Hi Shereth. Could you please userfy the three straw poll articles by prepending "User:John J. Bulten/" to each? Please be certain to userfy the talk pages as well (I don't think there were any archives), because the talk contains the significant discussion of allegations of OR and/or SYNTH, as well as much information on sources, and would be a key requirement for improving the articles. Thank you for your attention. JJB 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still laughing about that! :) Abce2| Free Lemonade Only 25 cents! 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
|
In the area? You're invited to | |
Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup | ||
Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm | ||
Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map) |
-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
We're doing it on purpose, you know. To test you. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you were on the signature talk page and wondered if you could help. Basically since maybe the last week or so whenever I try to sign on a message (4x~), this happens. [[User:John Smith's|]] ( talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason an extra "|" is being added. What's up with it? User:John Smith's (talk)
Thank you for closing the surname deletion review, I hope you had some fun reading through the discussion :) In your close you say: "I see no problems with any other admin making them available on a temporary basis". I just wanted to ask, do I qualify for the any other admin group? Haukur ( talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please could you create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeflin/Chris_Eccleshall from the deleted Chris Eccleshall article, then I can work on making the article more reliably sourced? Thanks :-) Beeflin ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,new to the editing side of wikipedia but from what i gather on june 19 you endorsed closure of the lily thai page after another 2 admins had reopened it. * Lily Thai – closure endorsed. – Shereth 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If you're going to delete lily thai, you should also delete 90% of other porn stars on wikipedia and start a real shit storm.
Hi, Shereth.
I see you've closed the DRV for James P Barker early, and I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the consensus. I would like to invite you to reconsider.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
At DRV, "no consensus" is not an unambiguous outcome. The "closing reviews" section says:
If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
In this case, I think "relist at AfD" is a more appropriate outcome than "no consensus".— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that this material wouldn't survive AfD, and I would personally !vote "delete" at such a discussion. But as an overriding consideration, I think speedy deletions do need to be unambiguously correct. I think allowing a seven-day relisting at AfD isn't so high a price to pay, in establishing that principle.
I understand the argument that "the outcome's the same so why does it matter?" but I disagree with it, feeling that this closure sends an inappropriate signal to admins active at CSD. I feel they need to understand that DRV will overturn them if they get it wrong.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have deleted Wicked Wendsdays following an AfD discussion. However, in the meanwhile an editor had moved the article to Wicked Wednesdays, so that what you deleted was just a redirect. Perhaps you could also delete the actual article at Wicked Wednesdays. Thanks in advance, assuming you are going to do it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You recently deleted the article Ironclad (film). I was wondering if you could Userfy the page under my account. Thank you. JEN9841 ( talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't you have relisted this? Nobody but me mentioned any policy based reason to delete the article, and one person was blatantly voting and refused to provide any reason for deletion. This seems to be a close based on who happened to show up at the AFD rather than any attempt to generate a consensus based on policy, not just people voting. -- Chiliad22 ( talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was unnecessary, thanks for you speaking up. The agressive attitude by the friends of the nominee only assists to support my opinion, best regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Hi, just about that UAA report, User:STONEY L.D. STONE has a sockpuppet User:STONEYSTONE used for creating the same copyvio spam. Triplestop x3 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Top of the class, consider yourself in receipt of some kind of barnstar. Thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
Could you please explain your decision? I don't see any response to my query in the discussion. LeadSongDog come howl 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to close Wal-Mart (disambiguation) as delete. True, there were around 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But deletion discussions are not based on votes and consensus seeks joint agreement. I do not see this as a full consensus, and therefore, this should be overturned to no consensus. I am about to go to deletion review, but first, I am bringing this up with the closing admin. Tatterfly ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
At least I know my decision isn't crazy. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. I understand the consensus reached concerning the deletion of the article Out of the Blue (Yale University), and given Wikipedia's guidelines, I do not disagree with them.
In your deletion statement, you mentioned that "If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place)." Would it be enough to begin a Yale singing groups article, and suggest on its talk page that the individual articles of Yale singing groups be merged there?
