Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance): Difference between revisions
Line 250: | Line 250: | ||
::You're right, it's happened on other sites. I first noticed it on wikipedia so I assumed it was a wikipedia issue. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I tried running an ad aware scan but it didn't get rid of it. I will have to research how to fix this. Aside from the ads it's making the internet load more slowly also :P (and I tried two different browsers, and I get the ads with both of them) --[[User:Hrodulf|Hrodulf]] ([[User talk:Hrodulf|talk]]) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
::You're right, it's happened on other sites. I first noticed it on wikipedia so I assumed it was a wikipedia issue. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I tried running an ad aware scan but it didn't get rid of it. I will have to research how to fix this. Aside from the ads it's making the internet load more slowly also :P (and I tried two different browsers, and I get the ads with both of them) --[[User:Hrodulf|Hrodulf]] ([[User talk:Hrodulf|talk]]) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::I found an article on what I believe to be the virus, [[Vundo]]. Hopefully this will help --[[User:Hrodulf|Hrodulf]] ([[User talk:Hrodulf|talk]]) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Prejudice against Non-Admins in AfD Closures == |
== Prejudice against Non-Admins in AfD Closures == |
Revision as of 19:46, 18 March 2008
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.
If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question or MediaWiki Help instead.
Help with dealing with vandalism
I know this isn't necessary the best place but having looked at the help sections, I am still confused as to how to correctly warn obvious Vandals before reporting them. Seems they must be warned before being reported . Could someone with more experience of the correct process please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare eg nonsense dates and other obvious vandlaism is being made over the last two weeks at least. Please help prevent this if you can. Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the most recent vandal has been adequately warned, and has in fact been blocked once already in March. For that person I would consider using {{subst:uw-vandalism4|PageName}} ~~~~ (last warning) or {{subst:uw-delete4|PageName}} ~~~~ (last warning for removing content), or just go ahead and report them at WP:AIV if they vandalize again. PKT (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, It's just that I don't know how to use the various shortcuts or templates etcs that are provided. I can do some basic editing when I can but the myriad of Wiki "policies" and technical procedures often overwhelms me. I'm glad someone is on the case. Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WARN gives you a list of acceptable templates to use in certain circumstances - use them with care, but be WP:BOLD. Also, it may help to employ the use of WP:TWINKLE. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but as I said, it all very well pointing out these things exist but the actual practical process of using templates currently baffles me and I will leave TWINKLE well alone for now as well. Simple editing of articles is one thing, I'm mostly very tech minded but in my opinion Wiki isn't that user friendly for the more casual editor. Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for just pointing to some links and running. To be more specific, under WP:WARN, on the left is a brief description of the template - with the different levels of severity going 1 through 4 going horizontally left to right. You just simply cut and paste the entire template (brackets and all) onto the talk page of the user you wish to notify/warn. Click preview to check you've done it correctly, and then hit save. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. My initial impression was that it was more than a simple copy and paste but certain variables also had to be changed. I obviously didn't want to invalidate any warning with mistakes, till I was sure what was required. I'll hopefully have another look later. Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Need a little help with expanding a stub...
Good morning:
I am working with Sprint on their Xohm campaign, and we would like to expand the current stub about Xohm. I have a proposed expanded entry, but I wanted to make sure that it jived with the rules/guidelines/etiquette for a corporate wiki entry.
Anyway, any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. We want to make sure we do this the right way, and I figured we would check to see if this is structured and/or worded correctly.
Thanks so much
Below is the proposed entry:
== '''XOHM''' ==
XOHM (pronounced “zoam”) is a business unit of the Sprint Nextel Corporation, headquartered in Herndon, VA. XOHM is also the brand name of the mobile broadband Internet service the company will be launching in 2008. Xohm is high speed wireless broadband Internet that is designed to work as fast on- the-go as it does at home. XOHM utilizes WiMAX, a wireless Internet technology designed to provide reliable, high-speed connectivity over large areas, releasing people from wires and hotspots.
History
In August 2006, Sprint announced it would invest nearly $5 billion to use its 2.5GHz spectrum holdings to build a nationwide WiMAX network. Their holdings cover 85 percent of the households in the top 100 U.S. markets, the most of any wireless carrier in any single spectrum band.
In August 2007, Sprint announced that its WiMAX service would be marketed under the XOHM brand name.
Executives
Barry West, Chief Technology Officer, Sprint, and President, XOHM
Atish Gude, Senior Vice President, Business Operations Oversees sales, product, marketing and customer experience
Rebecca Hanson, Vice President, Strategy and Planning Oversees strategy, corporate development, legal and finance
Doug Smith, Chief Technical Operations Officer Oversees technology and network development, deployment and operations
XOHM Partners
Xohm is heading a strategic alliance of technology companies, working together to realize the promise of mobile broadband Up to 50 million WiMAX-enabled devices are expected to be commercially available by 2010.
