User talk:GRBerry/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 11:28, 22 March 2023

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

PR - mentorship where

i appreciate your attempts to keep things preventative, rather than merely punitive. however, i don't quite follow your reasoning that about this issue [1]. this issue has been repeating itself for at least 3 months and already both his mentors (discounting the sock) and a good number of more editors noted the user to stop. i believe PR is more than aware of what he is doing but he keeps trying, just as he kept calling me a war criminal after an ANI about that issue was already open. so, personally, i've lost my patience and i'm more than interested in preventative action. post-ANI link [2] (clarifies current issue). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and he have a dispute. The two of you need to solve it. You can find a way to work amicably together (best), you can find a way to ignore each other (acceptable), or you can both end up in advanced forms of dispute resolution. I think if you go the third path, both of you will end up under sanctions. My advice is to either find a way for each of you to ignore the other, or to find a way to work together. I'd recommend you both practice Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. GRBerry 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You and he have a dispute." - honestly, you've left me speechless. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sokolče

Hi, why did You revert back incorrect redirect Sokolče-Sokolce? It is usually and due to logic that we have redirects like Zilina-Žilina, Kosice-Košice, Roznava-Rožňava, but make it in opposite way ? We have in Slovakia town Zvolen, so I can make redirects: Žvolen-Zvolen, Zvoleň-Zvolen, Zvolén-Zvolen, Žvoleň-Zvolen, etc... ? Please, delete that, that was created as mistake by non-Slovak user, it is not just incorrect, but also confusing, because in Slovakia existed real village Sokolče (now inundated) and we noticed it in article of Stan Mikita, who was born there. Nice day and thank You for understanding --kelovy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry to hear.

I won't bother you with my understanding of what a mentor should be like! PR^talk 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete review req

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marion Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete review req

This is my first time on Wikipedia and I'm trying to gather the differences of what is needed and what is not. The article in question is for Academic Management Systems. I'm trying to write an encyclopedic worthy article, much like CBS corporation and Pepsi, but am unable to do so due to the deletion. How can I appeal this decision until I'm finished editing the article? I am still learning how to add things like a table and other things and when i was just typing article and tried to save originally, it never saved and deleted all of my work which is why I am saving more piece-meal to make sure my work doesn't get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarskig (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be first to check WP:CORP, if you haven't done so already. Then, put the "spammy" text in your sandbox (here: User:Awarskig/sandbox), and work it from here until you feel it's encyclopedic. Policies you might want to check WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Last but not least, check how to write a good article. Good luck.--victor falk 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belt Alliance fighter

I have read the guidlines and from my understanding and also from my viewing of the other starship pages my page is perfectly in line... tell me specifically what I missed and I'll do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caltair (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Louisdale, Nova Scotia

By deleting it, I'm unable to see what was happening. Can you explain in details what happened? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but I didn't fully sort the details; indeed; some of the explanation below I am sorting out in more detail now than I did earlier. I'm not sure what the conflict is about or who the real participants are; it appears to be a non-Wikipedia conflict spilling over onto us. That may be an ethnic conflict element from the looks of it, which surprises me for Nova Scotia. (But honeymooning there certainly doesn't make me an expert on the province's history).

The old copyright violation is from this geocities website or some other clone thereof. It was originally added in September 2006 by User:Johncena325.
Sometime in the next 12 months, the copyright of that section was questioned by a comment at the top of it, but nothing was really done.
On 5 September 2007, User:Uglybaraco222 described the history as bogus and added a lot of material that was either based on, or copied from [louisdaleisgrandiqueferry.piczo.com this site]. This was reverted as vandalism by a recent changes patroller.
On 7 September 2007, User:Billpeters888 was next along; he didn't make any immediately obvious substantive changes to the article.
The article stated essentially unchanged to 31 October 2007, but the alert about copyright issue vanished, as did all vestiges of sourcing. At this point the history section covered settlement to 1856.
On this date, User:142.167.242.246 came and roughly doubled the length of the history section going up to 1962 (clearly a copyvio from somewhere, I'm not sure where) added a WP:BLP violation regarding "Father Gary MacPherson", and encouragements to go to this [www.fathergaryisafake.piczo.com attack/dispute site].
A RC patroller flagged for speedy deletion. I confirmed that the community is a real place, and declined and flagged the article on 31 October. We had subsequent edits by User:142.167.227.227. When I had more time for review (wee hours this morning), I came back and eliminated the BLP violation and reference to the dispute site. At some point in here [www3.sympatico.ca/cormier.jp/other_html_history_of_louisdale.html. this] got claimed as a source.
Then, near 11 AM Atlantic time today, User:Grandiqueferry revised the "History" section title to be "Revisionist History" and referenced the same site that Uglybaraco222 had used. An RC patroller reverted as vandalism, then User:Toddst1 spotted the copyright violation.
I deleted the old copyright violation, completely eliminating the history section.
Grandiqueferry readded some of the copyright violating material, and Toddst1 listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 November 2/Articles.
I happened to make the next addition to the copyright problem page, confirmed that it was a repeated copyright violation, and deleted the problem edits again. I then protected and requested help.

That is the mess, as best I can sort it out. It looks like an outside conflict spilling over onto us, combined with violations of copyright, violations of WP:NOR, and possible sockpuppetry. Why this is occurring over a small community in Nova Scotia is beyond me. GRBerry

Wow, insane. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSBot copycat

Allright, that was amusing. I guess this means CSBot's activity is now considered so "normal" that even vandals recognize its significance. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Vedanta Society of Western Washington

Dear GRBeryy, just curious about deletion of this page. It is stated: 08:15, 3 November 2007 GRBerry (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vedanta Society of Western Washington" ‎ (WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of [3]

Now, that page did perhaps violate copyright content, at http://www.vedanta-seattle.org/, but certainly none of the material was from the "band history" page you cited. Trust this was an error, and that you meant to put the other site. Sw.my 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, that was a mistake. Log corrected. GRBerry 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sw.my 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Kimbell misunderstanding

Hello, there may have been an error when you deleted the page, Gail Kimbell? The page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. The information on the page was taken from the U.S. Forest's Service's Web Site: About the Chief. This information is public domain. As stated in the policy for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G12) there must be "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license" for a page's speedy deletion. The problem is, this information was taken from a government website which under the Wikipedia:Public domain policy is public domain. It is also stated under the U.S. Forestry Service's Privacy Policy that the information presented on the website is considered public information and "may be distributed or copied unless otherwise indicated". Bottom line, it is not copyrighted material and should not have been deleted. If I have overlooked something, since I am still new at Wikipedia, please leave a comment. Thank you, --Cladestine 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was dumb of me. You are correct that U.S. government works are in the public domain. Restored. Tagged for wikification; as it does need some rewriting to match the usual Wikipedia style. GRBerry 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll try to work on its' wikifaction. --Cladestine 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that they would be copyright violations

Just because they seemed so similar in style to the other pages that were definitely copyvios.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't helpful, because we need more evidence. To delete as a copyright violation we need to know of what. From Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases "Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)" GRBerry 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

Image:Lest We Forget.png --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jonathan Edwards

Hi,

Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks.Brian0324 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bluemaven/Zana Dark

Hey, thanks for catching that typo! GlassCobra 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morrison

Hello, I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input.Brian0324 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gertrude Baniszewski

I was just curious about why you reverted the addition of a death date with reference & the correction of the year of trial, which was supported in the reference? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a screw up. For some reason, that I don't now recollect, I'd thought the editor was making bad edits. I know that I didn't notice the reference. GRBerry 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm just glad to find someone who will say that!! Wildhartlivie 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalised Curriculum

Please unprotect so that I may add this again as I believe it has been deleted for all the wrong reasons. Despite my efforts to look for references the article kept being delete...very frustrating...so here are a reem of references and there are many more to show this IS a term that needs inclusion as it IS a widely discussed anissue in the academic world. Wikipedia is a place many will look for this type of information. It should not be relegated to Googlepedia. Please favourably consider my request ao that we can proceed positively. Thank you 124.120.36.147 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1. Queens University Belfast: http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/CentreforEducationalDevelopment/InternationalisingtheCurriculum/ "....lobal context should therefore be a central aim of an internationalised curriculum."[reply]

2. http://pdfdownload.randomlypoked.com/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsn.curtin.edu.au%2Flearn_online%2Fdocs%2FInternationalise.pdf&images=yes "WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN INTERNATIONALISED CURRICULUM?"

3. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php "http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php" "Current teaching practices/your experience in delivering an internationalised curriculum "

4; Oxford Brooks University: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/online/international_curriculum/index.html "The internationalised curriculum

* Book now: 2 April - 2 May 2008

This course is designed to introduce you to the wide-ranging concept of an internationalised curriculum and to work through a practical application to a programme with which you work."

5. Griffith University: http://www.griffith.edu.au/landt/goodpractice/pdf/Item%209_Internationalisation%20of%20the%20curriculum%2004_0858.pdf "The Group is responsible for providing the resources for the training of staff in awareness of and commitment to the need for an internationalised curriculum and for process in updating and changing curriculum as required."

6. Univesity of South Australia: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/internationalisation/documents/InternationalisationCurriculumPerth.pdf "In 1995 a typology of internationalised curriculum was published (IDP Education Australia 1995)." Also refer IDP Education Australia 1995 publications.

This page was protected by User:RHaworth due to repeated recreation of spam at multiple article titles. I am not willing to assume on blind faith that the next creation would not also be spam needing deletion. Nor can an IP editor create a page. An established Wikipedian can write a draft in their userspace and present it for review at deletion review. Such a draft will have to adhere to policy and guidelines. GRBerry 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ironfurnaces.com

Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to view or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.)Rhammond 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wolfowitz

It seems we've reached a consensus on the disputed point.[4] It's probably ok to unprotected, but that's to your discretion. Thanks for stopping the edit war. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)

Morning! You may remember speedy deleting the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask a more experienced admin to review. I'm too tired right now, and it isn't critically urgent. GRBerry 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play. One thing I've learnt is that nothing is ever as pressing as the one who's pressing would like you to believe. I quote Bright Eyes. Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it, though. I did also flag this up with the admin who closed it.Hen Features 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easyworld

(Asking you since you closed the DRV) - versions from July 2005 onward do not appear to be copyvio, and the deletion reason given was A7. —Random832 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, i misread. —Random832 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Livingstone

Hello,

I have noticed that David Livingstone gets vandalized on a regular basis. I nominated it for protection a long while back, but nothing happened as far as I know. Could you help? Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a high percentage of its edits as IP vandalism. But not particularly high in absolute number per unit time. There have also been some recent IP improvements. All in all, this is one of the annoying side-effects of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've added it to my watchlist; if we get significant upticks in the frequency I or El C will proably semi-protect.

The down-sides to semi-protection are that 1) it blocks improvements by good contributors, 2) it generally just drives the vandalism elsewhere to less watched articles, and 3) sometimes it causes the vandals to create accounts and learn how to be more subtle in their vandalism - and finding, proving, and blocking those accounts takes more work than reverting an IP. GRBerry (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking.Brian0324 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Oops! I'm sorry - I didn't know. I thought that tagging it as recreation of deleted material (I use Twinkle) was more appropriate since the page had just been speedily deleted. I'll keep this info in mind next time. Really sorry bout the mistake - didn't know, hence fault committed. I apologise. Thanks for taking the time out and letting me know that. aJCfreak yAk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

reply

i replied to you both on the ANI and also on my page [5].

i'll add that, i can understand how the topic ban suggestions seem to an outsider, however, 4 months, 5 mentors, many policy violations and no rules - in contrast with User:Isarig who's under topic ban and self forced 1RR - and no repeated offenses, makes me feel that the topic ban is in order at least until some ground rules are set. you not liking the suggestion, does not mean you have the right to censor it being raised. you can ask, not threat. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you that you are being disruptive in this aspect of your activity. Disruptive editors are subject to blocks, and I will block you if you continue to repeat this disruption after having been specifically warned. Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. If you've read the ANI thread, you know that I don't object to you talking with his mentors, but do think you should do it separately from PRs conversations with his mentors, and with the expectation that the mentors will also investigate your behavior. The disruption is popping up and asking for a topic ban every time his name appears on WP:AN or WP:ANI. I don't believe that you have truly attempted to work with this editor, nor have you made a sufficient attempt at resolving the dispute to allow you to certify a user conduct RfC. Until I see evidence that you are actually trying to work with PR and compromise, this warning stands. GRBerry 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to work with him. you should try the WP:AGF thing in two directions, not just the 'defend the person who created Hated Google Test' direction.
going over the policy pages, i wonder which of these disruptions do you believe i have breached... perhaps "Campaign to drive away productive contributors"?
PR raised the AN thread on his own - clearly rejecting his mentor. there's absolutely nothing wrong with repeating my suggestion that rules be set for this mentorship then - i also suggest you give a look to the far more successful mentorship case of User:Isarig for inspiration.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move towards RFC?

Response to a request on User talk:Tony Sidaway [6]

As a known believer in allowing non-admins a great deal of discretion in closing AFD discussions, can you review User talk:RMHED#Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD and the next five sections and let me know if you think I should move this further towards an RfC. (The two prior sections are mechanics lessons, to which the user has responded favorably, not issues with the actual closes being done.) He appears to be promising to repeat behavior for which he has been criticized. GRBerry 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the AfD is:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Walker Bush
This was closed 21:25, 20 November 2007 by User:RMHED, who doesn't appear to be an administrator.
Somebody took that to RMHED's talk page, where RMHED said "You'll need an Admin to open it up again, sorry if you think my closure was premature, but I just thought it highly unlikely that this will result in anything but a keep or possibly a no consensus."
The user who had complained (User:Strothra) then took it to deletion review, which you closed on the grounds that it was better to re-open the AfD [7].

Of significance in this case is that there appear to be several other recent complaints about this fellow's closes [, and that the close in question was an exceptionally early one (towards the end of the second day).

An experienced AfD closer would tend to let such discussions continue, though there are some legitimate cases for closing certain discussions early. RMHED's judgement here is probably correct, but I don't see any harm in letting it run and, in the circumstances, his response "You'll need an Admin to open it up again" was unhelpful--he could have reverted his own close or temporarily withdrawn it and asked an administrator to review it.

Looking at RMHED's responses to complaints about his recent non-admin closes, I think they show a certain intransigence that doesn't go well with AfD closing. He sometimes (perhaps often) performs early closes and some of these early closes are probably inappropriate, or at least controversial, but he always dismisses the complaints.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance is an interesting one. It's blatantly encyclopedic (if you use UK cable TV it's impossible to escape the advertisements so it would be silly for Wikipedia to avoid coverage). RMHED's close was pragmatically correct (he had suggested a merge and redirect and he formally closed it according to that procedure). A straight numerical count of the discussion would probably have said "delete", but the reasons given for deletion were at best facetious. This is the kind of discussion I would have preferred to see run to full length and closed by an experienced closer. RMHED made the right decision but his involvement clouds the issue. As it happens I would say "keep" to that article because Ocean Finance has a sixteen years history independent of AIG, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss one of the UK's leading debt consolidation firms from Wikipedia. But I'm convinced that this would have become clear during the course of a full deletion discussion.

Since several editors have already approached RMHED about his behavior and don't seem to be satisfied with the current situation, of course a request for comment is a good idea. The purpose of such an RFC is to focus attention and resolve disputes over conduct. I think it would be a good idea, if only to pool the feedback RMHED is surely going to get in future into one focussed dollop instead of a load of drips and drops. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed this user's record, please notify me when this RfC is opened. Mr Which ^??? 01:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC might be too much at this point. RMHED has never really had feed back before on speedy close of AfDs. I added multiple posts in hopes of curbing the activity. Also, we're still discussing the matter on his talk page. Perhaps give it a few days before posting an RfC. -- Jreferee t/c 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that discussion. He has responded flippantly to your advice, and has made it very clear he sees no problem with the attitude he is taking toward prematurely closing AfDs. Mr Which ^??? 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let it cool off a bit. Being hammered with that much feedback on a single issue can get peoples hackles up. After they calm down, they may either resume the old behavior or modify it based on the feedback. Too soon to tell. GRBerry 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks - second opinons?

Thanks for the response over at AN. Do you think you could possibly look at the two cases I was referring to (though I didn't name them over there), and see if those are good examples of where definite blocks would have been better than an immediate jump to an indefinite block? I'm going to just link to the block logs and not say any more. Hope you don't mind me asking for a second opinion from you like this. One case is simple, the other is rather messy. The first one is here, the other is here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first was incorrect at any length. Three reverts over more than a month, on a BLP, removing negative material that was at best weakly sourced. It became clear to me that the editor didn't know what he was doing. Use of talk pages was appropriate at this point, issuing any block was not.

The second is a user who was clearly editing disruptively in some occasions so far as I knew from my general awareness. Has been working in topics and XfDs where he has a COI, and either soliciting meatpuppets or using sockpuppets in XfD and related discussions. He also had previously used an sockpuppet in an AFD that was both 1) pretty obviously his sock (signature looked like main account and directed to main account) and 2) used to do a second AFD nomination for an article where his main account had done the first AFD nomination. (Which makes it easier to believe that the later accounts are sock rather than meat.) It surprises me that there were not more shorter length blocks earlier. I think email validation that the other accounts are in fact meat puppets should occur by an uninvolved admin (these should be people whose email addresses are visible outside Wikipedia, use those), and then further discussion can proceed with more information. GRBerry 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those opinions. I should have been clearer on the first example, where you are quite right to say that the block was not justifiable at all. The input in the second case is also extremely helpful, as I think both me and the others already involved were too close to what was going on to see the earlier stuff. Would you mind looking into it a bit more, or would a completely new admin be best? Would WP:AN be the right place to get an uninvolved admin to come along and check the meat puppets and look into things a bit more? Possibly there is a slight touch also of "Being hammered with that much feedback on a single issue can get peoples hackles up." - in this case the feedback being the AfDs. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on a bold reversion

In my opinion, CitiCat prematurely closed discussion on the AfD for Bruce Khlebnikov, and I boldly reverted the close almost immediately. As I respect your opinion, I wanted your take on if I should have applied WP:IAR in this case. I fully understand that the IAR policy is not meant to create anarchy, but to improve the project, and my question for you is: in your opinion, did my bold move in this case, accomplish what the spirit of IAR actually is? Thanks, Mr Which ^??? 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't totally ridiculous, but you should also have undid the close on the article & talk. It would be best to actively solicit some Russian speaking/reading editors to check for foreign language sources given the topic of the article - that would really show an effort to get to the right answer, not just the one you prefer. You also need to discuss with the individual whose close you undid. GRBerry 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss with CitiCat, post-revert though. I didn't even think of discussing it on the talkpage, though. In your opinion was this an appropriate application of IAR? Mr Which ^??? 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisdale, Nova Scotia: Round 2

I've had an indepth look at the article. Please look at Grandique Ferry as well in this incident. As far as I can tell, user:Grandiqueferry is very concerned with adding information about his community, and looking back and forth between here [8], and here [9], two government sources, the page in it's current revision is correct. Therefore I can only state that, while lacking Wikipedia style, Louisdale, Nova Scotia is not a bad article. But can the same be said for Grandique Ferry? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 06:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to look at Grandique Ferry. I don't know if it's copyvio or not, but it reads poorly. Louisdale isn't much better, so I'm going to take a little bit of time and format them. Other than that, I'd say that user:Grandiqueferry is just trying to add information to Wikipedia, and I don't see anything that might indicate an outside dispute. Besides, most pages on rural Nova Scotia communities, not being high-priority and all, are written from first-hand sources, so it's hard to tell whether or not information on them is accurate anyway!

I'll keep looking at it, and if you're interested in any further issues, just drop me a line (on the 6)! Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at these two articles, the more I don't like them: it seems like the same author of both articles is the author of the main source used in the articles, and the source seems based on a conspiracy theory. As a novice editor, I cannot take responsibility for the issue. What would you recommend for further action? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 07:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sides of every dispute

Thank you for your comment. I will try to make an extended effort to explain my reasons on the relevant articles, but at the same time I feel that this will be a difficult approach when dealing with an editor like Bless Sins. If you try take a closer look at his contributions and his way of dealing with disputes, it seems to me that it is obvious that he try to get things his way by being extremely persistent, engaging in month long edit-wars against a large number of editors disagreeing with him. Sometimes he even give up for a few weeks or months, but then return to the article and revert to his version. I believe that his approach to editing Wikipedia needs to be confronted one way or another, and perhaps it would be better to start an RfC on the issue. -- Karl Meier (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unban?

FYI, I'm serious about this. Would you support an unban? He wrote a lot of good content - just ruffled a lot of feathers along the way. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely different can of worms. There appears to have been a combination of sock puppetry, ignoring feedback, and edit warring. An editor like that we don't particularly need, even if they can create decent content so long as nobody else touches it. GRBerry 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMAA

An editor has asked for a deletion review of JAMAA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine

See my most recent post to Ten's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I've replied to the discussion regarding myself. It is really unfair how I keep getting singled out by these editors. I've worked a lot with others to come up with neutral titles and text for these articles. This group, who somehow appear to feel they've lost, continue to try and bash me. It is always the same characters, Rarelibra, PhJ, Gryffindor, and a few others. I came on here a couple weeks ago after taking a break, and got a nice surprise of them slandering me on here to a new Editor. Then I pointed out that they were not innocent in all of this. Then I get profanity from and multiple legal threats from Rarelibra, which were never fully addressed. It was very welcome to hear his apology and leave it at that. But now I believe he only gave that apology because he thought I'd been taken off this topic. You know, it was very difficult putting my foot forward in the beginning to push to get these pages more neutral. Now I have to get these attacks for how long? I know they consider me the one who lead these changes, but I'd really be most happy to just not have to know or hear from these Editors any longer. :( Man, it is all just really childish.. o_O Icsunonove (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Chill page - a second chance?

May I re-edit it to be completely devoid of self-serving tones of any kind? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My primary comment is already in the deletion review. If you really really must try, which I strongly discourage, you'll need to follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. Basically, forget everything you know about the subject and only include material from published, independent, reliable sources. The odds of success have historically proven quite low for people with a conflict of interest. GRBerry 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

understood. Berry Chill will be hitting the Chicago press sometime this month and we will build the space from there utilizing only printed facts.

thanks! Berry Chill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrychill (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lack of recognition factor

"The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago" - may I ask which forum that was? I was thinking RfA, but maybe you meant somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate, in the Arb elections. GRBerry 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

thanks for helping on sinners in the hands of an angry god. Seth71 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please revisit the subpages of the Durova ArbCom

They have now added Giano as a party, and one ArbCom member has actually placed a proposal to ban Giano for 90 days on the page for a vote, as well as a 1-year stringent restriction on him as well. I think your input could be important in the discussion, as I'm so angry I can not be civil on this issue right now. Mr Which ^??? 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long thoughts...

[10] - very well spoken. I'm glad someone is aware of the underlying difficulties with the rank and file getting entangled in the dispute resolution process. Catchpole (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Question

I don't know what the protocol is for protected pages, but can you fix spelling mistakes there? There is one entry in List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada that reads "shild" instead of "child". It would be good to fix it. Thanks. Tiamut 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{editprotected}} on the list/article's talk page to propose the change. Be specific so that the processing admin can easily find the fix to make. GRBerry 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'll do that right away. Tiamut 13:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The death of reason and democracy in Wikipedia

Good afternoon (depending where you are of course),

I just can´t believe you´ve supported Zape82 and Verano in that "rewrite" of the article we placed, and all its factual 17 sections now watered down to what, just 5? So, um, "Several judges have complained about inconstitucionality...", such rubbish, the list has now reached 150 judges, 10 a month on average, they´re finding inconsitutionality at the time of applying the law, and that can not be described as just "several". Then its "just a couple of fathers associations complaining", and Zape82 cuts out the update about how the Magistrates Association also filed a formal complaint of inconstitutionality.

Very sad, you´ve just sent a very clear message to a lot of people that Wikipedia allows and supports political extremism and anti-human rights politics - not to mention is anti-democratic.

But that´s just in my honest opinion, so hey, erase it quick before anyone sees! Rubén Mar 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD is for deciding whether there should be an article, or should not be an article. Everyone agreed that there should be an article, so the decision is obvious. That ends my involvement with the content; I don't know enough about Spain to have an opinion on whether the article is a good one, nor enough knowledge of Spanish to read the original sources.

Please read the five pillars, to understand what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for hosting everything ever written about a subject; it is an encyclopedia. Articles must not violate copyright of others, must adhere to a neutral point of view, must not contain original research, and should be written from reliable sources, especially those independent of the subject.

Civility is also expected of all contributors. Attacking me for what someone else has done is not civil, and if continued is the sort of behavior that will eventually lead to your privilege of editing being removed. GRBerry 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Winston Morris

you are too quick to delete important R winston Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs)

Copyright violations must be deleted as soon as possible. Don't copy content from elsewhere and paste it here. GRBerry 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Question

Ya I put it in the external links. But I had a question. If you go the University of British Columbia page and go to History, Early History, the very first paragraph, you can see that for UBC Archives, they have it linked to a different website. Ive seen them do that in a lot of artists pages as well. This is from the University page:

The information in this section is taken from "The History of the University" by former UBC President N.A.M. (Norman) MacKenzie, originally published in "The President's Report", 1957-58, available online at the UBC Archives.

So I was thinking Id do the same for the poems, just make em link to the forum page. Is what Im saying the same as a redirect?Peoplez1k 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the link is clearly intended to be a source for encyclopedia content. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I've flagged that for cleanup. That is poorly formatted; at some point in the history of the article that section was written based on that source. So it should have been cited as a source.

No, a redirect is a page here that automatically transfers the reader to another page here that actually has related content. If you go to the page Brannigans you will find yourself redirected to our article on the company that makes that brand of products, which is KP Snacks. GRBerry 05:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at my contribs on User_talk:Fred Bauder

I am being accused of trolling by User:Rockpocket. I consider these serious accusations, and I've informed him at his talk page that I consider them a personal attack. I respect you, and if you consider my contribs there "trolling", I will cease forthwith, as well as retract my note from RP's page. If not, could you ask RP to cease with the PAs? Thanks, Mr Which ^??? 09:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is always best if civility/npa warnings come from those on the same side in a dispute. Your behavior was certainly unwise and over the top. One of the things that is making some of the arbitrators upset with Giano is that his behavior often goes over the top. Doing the same to someone you already know is especially concerned about it isn't wise. How Fred can be so concerned about this when I've seen him engage in over the top behavior himself on an ArbComm case is beyond me. But pointing this out to him would be unwise also, so don't do it. GRBerry 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you feel like I was "trolling"? Mr Which ^??? 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try hard not to use that word. You were doing things better left undone. GRBerry 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had always considered "trolling" to be done with malice, and intending to incite. But it sounds like you would agree with RP about the contents of my edits there. Thanks for taking a look. Mr Which ^??? 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are You Guys So Boring?

Thats the second page I have had deleted which has been relating to my school and some of the things which we create there. Why do you guys always seem to delete them?? Lighten Up!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. GRBerry 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't made up, we made it happen =]]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs)

Follow the link and read it. GRBerry 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if we write a book on it, it can be published on wikipedia?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs)

Unjust blocking of Vivaflor by Zape82

I´ve justed got a call from Vivaflor and she´s quite upset she´s blocked by Zape82. How is it that Zape82 has so much power on Wiki? He just blocks people and that´s that? Her email address is on the system, she´s Spanish, she is a real person thats quite upset she´s been accussed and judged while she hadn´t even the chance to respond. Rubén Mar 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I blocked both accounts based on the checkuser results. Zape82 didn't block that account. I have followed up with the checkuser who performed the check. The additional details provided make it completely clear to me that this is a cut and dried case, and that it is far more likely that both accounts were operated by the same individual than by two different people than that any other explanation is true. (Additionally, the alternative explanations also leave that account subject to blocking, so digging too deep into the details isn't worthwhile.) GRBerry 18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing mistakes

I've requested that an admin fix a mistake at the bottom of Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada.Bless sins 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{editprotected}} on the list/article's talk page to propose the change. Be specific so that the processing admin can easily find the fix to make. I make no prediction as to whether the change will be made. GRBerry 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Courts for Violence against Women

Sorry was of little help with this... my internet access during the day is now pretty restricted as of last month. I added the page to my watchlist in case the issue pops up again. Let me know if I can be of further help, but just be aware that I won't be able to follow up much until the evenings. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Peter Zenger

Please have a look here for some info I left for Newyorkbrad. He seems a bit busy, and suggested I pass it to you. Regards. - Crockspot (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt

Thank you for your comments on WP:AN/I and on Talk:Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. I have started a discussion and would greatly appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it, maybe check in from time to time, as discussions on this topic tend to get wild rather quickly and "adult supervision" may help keep things calm.

Many thanks and kind regards, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 15:56

I am far from Jaakabou's favorite admin. Hopefully someone he doesn't already consider terribly biased against him will monitor. GRBerry 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that might be a very short list... Anyway, I hope some admin follows your advice on WP:AN/I and takes this whole issue up one level. Cheers and again, many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 16:53

$\leftarrow$ The discussion on WP:AN/I just kind of died without the real issue being addressed... Would you suggest I take this to WP:RFAR? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:38

I think the process of dispute resolution needs to occur. We always prefer if disputes can be resolved directly by those involved. RfC and Mediation are probably worth trying. Content disputes won't be accepted by ArbComm - user conduct problems will eventually be. But it will be best if you show the conduct issues and the prior attempts at resolving them clearly. An issue that I see is the "edit war, page protected, go elsewhere and repeat without discussing" cycle that seems to be occuring. But I don't have an adequately wholistic view to know if that is what is occurring, nor if it is consistently the same people edit warring, nor... GRBerry 14:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Request for Arbitration: notification

I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement made. Sigh, this really didn't need to be a case, but does have the potential to clarify existing processes. Wouldn't an RfC have been better for that, however. GRBerry 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing evidence at User:GRBerry/ArbComm PreEvidence. GRBerry 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case opens

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of evidence

Hey! You are adding evidence too fast! :-) Seriously, I'm impressed with the way you are presenting stuff there. I'm thinking of listing the block log summaries, but would there be a more logical way to present things, or will it all come out in the wash? Carcharoth 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prepped last night at User:GRBerry/ArbComm PreEvidence. Failure of parties to prepare evidence is a disservice to themself, the other parties, and the committee. Of course, I've reached the end of the material I prepped, so will be slowing down now. GRBerry 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've never been very good at preparing work in advance, but I must confess that I hadn't even thought of preparing evidence beforehand for an ArbCom case. I guess I'm used to cases taking weeks and weeks, and having evidence being added in the opening few days. Maybe there should be a notice at RfArb to remind parties to prepare evidence? And I'm talking too much on talk pages. Must add more evidence! Carcharoth 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you focus on a detailed review of this block, I'll cast a wider net at the other blocks. I think a section structured 1) 3RR with summary and community view as supported, 2) harassment block with summary and a pointer that no evidence can support it, 3) indefinite extension with discussion of the lack of legitimate evidence might help. GRBerry 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do! Thanks. Hang on - do you mean I should look at all Hoffman's blocks, and you look at the other blocks (the 'spotty record')? Carcharoth 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant that you focus on Hoffman, I look at others. If you'd rather do it the other way around, let me know. I am most curious about the Profg block, given that his edit to the article Hoffman was interested in was the same in substance and ended the edit war. GRBerry 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading this. I think you probably know more about that than I do. I'll look at the Hoffman blocks. Carcharoth 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on it being a 2 year old account. GRBerry 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite pleased to find the Nascentathiest exchange as well. Not pleasant to find that he had asked for leniency and been turned down, but a necessary piece of evidence, I think. It's been ages since I've got involved with an arbitration case to this extent. I might get involved with more in future (though my attention is likely to drift away again at any moment to other areas of the vast jungle). Any tips on improving my presentation of evidence? The bits I find hardest is proposing stuff on the workshop pages - it is annoying when arbitrators seem to ignore that page. What has your experience been with ArbCom cases? Carcharoth 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your evidence you cite User:Calton as being the first to question use of the term 'creationism' in the lead. Actually, the edit you cite was made by User:Carlon. --CBD 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. GRBerry 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some stray "Calton"s still on the page. By the way, I was re-reading what you and Charles Matthews posted at the beginning of the ANI thread, and both your summaries are clear and simple. What made this so complex? Carcharoth 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was told that you might have questions regarding Adam Cuerden's block of me. Please let me know how I might be of assistance. --profg ^Talk 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to courtesy notices

Yeah, I'm still not sure what I did wrong. I've had that problem with protections a time or two before. I try to apply a protection and end up accidentally doing the opposite. It doesn't happen every time, making me wonder if it's some odd artifact of the browser I'm using - that something displays differently at my home computer than at work. By the time I noticed that particular failure, the matter seemed to have become moot. Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo

For "...an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing." You win the "what should be obvious but some people can't see the forest for the trees" prize! Viridae ^Talk 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one caught me on the funny bone. Thanks for a good laugh. GRBerry 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, though, this should go in one of the policy/guideline pages. Maybe WP:SOCK? Carcharoth 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman

I saw your latest comments. Do you think it's time for Adam to resign? - Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he needs a strong admonishment to avoid using his admin tools where he is a POV editor, and possibly also a reminder about not editing in areas that he is passionate about when he is under stress from other situations. I'm not certain that desysopping is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. He clearly should not have blocked Whig, as far as I can tell there is general support among those that have reviewed the situation for the notion that this editor was on a course out the door even if Adam hadn't blocked. I'm digging further into Adam's block log now, and my gut is that he doesn't have enough actions to have established an irreversible pattern of behavior yet. I'd rather leave this in the committee's hands. GRBerry 03:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Whig Case

Hello GRBerry:

I would like to know if an Arbcom case (or other type of proceeding) dealing with the blocking of Whig is in process. Can you tell me please? And if the answer is yes, can I have any input?