Finally, would you mind clarifying what it means for a reference to be 'independent and reliable'? I ask this because the presence of references from 4 different notable media sources as well as the American Embassy in Ukraine was deemed insufficient.Thanks for the help! Equartey ( talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
User:R2c2h2 tha artivist, the account in question was creating spamlinks to an online excerpt from a book "Told through the artistic talents and literary skills of the 'artivist' known as R2C2H2"; in other words, it's a spamusername for his/her nom de plume. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I am wondering was this really necessary? It's a user that I welcomed to Wikipedia, so I kept his talkpage on my watchlist. If the name had been obscene or offensive, I'd understand the block without warning. But it seems this was an innocent, technical violation of a policy that he was unaware of. Nothing in his edits indicates bad faith or that the project would have been harmed by allowing him to edit for a day or two longer under that name while explaining the policy and asking him to change. So why could he not have been simply asked to change his username? A block without warning, in the middle of well-meaning edits (which didn't need to be reverted) seems like slapping a newcomer in the face for no urgent reason, and may give a bad impression of Wikipedia or make him not want to contribute even under a new name. Rigaudon ( talk) 06:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could explain why this username "appear[s] to represent or promote a company, group, other organization"? The principal meaning of "portoro" is a type of marble. Is there also a company of this name? If so is there a good reason to suppose that the user name referred to the company? JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for helping delete those articles. Much appreciated. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. You were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Cat Naming Controversy - closed with a recommendation to discuss a merge with the main article on the cat itself. Following "discussions" (I use the word advisedly) on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy and Talk:Turkish Van, there does not seem to be any agreement among the parties currently editing those articles that the two articles can be merged. I have no desire to continue to wade through the heartfelt but not always terribly readable outpourings of User:Zara-arush, nor to provoke User:Meowy into any more responses that may have undesirable consequences for him/her (given history), so do not intend to continue efforts to find a means to merge the article. I have indicated on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy that I would have no objection to her relisting that article at AfD, if s/he continues to feel strongly - I presume there would be not problem with this action? -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. While you were certainly within your rights to block this user, if you look at his (his name appears to be Mark) contributions, he seems to be working in the best of faith. In a case like this, I find it much more constructive to leave a note saying something like:
==Username sounds like an organization== {{subst:uw-username|It sounds like a [[meta:role account|role account]] which we don't allow.}} You should take the time to read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:ADVERT]] as you seem to be here to constructively contribute and we'd hate for you to have an unpleasant experience like finding yourself blocked from editing. Best regards, ~~~~
as most folks in a case like this will respond pretty favorably. It's much more welcoming and less bitey. Just a suggestion. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Shereth. I see you're adding this to {{ uw-shortublock}}: "If you wish to continue editing, please consider reviewing our username policy more thoroughly and then creating a new account." My preference would be not to link to the entire username policy page, because that warning already links to WP:ORGNAME, the relevant section of WP:U, from the word "policy". It seems unlikely that they'll violate some different section of WP:U on their second try, and if they do, we can always deal with it then. I was thinking that half of the point of uw-shortublock was that I didn't want to ask the newbie to read an entire page of Wikipedia policy before making their second edit. Thoughts? Suggestions? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the split you made of East -> Central and East. And the realignment of the West/Southwest - it is a better geographic division - thx! -- Trödel 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
User:FreedomFireCom has requested to be unblocked. I'm willing to grant that, given that freedomfire.com is not an active webpage, and the rational seems reasonable. I'm concerned that FreedomFireCom has only contributed linkspam thusfar. Hopefully, the user can become a productive wikipedian. However, first offensive linkspamming is not an indefinite block offense, thus my willingness to unblock. So I'm contacting you to see if you agree, or have further comment. Thanks for your consideration. - Andrew c [talk] 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. I noticed you opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on maturity concerns. If you have the time, would you mind giving me an editor review, so I know if I've made progress on the issues that most concerned you? Thanks. Tim meh ( review me) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for participating at my RfA. I just have a quick question about your comment: "I'm not sure I want to see more anti-spam hawks at UAA at this time." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Thank you, Vicenarian ( Said · Done) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to be of help and happy to see somebody else paying attention to articles dealing with Arizona Territory. My interest is in having the article in a state were I feel good about using it as part of a Did You Know hook I am planning to submit in the next day or two. Hopefully you should see Pah-Ute County mentioned on the Main page in the next few days. -- Allen3 talk 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/ the block but the length strikes me as excessive. I don't know how long their lease on that IP is but a better bet for length would be 6mo-3yr if you are sure they are using the IP to evade blocks. No immediate attention is required, but give it some thought. For some reason I have the IP talk page on my watch list, that's how I found the discussion and the block. Protonk ( talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
On this matter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Squicks, where pot and kettle are both black. Uncle G ( talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you are designing an automated currency converter, I thought you might be interested in this discussion at MOSNUM. -- ___A. di M. 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Shereth. I just noticed that you must have missed my question in response to your advice at my editor review. I was wondering if you'd have any particular suggestions as to what areas could use some extra help from a non-admin, as you suggested I branch out into other Wikipedia-space areas. I doubt anyone's interested in nominating me at RfA again, so I'd like to make sure I'm as prepared as possible before nominating myself in a few weeks. Tim meh ( review me) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope "Anyone else have a position on this?" didn't come across as dismissive. I need to know where everyone is. This isn't a major problem ... people who look like they might be promotional always wind up being promotional, and we deal with it then. But I'd like to see if people get what I'm saying ... if not, I've got a solid couple of months of wikiwork to do before I'll have time to come back to this. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Next time I catch either of you serially reverting one another..."
This is that. We'd been working back and forth, but when I added something new he didn't like, he stopped modifying and reasoning, but reverted the whole thing. It's what he's done over and over. He also calls the fact you've effectively blocked us from doing that
"a lie." Could you refresh his memory?
User:Verbal also worked on the same article which is why I wrote him. -
MBHiii (
talk)
04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to refresh my watch list for a few minutes. If this happens again I will log off to wait for Wikipedia's servers to recover completely. -- allen四 names 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A new temple based on {{ Mergeto}}, but for converting articles to redirects, would be welcome. Thank you. -- allen四 names 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Shereth. I had a question and was wondering what your view was on it. It is again regarding the criticism article of the LDS movement, particularly the title. I came across this info under the NPOV section. "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So, considering that Wikipedia directly states "or implies" here that the very word criticism is not neutral, do you feel it would be appropriate to perhaps rename the article considering that the title is "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement"? In your honest opinion, do you really feel that the article is neutral? Especially when it contains content like this? "It is a fact so well known that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business … and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths to keep from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them effect the ruin of those whom they insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from the world." If you feel that such content is neutral and unbiased, then I simply must disagree with you. I also disagree with the concept that the article is written according to Wikipedia policy. Many times during our discussion you referenced me to Wikipedia policy, but most of what I found supports my view that the article needs to be re written. Look at the article makeup. " Criticism of sacred texts, Criticisms of Joseph Smith, Allegations of Smith's slander of women who refused plural marriage, Allegations that Smith allowed abortions for plural wives, Different accounts of the First Vision, Criticism that prophecies of Joseph Smith have failed, Money digging activities, Kinderhook plates, Criticism of temple ceremonies, Temple admission restricted, Baptism for the dead, Doctrinal criticism, Endowment ceremony allegedly copied, Endowment ceremony changed." I'm sure that you remember that WP policy states that articles are not supposed to be for or against any pov. If you honestly feel that the article is neutral, unbiased, well written, well sourced and encyclopedic worthy content, then there is no point for me to even attempt to edit wikipedia, especially if administrators such as yourself contradict any attempt I make to create a neutral article. You were quick to cite wikipedia policy in disproving my argument, yet when