This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Beeblebrox
Just yesterday you deleted the entry of William Houston Blount, thank you for taking the time to consider his entry. However I think I agree with your line that "you are a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit" and in this case re notability. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Blount's case was properly considered as he is without a doubt a notable person in the state of Alabama and the southeastern United States. Mr. Blount's passing was covered by an article on the front page of the Business Section of the Birmingham News, in addition an op ed by the same newspaper (I know same source) was written just to cover and reiterate what a significant resource to the city of Birmingham he was. His death was covered on a radio station as well. He was a significant player in the creation and growth of two major NYSE and AMEX listed companies. He was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, he had a major tanker named after him, a charity named after him and documented major philanthropist for the state of Alabama. All this was noted in my entry with references and links however even more of his active work which was covered in the 70 and 80's never made it online.
I just wanted to make sure you understood the above significant and notable things he accomplished and just made the deletion decision because he was the focus of only two articles which happened to be the same source. While I still disagree with your "stickler for the letter basis" as it omits a notable person from wikipedia, I wanted to make sure his case was carefully considered. Thanks for your time. Houstonbking ( talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Houstonbking (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —
Thanks for your feedback and time. Sorry about misplacement of the new topic. Meanwhile I'll consider next steps Re Wikipedia and WH Blount . Houstonbking ( talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea about infoboxes being sufficient reason to decline CSD. Learn something new every day. The sad part is that I fixed the infobox as the original author left it in a sorry state. Oh well. Cheers! SQGibbon ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apologies for omitting to use this template. As you point out, you already pointed out the same omission in May of last year. I do not think I have omitted to use it inbetween these two errors; it will not occuur again. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give me some assistance here. CloudKade11 ( talk · contribs) has moved all the articles relating to the "North American TV series" to "US TV series" without commenting on the discussion. I posted a message on their talk page advising them to read the discussion and to comment on it. I also stated that I would be reverting their edits. CloudKade11 simply ignored me and performed the move again. I was wondering if you could protect the page from page moves and then move it back to North American TV series as per the discussion. The user is claiming it has nothing to do with Canada despite the cited sources saying it does. Thanks Themeparkgc Talk 08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Bsa dow ski1 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I found where somebody cut-and-pasted an entire chapter from this book into the Two Egg, Florida article, in this diff. It was reverted (charitably due to being "unsourced") by another editor, and I've warned the IP editor who added it appropriately, but I'm wondering if this calls for Revision Deletion per CFRD #1? And the IP has put the entire copyvio text on his talk page, too... Thanks for your time. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Tide rolls 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A page named "Women's superiority" was deleted. In December, it was visited 311 times. You deleted it Jan. 3 because the related article had (I think) already been deleted. To my knowledge, if it was a redirect, it was not a subject of an RfD. May I recreate it as a redirect to Matriarchy? or should I ask elsewhere? Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not ask you to verify there was "consensus" about any move. Forget about the move, alright? This is entirely about article scope ( WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK). The move was just one attempt to resolve these problems. I will be perfectly happy with any alternative approach.
I asked you to verify whether the page is in violation of WP:CFORK and whether it is about any reconizable topic. As you may know, Wikipedia pages in article space need to declare that they have some recognizable scope which can be established based on references. As an uninvolved administrator, it should be possible for you to look at the page and understand what it is proposing to discuss. If this is the case, I would be interested in what that is. If not, I would ask you to do something about it.
Please understand that I am not involved in any content dispute. I am involved in an administrative attempt to enforce the "one article per topic" policy. This edit should be sufficient to illustrate the purpose of my involvement even for the completely uninitiated.
Can you please give me the benefit of doubt that I may actually know what I am doing? I have been an administrator since 2004, and I am not known for using my admin tools as lever in content disputes. When I say that this isn't a content dispute, you may consider the possibility that it is, in fact, not a content dispute. -- dab (𒁳) 08:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user, despite the fact that at User talk:Lars Haeh you were named as the Reviewing administrator with the unblock on hold. The reviewing admin has been editing infrequently recently, and has not responded to the request to comment. Since you, I, and another admin have all independently examined the case and seen no evidence of the supposed problem, it seemed better not to leave the user waiting indefinitely. If you think I was wrong to unblock at this stage please reblock. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why did you fully protect the page from being edited when it's just a move war?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right about the ANI outcome but I think your posts there and elsewhere are getting a little bit heated. IMO it would have been better to wait for an uninvolved closure before notifying the subject, and I'd encourage you to phrase your various posts a bit more neutrally. Your basic take on the situation is probably accurate, but we shouldn't pretend to have figured out unknown details. I liked Gavia Immer's comment at the AfD as a good example of discussing this topic in neutral style. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply to your post on my talk page. Lord Porchcrop POWER 05:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this edit ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ruger_No._1&action=history alot of websites i have searched before direct to host monster and i just wondered also what this means and why it happens. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't decide whether this is vandalism or just in good faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.195.225.38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbleswoggler ( talk • contribs)
Hi, Beeblebrox. This statement of yours promoted me to write an essay: Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it. Please do not get angry with me, and better help me with this essay please. I mean it is my very first essay, and I need help with both my English and content. Please feel free to tell me where did I get it wrong. I am very open to listen to your opinion, and to do my best to understand where you are coming from. If you are to respond, may I please ask you to explain to me where you see the problems with my essay exactly. Thanks for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI. [1] 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe i am fine using Stiki and not doing anything that could be harmful towards wikipedia. Plus,if i'm not sure i will always press the pass button instead of undo just incase. And by the way,i totally understand why you refused to unblocked me and to be quite frank,i would have done the same thing if i were you.I just wondered also,if i needed any help with anything,if i could you? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If i continue to use stiki,even in a good way,will i risk getting banned? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wanted just to say that the user page and talk page are both restored. I'm not resuming my Wiki-Work yet but will when I feel better. This lousy T-shirt
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_(Michelangelo)&diff=prev&oldid=412129343 Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 10:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've gone back through some of his recent "vandalism" reverts, and although he's getting a lot of good ones, he's still getting too many wrong - see his Talk page for several I've informed him of already today. I'm going to offer him a few words of advice about using STicki, and will check back later. But sadly, he might need to be stopped again. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=412147587&diff=prev and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rahm_Emanuel&diff=prev&oldid=412147316 Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=412170804&diff=prev Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How about if i only do the ones i am 110 % sure on and if i'm only 99 % sure i will leave it? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Plus,I really don't want to go through being blocked again.I mean no disrespect but it seems that when i make just one mistake,i get threatened with a ban. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, they can basically write a spam or promotional article in their userspace and technically you're not allowed to tag it. Half Shadow 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for posting the blocks at AN/I. I agree they were engaging in minor edit-war, but I thought the block was going too far. I have explained my reasoning more fully on the AN/I thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#CheckUser - not sure if you think it's time? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you about how that AfD was closed; I've been having similar problems myself. Seems a little perfunctory. For example, I would have liked to have seen an actual opinion on the issues I raised in the Afd for Sedra Bistodeau. But no, it's like, "You're cool. Bye." I expect more of an admin. Definitely more than the relisting (and similarly casual decision summary) he did here. [3] It's like he's not even paying attention. And look at the consequences of that relisting. (I had to write the real Richard Hills to get action. Imagine if it had gone to "No Consensus" because of similar inattention.)
But I digress. I've done a little work on the article in question, and I agree that it ought to be merged. Is my merge target right, though? Yakushima ( talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This deletion is outrageous. I'll keep looking for sources, and as soon as I have them, I will ask for the article to be restored and for you to be deprived of your adminship.-- Pablozeta ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but how could you agree to delete the white argintine article? Your statement that "the way it is used is inconsistent, and most Argentines apparently do not self-identify as "white" even if they might "feel white" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and this term is not used by other Argentines to refer these persons." makes no sense. You did not point out how it's inconsistent. Where is your justification for that "apparently"? Yes most Argentines do self identify as white and we gave sources from the CIA world fact book which has to be based on self-identification. Secret killer ( talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please do a history merge on Porchcrops talk page, adding the old history to his new and disguised page? I don't want to play anymore games with him. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The OBNOXIOUS Barnstar | ||
FOR YOUR EXCELLENT ABILITY TO BE LOUD AND DIFFICULT TO IGNORE EVEN IN A TEXT ONLY MEDIUM, YOU ARE AWARDED THIS OBNOXIOUS THING!!!! You asked for it :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
(nice piece of work by the way! About the only thing I could think to add would be a bunch of annoying animated graphics :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review your close here. The significant reasons for deletion supported by others than the nominator, who was giving every appearance of being vexatious were:
During the time for debate most of the articles were written, which obviates this reason. Further a major complaint by the nom was the naming, I had indicated a willingness to move the articles to a more accurate name, and of course I could have done this during the AfD, but I preferred to not introduce the complication.
I have commented on your review that closing any AfD on the basis of numbers is a mistake: in this case doubly so, since the reasons for the !votes were addressed.
Rich
Farmbrough,
08:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
Suppose
Martin Smith (Croydon) is at AfD as non-notable, you come to close the AfD just when the last comment says he has been arrested for shooting the Queen. Would you still close it as NN? No because the bare facts have changed. If the facts change all the opinion based on the old invalidated facts is worthless, regardless of the sagacity of the proponents. There is no argument for deletion here that stands the remotest scrutiny, except that they were (originally) stubs - which hasn't been an argument for deletion for some considerable time (well a few years a go an wayward admin speedied about a thousand of them - I rescued a few only).
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
I guess before I start WP:DRV, I'm suppose to contact you. I see no consensus to redirect, I see either a no consensus or a relist is more appropriate. You supervoted a redirect, which no one !voted. CTJF83 19:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The last poster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Indian films created a redirect to Enthiran#Box office after your deletion. Whether or not it actually is the highest grossing, the target seems odd for the list title. Do you consider it within the AfD close to delete the redirect or should it be taken to RfD? PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't already (I've been away for a few days), then go ahead and re-add the gif if you think it'll discourage more no-hope RfAs. Apologies for the belated reply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
AE notifications related to the September 11 attacks subject area are being logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of notifications. Cs32en Talk to me 02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have closed the section for commenting...you should be doing discretionary sanctions on editors that are here to do harm...by that I mean those that misuse the website to promote pet theories/fringe/and conspiracy theories at the expense of the facts. You should never threaten harm to those with a history of promoting facts over fiction...and if you think there has been an edit war, you should remind all parties involved, not single out one editor..it takes more than one to edit war. I do not like being singled out nor threatened with sanctions when probably more than anyone else on this website, I have been at the forefront of keeping 9/11 conspiracy theories at bay...and have suffered the vindictive wrath of these POV pushing trolls by way of having a heinous post made of my stance by a CTer at the encyclopedia dramatica website...I have had a dozen death threats made via email...my userspace suffered long term repeat vandalism to it from this garbage, which still happens to this day off and on...I made it clear on that last edit that I was going to bring the issue to discussion, after doing so I closed it with NO CONSENSUS for my alteration, respecting as well as I could the opinions of most of those that commented. Editing this website, we have had some of the same people that have harassed in real life, engineers and other authorities that have spoken openly about the preposterousness of the 9/11 truth movement...this is not a lie. Checkuser has IDed the IPs that link closely to the known whereabouts of some of the worst of of these scumbags. You may not like my MO and the CTers hate my guts...but you know what, I want them to know as clearly as possible that I don't like them messing with this website and so long as I have any say in it, they're not going to feel any welcome from me so long as they are here to promote fiction over fact.-- MONGO 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles [5] simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. WP:PCPP does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the straw poll, which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best, Chzz ►
[Outdenting] Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and I'm helping the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made to Risker, and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied.
Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever!
It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Beeblebrox, but is this (obviously deliberate) misspelling intended as an insult to Wiktionary? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's fighting words! BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me... Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks John Milito ( talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. Rami R 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! Ashanda ( talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page Airdrie Astronomical Association and redirect it to the same page, Airdrie Public Observatory? — innotata 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about WP:FORUM and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. Soxwon ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. Soxwon ( talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to wikiediting. Really don't know how to offer edits to a semi-protected page. But I'm a good editor of written articles and I note discrepancies in a wikipedia article that need to be addressed. So I apologize ahead of time if I haven't done this the right way. In reading the September 11 attack wikipedia article, I note the following two inconsistent sentences in two separate paragraphs: Preamble (4th paragraph) - "The new One World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become the tallest building in North America." {unsourced}
Rebuilding - "The 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become one of the tallest buildings in North America, behind only the CN Tower in Toronto.[253][254]"
I read both 253 and 254 and neither link mentions the CN Tower in Toronto. The article at 253 says the One World Trade Center will be the tallest "in the United States", not North America. The linked article (written in 2006) also gives an expected completion of 2011, but a more recent article says it is currently over half finished and will be 85-90 floors by the tenth anniversary, i.e., 9/11/11. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/26/one-world-trade-center-passes-halfway-mark/ Mthorn10 ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)mthorn10
I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. Feed back ☎ 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours [7] in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR [8] on the article talk page.
While this seems to be a clear WP:PREFER case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted.
I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the WP:OWN problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
How much longer should this [9] [10] go on before it's worth requesting protection again? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You should be made aware of
Pplease (
talk ·
contribs)
Pplasse (
talk ·
contribs), a
WP:SPA who also uses
75.1.30.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) and who, after an administrator fully-protected
Jason Plummer (politician) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you:
edit 1,
edit 2. Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --
Closeapple (
talk)
08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:EDITWAR is a policy. If you don't like it get the policy changed.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that. This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Wikipedia and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Wikipedia, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
user decided to drag this to
WP:ANI
|
---|
Beeblebrox: I realize the article, at first blush, appears to be the same as the offensive "White Argentine" article deleted a month ago. It is not, however, as it makes no reference to Argentines of European descent being "white," mentions that term only to dismiss it as atypical of Argentine speech, while speaking only of the history of Argentine people who happen to be of European descent (most of whom are the result of intermarriage between immigrants of many different nationalities in Europe). The title is in no way a construct of anything, as the existence of Argetine people of European descent is self-evident, and is is no way different fro or disparaging toward articles about Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, or any one else. The article itself meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. I take my work here, and your decision and reasons for your earlier deletion, seriously, and would not simply "cut and paste" something that had been offensive to others to te point of it's being deleted. Plase write me back if you have any doubts or suggestions at all. Sincerely, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Heh. Anyways, you (will) have gotten mail. -- Addi hockey 10 e-mail 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty disappointing. If I were to nominate every page that I was personally uninterested in, I wouldn't have enough time in the day. Why not do what I suggested? What happened to the original goal of collecting the world's information? Instead, the information is lost forever. Deletionists win rather than giving time for articles to grow. RoyLeban ( talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I read your closing statement. Wouldn't it have been better to follow my suggestion than to delete the article and have somebody start over? (trick question: answer is Yes) Deletionists drive people like me away from Wikipedia. I don't have 10 hours a day to edit. Maybe 10 hours a year. But, when people delete before giving an article a chance (and note I didn't create the article, I just made a few minor edits and defended it), that absolutely does not help Wikipedia grow. BTW, Back in 2000, when I first started editing Wikipedia, a stated goal was something along the lines of "collecting the world's information". Of course, that goal has long since vanished.
Sometimes I feel that I should go find a few hundred pages that I think are below the quality of what belongs and nominate them for deletion. It wouldn't be hard. I'd say 50% of the pages I find on a random walk are such candidates. Of course, people would claim I was just trying to disrupt Wikipedia.
Here's a quick random walk experiment -- ten clicks on Random article.
So, of those ten, I'd nuke more than half, if I was a deletionist. Try it yourself and see what you get. RoyLeban ( talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old to your question.
By the way, if I don't reply soon, ping me on my talk page or send me email. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you did a very nice thing in your recent edits. Undoubtedly you will catch a measure of flack from some with a inclination for conflict. I think the reasoned view will fully support your properly bold actions. I am feeling optimistic as a result and wanted to share a bit of it with you. Bravo My76 Strat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I changed the wording of the "PC drives away new users" section very slightly. If you mind, please revert and I'll start a separate section, but since it didn't have any votes yet and it's essentially the same, I didn't think that was worth it. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been busy for a little bit and found this message on my talk page. I wasn't sure who to contact about it. Shinerunner (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Spanish editionExcuse this request. I used to collaborate in the Spanish edition, that´s my mother tongue. Unfortunately, a few group of Spanish administrators are expelling many contributors as well as deleting thousands of relevant articles which are well redacted too. I would like to "appeal to a higher authority". I tried to talk to other Spanish administrators but they don´t dare to do anything. I´m not the only one complaining about this. I think that if no one intervenes, the prestige of wikipedia is going to decline, at least in the Spanish edition which forms part of the global project. Who could I talk to? Thank you, regards.
--Bromley80 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's that syndrome again, isn't it - what's it called? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for this. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by by your comment here. I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something Please see here. It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged. HJ Mitchell understands it Do you? regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you please review this offensive vandalism that I reverted - Diff - and revdelete it if you agree that it is particularly offensive. Thanks. Roger ( talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.
They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at
WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm tryin to unify my user globally on wikipedia, but on this wiki some user have logged whit the same user name. He or she doesn't have eaven a user page, maybe he or she even use it really. I am asking you for help to unify me, my user name is Qban answer me on wiki.es [14]. My native language is spanish, but you should answer me in english(it is medium, please be understandable). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 ( talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Beeblebrox
Just yesterday you deleted the entry of William Houston Blount, thank you for taking the time to consider his entry. However I think I agree with your line that "you are a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit" and in this case re notability. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Blount's case was properly considered as he is without a doubt a notable person in the state of Alabama and the southeastern United States. Mr. Blount's passing was covered by an article on the front page of the Business Section of the Birmingham News, in addition an op ed by the same newspaper (I know same source) was written just to cover and reiterate what a significant resource to the city of Birmingham he was. His death was covered on a radio station as well. He was a significant player in the creation and growth of two major NYSE and AMEX listed companies. He was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, he had a major tanker named after him, a charity named after him and documented major philanthropist for the state of Alabama. All this was noted in my entry with references and links however even more of his active work which was covered in the 70 and 80's never made it online.
I just wanted to make sure you understood the above significant and notable things he accomplished and just made the deletion decision because he was the focus of only two articles which happened to be the same source. While I still disagree with your "stickler for the letter basis" as it omits a notable person from wikipedia, I wanted to make sure his case was carefully considered. Thanks for your time. Houstonbking ( talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Houstonbking (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —
Thanks for your feedback and time. Sorry about misplacement of the new topic. Meanwhile I'll consider next steps Re Wikipedia and WH Blount . Houstonbking ( talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea about infoboxes being sufficient reason to decline CSD. Learn something new every day. The sad part is that I fixed the infobox as the original author left it in a sorry state. Oh well. Cheers! SQGibbon ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apologies for omitting to use this template. As you point out, you already pointed out the same omission in May of last year. I do not think I have omitted to use it inbetween these two errors; it will not occuur again. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give me some assistance here. CloudKade11 ( talk · contribs) has moved all the articles relating to the "North American TV series" to "US TV series" without commenting on the discussion. I posted a message on their talk page advising them to read the discussion and to comment on it. I also stated that I would be reverting their edits. CloudKade11 simply ignored me and performed the move again. I was wondering if you could protect the page from page moves and then move it back to North American TV series as per the discussion. The user is claiming it has nothing to do with Canada despite the cited sources saying it does. Thanks Themeparkgc Talk 08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Bsa dow ski1 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I found where somebody cut-and-pasted an entire chapter from this book into the Two Egg, Florida article, in this diff. It was reverted (charitably due to being "unsourced") by another editor, and I've warned the IP editor who added it appropriately, but I'm wondering if this calls for Revision Deletion per CFRD #1? And the IP has put the entire copyvio text on his talk page, too... Thanks for your time. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Tide rolls 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A page named "Women's superiority" was deleted. In December, it was visited 311 times. You deleted it Jan. 3 because the related article had (I think) already been deleted. To my knowledge, if it was a redirect, it was not a subject of an RfD. May I recreate it as a redirect to Matriarchy? or should I ask elsewhere? Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 06:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not ask you to verify there was "consensus" about any move. Forget about the move, alright? This is entirely about article scope ( WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK). The move was just one attempt to resolve these problems. I will be perfectly happy with any alternative approach.
I asked you to verify whether the page is in violation of WP:CFORK and whether it is about any reconizable topic. As you may know, Wikipedia pages in article space need to declare that they have some recognizable scope which can be established based on references. As an uninvolved administrator, it should be possible for you to look at the page and understand what it is proposing to discuss. If this is the case, I would be interested in what that is. If not, I would ask you to do something about it.
Please understand that I am not involved in any content dispute. I am involved in an administrative attempt to enforce the "one article per topic" policy. This edit should be sufficient to illustrate the purpose of my involvement even for the completely uninitiated.
Can you please give me the benefit of doubt that I may actually know what I am doing? I have been an administrator since 2004, and I am not known for using my admin tools as lever in content disputes. When I say that this isn't a content dispute, you may consider the possibility that it is, in fact, not a content dispute. -- dab (𒁳) 08:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user, despite the fact that at User talk:Lars Haeh you were named as the Reviewing administrator with the unblock on hold. The reviewing admin has been editing infrequently recently, and has not responded to the request to comment. Since you, I, and another admin have all independently examined the case and seen no evidence of the supposed problem, it seemed better not to leave the user waiting indefinitely. If you think I was wrong to unblock at this stage please reblock. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why did you fully protect the page from being edited when it's just a move war?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right about the ANI outcome but I think your posts there and elsewhere are getting a little bit heated. IMO it would have been better to wait for an uninvolved closure before notifying the subject, and I'd encourage you to phrase your various posts a bit more neutrally. Your basic take on the situation is probably accurate, but we shouldn't pretend to have figured out unknown details. I liked Gavia Immer's comment at the AfD as a good example of discussing this topic in neutral style. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply to your post on my talk page. Lord Porchcrop POWER 05:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this edit ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ruger_No._1&action=history alot of websites i have searched before direct to host monster and i just wondered also what this means and why it happens. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't decide whether this is vandalism or just in good faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.195.225.38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbleswoggler ( talk • contribs)
Hi, Beeblebrox. This statement of yours promoted me to write an essay: Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it. Please do not get angry with me, and better help me with this essay please. I mean it is my very first essay, and I need help with both my English and content. Please feel free to tell me where did I get it wrong. I am very open to listen to your opinion, and to do my best to understand where you are coming from. If you are to respond, may I please ask you to explain to me where you see the problems with my essay exactly. Thanks for your time.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI. [1] 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe i am fine using Stiki and not doing anything that could be harmful towards wikipedia. Plus,if i'm not sure i will always press the pass button instead of undo just incase. And by the way,i totally understand why you refused to unblocked me and to be quite frank,i would have done the same thing if i were you.I just wondered also,if i needed any help with anything,if i could you? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If i continue to use stiki,even in a good way,will i risk getting banned? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wanted just to say that the user page and talk page are both restored. I'm not resuming my Wiki-Work yet but will when I feel better. This lousy T-shirt
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_(Michelangelo)&diff=prev&oldid=412129343 Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 10:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've gone back through some of his recent "vandalism" reverts, and although he's getting a lot of good ones, he's still getting too many wrong - see his Talk page for several I've informed him of already today. I'm going to offer him a few words of advice about using STicki, and will check back later. But sadly, he might need to be stopped again. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=412147587&diff=prev and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rahm_Emanuel&diff=prev&oldid=412147316 Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=412170804&diff=prev Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How about if i only do the ones i am 110 % sure on and if i'm only 99 % sure i will leave it? Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Plus,I really don't want to go through being blocked again.I mean no disrespect but it seems that when i make just one mistake,i get threatened with a ban. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, they can basically write a spam or promotional article in their userspace and technically you're not allowed to tag it. Half Shadow 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for posting the blocks at AN/I. I agree they were engaging in minor edit-war, but I thought the block was going too far. I have explained my reasoning more fully on the AN/I thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#CheckUser - not sure if you think it's time? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you about how that AfD was closed; I've been having similar problems myself. Seems a little perfunctory. For example, I would have liked to have seen an actual opinion on the issues I raised in the Afd for Sedra Bistodeau. But no, it's like, "You're cool. Bye." I expect more of an admin. Definitely more than the relisting (and similarly casual decision summary) he did here. [3] It's like he's not even paying attention. And look at the consequences of that relisting. (I had to write the real Richard Hills to get action. Imagine if it had gone to "No Consensus" because of similar inattention.)
But I digress. I've done a little work on the article in question, and I agree that it ought to be merged. Is my merge target right, though? Yakushima ( talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This deletion is outrageous. I'll keep looking for sources, and as soon as I have them, I will ask for the article to be restored and for you to be deprived of your adminship.-- Pablozeta ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but how could you agree to delete the white argintine article? Your statement that "the way it is used is inconsistent, and most Argentines apparently do not self-identify as "white" even if they might "feel white" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and this term is not used by other Argentines to refer these persons." makes no sense. You did not point out how it's inconsistent. Where is your justification for that "apparently"? Yes most Argentines do self identify as white and we gave sources from the CIA world fact book which has to be based on self-identification. Secret killer ( talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please do a history merge on Porchcrops talk page, adding the old history to his new and disguised page? I don't want to play anymore games with him. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The OBNOXIOUS Barnstar | ||
FOR YOUR EXCELLENT ABILITY TO BE LOUD AND DIFFICULT TO IGNORE EVEN IN A TEXT ONLY MEDIUM, YOU ARE AWARDED THIS OBNOXIOUS THING!!!! You asked for it :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
(nice piece of work by the way! About the only thing I could think to add would be a bunch of annoying animated graphics :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review your close here. The significant reasons for deletion supported by others than the nominator, who was giving every appearance of being vexatious were:
During the time for debate most of the articles were written, which obviates this reason. Further a major complaint by the nom was the naming, I had indicated a willingness to move the articles to a more accurate name, and of course I could have done this during the AfD, but I preferred to not introduce the complication.
I have commented on your review that closing any AfD on the basis of numbers is a mistake: in this case doubly so, since the reasons for the !votes were addressed.
Rich
Farmbrough,
08:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC).
Suppose
Martin Smith (Croydon) is at AfD as non-notable, you come to close the AfD just when the last comment says he has been arrested for shooting the Queen. Would you still close it as NN? No because the bare facts have changed. If the facts change all the opinion based on the old invalidated facts is worthless, regardless of the sagacity of the proponents. There is no argument for deletion here that stands the remotest scrutiny, except that they were (originally) stubs - which hasn't been an argument for deletion for some considerable time (well a few years a go an wayward admin speedied about a thousand of them - I rescued a few only).
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
I guess before I start WP:DRV, I'm suppose to contact you. I see no consensus to redirect, I see either a no consensus or a relist is more appropriate. You supervoted a redirect, which no one !voted. CTJF83 19:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The last poster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Indian films created a redirect to Enthiran#Box office after your deletion. Whether or not it actually is the highest grossing, the target seems odd for the list title. Do you consider it within the AfD close to delete the redirect or should it be taken to RfD? PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't already (I've been away for a few days), then go ahead and re-add the gif if you think it'll discourage more no-hope RfAs. Apologies for the belated reply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
AE notifications related to the September 11 attacks subject area are being logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of notifications. Cs32en Talk to me 02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have closed the section for commenting...you should be doing discretionary sanctions on editors that are here to do harm...by that I mean those that misuse the website to promote pet theories/fringe/and conspiracy theories at the expense of the facts. You should never threaten harm to those with a history of promoting facts over fiction...and if you think there has been an edit war, you should remind all parties involved, not single out one editor..it takes more than one to edit war. I do not like being singled out nor threatened with sanctions when probably more than anyone else on this website, I have been at the forefront of keeping 9/11 conspiracy theories at bay...and have suffered the vindictive wrath of these POV pushing trolls by way of having a heinous post made of my stance by a CTer at the encyclopedia dramatica website...I have had a dozen death threats made via email...my userspace suffered long term repeat vandalism to it from this garbage, which still happens to this day off and on...I made it clear on that last edit that I was going to bring the issue to discussion, after doing so I closed it with NO CONSENSUS for my alteration, respecting as well as I could the opinions of most of those that commented. Editing this website, we have had some of the same people that have harassed in real life, engineers and other authorities that have spoken openly about the preposterousness of the 9/11 truth movement...this is not a lie. Checkuser has IDed the IPs that link closely to the known whereabouts of some of the worst of of these scumbags. You may not like my MO and the CTers hate my guts...but you know what, I want them to know as clearly as possible that I don't like them messing with this website and so long as I have any say in it, they're not going to feel any welcome from me so long as they are here to promote fiction over fact.-- MONGO 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles [5] simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. WP:PCPP does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the straw poll, which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best, Chzz ►
[Outdenting] Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and I'm helping the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made to Risker, and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied.
Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever!
It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Beeblebrox, but is this (obviously deliberate) misspelling intended as an insult to Wiktionary? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's fighting words! BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me... Drmies ( talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks John Milito ( talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. Rami R 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! Ashanda ( talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page Airdrie Astronomical Association and redirect it to the same page, Airdrie Public Observatory? — innotata 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about WP:FORUM and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. Soxwon ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. Soxwon ( talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to wikiediting. Really don't know how to offer edits to a semi-protected page. But I'm a good editor of written articles and I note discrepancies in a wikipedia article that need to be addressed. So I apologize ahead of time if I haven't done this the right way. In reading the September 11 attack wikipedia article, I note the following two inconsistent sentences in two separate paragraphs: Preamble (4th paragraph) - "The new One World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become the tallest building in North America." {unsourced}
Rebuilding - "The 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become one of the tallest buildings in North America, behind only the CN Tower in Toronto.[253][254]"
I read both 253 and 254 and neither link mentions the CN Tower in Toronto. The article at 253 says the One World Trade Center will be the tallest "in the United States", not North America. The linked article (written in 2006) also gives an expected completion of 2011, but a more recent article says it is currently over half finished and will be 85-90 floors by the tenth anniversary, i.e., 9/11/11. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/26/one-world-trade-center-passes-halfway-mark/ Mthorn10 ( talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)mthorn10
I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. Feed back ☎ 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours [7] in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR [8] on the article talk page.
While this seems to be a clear WP:PREFER case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted.
I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the WP:OWN problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
How much longer should this [9] [10] go on before it's worth requesting protection again? -- Ronz ( talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You should be made aware of
Pplease (
talk ·
contribs)
Pplasse (
talk ·
contribs), a
WP:SPA who also uses
75.1.30.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) and who, after an administrator fully-protected
Jason Plummer (politician) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you:
edit 1,
edit 2. Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --
Closeapple (
talk)
08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:EDITWAR is a policy. If you don't like it get the policy changed.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that. This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Wikipedia and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Wikipedia, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
user decided to drag this to
WP:ANI
|
---|
Beeblebrox: I realize the article, at first blush, appears to be the same as the offensive "White Argentine" article deleted a month ago. It is not, however, as it makes no reference to Argentines of European descent being "white," mentions that term only to dismiss it as atypical of Argentine speech, while speaking only of the history of Argentine people who happen to be of European descent (most of whom are the result of intermarriage between immigrants of many different nationalities in Europe). The title is in no way a construct of anything, as the existence of Argetine people of European descent is self-evident, and is is no way different fro or disparaging toward articles about Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, or any one else. The article itself meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. I take my work here, and your decision and reasons for your earlier deletion, seriously, and would not simply "cut and paste" something that had been offensive to others to te point of it's being deleted. Plase write me back if you have any doubts or suggestions at all. Sincerely, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Heh. Anyways, you (will) have gotten mail. -- Addi hockey 10 e-mail 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretty disappointing. If I were to nominate every page that I was personally uninterested in, I wouldn't have enough time in the day. Why not do what I suggested? What happened to the original goal of collecting the world's information? Instead, the information is lost forever. Deletionists win rather than giving time for articles to grow. RoyLeban ( talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I read your closing statement. Wouldn't it have been better to follow my suggestion than to delete the article and have somebody start over? (trick question: answer is Yes) Deletionists drive people like me away from Wikipedia. I don't have 10 hours a day to edit. Maybe 10 hours a year. But, when people delete before giving an article a chance (and note I didn't create the article, I just made a few minor edits and defended it), that absolutely does not help Wikipedia grow. BTW, Back in 2000, when I first started editing Wikipedia, a stated goal was something along the lines of "collecting the world's information". Of course, that goal has long since vanished.
Sometimes I feel that I should go find a few hundred pages that I think are below the quality of what belongs and nominate them for deletion. It wouldn't be hard. I'd say 50% of the pages I find on a random walk are such candidates. Of course, people would claim I was just trying to disrupt Wikipedia.
Here's a quick random walk experiment -- ten clicks on Random article.
So, of those ten, I'd nuke more than half, if I was a deletionist. Try it yourself and see what you get. RoyLeban ( talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old to your question.
By the way, if I don't reply soon, ping me on my talk page or send me email. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you did a very nice thing in your recent edits. Undoubtedly you will catch a measure of flack from some with a inclination for conflict. I think the reasoned view will fully support your properly bold actions. I am feeling optimistic as a result and wanted to share a bit of it with you. Bravo My76 Strat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I changed the wording of the "PC drives away new users" section very slightly. If you mind, please revert and I'll start a separate section, but since it didn't have any votes yet and it's essentially the same, I didn't think that was worth it. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been busy for a little bit and found this message on my talk page. I wasn't sure who to contact about it. Shinerunner (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Spanish editionExcuse this request. I used to collaborate in the Spanish edition, that´s my mother tongue. Unfortunately, a few group of Spanish administrators are expelling many contributors as well as deleting thousands of relevant articles which are well redacted too. I would like to "appeal to a higher authority". I tried to talk to other Spanish administrators but they don´t dare to do anything. I´m not the only one complaining about this. I think that if no one intervenes, the prestige of wikipedia is going to decline, at least in the Spanish edition which forms part of the global project. Who could I talk to? Thank you, regards.
--Bromley80 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It's that syndrome again, isn't it - what's it called? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for this. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by by your comment here. I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something Please see here. It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged. HJ Mitchell understands it Do you? regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you please review this offensive vandalism that I reverted - Diff - and revdelete it if you agree that it is particularly offensive. Thanks. Roger ( talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.
They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at
WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm tryin to unify my user globally on wikipedia, but on this wiki some user have logged whit the same user name. He or she doesn't have eaven a user page, maybe he or she even use it really. I am asking you for help to unify me, my user name is Qban answer me on wiki.es [14]. My native language is spanish, but you should answer me in english(it is medium, please be understandable). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 ( talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (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. |