I'm asking you because of seeing your name on Whig's talk page and other places as apparently having some involvement.

Frankly, I get the impression there is a discussion on, but scattered over various pages.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His block has been used (by me) in a case study in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty. The case appears to be evolving into one about whether the blocking admin should remain an administrator, though it started in my mind more about clarifying the blocking policies and evaluating a completely different block. Nobody has proposed anything on the workshop pages regarding Whig. I doubt anybody will propose any findings regarding Whig himself, though I wouldn't be surprised at a finding of fact along the lines of "Adam, who certified being in a dispute with Whig, should not have later blocked him for an outgrowth of that dispute." What really flips me out about the Whig case study is even earlier in the dispute than the block - on one day Adam protects the article because of edits attempting to change POV and the next day edit wars to keep off a tag saying there is a POV dispute - if he was right to protect he should have supported the presence of that tag, and if he was right about the tag he abused his tools in protecting.

The more I dig into this the more wierdness I find all around. At this point, Adam has said that we have sound reason to suspect his judgment, so I strongly suspect his tools will be removed. GRBerry 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can comment on the workshop page in the sections for "Comment by others:" (or as threaded discussion to comments by Arbitratrators/Parties). I recommend preparing evidence regarding the Whig block on a sub-page but not adding it to the Evidence page unless a Proposed Decision regarding Whig looks likely. GRBerry 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refactoring

This was a reply to this comment by me, itself triggered by this.

I'd love to, but I'm going to need a bit of time to calm down. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be better off withdrawing the comment until you have calmed down. Or it may make it harder for you to calm down. You know yourself better than I do. Your call. GRBerry 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Plame

With regard to your statement:"unsourced privacy invading details about a living person are forbidden by WP:BLP, stays out until sourced [11]" Could you tell my why, or give examples of previous editing infractions of others, that what High School a notable person attended (especially 26 years ago) would be an invasion of privacy? Also WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced," It does not say any and all unsourced material should be removed. Thank you for your insight.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life information is often useful for figuring out the personal contact details needed to steal someone's money. For example, a common identity verification question I've seen at multiple financial service firm websites is "What was your high school mascot?" Knowing the high school makes answering that question easy. ("What is your mother's maiden name?" is being phased out because with trivial searches of public records some 10% to 30% of the time an attacker can answer that one with 100% accuracy. See http://php.virgil.gr/mmn-demo/GriffithJakobsson2006-MMN.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), from the folks who gave us WikiScanner.) GRBerry 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall.

I have responded to yours, I hope it helps clarify some things. Regards, Mercury 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Could you take another look at Mercury's "recall"

He has shut it down early, seemingly because support recall comments were starting to pile up. He somehow ascertained that the community still "trusts" him from this sham process, and has now removed himself from the category of admins open to recall, breaking his word given at his RfA. Also, on the talkpage of the recall, when someone questioned why he didn't just stand for a new RfA per standard process, he responded only with "It's my recall" and left it at that. I know you're trying to assume good faith of him here, but I think he's shredded the good faith of the community, from his behavior during the Durova affair to the Angela Beesley DRV, and now to closing his own recall early, and breaking his promise to be in the category of admins open to recall. As you were a "neutral" on the issue, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to take another look at the situation. Regards, Mr Which ??? 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Paragraph 1 is about getting enough bodies together to request recall ... which happened. The RFC page was phase 2, described, to the extent that there is a standard, in paragraph 2. Big hint - there isn't a standard process; this is only the second recall attempt to get past paragraph 1. Reviewing the RFC, it is clear more wanted him to keep the tools than lose them, so it certainly can't be said that there was a consensus for him to lose the tools, nor that one was likely to form. It appears he has now decided either to exercise his right to vanish or to attempt a clean start under a new name. We'll see if we see him again. GRBerry 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Electric Fence" of 3RR

GRB, it felt to me as if one side, that preferred one particular version, was attempting to run over the other side. I was not attempting to censor their version. It remains, even in the version I restored after Slim's deletion. They're trying to force some kind of "consensus" for their version that just doesn't exist. Several editors arguing for a middle way have just left in frustration. I'm more at the opposite end of the spectrum, but even I left in frustration when a proposal I made was simply shouted down. I wasn't trying to game the system (though I did know where the boundary was), I was trying to protect a version that showed clearly both alternatives for the proposed policy. Mr Which ??? 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new flavor of SALT

Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]