it comes to the article in question, it sits openly without correction from you. I am not going to edit the article. I'm not here to push my views on other people, and if an admin considers "monsters in human shape" to be unbiased and neutral, then I will still continue to use wikipedia, I just wont attempt or consider editing it. I don't want to spend my time trying to contribute to WP if others are so anxious to defend what clearly seems to be a biased view. Your response will be my indication as to whether or not contributing to WP is merely, for myself, a waste of time. I respect the efforts you put forward to contribute to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has always been one of my favorite sites for information, in large part, due to editors such as yourself. But if you will not take any action in enforcing its policies as an admin, then that gives me a general idea of what I can expect from the majority of the community, considering that admins are supposed to be selected by the community. I am not going to write again on your talk page either, unless you suggest it. Despite how it appears, I'm not trying to create an argument or attack you. If I have your support to edit the article, I will. If you oppose, then like I said, I will go back to reading WP instead of attempting to contribute. Sharpsr1990 ( talk) 06:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
hey this is kristina BigPadresDUDE Wife jake (BPD) told me about your message and i went ahead and registered how am i gonna make sure this account isent taken away or my husbands? anyway hope to see ya around KristinaPadres ( talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks man cool see ya around wikipedia KristinaP ( Contact Me) -- Work-- 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(I sent this same request to Stormrider. Kindof lazy to copy and paste but...) Thanks for your help earlier. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the criticism of the LDS movement article, specifically the talk page, under the Title section. My view may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you would let me know. Its a long debate and I'm sorry for how tedious it may be to read, but If I am wrong, I'd prefer not to spend hours and hours debating about it, which is why I'm requesting your input on the talk page. Thanks Shereth. Sharpsr1990 ( talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above requested task User talk:Shereth#Straw polls has not been completed. I have been holding off on major work on these 3 articles for this reason, but there are now intervening edits also. I still think that deletion, restoration of original history, and then userfication, while ignoring the intervening edits, will do the trick. Hoping you or another admin can work this out, thanks! JJB 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Here he goes, again. - MBHiii ( talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that MBHiii appears to be going back to his old ways (e.g. distortion of sources, refusal to comment about issues on talk pages, personal insults, sockpuppet use, etc), I have a proposal.
Block both of us, for life, from editing any topic relating to health care. I would be more than willing to accept this if it would mean that I could preserve the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The Squicks ( talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Worldchanging to get some inkling of what he's talking about. I view his offer as a sort of poison pill and reject it. A 3-month semi-protect on health care related articles would benefit them all, and I request zero blanking apply to us w.r.t. each other. - MBHiii ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for me showing the grouping functionality -- Trödel 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to create a county/city map similar to the one you did for Seattle but for Fairbanks, Alaska, and I was wondering if you had any sort of step-by-step guide for that or could guide me on how to create one. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note his 2RR here. His 1st edit was a revert, which I reverted, which he re-reverted, which I re-reverted, but then he re-reverted it a 2nd time, in his last edit, putting something, somewhat related, somewhere else, but it was a revert of my edit, nonetheless. - MBHiii ( talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, Glass Cobra 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, last evening I created an account as part of the WP:NEWT project as noted in this week's Signpost. You were one of the people who posted to the account's user talk, although you did so a few hours after the experiment ended. The account created ten new articles about Antarctic moss. You can view my full report here. If you have any questions or concerns please discuss them at my user talk page, or at the project NEWT talk page. Best regards, Durova 362 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently made a comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Municipal authorities/special district governments, a topic that I have moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Municipal authorities/special district governments to establish notability.-- Blargh29 ( talk) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just to let you know, I have noticed that since your edit to the timezones section on November 11, all infoboxes show daylight savings time to have the same value as standard time. I tried a few edits to articles to correct this, but to no avail. Could you please have a look at this to see how we can fix this? Thanks!
