Someone continues to vandalize the Labrador page's "silver" section and is posting inaccurate information. {{unsigned|Erikeltic}} 14:39, January 6, 2007
Someone continues to vandalize the Labrador page's "silver" section and is posting inaccurate information. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Erikeltic|Erikeltic]] ([[User talk:Erikeltic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Erikeltic|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 14:39, January 6, 2007
== Thanks for help on Rajesh Khanna ==
== Thanks for help on Rajesh Khanna ==
Line 687:
Line 687:
== Admin ==
== Admin ==
Your admin page says that 5 users in good standing can suggest a recall. You define "good standing" as 4 months/1000 mainspace edits. Perhaps you meant 1000 edits? Not many Wikipedians have 1000 mainspace (e.g. I don't, despite 2250 total edits and 2 years of experience). I'd suggest you change this. [[User:69.19.14.19|69.19.14.19]] 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC){{User:Chris is me/anon}}
Your admin page says that 5 users in good standing can suggest a recall. You define "good standing" as 4 months/1000 mainspace edits. Perhaps you meant 1000 edits? Not many Wikipedians have 1000 mainspace (e.g. I don't, despite 2250 total edits and 2 years of experience). I'd suggest you change this. [[User:69.19.14.19|69.19.14.19]] 06:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)<sub>This post was made by {{User:Ccool2ax/sig}} when he was unable to log in</sub>
:No, I do mean 1000 mainspace edits. I'm saying that you must be in good standing in the [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I believe that to fully understand how Wikipedia works, you need to know the encyclopedia. The people that have some of the best understanding of all policies are the ones that spend a lot of time in the encyclopedia, since that's where most policies apply to. You can't possibly understand all policies and decisions without spending enough time there. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:No, I do mean 1000 mainspace edits. I'm saying that you must be in good standing in the [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I believe that to fully understand how Wikipedia works, you need to know the encyclopedia. The people that have some of the best understanding of all policies are the ones that spend a lot of time in the encyclopedia, since that's where most policies apply to. You can't possibly understand all policies and decisions without spending enough time there. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:45, 27 February 2007
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.
I respectfully give you notice that I am going to remake the major goalscorer articles at the weekend. The deletion was unfounded, without consensus and makes WP worse for the sake of it. The only reason given was that they were lists; so what? There are thousands of lists which exist on WP without challenge, many on far more obscure subjects. It was deleted prematurely and unjustifiably by you, an admin, despite the reasonable objections of many who simply aren't fortunate enough to be admins. This suggests to me that WP is really only run by and for an admin elite. I will consider withdrawing all contributions (I am a major contributor on many sports subjects) and withdraw donations if I am not dissuaded of this impression. Regards, Mjefm23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, Mr 11, but isn't it you that took unilateral action to make a point? You say in your own User review that you respect consensus; but the discussion on AfD reached no consensus, yet you deleted the article prematurely anyway. I refer you to WP:5; "WP is an encyclopædia incorporating elements of general encyclopædias, specialized encyclopædias and almanacs" (ie Rothmans, DK Encyclopædia of World Football). Your action was unjustified, undemocratic and unhelpful. Regards, Mjefm11:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FT2
I've lifted the 3RR block on FT2. It seems apparent from the diffs that he was reverting vandalism. The real kicker is that the anon is altering the language of a source quotation. The anon has continued to disrupt the article, so I've recommended semi-protection to him. Best, Mackensen(talk)15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone continues to vandalize the Labrador page's "silver" section and is posting inaccurate information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikeltic (talk • contribs). 14:39, January 6, 2007
Thanks for help on Rajesh Khanna
Thanks for the help. I'm starting to feel that Jatinram is a little unhinged on the subject, but an arbitration case to get him banned is so much work. Zora18:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering and semi-protecting the article! It would be pretty easy to stand behind your initial decision to "save face" but it takes something more to publicly reconsider your own decision. Good job! --ElKevbo21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trip: The Light Fantastic here
Hi. Suprised to see me? Thought I was some stupid newbie who didn't know how to use a proxy server, so you could bully away? Wrong.
I'd suggest you shut up. I'll do as I please. The issue is finished, and could have ended there and then. I was not going to return unless another debate flared up on the issue. But noooo you had to try and punish me. Yawn. Well don't try it, because the very nature of the internet makes it impossible.
