Central Serbia. As things stand now, the Kosovo article is up and being actively edited, while the Central Serbia article still redirects here. In any case, the material exists in duplicate form in two different places, which doesn't seem like a good situation. What happens next? Thanks, // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello John:
I see that you have indefinitely blocked Whig, and I'm wondering what process led to this action.
I know there was a RfC-Whig 2, followed by discussion in the Administrator' Notices, but my impression is that that discussion ended inconclusively.
Please let me know what has lead to an indefinite block.
Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for swift revert on my talk page. cheers! West Brom 4ever ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If there was a Barnstar for the fastest vandal revert ever, I'd give it to you for reverting that last one on the WGA Strike. Great job! Snowfire51 ( talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might be able to help me because you closed this AfD re Supreme Court cases. When doing New Page Patrol, what should I do with an article about a legal case, such as Commissioner v. boylston market association? Are there any notability guidelines for these? Thanks for any advice you can give. -- Coppertwig 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are moving a bit fast with the RodentofDeath case. Dispute resolution is just getting started, and the weak response to the Community Ban suggestion (tho it was given less than 16 hours, on a weekend) probably contraindicates escalation to ArbCom. Also, you do not seem to have endorsed a position in the RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for mediation on the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and you are invited to comment. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanbryce ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a thread here in which I linked to your comments, so I thought I should draw it to your attention. As I say there, I'm neutral about the situation. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi John. I certainly don't personally object to your closing the DRV of the photo of Emily Sander but you should be aware that DRV nominations should only be closed by an admin [1]. We generally allow DRVs to run their full course unless there is a good reason to ignore this (ironically I'm one of the worst offenders for closing them early). Process is very important to many denizens of DRV and you may already be aware that lots of perfectly closed xFDs get reversed on procedural grounds even though everyone agrees with the outcome. I'm afraid that having a non-admin close a DRV early may well lead to more drama than strictly necessary. Please take this the right way but I genuinely think that you shouldn't close any more DRVs until you become an admin. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You recently closed the AfD on Diane Garnick and removed the AfD notice per policy, but I didn't see a note on the article talkpage that it had passed an AfD, I don't know how to add one, would you be able to ? Mbisanz ( talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 19:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your role as a closing admin is to interpret the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached, not to add in your own two cents after closing off the discussion to everyone else. Thanks! - Chardish ( talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally, taking out those distracting underlines doesn't affect the viability of the links at all. Sorry if it did so in this instance. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it still says that the Mycomorphbox is up for deletion at Phallus indusiatus. Can you check it out? Thanks, Badagnani ( talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear John254, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi John,
I was just curious how/why you decided on keep. You didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. Thanks. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not reverse any of Betacommand's actions until there is consensus to do so. I realize that Betacommand did not discuss his actions first, but (1) an admin can rollback the edits much faster if needed in the future, and (2) reverting them at this moment may only lead to another reversal in the future, which simply wastes time and resources. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath are now banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have answered your questions on my RFA| [3]. Thanks! -- Ohmpandya ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You give me a warning of reverting edits in the manos page? Wtf is that? It's my godamn edits that are being reverted!!! And if user levin reverts them again it will be his third time not mine... 91.132.224.196 ( talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
John,
I think it is very important that we proceed very slowly on these BLP items. Now I want you to know that I mean nothing about you personally on that debate, however, I am only addressing the arguments you presented to me. I believe you are a good editor, and I want you to continue to do what you do for this project. Very warmly, Mercury 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Djsasso ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are you saying my message is a personal attack when it wasn't even in English and you can't even read Spanish?
I would like to get a reply.
-- 220.239.180.212 ( talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think that you're so smart, translate what I said then!
P.S. That message wasn't a threat, I was just returning what he said to me. I have had some other serious problems with him in the past over some neutalitiy issues. Can you please warn him?
-- 220.239.180.212 ( talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, I appreciate the notification. You are of course, most welcome to comb my deletion logs, if you feel the need. Thank you also for your helpful comments in my RfA. Warm regards, Keilana talk (recall) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point I will support any change to greatly restrict or eliminate CSDA7 if you can find a way to still let us delete the articles on people who think that facebook type information makes them notable. Suggestion: eliminate organisations , companies, and groups other than musical groups and clubs. DGG ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi John254. I have fulfiulled your request for rollback, after discussion with other admins. Nest Wishes. Pedro : Chat 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed your report because in my opinion it was premature, and I don't think any administrator would block a user that quickly. VOA bot supplied a first tier warning; you jumped straight to a fourth tier warning. Please try to be more patient, as we're not seeing who can report IPs the fastest; instead, try to supply as close to a full range of warnings as you can. Anyway, I'm sorry if you took offense to my removal of your report, but I hope you understand why I did so. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, if a user has engaged in at least two acts of vandalism, the minimum level necessary to satisfy the description "repeated vandalism", he is no longer entitled to an assumption of good faith. Thus, a harsh warning can be issued, followed by a block if the user engages in further vandalism. John254 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism...