Gordalmighty (
talk)
21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Yale University's a cappella group Out of the Blue was one of the groups that had its page deleted. With their recent success winning the ICCA Northeast Semifinals (heading to ICCA Finals), a CARA Nomination for Best Arrangement, and unique trips to locales such as Singapore, where we were invited to perform for the U.S. Ambassador, it would be good to have a place where they can exist on Wikipedia. Given that other Yale a cappella groups have pages, including the Duke's Men, who also competed in the ICCA in 2009, it would be great to have the opportunity. Could you reconsider the merger and allow us to occupy our own page? 128.36.208.88 ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)tcd
Hi Shereth. Could you please userfy the three straw poll articles by prepending "User:John J. Bulten/" to each? Please be certain to userfy the talk pages as well (I don't think there were any archives), because the talk contains the significant discussion of allegations of OR and/or SYNTH, as well as much information on sources, and would be a key requirement for improving the articles. Thank you for your attention. JJB 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still laughing about that! :) Abce2| Free Lemonade Only 25 cents! 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
|
In the area? You're invited to | |
Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup | ||
Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm | ||
Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map) |
-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
We're doing it on purpose, you know. To test you. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you were on the signature talk page and wondered if you could help. Basically since maybe the last week or so whenever I try to sign on a message (4x~), this happens. [[User:John Smith's|]] ( talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason an extra "|" is being added. What's up with it? User:John Smith's (talk)
Thank you for closing the surname deletion review, I hope you had some fun reading through the discussion :) In your close you say: "I see no problems with any other admin making them available on a temporary basis". I just wanted to ask, do I qualify for the any other admin group? Haukur ( talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please could you create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeflin/Chris_Eccleshall from the deleted Chris Eccleshall article, then I can work on making the article more reliably sourced? Thanks :-) Beeflin ( talk) 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,new to the editing side of wikipedia but from what i gather on june 19 you endorsed closure of the lily thai page after another 2 admins had reopened it. * Lily Thai – closure endorsed. – Shereth 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If you're going to delete lily thai, you should also delete 90% of other porn stars on wikipedia and start a real shit storm.
Hi, Shereth.
I see you've closed the DRV for James P Barker early, and I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the consensus. I would like to invite you to reconsider.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
At DRV, "no consensus" is not an unambiguous outcome. The "closing reviews" section says:
If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
In this case, I think "relist at AfD" is a more appropriate outcome than "no consensus".— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that this material wouldn't survive AfD, and I would personally !vote "delete" at such a discussion. But as an overriding consideration, I think speedy deletions do need to be unambiguously correct. I think allowing a seven-day relisting at AfD isn't so high a price to pay, in establishing that principle.
I understand the argument that "the outcome's the same so why does it matter?" but I disagree with it, feeling that this closure sends an inappropriate signal to admins active at CSD. I feel they need to understand that DRV will overturn them if they get it wrong.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have deleted Wicked Wendsdays following an AfD discussion. However, in the meanwhile an editor had moved the article to Wicked Wednesdays, so that what you deleted was just a redirect. Perhaps you could also delete the actual article at Wicked Wednesdays. Thanks in advance, assuming you are going to do it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You recently deleted the article Ironclad (film). I was wondering if you could Userfy the page under my account. Thank you. JEN9841 ( talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't you have relisted this? Nobody but me mentioned any policy based reason to delete the article, and one person was blatantly voting and refused to provide any reason for deletion. This seems to be a close based on who happened to show up at the AFD rather than any attempt to generate a consensus based on policy, not just people voting. -- Chiliad22 ( talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was unnecessary, thanks for you speaking up. The agressive attitude by the friends of the nominee only assists to support my opinion, best regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Hi, just about that UAA report, User:STONEY L.D. STONE has a sockpuppet User:STONEYSTONE used for creating the same copyvio spam. Triplestop x3 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Top of the class, consider yourself in receipt of some kind of barnstar. Thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
Could you please explain your decision? I don't see any response to my query in the discussion. LeadSongDog come howl 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to close Wal-Mart (disambiguation) as delete. True, there were around 7 keeps and 12 deletes. But deletion discussions are not based on votes and consensus seeks joint agreement. I do not see this as a full consensus, and therefore, this should be overturned to no consensus. I am about to go to deletion review, but first, I am bringing this up with the closing admin. Tatterfly ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
At least I know my decision isn't crazy. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. I understand the consensus reached concerning the deletion of the article Out of the Blue (Yale University), and given Wikipedia's guidelines, I do not disagree with them.
In your deletion statement, you mentioned that "If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place)." Would it be enough to begin a Yale singing groups article, and suggest on its talk page that the individual articles of Yale singing groups be merged there?
Finally, would you mind clarifying what it means for a reference to be 'independent and reliable'? I ask this because the presence of references from 4 different notable media sources as well as the American Embassy in Ukraine was deemed insufficient.Thanks for the help! Equartey ( talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
User:R2c2h2 tha artivist, the account in question was creating spamlinks to an online excerpt from a book "Told through the artistic talents and literary skills of the 'artivist' known as R2C2H2"; in other words, it's a spamusername for his/her nom de plume. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I am wondering was this really necessary? It's a user that I welcomed to Wikipedia, so I kept his talkpage on my watchlist. If the name had been obscene or offensive, I'd understand the block without warning. But it seems this was an innocent, technical violation of a policy that he was unaware of. Nothing in his edits indicates bad faith or that the project would have been harmed by allowing him to edit for a day or two longer under that name while explaining the policy and asking him to change. So why could he not have been simply asked to change his username? A block without warning, in the middle of well-meaning edits (which didn't need to be reverted) seems like slapping a newcomer in the face for no urgent reason, and may give a bad impression of Wikipedia or make him not want to contribute even under a new name. Rigaudon ( talk) 06:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could explain why this username "appear[s] to represent or promote a company, group, other organization"? The principal meaning of "portoro" is a type of marble. Is there also a company of this name? If so is there a good reason to suppose that the user name referred to the company? JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for helping delete those articles. Much appreciated. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. You were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Cat Naming Controversy - closed with a recommendation to discuss a merge with the main article on the cat itself. Following "discussions" (I use the word advisedly) on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy and Talk:Turkish Van, there does not seem to be any agreement among the parties currently editing those articles that the two articles can be merged. I have no desire to continue to wade through the heartfelt but not always terribly readable outpourings of User:Zara-arush, nor to provoke User:Meowy into any more responses that may have undesirable consequences for him/her (given history), so do not intend to continue efforts to find a means to merge the article. I have indicated on Talk:Van Cat Naming Controversy that I would have no objection to her relisting that article at AfD, if s/he continues to feel strongly - I presume there would be not problem with this action? -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. While you were certainly within your rights to block this user, if you look at his (his name appears to be Mark) contributions, he seems to be working in the best of faith. In a case like this, I find it much more constructive to leave a note saying something like:
==Username sounds like an organization== {{subst:uw-username|It sounds like a [[meta:role account|role account]] which we don't allow.}} You should take the time to read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:ADVERT]] as you seem to be here to constructively contribute and we'd hate for you to have an unpleasant experience like finding yourself blocked from editing. Best regards, ~~~~
as most folks in a case like this will respond pretty favorably. It's much more welcoming and less bitey. Just a suggestion. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Shereth. I see you're adding this to {{ uw-shortublock}}: "If you wish to continue editing, please consider reviewing our username policy more thoroughly and then creating a new account." My preference would be not to link to the entire username policy page, because that warning already links to WP:ORGNAME, the relevant section of WP:U, from the word "policy". It seems unlikely that they'll violate some different section of WP:U on their second try, and if they do, we can always deal with it then. I was thinking that half of the point of uw-shortublock was that I didn't want to ask the newbie to read an entire page of Wikipedia policy before making their second edit. Thoughts? Suggestions? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the split you made of East -> Central and East. And the realignment of the West/Southwest - it is a better geographic division - thx! -- Trödel 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
User:FreedomFireCom has requested to be unblocked. I'm willing to grant that, given that freedomfire.com is not an active webpage, and the rational seems reasonable. I'm concerned that FreedomFireCom has only contributed linkspam thusfar. Hopefully, the user can become a productive wikipedian. However, first offensive linkspamming is not an indefinite block offense, thus my willingness to unblock. So I'm contacting you to see if you agree, or have further comment. Thanks for your consideration. - Andrew c [talk] 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Shereth. I noticed you opposed my RfA about a month and a half ago based on maturity concerns. If you have the time, would you mind giving me an editor review, so I know if I've made progress on the issues that most concerned you? Thanks. Tim meh ( review me) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for participating at my RfA. I just have a quick question about your comment: "I'm not sure I want to see more anti-spam hawks at UAA at this time." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? Thank you, Vicenarian ( Said · Done) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to be of help and happy to see somebody else paying attention to articles dealing with Arizona Territory. My interest is in having the article in a state were I feel good about using it as part of a Did You Know hook I am planning to submit in the next day or two. Hopefully you should see Pah-Ute County mentioned on the Main page in the next few days. -- Allen3 talk 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/ the block but the length strikes me as excessive. I don't know how long their lease on that IP is but a better bet for length would be 6mo-3yr if you are sure they are using the IP to evade blocks. No immediate attention is required, but give it some thought. For some reason I have the IP talk page on my watch list, that's how I found the discussion and the block. Protonk ( talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