Now we're on my terms, here they are: I will continue editing Wikipedia in the way I see fit, in a non-destructive manner, as per usual. You may keep the block on my account for the week alloted, in order not to lose face in front of the 24 Season 6 crowd. I'm willing to lose a bit of face to know I've rubbed your face in your powerlessness.
I will not return to the 24 article until another episode is leaked, possibly next year, but it's unlikely; and we'll cross that bridge if we come to it.
OR
You try to "punish" me even more, fail miserably (because we both know it's near-impossible to stop anyone on Wikipedia)... and I abandon all the good work I've done and you create another major vandal.
Basically:
I will go on a rampage across Wikipedia if you persist in stamping your non-existant authority
OR
You can save yourself the trouble, shut up, and hear no more from me.
I'd suggest you think carefully about what's best for Wikipedia; and the scrutiny your decision will come under if you make the wrong one.
Comment on my normal user page, when you've done having your ego deflated.
Trip (the Light Fantastic)
I want to voice my support for you Trip The Light Fantastic. I read Royalguard's block of you and what you did to "earn" it and I must say that these newer Admins are major Nazis. They are going to kill Wikipedia and turn it into just another left-wing institution. Yeah, Royalguard is a left-winger. Perhaps you are, too. Doesn't matter. I've noticed that many of these Admins--certainly the majority--are left-leaning. As such, their behavior is predictable as can be and while they claim they support freedom and free speech, their actions clearly demonstrate otherwise. Royalguard is a Nazi. Nothing less. There are no other viewpoints but his. And good for you on your insistance on coming back. These admins are nothing more than glorified janitors cleaning up the messes that vandals make. Sure, we could all pitch in to make Wikipedia better, but guys like Royalguard aren't nearly as interested in that as they are in wielding their own power. Good thing Royalguard found a place to be powerful in cyberspace because I'll bet he's powerless and impotent in real life. Keep up the good work Trip The Light and don't let Nazis like Royalguard drag you down! Monkeybreath19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a total and complete jackass, Royalguard11! You accused me of being someone I'm not. I said I would be back again and again and I will. From now on I am your mortal online enemy. I saw how you requested a "checkuser" to see if I was Trip The Night and I also saw it came back "inconclusive". Do you know why it was inconclusive, IDIOT? Because I am NOT Trip The Night! Now you have 2 enemies, Nazi. And yes, you are a Nazi. You are a fool. It's admins like YOU who are going to destroy Wikipedia and turn former contributors into vandals. You've done it TWICE in one weekend!!! Fool!
I don't know how the heck you became an admin with your inflexible attitude and vindictive behavior. You are nothing but a spoiled, left-wing Nazi drunk with administrative power which you wield much as Hitler did to crush anyone who is in disagreement with you. Disagree with Royalguard and get banned! Why, because Royalguard is impotent and useless in the real world.
How hard will it be to write a vandal script to access proxy servers then vandalize Wikipedia through them? I don't know as I've never done any scripting. Maybe some scriptkiddies will be interested in helping me with my vendetta against you. You made an enemy for life, fool. I suspect you make a lot of enemies. Too bad, because I really liked Wikipedia. But I dislike you even more, Nazi. The LAST thing I want to do is become a Wikipedia troublemaker. But as long as you are an admin, that is exactly what I shall be.
Next time I come here I will do so through proxies as soon as I learn how to use them. You can't stop me, FOOL. You can't stop Trip The Night, FOOL. All you are doing is making enemies--not a good thing to do on an openly-editable wiki, now is it, left-winger??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeebreath (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Woo-hoo, I have another sockpuppet! And it's Trip the Light, Monkee... we should hook up and work out some sort of plan... I'm planning to hit Wikipedia with sneaky vandalism, and then present our mutual friend Royalguard with the cleanup bill every so often ;) How does that sound? Hundreds of pages will be wrong, wrong, wrong... I won't have article after article of good work thrown away without the same amount of bad work. Any other suggestions? Let me know. Trip: the Light Fantastic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.242.163 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Request for permission regarding article
I was working on an article for Wikipedia, when I noticed the text, 'Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.' So I need to ask for permission to copy some text. I am working on an article that was requested about the architect Alberto Campo Baeza. I wanted to ask if I can copy and paste the names of some of his publications, and some of his work. I have saved my work in a word document on my computer. The URL for the website is http://eng.archinform.net/arch/684.htm?scrwdt=1024. Thanks. --The Regime18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that for me. I will be sure to ask the owner of the website for permisson to use the copied text, or if I cannot contact them I will find a different source. --The Regime19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FA Premier League 2006/07 goalscorers on deletion review
Thanks for welcoming me to the AMA Royalguard! I think I'll enjoy helping, but first, I have a case I just accepted today on the MedCab (my second!). Once more thanks for welcoming me! | AndonicOTalk | Sign Here19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome message but I'm contacting you to get your thought on an issue if you could. I took on my first AMA case but the user that filed it has since sort of withdrawn from the conflict, unfortunately not officially. What do you suggest I do at this point? Also if you could I would like to get your thought on how I handled the case, the extent of which only being narrowed to my talk page and User talk:Roger the red. Thanks in advance. — Tutmosis19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he is going to edit the article it's quite possible conflict may arise again. That's why I am uncertain as to close the case yet. The comment you referred to does in a way lean to WP:OWN but as of yet he has not enforced it, so I'm reluctant to make a big deal of it. If such action occures I'll be sure to advise him to stop. Thoughts? — Tutmosis00:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection.
