Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!
I just arrived back in town yesterday, to start I appreciate the support I got from you, Zoe and Alex, I love these other so called experts, writing style can always be improved and I stand behind all my Buffalo-Todaro family information, I think the thousands of Buffalo News articles are a reliable sourc. We have Buffalo crime writers like Lee Coppola that have been writing about the Buffalo Family and the Todaros for 30 years. By the way I still have everything I copied off the Buffalo Mobsite by Supercrack, which covers everything he did. His writing style is very loose and the grammer needs work, but the point is made. There's a ton of information that I never mentioned about the Todaro's because I've never set out to demean or slander anyone, actually I thaught I made Joe Todaro out to be really respectable. I go to La Nova regularly, it's in my old neighbourhood and believe me when I tell you the todaro family do alot for the community, but also trust me when I say that I didn't mention shit. I never mentioned the murders that they've been directly implicated in, not to mention every one in the Buffalo area knows that they controlled one of the largest narcotics rings in Western New York, along the East coast and up to Florida in the 1980's and early 1990's. My father went to the dice and card games in the 1970's and 80's that were held in the Grant St. and Hertal Ave. area and became friends with Jimmy Sicurella, the man accussed of being the shooter in the Cammilleri hit. As far as posting anymore articles or anything a else, let the MAFIA EXPERT handle it, I'm to busy writing a screenplay. Thanks again.
Little Joe Shots
By the way, if your interested in that Buffalo Family info, there's enough for a book, so if you can figure an easy way for me to get it, to you let me know.
Thank you for Megatokyo tip and handsome compliment, Creature. Zilla act like admin always. Not yet have community trust. But not give up! [/me goes off to inflate edit count and apply for Editor Review.]Bishzilla | grrrr!01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
[reply]
Hi Fred, IRC may be a great place to find officials and chat them, but since when did IRC become a valid chanel for official business? [1] Regards, Ben Aveling07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was its original purpose. The creation of the channel was the subject of extensive conversations between Jimbo and others. It was to be a place where problems which required action by administrators could be brought to by the office, discussed and acted on. Fred Bauder16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ben Aveling, I meant to also leave you a post. First I would just like to say I do stand by the comments I left on Bishonen's talk page. I also think it is very respectable that you have put as much work as you have into this ordeal. I would like to just make a couple more statements for you. I never had a problem with most of Revolver's edits, it was the tactics he used against other editors that made me notice him. An example: I noticed that a banned user (Revolver, yes I had problems with him before but I had nothing to do with his ban) had come back in late December. I did a Check User for what I thought were Sock Puppets. I was then immediately harassed by the editor, 3RRs were slapped on my IP and Talk Page, and a Check User was put up for my account. OK then, all's fair, maybe I'm the vandal...except for the simple check on my User Contributions show I had not made an edit for THREE MONTHS! I stand by my edits. I vicariously edit very little and only what interests me. I expect other editors to stand by what they edit. I'm sure you could. But if someone has to retaliate, at all, against any other editor...you're covering up and hiding something (not to mention being childish). I think the editor in question has a history of doing things he shouldn't and then obfuscates the facts when someone points it out. Here is my question. If everything goes through and the user is allowed to edit again, what should be expected? I guess what I would like to know is will this exempt this person from all wrong doings? If somebody once again brings up an example of vandalism or trolling will the editor simply be able to say "look no problem, here is my proof" and then shows the outline you have worked on? I believe you are accepting a big responsibility by helping him âprove his innocenceâ. Well I believe you are a very intelligent individual and are attempting to do the right thing, and I respect you for that. I hope you realize what you are doing. Take Care, ShuckyDucky20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Revolver wasn't blocked and isn't blocked[2]. He's used a number of accounts, but never more than one at a time. [3]
Yes, there has been harassment inappropriate use of warnings amd reverting without trying to find a middle ground. (And not just by Revolver.) If he is unbanned, that doesn't give him a free pass. It doesn't mean that he has been found 'innocent' of all charges. All it means is that people are prepared to give him a chance to show that he can make a positive contribution. If he doesn't do that, he can be blocked again.
I noticed your break. To be honest, it did make me wonder why you chose that moment to return. I ended up deciding it was coincidence. If you and Certified are the same user you do an excellent job of sounding like different people.
If there are any conditions you'd like to put on Revolver, now would be a good time to mention them. And if there is anyone else who has clashed with him, I would appreciate their input also.