On this matter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Squicks, where pot and kettle are both black. Uncle G ( talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you are designing an automated currency converter, I thought you might be interested in this discussion at MOSNUM. -- ___A. di M. 12:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Shereth. I just noticed that you must have missed my question in response to your advice at my editor review. I was wondering if you'd have any particular suggestions as to what areas could use some extra help from a non-admin, as you suggested I branch out into other Wikipedia-space areas. I doubt anyone's interested in nominating me at RfA again, so I'd like to make sure I'm as prepared as possible before nominating myself in a few weeks. Tim meh ( review me) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope "Anyone else have a position on this?" didn't come across as dismissive. I need to know where everyone is. This isn't a major problem ... people who look like they might be promotional always wind up being promotional, and we deal with it then. But I'd like to see if people get what I'm saying ... if not, I've got a solid couple of months of wikiwork to do before I'll have time to come back to this. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Next time I catch either of you serially reverting one another..."
This is that. We'd been working back and forth, but when I added something new he didn't like, he stopped modifying and reasoning, but reverted the whole thing. It's what he's done over and over. He also calls the fact you've effectively blocked us from doing that
"a lie." Could you refresh his memory?
User:Verbal also worked on the same article which is why I wrote him. -
MBHiii (
talk)
04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I was unable to refresh my watch list for a few minutes. If this happens again I will log off to wait for Wikipedia's servers to recover completely. -- allen四 names 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A new temple based on {{ Mergeto}}, but for converting articles to redirects, would be welcome. Thank you. -- allen四 names 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Shereth. I had a question and was wondering what your view was on it. It is again regarding the criticism article of the LDS movement, particularly the title. I came across this info under the NPOV section. "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So, considering that Wikipedia directly states "or implies" here that the very word criticism is not neutral, do you feel it would be appropriate to perhaps rename the article considering that the title is "Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement"? In your honest opinion, do you really feel that the article is neutral? Especially when it contains content like this? "It is a fact so well known that the Twelve and their adherents have endeavored to carry on this spiritual wife business … and have gone to the most shameful and desperate lengths to keep from the public. First, insulting innocent females, and when they resented the insult, these monsters in human shape would assail their characters by lying, and perjuries, with a multitude of desperate men to help them effect the ruin of those whom they insulted, and all this to enable them to keep these corrupt practices from the world." If you feel that such content is neutral and unbiased, then I simply must disagree with you. I also disagree with the concept that the article is written according to Wikipedia policy. Many times during our discussion you referenced me to Wikipedia policy, but most of what I found supports my view that the article needs to be re written. Look at the article makeup. " Criticism of sacred texts, Criticisms of Joseph Smith, Allegations of Smith's slander of women who refused plural marriage, Allegations that Smith allowed abortions for plural wives, Different accounts of the First Vision, Criticism that prophecies of Joseph Smith have failed, Money digging activities, Kinderhook plates, Criticism of temple ceremonies, Temple admission restricted, Baptism for the dead, Doctrinal criticism, Endowment ceremony allegedly copied, Endowment ceremony changed." I'm sure that you remember that WP policy states that articles are not supposed to be for or against any pov. If you honestly feel that the article is neutral, unbiased, well written, well sourced and encyclopedic worthy content, then there is no point for me to even attempt to edit wikipedia, especially if administrators such as yourself contradict any attempt I make to create a neutral article. You were quick to cite wikipedia policy in disproving my argument, yet when it comes to the article in question, it sits openly without correction from you. I am not going to edit the article. I'm not here to push my views on other people, and if an admin considers "monsters in human shape" to be unbiased and neutral, then I will still continue to use wikipedia, I just wont attempt or consider editing it. I don't want to spend my time trying to contribute to WP if others are so anxious to defend what clearly seems to be a biased view. Your response will be my indication as to whether or not contributing to WP is merely, for myself, a waste of time. I respect the efforts you put forward to contribute to this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has always been one of my favorite sites for information, in large part, due to editors such as yourself. But if you will not take any action in enforcing its policies as an admin, then that gives me a general idea of what I can expect from the majority of the community, considering that admins are supposed to be selected by the community. I am not going to write again on your talk page either, unless you suggest it. Despite how it appears, I'm not trying to create an argument or attack you. If I have your support to edit the article, I will. If you oppose, then like I said, I will go back to reading WP instead of attempting to contribute. Sharpsr1990 ( talk) 06:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
hey this is kristina BigPadresDUDE Wife jake (BPD) told me about your message and i went ahead and registered how am i gonna make sure this account isent taken away or my husbands? anyway hope to see ya around KristinaPadres ( talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks man cool see ya around wikipedia KristinaP ( Contact Me) -- Work-- 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(I sent this same request to Stormrider. Kindof lazy to copy and paste but...) Thanks for your help earlier. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the criticism of the LDS movement article, specifically the talk page, under the Title section. My view may be wrong, but it would be helpful if you would let me know. Its a long debate and I'm sorry for how tedious it may be to read, but If I am wrong, I'd prefer not to spend hours and hours debating about it, which is why I'm requesting your input on the talk page. Thanks Shereth. Sharpsr1990 ( talk) 00:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above requested task User talk:Shereth#Straw polls has not been completed. I have been holding off on major work on these 3 articles for this reason, but there are now intervening edits also. I still think that deletion, restoration of original history, and then userfication, while ignoring the intervening edits, will do the trick. Hoping you or another admin can work this out, thanks! JJB 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Here he goes, again. - MBHiii ( talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that MBHiii appears to be going back to his old ways (e.g. distortion of sources, refusal to comment about issues on talk pages, personal insults, sockpuppet use, etc), I have a proposal.
Block both of us, for life, from editing any topic relating to health care. I would be more than willing to accept this if it would mean that I could preserve the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The Squicks ( talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Worldchanging to get some inkling of what he's talking about. I view his offer as a sort of poison pill and reject it. A 3-month semi-protect on health care related articles would benefit them all, and I request zero blanking apply to us w.r.t. each other. - MBHiii ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for me showing the grouping functionality -- Trödel 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to create a county/city map similar to the one you did for Seattle but for Fairbanks, Alaska, and I was wondering if you had any sort of step-by-step guide for that or could guide me on how to create one. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note his 2RR here. His 1st edit was a revert, which I reverted, which he re-reverted, which I re-reverted, but then he re-reverted it a 2nd time, in his last edit, putting something, somewhat related, somewhere else, but it was a revert of my edit, nonetheless. - MBHiii ( talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, Glass Cobra 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, last evening I created an account as part of the WP:NEWT project as noted in this week's Signpost. You were one of the people who posted to the account's user talk, although you did so a few hours after the experiment ended. The account created ten new articles about Antarctic moss. You can view my full report here. If you have any questions or concerns please discuss them at my user talk page, or at the project NEWT talk page. Best regards, Durova 362 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You recently made a comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Municipal authorities/special district governments, a topic that I have moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Municipal authorities/special district governments to establish notability.-- Blargh29 ( talk) 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Just to let you know, I have noticed that since your edit to the timezones section on November 11, all infoboxes show daylight savings time to have the same value as standard time. I tried a few edits to articles to correct this, but to no avail. Could you please have a look at this to see how we can fix this? Thanks!
Gordalmighty (
talk)
21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Yale University's a cappella group Out of the Blue was one of the groups that had its page deleted. With their recent success winning the ICCA Northeast Semifinals (heading to ICCA Finals), a CARA Nomination for Best Arrangement, and unique trips to locales such as Singapore, where we were invited to perform for the U.S. Ambassador, it would be good to have a place where they can exist on Wikipedia. Given that other Yale a cappella groups have pages, including the Duke's Men, who also competed in the ICCA in 2009, it would be great to have the opportunity. Could you reconsider the merger and allow us to occupy our own page? 128.36.208.88 ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)tcd