Hi Royalguard, you responded to my request for unprotection on user Strothra's talk page. He has responded to your message and said he no longer needs protection, but has since archived that discussion. Maybe you could follow it up and unprotect the page.
I am at a loss on how to summarize this. Someone adds something, someone else deletes it. No discussion on the talk page. Sometimes there is discussion, sometimes there are insults.
Then we have the revert back and forth going on. No attention to edits within that are then lost when someone else reverts.
There are editors who insists on putting in information that is nor from a verifiable source. Information from blogs or discussion groups.
Example: the statement of directors losing their units due to serving in the military and being out of the US for 90 days. There is no source for this at all;
The statement that Mary Kay is a pyramid scheme. This is stated as a factual statement. No discussion of this on the talk page, no sources. Where is the proof that Mary Kay IS a pyramid scheme?
I am here to inform you that I am creating an article called Languages of Sudan. It was in the list of requested articles. I went to an internet site to retrieve information for this article, here is the URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Sudan.
Anyway, I needed to contact the people who control that website and ask for permission to copy their text, because there are 142 languages in Sudan, and they have about a paragraph of information for each. I went to 'contact us' on their website, and I found the following text, of which seen here is copied directly from the website, yet I made it italic: You may not need special permission to use our materials.
I wanted to tell you that I am going to go ahead and copy the text.
If I am still violating Wikipedia rules, please inform me so I can change that.
Earlier you declined my request for semi-protection of my talk page. Which I accept because I can see your approach, however, please view the latest attack on it that occured...[1] by Special:Contributions/172.150.151.145 which happened to be his only edit at the time. This edit identified the user as User:512theking despite being an anon IP. This user was identified as a vandal who repeatedly attacked several other userpages such as User talk:Rschen7754, User talk:Seicer, User talk:TwinsMetsFan and User talk:Stratosphere. A case regarding this set of users who were determined to be sockpuppets are currently open in WP:ANI
I have not rerequested protection as of yet (and will refrain from for the momemnt) as there is the possibility that this could settle, but I wanted to show this additional incident to you as a mark of evidence of the case. Thank you for protecting my user page though and for your time. • master_sonLets talk02:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance Methods
Hello, it's The Regime again. I went to the requested articles page to find some new articles to work on, and the page has been deleted. I would like to know how I can contribute to Wikipedia and assist the development of it in any other way.
I also noticed that someone named 'mark' has deleted or replaced the copied information that I informed you of a while ago. The text that didn't require special information to use, remember? The article was Languages of Sudan. Apparently there is some other work in progress there, so if I was hindering the process of that, I apologize. I will more than likely create articles concerning Science & Technology now, due to controversy in most other areas, such as my Prayer Warrior article. Apparently that article was not helpful to Wikipedia, I do not exactly know what the case is so I will not assume things or jump to conclusions, so I will let the administrators deal with that article as they see fit.
Thanks for the opportunity to serve Wikipedia, and I will continue my work.
You'll need to give us a short summary of what happened before we can find an advocate to take your case. The summary will help us find the right advocate for your case, and will help the case start faster. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought I did give a summary. I have just reviewed the Mary Kay article and discussion page again. It is a total joke. There are a couple of people who edit and revert and both have stated they will not sign in and use a user name, they prefer to use the IP addy. At least I think it's 2 people, it could be just one. It's hard to tell from IP addys that don't always stay the same.
There is now discussion of mediation on the talk page and one of the IP addy's has just posted a statement of whether or not BlueAmy and me, RSue will go along with mediation. That is just insulting. I have never done a revert. When I edit, I explain it on the talk page. My explanations are for the most part ignored. I have never edited any of the tables.
I object to Mary Kay being called a Pryamid Scheme, especially as a statement of fact. I discussed this on the talk page. Again it was ignored.
I have watched the battle back and forth of a word here, a word there; both words still conveyed the same meaning - why make it an edit war?
I have watched the article revert war back and forth. I have not done any of this revert war.
I have never delted any of the court cases cited.
I am pro-Mary Kay. I would like this article to be neutral and factual. The anti-MKers insist on adding speculation and supposition. The statement of memos from MK Corporate that Pink Truth supposedly has is specualtion. There is no way to verify the authenticity of these alleged memos.
I have had very little, if anything, to do with the links edit war.
To be totally honest, I am fed up with being insulted by comments on the discussion page. Terms such as in "pink fog", and even the "pro-Mary Kay". And the allegations made that it is the pro-MK people doing all the reverting and editing. And now this last insult by IP addy, insulting both BlueAmy and me. I have not seen BlueAmy doing any editing lately anyway.
As I said, I would like to see neutral and factual. This is not going to happen because the anit-MK people want to turn this article into yet one more platform from which they spew their hatred and lies about Mary Kay Cosmetics.
The only way for this article to be neutral and factual is for it to be locked, only user names allowed, no IP addys allowed, and for one person, a Wikipedia advocate/moderator, to be in control of this article. Otherwise, this whole article should just be totally delted.
Rsue
Who is a Jew?
You recently unprotected this page optimistically and if you look at recent vandalism i hope you will agree it needs to remain protected from unregistered users. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have made another post in the Talk:Gerald Del Campo thread, attempting to express my views on the matter in a polite but firm way.
I am attempting to gain some common ground with user "Solis93" by suggesting that the organization Mr. Del Campo heads up, "The Order of Thelemic Knights" be nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia. I hope that this olive branch helps.
User talk:168.9.128.151 has been vandalizing frequently (even after final warning), and has blanked his talk page more times than I can remember. Nevertheless, the two times I reported him to AIV in the last 30 minutes have been ignored. Could you review his edits and decide if he deserves a block? Thanks. | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea, but isn't it redundant considering we have WP:RFPP? I'm not sure what advantages a category for requests would have other than to create extra work for us admins (but wait, that isn't an advantage...). -- Steel22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I didn't agree with the AfD for the game, I think protecting the article's deletion is a good way to cool everything off. However I'm curious why the talk page was deleted and protected as well. It seems like the talk page is the natural place to discuss issues related to the (non)article. Especially since the deletion decision was based on concerns about enough sources (which could change) and the precise wording of certain guidelines (which also change from time to time). If there is another, more suitable, venue for discussing issues related to the article, perhaps a link to such a place would be in order? Rdore06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up--TfD nomination of Template:NOTOC
re: Template:NOTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish to hell I could figure out where these kids find the time to root out a little mnemonic like that macro! Christ, they need some work experience. I think this is a contender... less than 18 hrs, and someone's picking on a memory aid! I pulled an all nighter trying to catch things up between here, the commons, wikispecies and meta, have the wife howling mad at me, and these youngsters apparently have total perfect recall or God doing their typing.
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
You'd think they'd exercise a little common sense... like those 15 bytes are going to break the foundations piggy bank, or Heaven help us, actually aid someone's productivity! The whole Tfd criteria needs an enema--no one considers the impact of all those nominations downstream on someone else'stime... (you'll have to go down 2-5 paragraphs in each of those to see the gist of the time impact point) yet the multiple can be staggering.
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
What in the hell is a notable template? What does redundancy matter if one simple template is usable by the many, has little or no learning curve, and the more complicated one is confusing and hard to apply? Even if they are equivalent, save for parameter order, some people find comfort in walking a different path. If it's being used, not doing any harm, then the nominator should be the one deleted. SHEESH!
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
Does everyone use the same choice of words when speaking? No, all our brains function differently and relate to things the same way. I had to stop productive work and hunt that magic word up. Call it fifteen minutes between trying 5-6 spelling variants, previewing, then figuring out how to get to magic words. Never mind loosing the train of thought in the middle! That's expensive right there. And if I don't use it again four or five times, I'll have to do that over and over and over again every time I want to remember it.
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
F***ing idiocy! I started to draft up a criteria change proposal and pulled it off into an off-line file, cause I needed that browser again. Looks like I'm going to have to kick some butts somewhere in wiki-politics. Don't we see enough of that silliness doing advocacy?
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
Thanks, but this shit is really beyond silly. Somewhere over to the left of insane, me thinks! These folks need to bite into a project and spend more time editing, not stroking the olde ego making talk-talk, doing make-work, and patting themselves on the back like they did something important!
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
Ah, well, at least you let me do some straight line compostion typing. It's a nice break from seventy plus hours of templates and category edits. Thanks again. I think I'll just link this section. Best regards // FrankB18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Oh and if you're already working away on CSD please disregard this message; it's not meant as a slight against any hard work you're already doing. Cheers! Anchoress18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack warning
Hey, Royalguard11, I think I just got my first vandalized user talk page thanks to "UBM"! :-) I left a note to the little imp here. Since I'm not really up on the ins and outs of disciplining such children, would you mind checking this out and keeping tabs on him when he escalates? ;-) Thanks. Rfrisbietalk22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little taster
Spring Garden District, Pennsylvania
David Prior (UK politician)
Mount Selinda
The Lost Ones
Jehovist
Bob Goalby
Eagle Mountains
Natural England
Challenge Stadium
Baelde
Sondre Meisfjord
Next time the list I give you will be much, much bigger and encrypted; and you'll have to solve a clue to decrypt it.
Because I'm a shit like that.
Oh, and the IP I use to post here will not be the same as the one I use to vandalise the dozens of articles, so you won't be able to follow that one...
I might well use a sockpuppet.
Trip: The Light Fantastic
Bye, bye, Mr American Pie
Drove my Chevvy to the Levy
But the Levy was dry
And good old boys were drinking whisky and rye
Singing this'll be the day that I die.... 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You deleted 'FA Premier League results December 2006' and other related pages for the Spanish and Italian soccer leagues. If you think those pages were too detailed...then look at this ---> 2006 Indianapolis Colts season, it practically lists every fan's name who attended the game. Similar pages exist for all 30 NFL teams, and the same set of pages exists going back to the 2005, 2004 and 2003 seasons - buy hey, thanks for picking on soccer and leaving AMERICAN football untouchable. 74.113.196.3704:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the nom, there were three votes both for and against deletion. Recall also, that the article did have sources, so it shouldn't just be an open-and-shut case. There was also debate still going, mainly on the merits of those sources. Is that really a consensus? I would have much preferred for the debate to have continued, perhaps attracting other votes, before the AFD was closed. Perhaps you can explain how you came to your decision. Thanks. --SecondSight00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did do my homework, and I am well aware that AFDs are based on consensus. I just didn't see any consensus in that discussion, and I was wondering why you did. I agree with you that the amazon.com and blog links were problematic, but the article had other sources. As for the Times article, here was a quote from it: "Tyler Durden (according to Strauss and several hundred websites) is one of the most polished PUAs in the world, with routines for every occasion. No woman, allegedly, can resist him." That doesn't sound "trivial" to me. At least, nobody in the AFD, including you, has provided any reasons why such coverage is "trivial." Furthermore, there were two more sources (one from Men's Health, and one I forget) published in magazines. Yet everyone seems to have ignored them just because they weren't linked to online versions of the articles (though I just found one here). You don't mention these sources, nor do you mention how Real Social Dynamics figures in The Game, a New York Times Bestselling book. Hence, your closing of the AFD seems somewhat subjective and out of process. Furthermore, I just found another article from San Francisco Magazine which mentions RSD [2]. --SecondSight01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Men's Health article (was listed in original article, but not linked to, though the text is available from RSD's website
The Edge Magazine article (also listed in the original article, but not linked to; I later found a link to a website that archives the magazine since it is now out-of-print)
The San Francisco Magazine article[3] (wasn't found until after article was deleted; the relevant paragraph from the article is now on the talk page of the deletion debate)
Let's say we throw out the Times article, because it doesn't mention RSD by name (although it mentions Tyler Durden running a seminar, which can only be RSD). Let's say we throw out The Game for some weird reason (though I don't agree with that). Let's even say we throw out the San Francisco Magazine article, because it only has one paragraph on RSD (though I think it's a nontrivial paragraph because it conveys a perspective on their methods). There are still two published sources for the article (3 and 4, the Men's Health article and the Edge Magazine article). These two sources are unambiguously about the company. Read them if you doubt this. These sources were cited in the article all along. On the basis of these two sources alone, the article stands. Yet both of them were ignored during the deletion debate. It's partly my fault for not advocating better and pointing them out. But the deletion was still out of process, because those sources were there in plain view and they still were ignored by you and people voting for deletion. There is really no excuse for this. If you still don't like those two sources for some reason, they still weren't considered in a deletion debate that centered on a lack of sources. At least, the article should be undeleted and relisted so it can get a trial in which all its sources are considered. Perhaps now you can see why I have a problem with the deletion? --SecondSight21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete Swift City?
Why can Lonely Planet have an article in Wikipedia -- yet the entry about the Swift City project is deleted for being advertising?? The Swift City site makes no money. It is a collection of people who are trying to document great things to do in cities around the world. We don't accept payment for placement in the guides. Why is the Lonely Planet project more important than ours? Because they make money?... err, wait a second! Please undelete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.155.154 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
So, what you are saying is that if we write a more encyclopedic entry, then that is fine?
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Es pp.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Es pp.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago, you closed the afd debate for My Tank is Fight!, with a result of keep. My primary concern in the debate was the lack of reliable independent sources to establish notability. I added the primarysources tag to the article a month ago, following the closure, in addition to the importance tag I had added some weeks before. As of this time, there are still no independent sources. Could you please take another look at the article and assess whether it should still be kept?--Drat (Talk) 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read help page where it clearly suggests that an article could be deleted on "notability" and "self-advertisement" grounds. I have suggested a couple of pages which I know for a fact that clearly fall in that category. This is, in my opinion, helping wiki not vandalizing it! So I suggest again, pages I proposed for deletion are clear instances of self-advertisement.
cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tumbleweedtumbles (talk • contribs). 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once the AfD is closed, I'm afraid that that's it. If you think that you made a mistake, then you can explain that at the requests for undeletion page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, any editor who sees someone reopening an AfD after it's been closed can revert the changes, and any admin should redelete a page that has been deleted in line with an AfD. That you were the closing admin is irrelevant, and that I was involved in the AfD is also irrelevant. If you're right that the AfD result should be overturned, then that will be determined when you request undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? There was no deletion review; it was closed early with no explanation. Mind you, that's consistent with everything else that's happened in this case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed early because clearly there was no need for it when the closing admin had decided to keep it. You can't have a deletion review if it is not going to be deleted after all!! MathmoTalk06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late last week, I added an article on the BLOHARDs; a New York-based red sox fan group. I looked for the article today, and found instead a message, apparently from you, that it had been marked for speedy deletion. Evidently, I hadn't demonstrated that it was of interest to anybody other than the BLOHARDs.
I was told, if I disputed this characterization, to go to the entry and put a {hangon} tag, and justify the "notability" of the organization in the entry's "talk" page. Unfortunately, I can't find the entry any more, it having apparently already been speedily deleted.
As far as notability goes, I can offer newspaper articles from:
The Boston Globe, on three different occasions:
[4][5]
and
[6]
Time Magazine's website (three articles):
[7][8][9]
As a matter of interest to you as a Hartford resident, you may note in the last article that BLOHARD co-founder Henry Berry was himself a Hartford native.
In any event, I hope that this satisfactorily addresses the issue of "notability". Is there any way I can get my article back? Or has it been not just speedily, but also permanently, deleted?
Incidentally, I'm sort of surprised that I didn't get an email pending the deletion of the article. IIRC, I provided an email address when registering for just this sort of purpose.
I think you may have misunderstood his message, Royalguard. I tagged the article originally, and left the note. He just noticed, and left me the note above, and then he copied it over here. That was to me; I'm from Hartford. But he asked about restoration and you were the deleting admin. Sorry for the confusion. Leebo8600:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my question was poorly phrased. I wanted to know if you were going to copy the new comments from the old discussion (which you removed) to the new discussion to start things out. I'm going to assume that you are not, so I'll just make a new post unless I hear otherwise. --N Shar00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if you start over, please just say you're opening a new discussion for the relisting. Don't scold people for adding to the discussion that was linked from AFD. --Dhartung | Talk01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the discussion involved was linked from the AFD. If the wrong discussion was linked this is an unfortunate mistake but it's not our mistake; users are entitled to assume the AFD is set up properly and add to the discussion they find. Any error isn't our fault. Remember we're doing Wikipedia a favor by participating in these discussions, please be careful not to bite us. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Appreciate the heads up on my talk page. Just for next time, if something important happens late in an AFD, it's better to extend the closing date of the existing AFD than to start a new one. It's no big deal, and it's not worth changing it back. Better to leave it slighlty suboptimal than to keep thrashing it around. People are getting to pass comment on the change in circumstances, which is the main thing. Regards, Ben Aveling07:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that was the problem, you didn't close it. You marked it as closed, but you didn't go through with the actions that should have acompanied that - you didn't delete the page, and you didn't put the appropriate messages on the talk page. So it wasn't really closed, it just looked closed. So the smallest possible correction was to unclose the AFD page. Given the situation, you really had to either reopen the debate, or go back and change the consensus decision to keep. Preferably reopen the debate. Marking the AFD page as "closed: delete" then not deleting the page produced the worst of all possible worlds. It went to DRV and they couldn't cope, and it went to AN or ANI and you saw what happened there. Had you reopened another AFD right away I guess most of that fuss would have been avoided, but in general, it's best to repair IAR mistakes by making the smallest possible IAR change, which in this case would have been to un-close the original AFD. Regards, Ben Aveling06:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are wrong here. It was deleted, but then unfortunately a completely different page was created by a new user at that location. Then the DRV found the old version should be kept as that is the closing admins decision and so then the old version was restored. Nothing went wrong there. (well, other than you "reopening" it... but that is a totally new discussion) MathmoTalk09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree then. To me, treating Jimbo any more or less important than any other Wikipedian because of "who he is" goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia, and valuing his words for his name rather than the content of the words is just plain sucking up. Just H01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of contribution
I have been adding some important material which is then removed because it shows that what people are doing is wrong, so embarrassing them. How can I stop its removal? It is an abuse of others to prevent them from learning this. R. Mirman 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impunv (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I am unable to find from the history page who has been removing my material. Thus I cannot discuss it. The material is in the "string theory" page. Is it possible to protect it in some way? R. Mirman11:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a group of articles were speedy deleted and then undeleted by a single admin. You are one of the admins that did the speedy deletion. GRBerry21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your admin page says that 5 users in good standing can suggest a recall. You define "good standing" as 4 months/1000 mainspace edits. Perhaps you meant 1000 edits? Not many Wikipedians have 1000 mainspace (e.g. I don't, despite 2250 total edits and 2 years of experience). I'd suggest you change this. 69.19.14.1906:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)This post was made by -- Chrisisme(user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in[reply]
No, I do mean 1000 mainspace edits. I'm saying that you must be in good standing in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I believe that to fully understand how Wikipedia works, you need to know the encyclopedia. The people that have some of the best understanding of all policies are the ones that spend a lot of time in the encyclopedia, since that's where most policies apply to. You can't possibly understand all policies and decisions without spending enough time there. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you may well be right to have unprotected it, the dispute is in full swing still. What would be really helpful would be to close the discussion on Template talk:911ct over the renaming of the template in a formal manner such that the consensus, if there is one, is obvious and people feel bound by it. Can you provide that small service, please? If you could watch the template over the next few days and slam protection back (any version, standard rules) if the war restarts totally, that would be useful Fiddle Faddle00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic Records
Hi. Could you please comment on your return to full protection for Atlantic Records on Talk:Atlantic Records? Note that I'm not disputing your action but rather would like actions be discussed or explained in regard to this particular article. Also, do you have thoughts on what criteria we should use to determine when a softer protection could be substituted? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a popular television show in America (#1 on Vh1), and is vulnerable to vandalism. In addition, before protection, there was vandalism by IP addresses every day. Please restore protection. Real9604:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is vulnerable to vandalism through out the week (Mondays - mainly, because that's when the show comes on). I don't want to have hundreds of reverts on the same day and violate 3RR. However, when the vandalism gets out of hand, I am going to submit this article to page protection, instead of undergoing a wheel war. Thank you. :-) Real9604:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Herewith a message that I left with Leebo86 in the belief that he was responsible for deleting an article I submitted on the BLOHARDs. He tells me that you were the deleting party. Is it possible to get the article restored?
){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.blohards.com/nytpg1.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.blohards.com/dn86.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.blohards.com/sipg1.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.blohards.com/sipg2.jpg){kind=link}