Thanks for your message, it's clear that you too are trying to do the best for wikipedia, even if we don't quite agree on what best is. :-) All the best to you too. Ben Aveling21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recalled it was Ragnarok that was banned and not Revolver after I made the post. They are the same user, by admission, right? Do you think the editor would have acted any differently or would not have been banned if he was still using the Revolver account? In other words I can't understand how that is a valid agument, and I think it a bit fallacious to say he should still have priviledges just because his original account was not banned (or is this a convenient loophole?). As far as using more than one account, it just looks like he was trying to get around the original ban, but also it looked like he was using it as cover. Used one for awhile and then switched over to another. This is all from my point of view. It looks like Revolver edits quite a bit and if he tread a bit more lightly I'm sure no one would mind (including me). No I'm not CG, I don't have as much time to be productive on Wikipedia as he does. Thanks for the reply, and take care. ShuckyDucky02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was going to edit the 5 Whys article, and saw that you recently removed an external link. However, you left another external link in place. I don't understand why you removed one, but not the other. Is there a reason for that? If I was going to remove just one of those links, I probably would have chosen differently. --72.141.21.24223:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one I removed looked like original research, and I mistook the one I left for something more official than it actually is. Having had another look, I think I agree with you. I'll switch them over. The Bill Wilson article is worth reading while the one I originally left, isn't. Regards, Ben Aveling05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we only do that for discussions that have not been closed yet. Discussion may be extended if not closed. Once it's closed, even if it's overturned, the proper thing is to set up a new afd. Because the one afd would account for: first arguments closing with delete, overturned and restored, DRV, second afd. It's too much for any admin to close. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely comfortable with that because I feel that appearing to use rollback while not being an admin can be misleading. Everyking23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The argument seems to have gotten stuck on sources, when notability (lack of) was the real issue. Let me know if it comes up on AFD or DRV again and I'll put an oar in. Regards, Ben Aveling23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention the specifics of her racial makeup? Maybe not as a separate paragraph tho. I suspect that this information may become de-regeur in bios? It's relevant tho in Hanson's case as so much of her platform and policies have been race based.
Hey what up Ben? I notice there's a lot of "interactions" between you and Guardian Tiger's new sock on his talkpage. I think it's extremely wrong to react the way User:Guardian Tiger did when his account was blocked indef. and unblock requests were turn down twice (which caused talkpage protection). As far as I'm concerned, the optimal way to respond to a perma. ban is definitely NOT create more socks while continue to maintain the original block was unjustified. A similar case was User:PoolGuy whose sockpuppets # over 50. It could be interpreted as a violation of WP:POINT and WP:DICK. The new sock talkpage also shouldn't be a discussion forum to obtain an unblock. The only channel of communication he should have is through the talkpage of User talk:Guardian Tiger or through the e-mail function. Thank you! By the way, I also notice that you accused me of being a sock of ShuckyDucky. One thing I will never do is creating socks. Hopefully, you will apologize for your wrong judgment. Peace out--Certified.Gangsta04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Certified, I believe I have already apologised to Shucky for having wondered if he and you might be connected. And unless memory fails me, that was the only time I discussed the issue online? But if I have raised it elsewhere, then of course I apologise to him for doing so. Anyway, why do you think that Apocolyptic should use Tiger's page? Surely he should use the page for his current active account? Or failing that, Revolver Ocelot X? Not that Revolver Ocelot X is blocked. Cheers, Ben Aveling10:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that Apocolyptic is a new sock of Guardian after Guardian is perma. blocked, so obviously it should be perma. blocked as well (which it already has) but when considering uplifting the perma. blocked, the only channel should be User:Guardian Tiger and since the talkpage for that account is protected that means the community is telling him to shut up like Jason Gastrich, PoolGuy, Cute 1 4 U, and the list goes on. These above troublemakers all went ahead to create more socks and continue to maintain the original block was unjustified while disregarding the fact that their block was by consensus of the community. Now, why should Guardian Tiger be any different? My suggestion is for him to stop using