John, there's been something of an issue today with a pile of notable articles nominated for deletion. See [8]. I've put the worthy articles among them for speedy keep. See the current AfD log. I'm not an admin, but I think if you quickly close the lot... AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
You have been keeping me extremely busy at WP:AIV these last few days. Keep up the good work. Trusilver ( talk) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. John254 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
John Carter ( talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello John. I noticed you started the most recent request for arbitration. With regard to Scrubs episodes, I just discovered the following AfD discussion regarding these that took place in October 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image. The result of the discussion was to keep these articles - however they are now all redirects - I think this overriding of consensus may be relevant to the case you make. Catchpole ( talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [9]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi John254. I noticed that you know your way around Wikipedia's BLP policy. I wonder if you could have a look at Alex Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, and Tri-City Skins. I believe these articles were frought with rampant BLP abuse. I tried to clean it up to the best of my abilities but I am not a BLP expert. Compare this version with Alex Kulbashian with the current version and you get the picture. There was a fair bit push-back for the changes but I wouldn't put it at the level you normally see at some of the other articles I've been involved in. However AFD's for these articles seem to be frought with vote stacking. See the AFD for Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, the AFD for Tri-City_Skins and also see the same people involved with votestacking in another article of the same category|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canada for Us]]. What I see abusive in these articles is that the subjects are barely notable and they are only notable for one thing, that they were involved with 1 or 2 antisemitic websites that are now defunct and these websites were fined in a Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal. This was referred to in the press as precedent setting however some might argue that the precedent was already set in a previous case Zundel v. Citron. In reality we shouldn't have four articles about these subjects when they are all about the same thing and are only notable about one thing. I think we should have one article called something like Kulbashian v. Warman. Another thing I should add that it seems these articles use tabloids like Now Magazine as there third party sources. Can you help? Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear John254, as you can see, I compiled a chronology of events regarding the history of that dispute, but I also have two suggestions that you may wish to consider: 1) as the previous arbitration case also included fictional characters, you may wish to retitle the case to include this related dispute over fictional characters and maybe even include a 2 or 3 in the title to acknowledge the previous case(s); 2) you may wish to expand the involved party list by looking here and here, as the discussions I have observed involve more than just those currently listed in the current request. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit ( talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. -- Bark ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
subst:Vangel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nburden ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your RfA! I hope you will be succesful after all the great effords you've done! You might have noticed my support was "weak", but it is nothing personal. I just wouldn't give you a "complete support" and sadly enough, there is nothing inbetween the both options. 18,000 edits in just 18 months is very impressive. Enormously impressive. I therefore wish you the best of luck. Yours sincerely, Ramtashaniku ( talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What a great surprise to find the digital phase converter page cleaned up! I had every intention of trying to do more, but looks like you beat me to it. I also wanted to express my appreciation for your support in keeping the page as well. Soothsayer2 ( talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I deleted User:John254/Public health effects of pornography as per your request. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You can block him anytime. It's a vandal only account. 156.34.220.66 ( talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:
For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message ( link) have been notified of this injunction.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [12] is not simply a single study, but a review of the results from several controlled studies.
Thanks for the quick vandalism clean up on my user and talk page. Much appreciated. Bashen ( talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why you routinely seem to file RFARs that you have no direct involvement in? Lawrence § t/ e 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the relief on my Talk page. But it didn´t help for long, as you see here. Could you help again? Thanks, -- Joachim Weckermann ( talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi dude! I kinda wound up at u cuz I really don't know who to ask this. I want to request a block on a IP adress, but I don't really see where I can request a block. It's about IPs 65.164.151.75, they've been vandalizing a lot, by faking album sales without reference [13], and constant capitalization of words like "of", "in" and stuff in song titles [14] [15], constanly removing pictures with good fair use with other picturs [16] on the article Empezar desde Cero, amongst others... (I'm just mentioning one/two examples of everything). Like an obvious one is the following [17], deliberately ignoring the wikipedia standards of having those kind of words in lower case. Now I can keep continuing to revert his edits, but after a while, I get sick & tired of it, and that point has come. So I would like to request a (temporary?) block on this IP. Can u help me with it? -- Luigi-ish ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your questions - this is just a quick note to let you know I have posted my responses. Regards. GB T/ C 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi John -
I have declined to act upon the AIV report that you entered for Betacommandbot. AIV is so for vandalism only (as defined by WP:VANDAL) - in this case, I think the report best belongs on WP:ANI. - Philippe | Talk 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed this AFD as Keep. I'm not going to argue with your decision, but I'm not sure what to do now. While there is no obviously no consensus to delete Albanians in Serbia, there is also no apparent consensus to delete Albanians in Kosovo or Albanians in Central Serbia. As things stand now, the Kosovo article is up and being actively edited, while the Central Serbia article still redirects here. In any case, the material exists in duplicate form in two different places, which doesn't seem like a good situation. What happens next? Thanks, // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |