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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Beeb. Latest developments are here. If you have a moment, your ideas would be appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings!
As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Hi Beeblebrox. Would you take a look at some current RfCs and perhaps summarize and assess the consensus in them? I have requested that RfCs be closed at this link and this link. Rd232 public ( talk · contribs) has asked that some RfCs be closed here. If you could close one or a few of them, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just a note; you obviously might know the existence of users Zaphod_Beeblebrox and ZaphodBeeblebrox. For a moment (but only for a moment), I thought you'd changed your name. Found their names interesting enough to inform you :) Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Following a period of stagnation of around 30 days, the discussion has been moved to Wkipedia space, restarted and and listed on Cent, RfC, and the VP, and will take place here. To remain focused and to avoid confusion, this new discussion concerns only the duration of the trial. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please check the oversight request mail please. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have bothered you. Apparently I was sending to the wrong address. Th ematter has now been expedited. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted the AmphetaDesk article a while ago. I do not agree with the rationale -- even a quick Google or Google Books search brings up a rafter of usable sources.
OK if I recreate the article? -- Michel Vuijlsteke ( talk) 11:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Look familiar? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VI Airlink. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought you meant semi @ Now That's What I Call Music! 79 (UK series) so I just decided to change. Feel free to change if you meant different. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could RD1 this revision. I normally wouldn't worry about a copyvio this old (January), but it was particularly large (several paragraphs long) and sat in the article for several days before being removed. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickson McCunn you said the result was to merge somewhere. One of the voters suggested the article about the trilogy, but such an article does not exist. The perfect title for such an article is Dickson McCunn. So, rather than merging, I'd like to expand the article to be about the trilogy rather than the character. Whaddaya think. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox!
Talay riley is a recent addition. Obvious reaction is to move it to
Talay Riley. No can do - You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation - looks like the title has been
salted after it was last deleted.
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
- 19:29, 24 July 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
- 18:04, 25 February 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
- 02:41, 31 December 2009 Bearcat (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
Article appears not to be WP:A7-able at the moment, tho it might not pass an WP:AfD. Should the page move be allowed now? Cheers! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 06:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, notify user Curb Chain and Good Ol’factory to hault harassing my main "keep" vote on the Category: Categories for deletion site on the Category:Dangerous Professions page. I have warned them and they have kept the argument in contact, I propose to let is cease.-- Corusant ( talk) 03:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have time, I started a question about your screen name on my talk page. Thanks. Arkmanda ( talk) 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon boy hoax (2nd nomination), and also for granting my request for oversight action. Ragettho ( talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Will you reply to my talk page and tell me the 2 or 3 must reads for information a new user should know right away? Arkmanda ( talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Dont you think you locked the page with the IP's version. Just have a look at their talk page history. He was trying to push his POV. He is currently blokced for abusing multiple accounts. -- Commander (Ping Me) 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"
It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the ANI here or at the sockpuppet investigation. DegenFarang ( talk) 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I forgotten the details of this, but yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive64 User: Next-Genn-Gamer(Editor)
My Proof: http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/724/regionn.png
Ignore the "Nigger please" comment. That was from my really stubborn internet argument times. If I can remember enough, that user replaced a image with a wrong one and deleted my picture. He then got my email and proceeded to send me that message.
That is all. I don't really care about this anymore truthfully. It's just unfortunate that I didn't post proof at that time. Untraceable2U ( talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micro-airlines.
Shame it's going to be deleted as your neck of the woods is full of these. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. Sorry for the late reply: I missed your "New message" banner and only saw J Milburn's. Great to see an opinion submission, and I shall enjoy reading it later today. However, it does look a little long: is there room for you to cut it down yourslef, or should I prepare a shorter draft for you to approve/reject? Or is having it at full-length a dealbreaker for you? Regards, - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I remember that you posted on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Chill that you think that I may be ready for RFA someday. It is over a year later and I guess that I am bit notorious. I reported an editor to ANI for telling a disruptive editor to f off. The admins that replied told me to chill out, said that it was an alright thing to do since the other editor was being disruptive, and posting "sigh". To top it all of, the member that I reported told me to f off after I brought the incident to ANI. There has been a a lot of other incidents throughout the year. I would like to be an admin, but that will never happen. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
NYyankees51 ( talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You deleted PARSIFAL Project EU, the log says "many valid reasons to delete it". Please be specific. The page view statistics showed more than 6000 viewers in the last month, none of them came to the discussion and voted delete. Two voted delete, one of them had obviously not even read the article, one was "failing to see independent references" - I supplied four, and there are more to come. The recommendations of the project keep influencing future research. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting this very interesting discussion but normally when the result of a deletion discussion is to delete, the article is actually deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi
The article has been deleted [3]. Can you please userify it, or email it to me, so that I can work on sourcing it. Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither WP:NFCR or WP:DR seemed like the right venues to determine the proper actions in this argument. That's why I went to ANI.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe we may have dropped a message on the Ryulong thread at the same time. Just want to make sure, before you write the thread off, that you see my comment at the bottom. Thanks! SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're watching George SJ XXI ( talk · contribs) contribs. From a 410 page book, an "Irish History for Dummies", no less (suits him), he's managed to find one little sentence (well, 2 words) which reads: "The Prime Minster, the Duke of Wellington (an Irishman), decided that compromise was the best bet."
If that isn't being difficult and pushing a POV from a very weak reference (due to the author being Irish (COI?) and not having a bibliography in the book to support his assertion), over books by high-rated biographers, like Richard Holmes and Elizabeth Longford, I don't know what is.
Now do you see what we're up against? I bet it too him all week to find that reference. Is it feasible to claim that it's a weak reference, and can't be used to contradict other references, though? I have already.. but a second opinion can't hurt.
I think it's fair to invoke "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" from WP:COI, though, as it clearly is his one-track motive.
Ma®©usBritish talk 01:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. You deleted the old article (as Tasteless) back in March ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless), but it has now reappeared under his real name. I can't see the deleted version so am not sure if it is substantially similar to this version and if it can be G4ed. I would have thought that someone wanting to recreate it should go to DRV. Polequant ( talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to your invitation at User talk:Muqtasidmansoor, the user has made some edits to a copy of an article, and asked again to be unblocked. My feeling is that the edits are rather minimal, but that the editor seems to be showing a genuine willingness to improve, so my inclination would be to try unblocking. At worst this would be giving some rope before reblocking, and at best we would get a constructive editor. However, since you made the offer perhaps you would like to reassess the case. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, Thank you for your recent help with unblock review. I had actually received some helpful feedback a while ago, and subsequently I've been more careful regardingg reviews of usernames such as those you found from about 2 years ago. I agree with your unblocks, and if you find any others please don't hesitate to notify me, and I'll perform the unblocks myself, or of course you can feel free to do so, no objections from me. :) No worries, — Cirt ( talk) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Seek
WP:DR if you need it, don't do this here.
|
---|
Help me understand why this map is being allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG by you on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA) It uses a 60% density in places that have less than 20%. See the map page for discussion. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No consensus exists and the issue is whether the view presented is verifiable, not correct. It will not just go away by blocking. It will encourage more sock puppets. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ( talk) 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It is over the same issues of posting cherry picked data, particularly by those who are not signed in and have an established prejudicial bias. I have asked several who have edited other Haplogroup articles to review and comment. At this point, much of the problem would begin to be resolved if there was a Silver Lock to prevent editing by those who are not signed in. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
|
You recently warned the above user on edit warring:- User_talk:George_SJ_XXI#here_we_go_again. regrettably I have just had to revert his continued POV editing, by removing the same materiel he was warned about and blocked for previously. His persistent disruptive editing is beyond a joke. Would it be possible to issue a further temporary block to emphasis that his editing is not acceptable. Richard Harvey ( talk) 08:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant has been making harassment of me a hobby for several years now. I am as civil as I can be; but I will not pretend at times I do not call a spade a spade and let him know I (still) don't appreciate his baiting. If that's "sniping" so be it. I'd also appreciate you not tarring the victim with the same brush as the perpetrator. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. Apologies for the delays on this one. I think I had suggested adding another couple of sentences to aftermath? Otherwise I'll officially add it to the queue, and it'll get the usual battering by copyeditors, etc.
I'll try to make sure you're kept informed on this one, obviously, and hopefully you'll be able to sign off on it before publication. - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 10:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted multiple edits on the Prince Harry of Wales by new editor Arnoldxmidnight who has systematically done several small edits to remove referenced detail that has been reverted by several editors. I suspect this has been done in the belief that it wouldn't be noticed, however it is obvious in the article edit history. I also suspect that Arnoldxmidnight and two other new editors Pjw89 and Franticjay are one and the same person, due to their sole editing being to these three articles:- Prince Harry of Wales, Florence Brudenell-Bruce and Chelsy Davy (see their contribution histories for evidence). They also seem to collaborate on having the Chelsy Davy article deleted from Wikipedia, see:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsy Davy (3rd nomination). I placed a comment on the nomination that I suspected the three to be the same person and that has been immediately deleted by Franticjay, who has also reverted the Prince Harry article by individual edits and set to creating a more widespread contribution history. Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
May I inquire for your email address where I can communicate to you privately? I need to inquire about one of your admin logs. I apologize if I'm sending this message through here as I am quite new to the Wikipedia Community and I dont know yet the different functions in this portal. Maybe you know how to reply to this privately?
Hoping to hear from you very soon!
Thanks Michaelg01101 ( talk) 02:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Michaelg01101 ( talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. However, my fear is that if I withdraw any future RfAs I file will be that much harder because opposers will use it as an excuse. The fact the past year has been very stressful for me (and its reflection in my editing) hasn't been helpful, granted... —Jeremy v^_^v Components: V S M 02:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, very good piece. I've emailed you with a few remarks about it. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, a valiant effort that shouldn't give you cause for despair at all. Much more useful than un-actioned criticism, and, perhaps ahead of its time: I can't see that Wikipedia can survive as an encyclopaedic endeavour without some form of peer review PRIOR to publishing an article to the world. It may be that I am uninformed or repeating what you already know, but I think such a process is more likely to succeed if FA guidelines become more focused on end-user experiences (rather than Wikipedia formalities) and then start to trickle down by degrees until some sort of consistent criteria are applied to even stub articles.
I hope you don't give up on the ideal of improving Wikipedia processes, and though I'm no admin, nor aspiring to be one, I would see any contribution I could make to process re-design as more valuable than bickering about content. Count me in anytime you need bodies to help out in any future endeavour to improve quality. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No names needed – you know why – thank you! ;) Ma®©usBritish talk 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
Can we add this back since this album has been confirmed at Brian Wilson's website and USA Today with a 10-25-2011 release date:
http://brianwilson.com/disney/ http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2011-08-17-brian-wilson-disney_n.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksAsher ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will just wait, thanks. ParksAsher ( talk) 12:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
may I ask you say me why this user has been blocked? please answer me in my talk page.-- Behtis ( talk) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I bet when you saw this heading you thought "Oh hell, who's come to whinge at me now?" I actually wanted to say it was a sensible close. Good thinking. Reyk YO! 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Please userfy deleted article under User:Lexein/UnrealIRCd. I'm not satisfied with the deletion discussion, and I wasn't notified, as a frequent IRC-interested editor. Gah. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michele Bachmann submissive controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ camping}} Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I found the attempt at humour on this page at my expense unacceptable and inappropriate. Wikipedia isn't a place for us to bully each other for our mistakes. I was two minded about whether or not the page should have been deleted, so I nominated it. I wasn't asking for you to delete, because I did not know and wanted others to express there opinion. If you have an issue with my nomination statement please politely inform me on my userpage, do not attempt to make humorous comments in an attempt to embarrass and shame me, while I am just trying my best. RDN1F ( talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Urk. Herostratus ( talk) 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to ask for Talk:UnrealIRCd &history to be userfied to User talk:Lexein/UnrealIRCd. Thanks! In the meantime, User:Lexein/UnrealIRCd is coming along nicely, I think. -- Lexein ( talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I notice the page Benzinga was created and deleted several times recently, yet we have a page Benzinga.com. Is there any reason not to create Benzinga as a redirect to Benzinga.com?— Biosketch ( talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's recently been pointed out [4] to me that there is a slight flaw in my recall criteria. The criteria is fairly simple - if three or more of the people on the list ask me to hand back the tools I will. Sadly a number of memebers of the list are now so inactive as to make my criteria almost un-enforceable - not a good thing. I'd like to add yourself to the list as I trust you to be impartial. Please let me know if you're happy with that or not - or feel free to edit User:Pedro/Recall and either add or remove yourself from the hidden list. Best. Pedro : Chat 09:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Badger is a voting precinct(s), in the general area of Badger Road, considered part of North Pole but not within North Pole city limits. Same with the others which were recently added. Since there are multiple existing CDPs whose names originated with voting precincts (for example, Knik-Fairview), it's entirely possible that there were new ones added for the 2010 Census. I haven't had much time to search their site, and it appears as though the 2010 Census info is making its way into articles only very slowly at this point. If the Census site hasn't been thoroughly explored, it's probably safe to say that people haven't made their way to the Alaska Division of Elections site for cross-checking those names. Cheers. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at this IP - User talk:195.171.221.67 its an educational address. They are slow edit warring on this article, I have warned them more than once, I gave a 3rr template yesterday, I think its been going on for weeks. I started an [Talk:Harriet_Harman RFC on the talkpage] in an attempt to get a solution but the IP continues to revert to his favored position even while the issue RFC is under discussion on the talkpage RFC. - Shall I report him to the 3RRNB or do you think a word from an administrator will have any effect at getting him to wait for the outcome of the RFC - I could also get it protected, but its only this one user? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
RDN1F TALK 18:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I endorse your keep close at WP:Articles for deletion/Ali Manikfan, and I was the nominating editor. In my opinion, the article, whose subject did not meet the requirements for inclusion as far as I could tell after a reasonable investigation, now meets that criteria. TJRC ( talk) 00:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop". Thank you. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Given the nature of this user's comments, an indef block would be very fitting, in my opinion. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
... to that. Sheesh. I mean, what's so hard to understand? -- Rrburke ( talk) 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've commented twice on Iqinn's talk page that I saw it the same way as you. The first had some explanation. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting the William Lane Craig page from unjustified removal of material. Maiorem ( talk) 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Apart from User:Mann_jess, now a User:Huon has begun removing at least 9kb of information from the William Lane Craig page too, on the basis that they are based on primary sources. As I have already mentioned on the Talk page, much of the sources they have removed are not primary sources as alleged; I even raised the matter at WP:BLPN but it is now archived and unresolved. Maiorem ( talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Leave my talk page alone and take your threats elsewhere. I have donated hundreds of hours to Wikipedia and have never got one thanks. All I get is whiny. So if you want to boot me off after three years and hundreds of edits without a single block, fine. Find some other chumps to work for nothing. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yawn. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 00:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You have fully protected a page about a political figure who is currently in the news. The content being disputed was by a single IP address which tried to remove sourced content twice and was reverted. I'm confused by this sort of drastic use of protection. It might make sense if you had meant to semiprotect. But given the small number of edits in question even that would seem to be overkill in this context. Please unprotect. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
While of course admin behavior is only punishable when exercising admin permissions, i'm surprised that an admin would ignore bullet one at
WP:CIV#Avoiding incivility by summarizing "groan", and i'm sad to say i hesitate to be direct in responding to your more substantial comments. Where shall we go from here?
--
Jerzy•
t 09:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox, I read what you wrote at the WP:RPP and agree with it. Please consider that the IP is suspected of being a sock of a blocked user ( FAIZGUEVARRA ( talk · contribs)) per evidence presented here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa and here: [5]. I started a discussion at Moroccan Quarter explaining how to move a page. (copy/paste moves are not allowed as far as I understand). On Almohad Caliphate, please also consider this rude edit summary, as a reply to an invitation for discussion: "dont play games this is an encyclopidia not a forum or private site". Tachfin ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I have been waiting for some admin to approve my request at
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover but I have not seen anyone.
Can you approve it?
Thanks
Arman Cagle (
Contact me
EMail Me
Contribs)
Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your comments here.
As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.
As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:
In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:
Quite simply, your analysis here was too generous. You may recall writing,
I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
On the page Memory Safety in C you restored some content rather than deleting the article. The content you restored was direct copyright. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's tagged as a hoax now, and I feel it is. The one reference doesn't support it, and I've not found anything else. I'm wondering if you have some reason for keeping it that I can't see at the moment. Peridon ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You will have to explain the consensus concept to me as it works in the Idea Lab. It sounds to me like you're saying I need to build a consensus in order to continue a thread? I don't really understand. My thinking was along the lines of Raise an issue and possible ideas, pros and cons --> Wait for replies --> Discuss --> See if anything substantial comes out of it that might be turned into a proposal (or scuttle it) --> take proposal to different forum before putting it up for consensus polling (actual voting) What am I not getting? I don't see how a contentious issue can be explored, and options generated, if instantaneous consensus is required to start the conversation. Complex problems are seldom addressed by going at them with a binary approach, in my experience anyway, they may need more analysis than that, like maybe identifying sub-problems and addressing those, there are all kinds of possibilities. I don't think I should have to build up a quorum in order to justify discussing an idea. And if I need a minimum consensus, how many votes are required to continue the discussion and what's the prescribed timeframe? How is consensus determined if the forum does not use consensus polling? Not trying to be a smartass, I'd just like a clearer explanation of how that forum is being used. OttawaAC ( talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Clear as mud, alright. You and others used different tactics to drown out useful constructive discussion. I was attempting to consider alternative viewpoints outside the status quo "us versus them" flamewar groupthink and got stonewalled by the wolfpack to kill the thread. That pattern recurs on too many forums, talk pages, etc. on Wikipedia to be denied -- a clear pattern of ostracizing, distorting, and aggressively shutting down attempts at constructive discussion that consider offering choices beyond all-or-nothing. I don't think it's reasonable to expect prospective users to check their civil rights at the door if they want to use Wikipedia, and kowtow to the almighty standards of the learned northern white male, who saw fit to create an encyclopedia with rigorous scholarship into Playboy centrefold lists and oops, almost no articles on female scientists or Africa til just recently... What enlightenment is this WP trying to bring to the world eh? You stated: non-starter for me. I don't know how to continue discussing this issue with someone who would even consider the possibility of simply being rid of useful, informative images. Sure, it's arguable, you can argue any point you want, but you are going to lose that argument before you even state your case and I would think that would have already been quite obvious. Before I even state my case eh? That's not even an insinuation, my bad for saying it was earlier -- you were flat out saying that it should have been obvious to me that it was nonsense for me to even decide to start the thread! Not impressed at all by your current backpeddling. As I keep repeating, the Idea Lab mandate blurb states clearly, it is not a forum for consensus polling, yet that is what you and several others on the anti-"censorship" pile-on were trying to do, label my views as "extreme" and break the Idea Lab rules by using consensus polling or repeatedly saying that I was arguing points that were a waste of time, had already been shot down elsewhere, cite cite cite old threads from several years ago, sheesh. I know groupthink when I see it. In your first reply in the thread you explained that you yourself had once suggested an alternative, a CD, and that you avoid all medical articles because of the gory photos. That's illogical for me that you turn around then and say my consideration of the image shutter as a free choice for users to set themselves... I dunno, doesn't make sense to me. Hey, I had one supporter, Dmcq, who got put off by the squabbling. Ah well. Maybe there was a seed of a constructive discussion there, but it got derailed. OttawaAC ( talk) 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit to add: Sorry to lump you in with the others who used the consensus polling and so on. I thought there was potential to discuss things constructively earlier in that thread, and you had good ideas. Maybe you were influenced by the other opposing views that you read in the thread. I don't know. Just sick of flamewars that make zero attempt at dialogue. OttawaAC ( talk) 03:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I don't know where you saw "name-calling". I believe you deliberately misconstrue comments I make, and the perception appears to be mutual. You may believe that the conversation is not one worth having, but the "censorship" issue over images, medical or not, clearly has a recurring appeal to users again and again over the years and I doubt it will end. OttawaAC ( talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've reviewed your DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial and I have a couple issues with notability and referencing. Could you please see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Side note: It's very threatening to have to write a negative message under two red exclamation marks and a stop sign... Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I've placed Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial on hold. Through NewsBank, I've been able to obtain secondary sources about the memorial. I hope the sources will help you expand Alaska Veterans Memorial and make it less reliant on primary sources. Best, Cunard ( talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have several clarifications about the changes I've made to the article's references:
|work=
parameter, which places it in italics. The |publisher=
does not.|archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
parameters to prevent link rot. This ensures that if the docs.newsbank links stop being durable, you will still be able to access them.Cunard ( talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm wrong about the iw.newsbank.com link's being non-durable. I must have confused it with infoweb.newsbank.com links, which expire very quickly. However, I think the docs.newsbank links I changed are better because they are shorter and do not clutter the edit window as much. (As you can probably tell, NewsBank's subdomains are very confusing. Some are durable, some are not, and one redirects to another.) Cunard ( talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you want to fully protect this page before the circus gets any further out of hand than it already is? Trusilver 21:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Thank you for preparing a close for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie. In case you haven't noticed, here are two related links: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie and the entry from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Best, Cunard ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I'm the person who requested the semi-protection on Pingan International Finance Center that you granted a week of full protection for about a week ago now. I hope you don't mind this, but I'm only somewhat good with Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you have any advice about what I should do from here.
After your protection expired, the reverts began again, this time by an actual registered account named Gordon the great who is basically refusing to discuss the article on the talk page despite me asking him to; at this point, since you originally protected the article, the evidence is nearly absolute that the building is under construction; in a recent edit that I did before he reverted, I added several new sources including a secondary source that was fairly recent, something that the article had been lacking. So, at this point, the content dispute in the article isn't really a legitimate one, and more of some users (or perhaps just one) trying to force their opinion that construction is halted. The one thing they are citing--that "there are pictures where it looks like construction is stopped"--isn't even true, as you can read on the talk page discussions; the pictures and forums are one of the most up-to-date sources for it being under construction.
So, I'm not really sure where to go from here. He's reverted me twice, so I'm not sure it qualifies as an edit war yet, but I don't want to let it become one either, as I told this Gordon. I had an RfC that attracted no meaningful input; the only person who responded questioned how we even knew the tower had ever started construction and gave no votes, because there were fewer secondary sources at the time. Semi-blocking won't even work now, because this is a full user. I made a section in the talk page where I asked people to discuss the construction status that had no responses for a week. So, I'm essentially out of the options that I know of, short of bringing the dispute up a bunch of levels to requesting bans or something, which really isn't appropriate at all.
Do you have any advice for me about what to do? I'm kind of lost about what options there are when RfCs don't work, and I don't want the article fully protected permanently, which probably wouldn't be done anyway. Should I just make a post in the edit warring reports channel that you noted before, because the user refuses to discuss reverts on the talk page? Or should I ask for him to be warned by a moderator for edit warring if he continues to revert edits?
I'm passionate about skyscrapers and the Ping'an IFC, so I want to make sure the article is accurate, but I want to make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will hold myself to a one-revert rule against his reverts until there is more input from him or others. Thanks! Merechriolus ( talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Following some discussions about this with other contributors, I would like to request you to review your closing decision. I do not believe there was consensus for deletion, and the deletion itself set a precedent now being used to justify deletion nominations on all such lists. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, etc. Deb ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
On 7 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Veterans Memorial, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Alaska Veterans Memorial honors all the main branches of the United States Armed Forces, as well as the Merchant Marine and the Alaska Territorial Guard? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox, you were left a note on a user talk page--I don't know how to answer the request. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
For that very kind compliment here. I doubt I'm one of the best, but I'm a sucker who's willing to give almost anything a go. However, I really do appreciate the kind words, and wanted to say thank you. WormTT · ( talk) 19:38, 8 October 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Beeb. Latest developments are here. If you have a moment, your ideas would be appreciated. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings!
As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Hi Beeblebrox. Would you take a look at some current RfCs and perhaps summarize and assess the consensus in them? I have requested that RfCs be closed at this link and this link. Rd232 public ( talk · contribs) has asked that some RfCs be closed here. If you could close one or a few of them, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just a note; you obviously might know the existence of users Zaphod_Beeblebrox and ZaphodBeeblebrox. For a moment (but only for a moment), I thought you'd changed your name. Found their names interesting enough to inform you :) Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Following a period of stagnation of around 30 days, the discussion has been moved to Wkipedia space, restarted and and listed on Cent, RfC, and the VP, and will take place here. To remain focused and to avoid confusion, this new discussion concerns only the duration of the trial. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please check the oversight request mail please. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have bothered you. Apparently I was sending to the wrong address. Th ematter has now been expedited. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted the AmphetaDesk article a while ago. I do not agree with the rationale -- even a quick Google or Google Books search brings up a rafter of usable sources.
OK if I recreate the article? -- Michel Vuijlsteke ( talk) 11:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Look familiar? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VI Airlink. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought you meant semi @ Now That's What I Call Music! 79 (UK series) so I just decided to change. Feel free to change if you meant different. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could RD1 this revision. I normally wouldn't worry about a copyvio this old (January), but it was particularly large (several paragraphs long) and sat in the article for several days before being removed. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickson McCunn you said the result was to merge somewhere. One of the voters suggested the article about the trilogy, but such an article does not exist. The perfect title for such an article is Dickson McCunn. So, rather than merging, I'd like to expand the article to be about the trilogy rather than the character. Whaddaya think. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox!
Talay riley is a recent addition. Obvious reaction is to move it to
Talay Riley. No can do - You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation - looks like the title has been
salted after it was last deleted.
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
- 19:29, 24 July 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
- 18:04, 25 February 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
- 02:41, 31 December 2009 Bearcat (talk | contribs) deleted "Talay Riley" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
Article appears not to be WP:A7-able at the moment, tho it might not pass an WP:AfD. Should the page move be allowed now? Cheers! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 06:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, notify user Curb Chain and Good Ol’factory to hault harassing my main "keep" vote on the Category: Categories for deletion site on the Category:Dangerous Professions page. I have warned them and they have kept the argument in contact, I propose to let is cease.-- Corusant ( talk) 03:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have time, I started a question about your screen name on my talk page. Thanks. Arkmanda ( talk) 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon boy hoax (2nd nomination), and also for granting my request for oversight action. Ragettho ( talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Will you reply to my talk page and tell me the 2 or 3 must reads for information a new user should know right away? Arkmanda ( talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Dont you think you locked the page with the IP's version. Just have a look at their talk page history. He was trying to push his POV. He is currently blokced for abusing multiple accounts. -- Commander (Ping Me) 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The user behind TheTakeover (user2005) appealed to another administrator that he is familiar with and had this block overturned, both on his main account and on the two sockpuppets. This is what the administrator said as evidence for overturning the block "There may be MEAT, there may be tag-team behaviour, but abuse of multiple accounts it is not. –xenotalk 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)"
It is my understanding that whether it was a meat or sock puppet isn't relevant and this admin seems to agree with the fact that it was at minimum a meetpuppet but alludes to some 'technical evidence' as a reason for the unblocking. You can read more about this at the ANI here or at the sockpuppet investigation. DegenFarang ( talk) 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I forgotten the details of this, but yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive64 User: Next-Genn-Gamer(Editor)
My Proof: http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/724/regionn.png
Ignore the "Nigger please" comment. That was from my really stubborn internet argument times. If I can remember enough, that user replaced a image with a wrong one and deleted my picture. He then got my email and proceeded to send me that message.
That is all. I don't really care about this anymore truthfully. It's just unfortunate that I didn't post proof at that time. Untraceable2U ( talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micro-airlines.
Shame it's going to be deleted as your neck of the woods is full of these. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. Sorry for the late reply: I missed your "New message" banner and only saw J Milburn's. Great to see an opinion submission, and I shall enjoy reading it later today. However, it does look a little long: is there room for you to cut it down yourslef, or should I prepare a shorter draft for you to approve/reject? Or is having it at full-length a dealbreaker for you? Regards, - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I remember that you posted on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Chill that you think that I may be ready for RFA someday. It is over a year later and I guess that I am bit notorious. I reported an editor to ANI for telling a disruptive editor to f off. The admins that replied told me to chill out, said that it was an alright thing to do since the other editor was being disruptive, and posting "sigh". To top it all of, the member that I reported told me to f off after I brought the incident to ANI. There has been a a lot of other incidents throughout the year. I would like to be an admin, but that will never happen. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
NYyankees51 ( talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You deleted PARSIFAL Project EU, the log says "many valid reasons to delete it". Please be specific. The page view statistics showed more than 6000 viewers in the last month, none of them came to the discussion and voted delete. Two voted delete, one of them had obviously not even read the article, one was "failing to see independent references" - I supplied four, and there are more to come. The recommendations of the project keep influencing future research. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting this very interesting discussion but normally when the result of a deletion discussion is to delete, the article is actually deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi
The article has been deleted [3]. Can you please userify it, or email it to me, so that I can work on sourcing it. Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither WP:NFCR or WP:DR seemed like the right venues to determine the proper actions in this argument. That's why I went to ANI.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe we may have dropped a message on the Ryulong thread at the same time. Just want to make sure, before you write the thread off, that you see my comment at the bottom. Thanks! SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're watching George SJ XXI ( talk · contribs) contribs. From a 410 page book, an "Irish History for Dummies", no less (suits him), he's managed to find one little sentence (well, 2 words) which reads: "The Prime Minster, the Duke of Wellington (an Irishman), decided that compromise was the best bet."
If that isn't being difficult and pushing a POV from a very weak reference (due to the author being Irish (COI?) and not having a bibliography in the book to support his assertion), over books by high-rated biographers, like Richard Holmes and Elizabeth Longford, I don't know what is.
Now do you see what we're up against? I bet it too him all week to find that reference. Is it feasible to claim that it's a weak reference, and can't be used to contradict other references, though? I have already.. but a second opinion can't hurt.
I think it's fair to invoke "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" from WP:COI, though, as it clearly is his one-track motive.
Ma®©usBritish talk 01:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. You deleted the old article (as Tasteless) back in March ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless), but it has now reappeared under his real name. I can't see the deleted version so am not sure if it is substantially similar to this version and if it can be G4ed. I would have thought that someone wanting to recreate it should go to DRV. Polequant ( talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to your invitation at User talk:Muqtasidmansoor, the user has made some edits to a copy of an article, and asked again to be unblocked. My feeling is that the edits are rather minimal, but that the editor seems to be showing a genuine willingness to improve, so my inclination would be to try unblocking. At worst this would be giving some rope before reblocking, and at best we would get a constructive editor. However, since you made the offer perhaps you would like to reassess the case. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, Thank you for your recent help with unblock review. I had actually received some helpful feedback a while ago, and subsequently I've been more careful regardingg reviews of usernames such as those you found from about 2 years ago. I agree with your unblocks, and if you find any others please don't hesitate to notify me, and I'll perform the unblocks myself, or of course you can feel free to do so, no objections from me. :) No worries, — Cirt ( talk) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Seek
WP:DR if you need it, don't do this here.
|
---|
Help me understand why this map is being allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG by you on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA) It uses a 60% density in places that have less than 20%. See the map page for discussion. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No consensus exists and the issue is whether the view presented is verifiable, not correct. It will not just go away by blocking. It will encourage more sock puppets. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC) ( talk) 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It is over the same issues of posting cherry picked data, particularly by those who are not signed in and have an established prejudicial bias. I have asked several who have edited other Haplogroup articles to review and comment. At this point, much of the problem would begin to be resolved if there was a Silver Lock to prevent editing by those who are not signed in. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
|
You recently warned the above user on edit warring:- User_talk:George_SJ_XXI#here_we_go_again. regrettably I have just had to revert his continued POV editing, by removing the same materiel he was warned about and blocked for previously. His persistent disruptive editing is beyond a joke. Would it be possible to issue a further temporary block to emphasis that his editing is not acceptable. Richard Harvey ( talk) 08:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant has been making harassment of me a hobby for several years now. I am as civil as I can be; but I will not pretend at times I do not call a spade a spade and let him know I (still) don't appreciate his baiting. If that's "sniping" so be it. I'd also appreciate you not tarring the victim with the same brush as the perpetrator. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. Apologies for the delays on this one. I think I had suggested adding another couple of sentences to aftermath? Otherwise I'll officially add it to the queue, and it'll get the usual battering by copyeditors, etc.
I'll try to make sure you're kept informed on this one, obviously, and hopefully you'll be able to sign off on it before publication. - Jarry1250 Weasel? Discuss. 10:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just reverted multiple edits on the Prince Harry of Wales by new editor Arnoldxmidnight who has systematically done several small edits to remove referenced detail that has been reverted by several editors. I suspect this has been done in the belief that it wouldn't be noticed, however it is obvious in the article edit history. I also suspect that Arnoldxmidnight and two other new editors Pjw89 and Franticjay are one and the same person, due to their sole editing being to these three articles:- Prince Harry of Wales, Florence Brudenell-Bruce and Chelsy Davy (see their contribution histories for evidence). They also seem to collaborate on having the Chelsy Davy article deleted from Wikipedia, see:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsy Davy (3rd nomination). I placed a comment on the nomination that I suspected the three to be the same person and that has been immediately deleted by Franticjay, who has also reverted the Prince Harry article by individual edits and set to creating a more widespread contribution history. Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
May I inquire for your email address where I can communicate to you privately? I need to inquire about one of your admin logs. I apologize if I'm sending this message through here as I am quite new to the Wikipedia Community and I dont know yet the different functions in this portal. Maybe you know how to reply to this privately?
Hoping to hear from you very soon!
Thanks Michaelg01101 ( talk) 02:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Michaelg01101 ( talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. However, my fear is that if I withdraw any future RfAs I file will be that much harder because opposers will use it as an excuse. The fact the past year has been very stressful for me (and its reflection in my editing) hasn't been helpful, granted... —Jeremy v^_^v Components: V S M 02:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, very good piece. I've emailed you with a few remarks about it. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, a valiant effort that shouldn't give you cause for despair at all. Much more useful than un-actioned criticism, and, perhaps ahead of its time: I can't see that Wikipedia can survive as an encyclopaedic endeavour without some form of peer review PRIOR to publishing an article to the world. It may be that I am uninformed or repeating what you already know, but I think such a process is more likely to succeed if FA guidelines become more focused on end-user experiences (rather than Wikipedia formalities) and then start to trickle down by degrees until some sort of consistent criteria are applied to even stub articles.
I hope you don't give up on the ideal of improving Wikipedia processes, and though I'm no admin, nor aspiring to be one, I would see any contribution I could make to process re-design as more valuable than bickering about content. Count me in anytime you need bodies to help out in any future endeavour to improve quality. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No names needed – you know why – thank you! ;) Ma®©usBritish talk 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) |
Can we add this back since this album has been confirmed at Brian Wilson's website and USA Today with a 10-25-2011 release date:
http://brianwilson.com/disney/ http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2011-08-17-brian-wilson-disney_n.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksAsher ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will just wait, thanks. ParksAsher ( talk) 12:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
may I ask you say me why this user has been blocked? please answer me in my talk page.-- Behtis ( talk) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I bet when you saw this heading you thought "Oh hell, who's come to whinge at me now?" I actually wanted to say it was a sensible close. Good thinking. Reyk YO! 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Please userfy deleted article under User:Lexein/UnrealIRCd. I'm not satisfied with the deletion discussion, and I wasn't notified, as a frequent IRC-interested editor. Gah. -- Lexein ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michele Bachmann submissive controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ camping}} Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I found the attempt at humour on this page at my expense unacceptable and inappropriate. Wikipedia isn't a place for us to bully each other for our mistakes. I was two minded about whether or not the page should have been deleted, so I nominated it. I wasn't asking for you to delete, because I did not know and wanted others to express there opinion. If you have an issue with my nomination statement please politely inform me on my userpage, do not attempt to make humorous comments in an attempt to embarrass and shame me, while I am just trying my best. RDN1F ( talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Urk. Herostratus ( talk) 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to ask for Talk:UnrealIRCd &history to be userfied to User talk:Lexein/UnrealIRCd. Thanks! In the meantime, User:Lexein/UnrealIRCd is coming along nicely, I think. -- Lexein ( talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I notice the page Benzinga was created and deleted several times recently, yet we have a page Benzinga.com. Is there any reason not to create Benzinga as a redirect to Benzinga.com?— Biosketch ( talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's recently been pointed out [4] to me that there is a slight flaw in my recall criteria. The criteria is fairly simple - if three or more of the people on the list ask me to hand back the tools I will. Sadly a number of memebers of the list are now so inactive as to make my criteria almost un-enforceable - not a good thing. I'd like to add yourself to the list as I trust you to be impartial. Please let me know if you're happy with that or not - or feel free to edit User:Pedro/Recall and either add or remove yourself from the hidden list. Best. Pedro : Chat 09:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Badger is a voting precinct(s), in the general area of Badger Road, considered part of North Pole but not within North Pole city limits. Same with the others which were recently added. Since there are multiple existing CDPs whose names originated with voting precincts (for example, Knik-Fairview), it's entirely possible that there were new ones added for the 2010 Census. I haven't had much time to search their site, and it appears as though the 2010 Census info is making its way into articles only very slowly at this point. If the Census site hasn't been thoroughly explored, it's probably safe to say that people haven't made their way to the Alaska Division of Elections site for cross-checking those names. Cheers. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at this IP - User talk:195.171.221.67 its an educational address. They are slow edit warring on this article, I have warned them more than once, I gave a 3rr template yesterday, I think its been going on for weeks. I started an [Talk:Harriet_Harman RFC on the talkpage] in an attempt to get a solution but the IP continues to revert to his favored position even while the issue RFC is under discussion on the talkpage RFC. - Shall I report him to the 3RRNB or do you think a word from an administrator will have any effect at getting him to wait for the outcome of the RFC - I could also get it protected, but its only this one user? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
RDN1F TALK 18:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I endorse your keep close at WP:Articles for deletion/Ali Manikfan, and I was the nominating editor. In my opinion, the article, whose subject did not meet the requirements for inclusion as far as I could tell after a reasonable investigation, now meets that criteria. TJRC ( talk) 00:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop". Thank you. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Given the nature of this user's comments, an indef block would be very fitting, in my opinion. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
... to that. Sheesh. I mean, what's so hard to understand? -- Rrburke ( talk) 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I've commented twice on Iqinn's talk page that I saw it the same way as you. The first had some explanation. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for protecting the William Lane Craig page from unjustified removal of material. Maiorem ( talk) 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Apart from User:Mann_jess, now a User:Huon has begun removing at least 9kb of information from the William Lane Craig page too, on the basis that they are based on primary sources. As I have already mentioned on the Talk page, much of the sources they have removed are not primary sources as alleged; I even raised the matter at WP:BLPN but it is now archived and unresolved. Maiorem ( talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Leave my talk page alone and take your threats elsewhere. I have donated hundreds of hours to Wikipedia and have never got one thanks. All I get is whiny. So if you want to boot me off after three years and hundreds of edits without a single block, fine. Find some other chumps to work for nothing. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yawn. Spoonkymonkey ( talk) 00:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You have fully protected a page about a political figure who is currently in the news. The content being disputed was by a single IP address which tried to remove sourced content twice and was reverted. I'm confused by this sort of drastic use of protection. It might make sense if you had meant to semiprotect. But given the small number of edits in question even that would seem to be overkill in this context. Please unprotect. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
While of course admin behavior is only punishable when exercising admin permissions, i'm surprised that an admin would ignore bullet one at
WP:CIV#Avoiding incivility by summarizing "groan", and i'm sad to say i hesitate to be direct in responding to your more substantial comments. Where shall we go from here?
--
Jerzy•
t 09:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox, I read what you wrote at the WP:RPP and agree with it. Please consider that the IP is suspected of being a sock of a blocked user ( FAIZGUEVARRA ( talk · contribs)) per evidence presented here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa and here: [5]. I started a discussion at Moroccan Quarter explaining how to move a page. (copy/paste moves are not allowed as far as I understand). On Almohad Caliphate, please also consider this rude edit summary, as a reply to an invitation for discussion: "dont play games this is an encyclopidia not a forum or private site". Tachfin ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I have been waiting for some admin to approve my request at
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover but I have not seen anyone.
Can you approve it?
Thanks
Arman Cagle (
Contact me
EMail Me
Contribs)
Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your comments here.
As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.
As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:
In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:
Quite simply, your analysis here was too generous. You may recall writing,
I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
On the page Memory Safety in C you restored some content rather than deleting the article. The content you restored was direct copyright. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's tagged as a hoax now, and I feel it is. The one reference doesn't support it, and I've not found anything else. I'm wondering if you have some reason for keeping it that I can't see at the moment. Peridon ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You will have to explain the consensus concept to me as it works in the Idea Lab. It sounds to me like you're saying I need to build a consensus in order to continue a thread? I don't really understand. My thinking was along the lines of Raise an issue and possible ideas, pros and cons --> Wait for replies --> Discuss --> See if anything substantial comes out of it that might be turned into a proposal (or scuttle it) --> take proposal to different forum before putting it up for consensus polling (actual voting) What am I not getting? I don't see how a contentious issue can be explored, and options generated, if instantaneous consensus is required to start the conversation. Complex problems are seldom addressed by going at them with a binary approach, in my experience anyway, they may need more analysis than that, like maybe identifying sub-problems and addressing those, there are all kinds of possibilities. I don't think I should have to build up a quorum in order to justify discussing an idea. And if I need a minimum consensus, how many votes are required to continue the discussion and what's the prescribed timeframe? How is consensus determined if the forum does not use consensus polling? Not trying to be a smartass, I'd just like a clearer explanation of how that forum is being used. OttawaAC ( talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Clear as mud, alright. You and others used different tactics to drown out useful constructive discussion. I was attempting to consider alternative viewpoints outside the status quo "us versus them" flamewar groupthink and got stonewalled by the wolfpack to kill the thread. That pattern recurs on too many forums, talk pages, etc. on Wikipedia to be denied -- a clear pattern of ostracizing, distorting, and aggressively shutting down attempts at constructive discussion that consider offering choices beyond all-or-nothing. I don't think it's reasonable to expect prospective users to check their civil rights at the door if they want to use Wikipedia, and kowtow to the almighty standards of the learned northern white male, who saw fit to create an encyclopedia with rigorous scholarship into Playboy centrefold lists and oops, almost no articles on female scientists or Africa til just recently... What enlightenment is this WP trying to bring to the world eh? You stated: non-starter for me. I don't know how to continue discussing this issue with someone who would even consider the possibility of simply being rid of useful, informative images. Sure, it's arguable, you can argue any point you want, but you are going to lose that argument before you even state your case and I would think that would have already been quite obvious. Before I even state my case eh? That's not even an insinuation, my bad for saying it was earlier -- you were flat out saying that it should have been obvious to me that it was nonsense for me to even decide to start the thread! Not impressed at all by your current backpeddling. As I keep repeating, the Idea Lab mandate blurb states clearly, it is not a forum for consensus polling, yet that is what you and several others on the anti-"censorship" pile-on were trying to do, label my views as "extreme" and break the Idea Lab rules by using consensus polling or repeatedly saying that I was arguing points that were a waste of time, had already been shot down elsewhere, cite cite cite old threads from several years ago, sheesh. I know groupthink when I see it. In your first reply in the thread you explained that you yourself had once suggested an alternative, a CD, and that you avoid all medical articles because of the gory photos. That's illogical for me that you turn around then and say my consideration of the image shutter as a free choice for users to set themselves... I dunno, doesn't make sense to me. Hey, I had one supporter, Dmcq, who got put off by the squabbling. Ah well. Maybe there was a seed of a constructive discussion there, but it got derailed. OttawaAC ( talk) 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit to add: Sorry to lump you in with the others who used the consensus polling and so on. I thought there was potential to discuss things constructively earlier in that thread, and you had good ideas. Maybe you were influenced by the other opposing views that you read in the thread. I don't know. Just sick of flamewars that make zero attempt at dialogue. OttawaAC ( talk) 03:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I don't know where you saw "name-calling". I believe you deliberately misconstrue comments I make, and the perception appears to be mutual. You may believe that the conversation is not one worth having, but the "censorship" issue over images, medical or not, clearly has a recurring appeal to users again and again over the years and I doubt it will end. OttawaAC ( talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've reviewed your DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial and I have a couple issues with notability and referencing. Could you please see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Side note: It's very threatening to have to write a negative message under two red exclamation marks and a stop sign... Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I've placed Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial on hold. Through NewsBank, I've been able to obtain secondary sources about the memorial. I hope the sources will help you expand Alaska Veterans Memorial and make it less reliant on primary sources. Best, Cunard ( talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I have several clarifications about the changes I've made to the article's references:
|work=
parameter, which places it in italics. The |publisher=
does not.|archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
parameters to prevent link rot. This ensures that if the docs.newsbank links stop being durable, you will still be able to access them.Cunard ( talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm wrong about the iw.newsbank.com link's being non-durable. I must have confused it with infoweb.newsbank.com links, which expire very quickly. However, I think the docs.newsbank links I changed are better because they are shorter and do not clutter the edit window as much. (As you can probably tell, NewsBank's subdomains are very confusing. Some are durable, some are not, and one redirects to another.) Cunard ( talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you want to fully protect this page before the circus gets any further out of hand than it already is? Trusilver 21:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Thank you for preparing a close for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie. In case you haven't noticed, here are two related links: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie and the entry from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Best, Cunard ( talk) 00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I'm the person who requested the semi-protection on Pingan International Finance Center that you granted a week of full protection for about a week ago now. I hope you don't mind this, but I'm only somewhat good with Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you have any advice about what I should do from here.
After your protection expired, the reverts began again, this time by an actual registered account named Gordon the great who is basically refusing to discuss the article on the talk page despite me asking him to; at this point, since you originally protected the article, the evidence is nearly absolute that the building is under construction; in a recent edit that I did before he reverted, I added several new sources including a secondary source that was fairly recent, something that the article had been lacking. So, at this point, the content dispute in the article isn't really a legitimate one, and more of some users (or perhaps just one) trying to force their opinion that construction is halted. The one thing they are citing--that "there are pictures where it looks like construction is stopped"--isn't even true, as you can read on the talk page discussions; the pictures and forums are one of the most up-to-date sources for it being under construction.
So, I'm not really sure where to go from here. He's reverted me twice, so I'm not sure it qualifies as an edit war yet, but I don't want to let it become one either, as I told this Gordon. I had an RfC that attracted no meaningful input; the only person who responded questioned how we even knew the tower had ever started construction and gave no votes, because there were fewer secondary sources at the time. Semi-blocking won't even work now, because this is a full user. I made a section in the talk page where I asked people to discuss the construction status that had no responses for a week. So, I'm essentially out of the options that I know of, short of bringing the dispute up a bunch of levels to requesting bans or something, which really isn't appropriate at all.
Do you have any advice for me about what to do? I'm kind of lost about what options there are when RfCs don't work, and I don't want the article fully protected permanently, which probably wouldn't be done anyway. Should I just make a post in the edit warring reports channel that you noted before, because the user refuses to discuss reverts on the talk page? Or should I ask for him to be warned by a moderator for edit warring if he continues to revert edits?
I'm passionate about skyscrapers and the Ping'an IFC, so I want to make sure the article is accurate, but I want to make sure to do so in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I will hold myself to a one-revert rule against his reverts until there is more input from him or others. Thanks! Merechriolus ( talk) 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Following some discussions about this with other contributors, I would like to request you to review your closing decision. I do not believe there was consensus for deletion, and the deletion itself set a precedent now being used to justify deletion nominations on all such lists. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, etc. Deb ( talk) 11:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
On 7 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Veterans Memorial, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Alaska Veterans Memorial honors all the main branches of the United States Armed Forces, as well as the Merchant Marine and the Alaska Territorial Guard? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox, you were left a note on a user talk page--I don't know how to answer the request. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
For that very kind compliment here. I doubt I'm one of the best, but I'm a sucker who's willing to give almost anything a go. However, I really do appreciate the kind words, and wanted to say thank you. WormTT · ( talk) 19:38, 8 October 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. |