his new sock right now (hopefully an admin would protect the talkpage) since it is clearly setting a bad example for future sockpuppeters. (when you're talkpage is protected, get a sock to start a new discussion forum) Such practice is unacceptable. His only channel is to set up an e-mail for Guardian Tiger and communicate through the e-mail function. And lastly, I found the sockpuppet accusation against me personally offensive, so I will appreciate if you apologize to me (of course he didn't take that so seriously). Cheers--Certified.Gangsta00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to understand what you're saying. He has one account that he has stopped using, and apparently, cannot use. And you are saying that because of this, he loses his right to appeal? Ben Aveling01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He alrady appea,ed twice on the guardian account before the talkpage got protected. Creating more socks isn't a constructive way around it. Btw I'm still waiting for an apology from you. cheers--Certified.Gangsta02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you'd prefer that he just stops editing wikipedia, fair enough. A lot of us feel that way about certain other people. But if I'm wrong and you have a constructive suggestion for what he should do, feel free to make it. If you want an apology, then you're going to have to be specific about what untruth I've spoken about you because I'm not aware of any. In particular, I have not, to my recall, accused you of sockpuppeting. Are you suggesting that I should apologise for even having considered the possibility? Regards, Ben Aveling06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it a lil offensive but it's cool. No need to get upset or stress about it. As for Guardian, let's not worry about him since he appears to have quit editing, but I've seen him come back before. But yeah, it's not really my priority right now, the joke banner stuff is killing me. Cheers--Certified.Gangsta06:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then go Zen. Move on. Let it go. If he does come back, I'm sure he'll avoid you or he's got less sense than I give him credit for. And the banner is just a joke, and neither a funny nor an original one. I agree, you should have the right to put it on your page, except for the bot issue, but I don't see it as a right worth fighting for. So my advice is to let that go too. Cheers, Ben Aveling
Honestly, I had trouble understanding what the question was getting at. I don't really know what you mean by all the references to mines and minefields. Maybe if you put it in very clear terms without any kind of analogies I could answer it. Everyking13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually preview references. If you have used the standard reference notation (ie, <ref> & </ref> you just type in {{reflist}} at the bottom of your section edit while you preview. It should then appear in the preview as it will appear at the bottom. Do not of course forget to remove it when you actually press 'Save page'. (by the way, the courier mail ref did not use that code - but I've just changed it). Any questions, just ask. --Merbabu10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I suspect the topic is notable. I figured that by deleting everything not on-topic, we might get a reasonable stub out of it. But I'll let other people decide that one way or another. Cheers, Ben Aveling13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blnguyen. You said that you unblocked Michael by consensus. Can I ask where this consensus to override Sarah was reached? Sorry to be a pain. Regards, Ben Aveling10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, myself and Daniel Bryant sent emails to Sarah as well as the other guys on that talk page. I waited overnight Australian time to see if she was away or not, and I thought that she was away, by not replying, so I unblocked Michael because I thought there was a consensus that the removing the block might be the best way of moving on. I do not mean it to be a condoning of Michael's comments, or that I felt that Sarah to be a bad administrator or that the block was improper. I'm saddened to see that my actions have only flamed the discontent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw your comment on the misc for deletion page, and have replied.
I think you missed the point of the concept on first reading... which could possibly be my fault, since I've been doing a bit of the typing on that page, I suppose.
WP:BRD is such a descriptive guideline. People have basically just written down what they've learned over time. You could disagree with parts of it because you know better ways to do that task, in that case {{sofixit}}. You could grimace in distaste, because some parts aren't pretty. But in the end, it just simply works.
The idea is simple. Some pages rust and become immovable over time. For example: Front pages of wikis, certain policies, controversial topics, and pages where there is apparent WP:OWNership, or other (to some degree) pathological situations.
By
Cutting down the number of interactions by finding exactly those people who have issues with your change (and no others); and
Splitting the problem up into manageable sub-steps;
a single (well practiced) editor can manage to bring people together and solve the situation.
Hi - You seem to have dropped a word in this edit, " ... how to make life for Admins ???" (better? easier? something else?). Missing words are often not that important, but this one makes your comment kind of hard to decipher. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I was going to write easier, but I prefer your suggstion. Thanks for pointing out my omission, now corrected, you deciphered it just fine. Thanks, Ben Aveling20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just boggled. Abolished, because it's broad, and POV - you see, some people think that poverty and hunger are just, and therefore we shouldn't recoginise that some things are issues of social justice. I'm appalled. I realise that wikipedia has to run on decision making by self selected committees, but gee they get it wrong sometimes. IMHO, of course. Regards, Ben Aveling22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfC doesn't seem to work any more (and anyway, thre's no category into which schools obviously fit); I've tried to attract other eyes to this article by posting both at RfC and at the relevant WikiProject, but so far without success, so I'm reduced to pestering individual editors. Could you have a look at this, and say what you think? An editor is insisting on adding large quantities of school-yearbook-style coverage of the school's sports teams. A third pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My instinctive reaction is AFD. The only potentially notable thing about the school might be the racial conflict, except that isn't discussed anywhere. The bit about the sex offender is worth a mention in his article, but not at the school. Well, it might be if there were any content, but just a note that he was there doesn't justify anything. And the sports stuff - it's hard to be sure that there isn't something notable in there, but most, probably all of it, should just be deleted. I'll purge it, but I expect to be reverted. Regards, Ben Aveling06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Ben - I had a go at removing all the very dubious stuff en bloc last night only to have it re-appear. Your more measured approach may work more satisafctorily. Velela09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ben - Have you gone through the barnstar approval process before? This is my first time and I'm actually rather unclear how much support we need to get a go for a new barnstar, or even for an Other-Related Award. Any thoughts or pointers? ~ Kathryn NicDhà naâ«â¦â«04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first trip into that process. What I can say is don't make the mistake I did - either make it clear that your proposal covers a need that isn't already covered, or make sure that your proposed barnstar is clearly better than what already exists. What do you have in mind? What have you already done? Regards, Ben Aveling06:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I've really done is propose it on the New Awards page, after the need for it was proposed and then the design and wording worked out over at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I don't know how many !votes we need, nor if we should announce it somewhere else to get additional participation. I wish someone more experienced had taken point on this, but somehow I got drafted. ~ Kathryn NicDhà naâ«â¦â«07:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that one! Sorry, I didn't make the connection. I'd say you've already succeeded. Lots of support and no real opposition. So from here, it's just a matter of picking one design, and that can be changed later with no stress.
What I was trying to suggest was something more like this, as if the barnstar was holding the quill and broom. I could probably pull it together if need be, but I think you have better tools than I do. (I'm using gimp, which is good for most things, but a bit weak on rotations. At least, the version I have is, for all I know there's a new release.) Regards, Ben Aveling11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like this? If you like it and are an early riser, feel free to add it to the gallery of options. I probably won't be on till much later tomorrow. It's all turning to gibberish to me. ~ Kathryn NicDhà naâ«â¦â«09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The whole thing seems to be drifting into WP:OWN and process for the sake of process. I thought about taking sides, but decided just to try to calm things down and hope. Cheers, Ben Aveling12:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a barnstar *approval* process? Sounds like a prime MFD candidate. I typically just give people an image or what-have-you that seems appropriate :-P --Kim Bruning13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vetting of the barnstars that could be listed on the WP:BS page initially developed because of the chaos that was being created. Over time, the awards pages have grown to four classes of awards. Anyone can create any award (as can any wikiproject), but to get listed on the page they had to first be vetted. There are now fifteen pages of archived ideas, most of which haven't made it to the page. The flip side of the vetting was the relative freedom of listing something on the WP:PUA page - anyone can post almost anything there.
Initially, the WP:BS pages were a wikiproject, but that was deleted after the idea was moved to the Wikipedia pages. After some conflicts last year about 'process' Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards ws recreated. In any case, if you have any other questions or comments, let me know. --evrik(talk)03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the AFD notice, please don't do that again. The AFD isn't officially closed. Just because there seems to be a consensus to keep it: doesn't mean the tag is removed just yet. Wait until the AFD is closed to remove the tag. RobJ198111:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, there doesn't seem to be consensus. There is consensus. And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. OK, normally, I wouldn't worry about the AFD tag sitting idle for a few days, but as per discussion at the AFD page, it's a WP:DYK candidate, so not good to have the tag there. But thanks for the heads up. Regards, Ben Aveling11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no, I don't plan on asking anyone else to do something I believe I'm capable of doing. It's not compatible with my idea of wikipedia should work: if you see something that improves wikipedia, you do it. I thought I saw something that improved wikipedia, so I did it. You've decided that there's a better way to approach the situation, and I respect your right to do that and I'm leaving this in your hands. Regards, Ben Aveling20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BenAveling , I was previously on the account User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. Unfortunately, User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's got full-protected before I had a chance to post my unblock request and this was my only way to contact you. I agree with you that I was blocked in good faith but in error and that I am not banned. I accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I am going to stick User:LionheartX as my one and only account. I hope that everyone will wipe the slate clean and not block me again for the same mistakes I've made in the past. I want to have an uninvolved administrator change the block log on my previous accounts so that I won't appeared to be banned and won't be blocked again in the future. Could you help request this on WP:ANI or ask an uninvolved administrator to change this for me?
Here is the evidence that there isn't strong support for the block per official policy.
I can't say I'm surprised. What did Gangsta think would happen when he asked for full protection of ApocalypticDestroyer's user page? We have a user who wants to contribute, we can use that and take him on board, and help him to help us. Or we can keep trying to have him blocked on the grounds that he's been blocked before. I'd prefer to forgive and forget, which is why I'm offering that I don't go and visit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Certified.Gangsta reported by User:LionheartX .28Result:No violation.29 and discuss the difference between breaches of the letter and breaches of the spirit of 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, forgive and forget. Maybe it's time we forgive and forget Willy on Wheel, Jason Gastritch, PoolGuy, and many others who are community banned. This makes no sense.--Certified.Gangsta23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of forgive and forget and ignore all rules, I hope everyone can forgive me and welcome me as a newcomer. I apologize for my actions in the past and I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively. Also, I noticed that Certified.Gangsta is actively campaigning to get me blocked and repeatedly posting sockpuppet tags on my userpage. I request that if anybody edit my userpage without my consent, please revert it. Thanks. LionheartX01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules?? More like taking wikilawyering to the extreme. This is a shame. Edit your userpage with your consent?? You have forfeited your right to edit on 'pedia since you are community banned. You're making a whole bunch of edits with OUR, the community's consent.--Certified.Gangsta02:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Hi. Thanks for warning me. But could you explain the exact copyright problem. I suppose you mean because Madame Tussaud owns the copyright on the wax figure? --Poeloq22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In effect, there are two copyright owners for that image, the person who took it, and Madame Tussaud. To be usable, both would have to give permission. There's a short description at [6] and all you wanted to know at [7]. Regards, Ben Aveling22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove statements from ArbCom case pages. As policy advises, avoid removing personal attack type comments from all pages except your own talk page. Edit waring to remove a comment is never a good idea, doing it on ArbCom pages is a really bad idea. [8]FloNight16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for removing the PA for a second time without leaving a fuller explanation. I have now done so on the author's talk page. I am aware that removing perceived attacks is potentially problematic, at least when it is directed at oneself. However, I'm less hesitant to remove a PA on someone else, defend each other and all that. Perhaps if a few more people had stepped in earlier, this whole saga might not have run for as long. If you, or anyone else, feels that the comment had any value whatsoever, please restore it. I will let it stand. Regards, Ben Aveling23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certified.Gangsta is trying to change his username again in an attempt to hide his block history. Please see Certified.Gangsta (talk·contribs)'s contributions. This is highly inappropriate because Certified.Gangsta is under formal ArbCom sanctions and the ArbCom case is not over yet. Other user's have also objected to his username change here [9]. Regards, LionheartX07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow more spamming by LionheartX. This is not surprising. Anyway Lion's accusation that I am trying to hide my block log is unjustified and groundless especially coming from a major sockpuppeter. He is in no position to make these attacks when he didn't even bother to request a change of username but by creating ban-evading socks.--Certified.Gangsta08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certified.Gangsta is demonstrating his bad faith by making ad hominem attacks. The point is that changing Certified.Gangsta's username is highly inappropriate because he is under formal ArbCom sanctions, not to mention that the ArbCom case is not over, which would mess up the title. Note that Certified.Gangsta has also abused sockpuppets and created an attack account. See N1u(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), an indef blocked attack account admitted by Certified.Gangsta. LionheartX08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lionheart, please leave Certified.Gangsta alone. You've done a good job of avoiding controversy up until now, don't blow it. There are plenty of people looking after this, just let them do the job. If you want to add evidence, or comment on proposals, do so, but please don't engage in long arguments about who did what. It hurts both of you.
Certified.Gangsta, please leave Lionheart alone. This is really a bad thing to do at any point, but especially at this point. People have made some strong comments about you. Even if you can demonstrate that people have acted against you because they dislike you, that alone does not make what has been said irrelevant or false.
I'll leave a full comment at WP:CSN tomorrow. Regarding the name change, I'm going to leave it alone, and I suggest you both leave that alone as well. If the relevant people decide the reason is good enough, so be it. Either way, this squabbling just costs both of you face. Regards, Ben Aveling13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for causing this controversy and engaging in long arguments with Certified.Gangsta. I'm going to leave Certified.Gangsta alone and avoid further controversy. I'll let other people look after this. If action is needed, I'll come talk to you and let you take it. Regards, LionheartX13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you said here that this ArbCom case is "causing LionheartX some distress". I think thats inaccurate because it didn't cause me any distress. Would you mind deleting that? Thanks, LionheartX10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but I'll also explain why I wrote it. Before the case, you were managing to stay away from Gangsta, and he you. Then you posted some evidence, and it was good evidence, and while I was a little worried it might lead to trouble, I decided that you absolutely have the right to present evidence in this case, and that I shouldn't discourage you. And what you posted was very good. But then you and he started attacking each other on a number of different pages. And it seemed to me that a number of the messages were agitated, maybe upset, certainly angry. And I didn't want people to think that was typical of your contributions. When I wrote that you were distressed, I was trying to make that point that this momentary outburst of warring is not typical for you, that usually, you are a quiet, positive, contributor. Probably distress wasn't the best word. Whatever. Regards, Ben Aveling11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that the evidence is being ignored by the Arbitrators. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the ArbCom case moved into voting phase, but it doesn't seem like Arbitrators are reading all the evidence. Also, User:N1u seems like a likely sock of User:Certified.Gangsta. Is there anything we could do so that the evidence are reflected in the Arbitration case before it closes? Regards, LionheartX13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the Arbitrators who have commented, to date, looked at the evidence that was there at the time, but they may not have looked at the more recent evidence. They will, before they close it. I thought about adding N1u to the consolidated block log, it is pretty clear that it was a sock of his. I'm trying to balance providing enough evidence with not being gratuitous, in part because I don't want little things to obscure big things, in part because I don't want to be petty about it. But, I agree, it appears to be part of this block log. I'll add it. Regards, Ben Aveling22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Arbitration case has already closed without all of the evidence being considered, and the Certified.Gangsta (talk·contribs) is now placed on revert parole. However, I noticed Certified.Gangsta is restarting revert wars after his ArbCom case closed, even though he is now forbidden to revert-war by arbitration case. In fact, he has made no positive contributions and his only contributions after his ArbCom case closed were mass reverts. Certified.Gangsta is gaming the system, even while he is on revert parole. Certified.Gangsta's ArbCom case states "He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.", but Certified.Gangsta is labeling content disputes as "vandalism" and his ArbCom case also states "Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.", but he has not discuss any of his content reversions on the page's talk page. Could you help keep an eye over his edits? Certified.Gangsta has now blatantly violated the ArbCom's final decision on several articles. Where would be the appropriate place to report his violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision? Regard, LionheartX07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's overstepped twice that I've seen. I can turn a blind eye to that. Let's try to talk this through the way we should have done in the first place. Regards, Ben Aveling08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction on at least four articles. See here, here, here, and here. Certified.Gangsta is labeling content disputes "vandalism" and made no attempt to discuss any of his reverts. In fact, Certified.Gangsta has done nothing but personal attacks and edit since his ArbCom case closed. This is flagrant violation of the ArbCom's Final decision and must be enforced. Regards, LionheartX08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely surprised. But there is no "must" in this case, only may. Remember that you too are edit waring. I believe there is a Chinese saying "Go to the law to win a cat and lose a cow"? He should not be edit warring, but before we go and run for help, let us try to talk to him about it. Regards, Ben Aveling08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask him to stop, but I suggest again you self-revert ASAP. Please. If I'm going to get some kind of NPOV on these pages, I need your help. That becomes more difficult once you get blocked. Trust me for once. Check my contributions properly. Regards, Ben Aveling09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Certified.Gangsta is interested in discussing this and refraining from edit-warring. He has made personal attacks and just violated his ArbCom sanction again. LionheartX09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about canvassing. I'll try to report Certified.Gangsta myself, but I'm not sure about the proper procedure for doing so. Anyways, I don't think Certified.Gangsta's reverts were NPOV or supported by consensus. Regards, LionheartX09:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, I think his reverts aren't mostly too bad. How about we go through them. I'll create some sub sections below. Feel free to edit. Regards, Ben Aveling09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think his reverts are very POV. Please see the talk page of the respective articles, his reverts are clearly against the consensus of many editors. The point is that Certified.Gangsta makes almost no positive contributions except for revert-warring, usually againstWP:CONSENSUS. Regards, LionheartX09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His reverts are POV. But that alone doesn't make them wrong. I'm looking at the details of his changes below, feel free to comment. I agree with you, to the extent that you and I both don't want Wikipedia to be POV against China. I agree with him, to the extent that he and I both don't want Wikipedia to be POV against Taiwan either. Who knows, there are probably places where both he and you agree with each other and you both disagree with me. :-) We'll deal with it, one page at a time. Regards, Ben Aveling09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's self reverted everything, and is looking to discuss. So probably a premature thing to do; I suggest to you that you go back to ANI and withdraw your request, please. Regards, Ben Aveling09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm willing to discuss in the relevant talk pages to reach some kind of NPOV or compromise on these pages. But, please see this. I think Certified.Gangsta is campaigning/canvassing to have me blocked/banned. Thanks, LionheartX19:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted the categories and removed the Chinese Categories.
So long as we are using Chinese as a nationality as well as an ethnic group, I think maybe a mistake. It's probably better to include all categories that apply. As an aside, there was a comment somewhere that we should probably be referring to people as Han if we want to focus on ethnicity. That might be a way forwards, if we are prepared to create Category:Han Singers or perhaps Category:Han Chinese singers, and so on. Ben Aveling09:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Han" is currently a disambiguation and have many different meanings. We should use the accurate term Han Chinese, unless there is consensus to move the article. LionheartX11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that Taiwan is heavily influenced by Japan, I don't think it appropriate to say that it should be part of the Japan wikiproject space. I guess the next question is, should it part of the wikiproject china space. At this stage, given Chinese attitudes towards Taiwan, I think so. Regards, Ben Aveling09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually do things just to avoid controversy. Can you check the definition of wikiproject China for me? I suspect that Taiwan would fall into it. Even though it isn't part of China, it is of great concern to China. Regards, Ben Aveling09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Han or Chinese? Both are accurate, but I think Han is more precise. So I (mainly) agree with his changes there. I've made some tweaks at the edges.[13] Regards, Ben Aveling09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely beautiful. You've taken a beautiful picture and made it more so. That's the good news. But, and maybe this is inevitable, a lot of the detail has been lost. Perhaps I'm asking too much here. I'd like to submit it as a featured picture, but they generally require the picture to look good when blown up a little bit. So it can't be too small. Regards, Ben Aveling07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been fixing links to archived WP:ANI discussion, and I've run into a major problem: The archive index is too long to handle. I'd recommend splitting it up alphabeticly - this way it will be easier to find any archived talk, without knowing when it's from. OdMishehu13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've actually stopped maintaining it for the moment, I never received any feedback to indicate that anyone was using it, plus it's too hard to upload as you know. And with the new option to search that page dynamically, it didn't seem as necessary anymore. I intend to do a little more research into automatic uploading, but not until next month for various reasons. I can split it into multiple sections then. Until then, I can download and process data automatically but uploading is manual, and I've just put it all into the not-now basket. But thanks for the feedback, I'm glad to know that someone thinks the page is useful and I will get around to fixing it. :-) Regards, Ben Aveling19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ben, your edits made the text run more smoothly, and I appreciate it, although I now have a good day's work ahead checking that the refs are correct, which I noticed that they no longer are at some places. Thanks for notifying me of your edits. I'll get to work on it this it this evening. Manxruler15:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Ben. I've decided its too much work to go through all your edits and check them. So, what I'll do is to revert you and then reinsert your to the degree they conform with the references. Hope that's cool by you. Keep up the good work. Manxruler22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sure will. I'm working on on a daily basis now, and tracking down further references for the information in the article. Will let you know when I'm pleased with the result. Manxruler12:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Cadet Rousselle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. ForeverDEAD22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page now meets the requirement for keeping, sorry for not making it clearer that the "first pass" was not to be the only pass. Regards, Ben Aveling23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Backward compatible is derived from backward compatibility, where backward (an adjective) is describing compatibility (a noun). --Evice15:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Edokter (Talk) 11:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
