Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Accusation of vandalism
Hello sir, I am very new to Wikipedia, but saw that the description of my hometown of Marshfield, Wisconsin was not very detailed. I added that which I personally have knowledge of, and was admonished by you to not add to the "Fred Beell" notable people block.
I merely added that Fred Beell was the wrestling heavyweight champion of the world, which he was. I shall include several online references and published works as I find them.
http://ci.marshfield.wi.us/police/about/beell.htm http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/other/titles.htm http://www2.jsonline.com/sports/century/oct99/timeline101199.asp http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002285;p=
Fred Beell was a Marshfield polic eofficer killed in the line of duty, and the Marshfield Football stadium used by both high schools, is named after him.
Please let me know if this is still an unacceptable edit to your standards, and I will drop the subject.
Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrMcCormick ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Will, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yay, first support! Maybe next time. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ED
They do have some pretty ... strongly-worded ... articles over there. But although their pages are pretty raw, it's beyond the pale to do what they do to you over there. Their whole coverage of the Nathan stuff is pretty bad. (I'm trying to choose my words carefully). Corvus cornix talk 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why you and some of their other targets would get passionate about it. What's Section 230? Corvus cornix talk 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, I didn't recognize the name. :) Corvus cornix talk 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Resolved" comment
Hey Will. I redacted your comment ( [1]) from the "Resolved" template to a discussion you closed on ANI. There was no need for such an insult to be made, even to an IP editor you disagreed with; it didn't help anyone. Please, could you try your best to not insult people in future? Neıl ☎ 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that makes it a little better, but whatever your intentions, it was ill-advised - I didn't get it, and I'm sure very few people would have, instead, they would have just seen it as rude. Neıl ☎ 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sally Anne Bowman
You wrongly accused me of vandalising Sally Anne Bowman for adding the borough and year of her birth in the early life and career section. How can that be vandalism? My information was correct, and can be checked via the external link I previously added of England and Wales Births 1984-2005. It is appropriate for that section to begin with where and when she was born. I have never added any incorrect info to any Wikipedia page. from Werdnawerdna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werdnawerdna ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Katrina and the waves
Hello. the countries that took part in the eurovision song contest 2006 were 37 instead of 37. that's why i edited the article. http://www.esctoday.com/annual/2006/participants.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.190.226 ( talk) 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this better now, Sceptre? Bearian ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops
[2] :-) Gwernol 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I've done plenty worse. I thought it was a particularly amusing bit of vandalism to revert back in. No harm done :-) Gwernol 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong warning
Hi--you dinged me with an edit warning for the Paper article. I reverted a page vandalism by User:Wikiloserhi; perhaps you meant to warn him instead? Tjarrett ( talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling
I'm concerned about this edit - if there is some particular reason why the non-standard spelling "Sqeeze" is proper to use here, there should be some indication of that; as it is, it looks like you reverted a spelling correction. — Random832 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok then, no harm done i guess. — Random832 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In good faith
Hi Will. I am going to try to approach this objectively. I have repeatedly, in the past, alluded that you are gaming the system and harbouring a conflict of interest on anything related to Anonymous. Whilst I acknowledge that you might have a perfectly valid reason for your passionate campaign, your behaviour is now proving to be too disruptive. What concerns me most, however, is that you claim to believe that you are only "enforc[ing] our policies", describing the WP:GAME and WP:COI "accus[ations]" as "despicable". I utterly fail to understand how abusively suppressing and overriding consensus conforms with our policies. To give you just one trivial example: this tag. It wouldn't be needed if the current deletion review closes as delete. Do you intend to use it to circumvent the closure again if it's another keep?
I have tried to reason with you in the past, but I am seeing that it got us nowhere. I am convinced that you genuinely see my "accusations" as despicable, just as I see your behaviour as disruptive, and that the best way to proceed would be to gather an opinion from uninvolved parties. For this reason, I am proposing opening an RFC regarding your behaviour on all Anonymous-related topics in order to establish whether your actions are justified. If you voluntarily consent, I would present you with my case in advance (on this talk page) so that you would have a chance to formulate your response on all issues before other editors present their comments. I await your response. Ayla ( talk) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I will not be posting anything on this matter again before Thursday, so please take your time to reply. Ayla ( talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)- Then what is your proposal? I have made it clear that there is an issue which needs to be addressed. Ayla ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from the cases you mentioned, there was also the KTTV Fox 11 news report removal, the Anonymous merge proposal immediately after a keep closure, and the speedy deletion tagging of Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg immediately after a no consensus to overturn result. The latter two show a clear disregard for consensus. The cases might have been justifiable individually, but six community discussions ( Anonymous AFD, KTTV Fox 11 news report removal, Anonymous merge proposal, Chanology GAR, first IfD review, second IfD review), in the span of less than a month, initiated by (or because of) the same editor for the same motives, is way too much. Since you have expressed reluctance towards an RFC, I will not open it at present, but I would still consider doing so in the future, without your consent, if the issue persists. Ayla ( talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re the Anonymous merge proposal: You are making the same misinterpretation that you made back then. The AFD discussion did not close as "not to delete", nor as "no consensus". Despite being aware of the existence of the separate Project Chanology article, the consensus was "keep", and overwhelmingly so (roughly 57/10/1). I find it very hard to accept that the merge proposal was done in good faith; in fact, it received a snowball oppose.
- Re "Images are speedyable if they fail the NFCC, no matter how many DRVs or IFDs": You are mistaken. As I have posted on the image's talk page, WP:SPEEDY states: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The image's disqualification under WP:NFCC#10a was already discussed and contested at the review, making it ineligible for speedy deletion.
- You also mentioned the ED review. I purposely omitted it from my earlier post because I am personally only interested in the Project Chanology aspect of Anonymous; I contributed to the Anonymous article itself in order to give some necessary background to Chanology. I still maintain that your suggestion to ban Shii was inappropriate. It wasn't his reputation which "saved" him; Shii acted legitimately and in good faith. Don't you find it disturbing that no-one whosoever agreed with you on that matter?
- Like I said, some of your initiatives are individually justifiable; for example, the KTTV Fox 11 news report discussion brought out its WP:UNDUE and WP:PSTS issues, which were subsequently addressed, making the net result a constructive one. However, the accumulative effort required to address all your "issues" is not proving worthwhile. Leave out the image/logo (since consensus appears to be divided over it); three of the six cases I mentioned ( Anonymous AFD, Anonymous merge proposal, Chanology GAR) ended with at least 80% of the !votes opposing you. Thus, the next time you are about to take a controversial action or open a new community discussion, take a moment to think whether there is any chance that the consensus would favour you.
- Ayla ( talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the WP:DRPR page (although, in fairness, it does state that recreation would be considered if "a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace", something Shii was attempting to do). As for the image, I did not !vote in the IfD discussion, nor in the first review, and stated that I have no "prejudice on whether the image should actually be retained or not" in the second review. My objection to the deletion is not based on the merits of the image per se, but on the blatant disregard of consensus. Anyway, it's best to leave this discussion at the review or image talk page for the time being.
- Again, I understand your issue with 4chan, ED, and (by connection) Anonymous in general. However, you should notice that members of Project Chanology have clearly moved on considerably from the trolling you mention. At least, within the context of that project. Ayla ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(72.229.30.16)
User (72.229.30.16) is removing sourced material from newspapers and filling an article with his OR personal reflections that has no sources. He is acting unilaterally. You gave him his last warning yesterday morning. He acted civil yesterday afternoon but he is now back to his vandalism.-- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Recognition for this comment
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For being a most level-headed and pragmatic contributor to the BCB 'discussion'. Thank you! User:GundamsRus 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
You = cool
Toronto metro system
um, dude. please read the correction i made to the metro systems page thoroughly. it is not vandalism. it is a correction based on updated information found in this article here: en.wikipedia.org/toronto_transit_commission please remove your vandalism notices from my userpage. thanks! 72.0.72.121 ( talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
READ the link. the last time i checked, and i admit that grade school arithmetic was a long time ago, 459 million was a higher number than 427 million. if you have updated information on the v-bahn that puts it at higher than 427 million since the 2005 figure, by all means please include it. but if you don't, leave it alone. i've provided you with cite-able proof. if you wish, call in an impartial admin to resolve it, but geez man this was an in-good-faith edit that you reverted after 30 seconds, not vandalism. again, the links are here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/toronto_transit_commission and here: http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/operatingstatistics2006.pdf 72.0.72.121 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- See, you shouldn't use a Wiki article to reference another Wiki article. Because the number on the Toronto Transit page had no source claiming 459. But it did have a source for the 2006 numbers, which do happen to be over 427 so I inserted those numbers instead. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 11:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate vote
Hi, you actually voted twice in the RfA of Benjah-bmm27. Once in the support, one in the oppose. Which one are you in? Soxred93 | talk bot 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Now that the arbcom case is over, I'd like to also close the Firelfy med cab case soon. I left notes there now and then, but no-one ever really replied in the last few weeks. Would it be considered disruptive if I *finally* merged the characters now (minus those where some progress was apparant)? It's been almost four months now since the initial AfD after all, with the claims of true notability (i.e. third-party sources) never really been followed upon. WP:FICT allows separate articles when encyclopedic treatment would make the articles to long, but there is currently only plot and original research. I watched FF (and liked it), and I know how to do a trim&merge properly, but I think the chances of me getting kneejerk-reverted are still pretty high. – sgeureka t• c 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I'll start merging in the coming days. – sgeureka t• c 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make something right.
I am trying to correct an error. You call it "vandalism". By what authority do you call a repair an act of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MottyGlix ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your support. - J Greb ( talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Huggle having a bad night?
I have undone your reversion of the edit made by 82.46.194.54 to Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It was not vandalism and seemed a good change to me. I note you use Huggle. You may wish to refer some of the false positives it is identifying to the developer of that bot. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
March 2008 (2)
Hi. You asked me to provide edit summaries to describe my edits, but I believe that I am already doing this. Vandalism is defined by WP as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which typically includes "the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles". WP further says "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I appreciate your effort to counter vandalism, but I feel that providing background about sources in an article is an important part of attribution which improves Wikipedia. Thanks, -- 68.23.8.245 ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your talk page
Hi Sceptre, I'm not totally sure about your request on RFPP for your talk page to be protected, and I'd like some clarification. I saw some heavy vandalism on here from a couple of days ago. You mentioned something about 4chan in your request. I have no idea what 4chan is, but if it's a forum or something like that, has something been said about you that will soon lead to vandalism here? I'm only asking because this is a talk page, and talk pages are carefully protected due to comments from IPs and new users. If you do receive heavy harassment, I'll protect this page. Acalamari 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Send me an E-mail, as I don't use IRC. Acalamari 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of The Suite Life of Zack, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your contributions to the Voyage of the Damned article. BTW, any idea when the next series is airing on CBC? Type 40 ( talk) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope so, though I'll probably end up watching it on YouTube again this year unless the Beeb is especially good at enforcing copyright. Type 40 ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you
 |
Hello Will :)! Thanks for your support and lovely comments in my RfA.
|
You recently promoted this article to good article status. I think that the current version of the article has some issues which go against the good article criteria. I've started a discussion here if you'd like to comment. (Note some of the issues I originally raised have already been dealt with). Guest9999 ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit reverting
Bot FAQ noted, leaving this here for False Positive reporting.
Greetings, Sceptre. You have issued a vandalism warning on my talk page. I would like to point out, that the only edit I made to
Kentucky was
[3]. The edit made by previous editor seemed to constitute vandalism. You have now reverted my edit. Would you mind explaining your actions?
AVand
talk
contribs 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talkpage. Man, you're fast. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Accusation of vandalism
Hello sir, I am very new to Wikipedia, but saw that the description of my hometown of Marshfield, Wisconsin was not very detailed. I added that which I personally have knowledge of, and was admonished by you to not add to the "Fred Beell" notable people block.
I merely added that Fred Beell was the wrestling heavyweight champion of the world, which he was. I shall include several online references and published works as I find them.
http://ci.marshfield.wi.us/police/about/beell.htm http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/other/titles.htm http://www2.jsonline.com/sports/century/oct99/timeline101199.asp http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002285;p=
Fred Beell was a Marshfield polic eofficer killed in the line of duty, and the Marshfield Football stadium used by both high schools, is named after him.
Please let me know if this is still an unacceptable edit to your standards, and I will drop the subject.
Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrMcCormick ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Will, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yay, first support! Maybe next time. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ED
They do have some pretty ... strongly-worded ... articles over there. But although their pages are pretty raw, it's beyond the pale to do what they do to you over there. Their whole coverage of the Nathan stuff is pretty bad. (I'm trying to choose my words carefully). Corvus cornix talk 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why you and some of their other targets would get passionate about it. What's Section 230? Corvus cornix talk 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, I didn't recognize the name. :) Corvus cornix talk 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Resolved" comment
Hey Will. I redacted your comment ( [1]) from the "Resolved" template to a discussion you closed on ANI. There was no need for such an insult to be made, even to an IP editor you disagreed with; it didn't help anyone. Please, could you try your best to not insult people in future? Neıl ☎ 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that makes it a little better, but whatever your intentions, it was ill-advised - I didn't get it, and I'm sure very few people would have, instead, they would have just seen it as rude. Neıl ☎ 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sally Anne Bowman
You wrongly accused me of vandalising Sally Anne Bowman for adding the borough and year of her birth in the early life and career section. How can that be vandalism? My information was correct, and can be checked via the external link I previously added of England and Wales Births 1984-2005. It is appropriate for that section to begin with where and when she was born. I have never added any incorrect info to any Wikipedia page. from Werdnawerdna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werdnawerdna ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Katrina and the waves
Hello. the countries that took part in the eurovision song contest 2006 were 37 instead of 37. that's why i edited the article. http://www.esctoday.com/annual/2006/participants.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.190.226 ( talk) 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this better now, Sceptre? Bearian ( talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops
[2] :-) Gwernol 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I've done plenty worse. I thought it was a particularly amusing bit of vandalism to revert back in. No harm done :-) Gwernol 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong warning
Hi--you dinged me with an edit warning for the Paper article. I reverted a page vandalism by User:Wikiloserhi; perhaps you meant to warn him instead? Tjarrett ( talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling
I'm concerned about this edit - if there is some particular reason why the non-standard spelling "Sqeeze" is proper to use here, there should be some indication of that; as it is, it looks like you reverted a spelling correction. — Random832 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- ok then, no harm done i guess. — Random832 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In good faith
Hi Will. I am going to try to approach this objectively. I have repeatedly, in the past, alluded that you are gaming the system and harbouring a conflict of interest on anything related to Anonymous. Whilst I acknowledge that you might have a perfectly valid reason for your passionate campaign, your behaviour is now proving to be too disruptive. What concerns me most, however, is that you claim to believe that you are only "enforc[ing] our policies", describing the WP:GAME and WP:COI "accus[ations]" as "despicable". I utterly fail to understand how abusively suppressing and overriding consensus conforms with our policies. To give you just one trivial example: this tag. It wouldn't be needed if the current deletion review closes as delete. Do you intend to use it to circumvent the closure again if it's another keep?
I have tried to reason with you in the past, but I am seeing that it got us nowhere. I am convinced that you genuinely see my "accusations" as despicable, just as I see your behaviour as disruptive, and that the best way to proceed would be to gather an opinion from uninvolved parties. For this reason, I am proposing opening an RFC regarding your behaviour on all Anonymous-related topics in order to establish whether your actions are justified. If you voluntarily consent, I would present you with my case in advance (on this talk page) so that you would have a chance to formulate your response on all issues before other editors present their comments. I await your response. Ayla ( talk) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I will not be posting anything on this matter again before Thursday, so please take your time to reply. Ayla ( talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)- Then what is your proposal? I have made it clear that there is an issue which needs to be addressed. Ayla ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from the cases you mentioned, there was also the KTTV Fox 11 news report removal, the Anonymous merge proposal immediately after a keep closure, and the speedy deletion tagging of Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg immediately after a no consensus to overturn result. The latter two show a clear disregard for consensus. The cases might have been justifiable individually, but six community discussions ( Anonymous AFD, KTTV Fox 11 news report removal, Anonymous merge proposal, Chanology GAR, first IfD review, second IfD review), in the span of less than a month, initiated by (or because of) the same editor for the same motives, is way too much. Since you have expressed reluctance towards an RFC, I will not open it at present, but I would still consider doing so in the future, without your consent, if the issue persists. Ayla ( talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re the Anonymous merge proposal: You are making the same misinterpretation that you made back then. The AFD discussion did not close as "not to delete", nor as "no consensus". Despite being aware of the existence of the separate Project Chanology article, the consensus was "keep", and overwhelmingly so (roughly 57/10/1). I find it very hard to accept that the merge proposal was done in good faith; in fact, it received a snowball oppose.
- Re "Images are speedyable if they fail the NFCC, no matter how many DRVs or IFDs": You are mistaken. As I have posted on the image's talk page, WP:SPEEDY states: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." The image's disqualification under WP:NFCC#10a was already discussed and contested at the review, making it ineligible for speedy deletion.
- You also mentioned the ED review. I purposely omitted it from my earlier post because I am personally only interested in the Project Chanology aspect of Anonymous; I contributed to the Anonymous article itself in order to give some necessary background to Chanology. I still maintain that your suggestion to ban Shii was inappropriate. It wasn't his reputation which "saved" him; Shii acted legitimately and in good faith. Don't you find it disturbing that no-one whosoever agreed with you on that matter?
- Like I said, some of your initiatives are individually justifiable; for example, the KTTV Fox 11 news report discussion brought out its WP:UNDUE and WP:PSTS issues, which were subsequently addressed, making the net result a constructive one. However, the accumulative effort required to address all your "issues" is not proving worthwhile. Leave out the image/logo (since consensus appears to be divided over it); three of the six cases I mentioned ( Anonymous AFD, Anonymous merge proposal, Chanology GAR) ended with at least 80% of the !votes opposing you. Thus, the next time you are about to take a controversial action or open a new community discussion, take a moment to think whether there is any chance that the consensus would favour you.
- Ayla ( talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the WP:DRPR page (although, in fairness, it does state that recreation would be considered if "a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace", something Shii was attempting to do). As for the image, I did not !vote in the IfD discussion, nor in the first review, and stated that I have no "prejudice on whether the image should actually be retained or not" in the second review. My objection to the deletion is not based on the merits of the image per se, but on the blatant disregard of consensus. Anyway, it's best to leave this discussion at the review or image talk page for the time being.
- Again, I understand your issue with 4chan, ED, and (by connection) Anonymous in general. However, you should notice that members of Project Chanology have clearly moved on considerably from the trolling you mention. At least, within the context of that project. Ayla ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.
Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(72.229.30.16)
User (72.229.30.16) is removing sourced material from newspapers and filling an article with his OR personal reflections that has no sources. He is acting unilaterally. You gave him his last warning yesterday morning. He acted civil yesterday afternoon but he is now back to his vandalism.-- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Recognition for this comment
|
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For being a most level-headed and pragmatic contributor to the BCB 'discussion'. Thank you! User:GundamsRus 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
You = cool
Toronto metro system
um, dude. please read the correction i made to the metro systems page thoroughly. it is not vandalism. it is a correction based on updated information found in this article here: en.wikipedia.org/toronto_transit_commission please remove your vandalism notices from my userpage. thanks! 72.0.72.121 ( talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
READ the link. the last time i checked, and i admit that grade school arithmetic was a long time ago, 459 million was a higher number than 427 million. if you have updated information on the v-bahn that puts it at higher than 427 million since the 2005 figure, by all means please include it. but if you don't, leave it alone. i've provided you with cite-able proof. if you wish, call in an impartial admin to resolve it, but geez man this was an in-good-faith edit that you reverted after 30 seconds, not vandalism. again, the links are here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/toronto_transit_commission and here: http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/operatingstatistics2006.pdf 72.0.72.121 ( talk) 10:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- See, you shouldn't use a Wiki article to reference another Wiki article. Because the number on the Toronto Transit page had no source claiming 459. But it did have a source for the 2006 numbers, which do happen to be over 427 so I inserted those numbers instead. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 11:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate vote
Hi, you actually voted twice in the RfA of Benjah-bmm27. Once in the support, one in the oppose. Which one are you in? Soxred93 | talk bot 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Now that the arbcom case is over, I'd like to also close the Firelfy med cab case soon. I left notes there now and then, but no-one ever really replied in the last few weeks. Would it be considered disruptive if I *finally* merged the characters now (minus those where some progress was apparant)? It's been almost four months now since the initial AfD after all, with the claims of true notability (i.e. third-party sources) never really been followed upon. WP:FICT allows separate articles when encyclopedic treatment would make the articles to long, but there is currently only plot and original research. I watched FF (and liked it), and I know how to do a trim&merge properly, but I think the chances of me getting kneejerk-reverted are still pretty high. – sgeureka t• c 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I'll start merging in the coming days. – sgeureka t• c 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Trying to make something right.
I am trying to correct an error. You call it "vandalism". By what authority do you call a repair an act of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MottyGlix ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your support. - J Greb ( talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Huggle having a bad night?
I have undone your reversion of the edit made by 82.46.194.54 to Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It was not vandalism and seemed a good change to me. I note you use Huggle. You may wish to refer some of the false positives it is identifying to the developer of that bot. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
March 2008 (2)
Hi. You asked me to provide edit summaries to describe my edits, but I believe that I am already doing this. Vandalism is defined by WP as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which typically includes "the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles". WP further says "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I appreciate your effort to counter vandalism, but I feel that providing background about sources in an article is an important part of attribution which improves Wikipedia. Thanks, -- 68.23.8.245 ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your talk page
Hi Sceptre, I'm not totally sure about your request on RFPP for your talk page to be protected, and I'd like some clarification. I saw some heavy vandalism on here from a couple of days ago. You mentioned something about 4chan in your request. I have no idea what 4chan is, but if it's a forum or something like that, has something been said about you that will soon lead to vandalism here? I'm only asking because this is a talk page, and talk pages are carefully protected due to comments from IPs and new users. If you do receive heavy harassment, I'll protect this page. Acalamari 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Send me an E-mail, as I don't use IRC. Acalamari 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of The Suite Life of Zack, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your contributions to the Voyage of the Damned article. BTW, any idea when the next series is airing on CBC? Type 40 ( talk) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope so, though I'll probably end up watching it on YouTube again this year unless the Beeb is especially good at enforcing copyright. Type 40 ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you
|
Hello Will :)! Thanks for your support and lovely comments in my RfA.
|
You recently promoted this article to good article status. I think that the current version of the article has some issues which go against the good article criteria. I've started a discussion here if you'd like to comment. (Note some of the issues I originally raised have already been dealt with). Guest9999 ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit reverting
Bot FAQ noted, leaving this here for False Positive reporting.
Greetings, Sceptre. You have issued a vandalism warning on my talk page. I would like to point out, that the only edit I made to
Kentucky was
[3]. The edit made by previous editor seemed to constitute vandalism. You have now reverted my edit. Would you mind explaining your actions?
AVand
talk
contribs 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talkpage. Man, you're fast. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)