Building the Network & Infrastructure
Motorola, Nokia Siemens Networks, Samsung, Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson
Manufacturing Subscriber Devices
Xohm is working with Intel and PC OEMs, Samsung, Nokia, ZyXEL, ZTE, and Trellia to introduce XOHM-ready devices including notebooks, workstations, ultra-mobile PCs, mobile Internet devices, cameras, portable music players and portable gaming devices.
Delivering Service Applications & Content
XOHM is teaming with Sprint, IBM and Google to offer local and location-centric services, music, movies, TV, gaming, video chat, blogging, mobile conferencing, remote surveillance, home, corporate and "in the field."
XOHM Rollout
XOHM mobile broadband will be launching in Spring 2008 in Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
Awards
The XOHM WiMAX mobile Internet initiative earned the Best of WiMAX World 2007 Award for Industry Innovation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.240.189.126 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is an advertisement for a new service without any particular reason to be here. In addition, by your own admission you have a severe conflict of interest and should not be creating such an article. Until and unless this service becomes notable in its own right, it is nothing but a footnote to the Sprint article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Orange Mike, good point about the citations. I will locate them, revise the article and then return and ask for more help. I understand your point, but I am not trying to advertise, I am simply trying to add information about a service that I believe I can demonstrate is notable.
--ClausClavia (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia logo
OK, somewhere on someone's userpage, I saw a Wikipedia's logo, only it was bouncing up and down. I tried searching for it, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is? DiligentTerrier and friends 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Account Recovery
This is a rather odd situation.
A few months (well, more like a year) ago I signed up on Wikipedia as AK-17, then drifted away gradually. My problem is I'm trying to get back in, but the e-mail to which my password reminders are sent is now defunct and doesn't work.
I'm requesting to get the password for User:AK-17 sent to my new e-mail address so I can get back on. The account hasn't been accessed in quite a while, as you might notice, and all the edits are done either from my home IP or from one registered to Hopkins High School, which is where I attend. That's the proof that it's me, and I'd like to get back in.
I wasn't sure where to put this, but if anyone can help me they can contact me at [email removed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.237.42 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that anything can be done. Theoretically, developers can do what you are asking, but they do not, as a rule. The only time they appear to make an exception is when an admin or other user with special privileges loses control of an account and can subsequently prove that they have regained control. You'll have to either keep guessing at a password or start a new account. - BanyanTree 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the AK-17 useraccount had less than 250 edits. It looks like the owner of that account has accepted the situation and started a new registered account. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Usernames which are e-mail addresses - inappropriate or not?
I always thought that such usernames were inappropriate on their face, just as we remove e-mail addresses from talk pages, etc. to prevent harvesting and spamming. I recently blocked one such name, and another editor called me on it. Am I mistaken? Is this in fact permissible? I'm trying to do the right thing here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- For new usernames, it's a non-issue, since they can't contain '@'. For old names, there's nothing at WP:U, though there used to be. Ancient discussions in the archive seem to suggest (past) consensus that they should be left alone. Algebraist 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only way it would breach WP:USER would be if the "email addy" was that of a corporation, business, or website. And even then, if the user is not active, it doesn't particularly matter all that much. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a daft thing for a user to do because of, as you say, harvesting. But there's lots of daft things that users can do without being blocked. A username that suggests a role account - wikieditors@example.com , or a "promotional username" - sales@example.com, could be problematic. Username policy is being gently tweaked, so it might be best for things which are not flagrant breaches of username policy to go for discussion. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Creation of a New Wiki site -- issues with branding
I am pretty new to Wikipedia (just made my first addition to a page today!), but I strongly believe in the power of mass collaboration. Here is the question. I work for a non-profit, the Financial Planning Association. I have been talking to leadership about the creation of a wiki platform within our Web site so that we can start building a core body of knowledge both for financial planners and consumers on the financial planning process.
Some people are excited about this, but many are concerned about the risk of opening up posting abilities to anyone. There is an anxiety about how bad quality posts might impact our brand. Is there a talk area where others gather to discuss how they are making this leap to embracing a Wiki model? I want to get my ducks in a row before I really start making a pitch to my association on this.
thanks.
Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabrook (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you using the wiki for internal collaboration or for external input? If the former, you could always restrict content changes to registered users for tracking purposes.—RJH (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another possibility is to try it out under a different brand, under terms which would allow later use/adoption/inclusion/buyout. Set it up at arm's length under a different name. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks for these thoughts! The vision I currently have is that this would be as open as Wikipedia. In that way, members, non-members, academics, students -- anyone with a passion for financial planning could contribute to this body of knowledge. Do you all know of any support groups or chat areas to share experiences about the growing pains of creating such a thing?Laurabrook (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there are a lot of examples of organizations allowing anyone to edit their own content (wiki). You'd be better off, I think, starting with one that had a more restrictive set of editors - limited to members and those that request editing rights (academics, for instance). Otherwise, you're asking to be the target of spammers, who will be adding links to their particular financial products (or to just about anything else). Wikipedia does as well as it does at fighting vandalism and spam because of the commitment of editors to a high-quality encyclopedia; I really doubt that many financial planners see their role as doing ongoing cleanup on something (your wiki) that doesn't benefit them personally, at all.
- I also suspect that you'd be better off trying to recruit a group (say, 100 people) who would commit to spending a couple of hours per week doing wiki work, and that you don't "launch" until you have several hundred articles (even just brief, but well written) form a good core. Otherwise, you've got a chicken-and-egg problem: no one wants to contribute to something that may just be a waste of time because no one reads it.
- You also might want to play around with giving credit, up front, to those who have written and/or are responsible for maintaining quality of articles. (I'm thinking of a box, within an article, that says "This article was created by XXX. Major contributors have included YYY and ZZZ. It is currently monitored by AAA and BBB.
- And finally, if you do want input from non-members, consider protecting all articles so they can only be edited by registered editors, but allow article talk pages to be edited by non-registered people; that way, anyone can make suggestions or ask questions about an article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
"Too fast deletion"
Message to Zsinj, without answer at the moment:
Realkyhick wrote this in my discution; so I was writing: I think that they are joking with me, you request for me to give reasons, and then delete the article while attempt to do it. You they would have to be more cautious, as we are it in the Wikipedia in Spanish. Specially because I am not an inexperienced nor anonymous user. |
I know something of English (I understand it perfectly), but have difficulties to express me to people. For that reason it is possible that there is some errors.
He didn't revert the deletion, nor responded to me.
- The article in question, High Voltage Software, (a) now (still?) exists, and (b) has no CSD tag on it. So it appears that this is resolved. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Strange spam links
Trying to edit Talk:Charles Fort gives a notice about spam links to a poker site. The root of the problem seems to be on the talk page itself. You can find the apparently offending material by editing the talk page and searching for the word 'poker'. I don't know what to do to fix it. If somebody fixes it, please let me know so I can make my post there. Lou Sander (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed it with nowiki.--Patrick (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Assistance is needed in updating the sourcing for the above list. Until recently, this list was titled simply "List of massacres"... and the various events were sourced to demonstrate that some reliable source discribes the event as being a massacre. However, due to the result of a recent AfD, the list has had to change its name and focus. With this change has come new inclusion criteria. It is now supposed to be a list of events for which multiple reliable sources establish that the word "massacre" is used as part of an accepted name for the event (as in: "The XXX Massacre", "The Massacre of XXX" or some variation thereof). Most of the events listed, therefore, need to be re-sourced to reflect this new criteria. We could use some help. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before I do any more, are my last two edits to the article what you are looking for?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the help. I can not really say if the sources you provided are what we are looking for or not ... I assume good faith that they do ... but since they are print sources, it will take a bit of effort to double check. I could probably tell you for sure if you would provide a short quote (at the list's talk page) from the books to show usage. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my detailed response to you on my talk page. In short, I was inquiring whether what you wanted was references right after the names listed in the table, as I had placed them. The sources do indeed provide usage of the exact names and come from Google book searches and are easily done,which I have described how to duplicate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
New Sustainability Wiki needs help
Hi, I'm Paul. I'm launching a new Wiki effort to assist the growth of knowledge, technology and skills that support Sustainable living. I'm not sure how to connect with experienced Wikimedians, so if there's a more appropriate place for this posting, please let me know. I'm looking for experienced admins and bureaucrats to help coax a new wiki baby into life. Specifically we need help migrating basic science pages from Wikipedia and developing guidelines and processes to allow for the cohabitation of non-promotional descriptions of non-profit and commercial knowledge, people, technologies and companies. ZeroNEXT.org Tools for the Green Revolution. wikihelp@zeronext.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.241.33 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Attack article against business
The article on Intown Suites is taken up mainly with criticism of this discount motel chain. If it was about an individual it could be reported on the BLP notice board. Does anyone know where this kind of thing can be reported? I already tagged it for POV. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the problem material. Not sure what the reaction is going to be. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, Steve. Thanks for the look out. I removed the criticism sections yet again, it seems the IP has been doing this for a couple weeks. Additionally, the IP is located in Minneapolis and so are many of the criticism sources. Seems like someone has an axe to grind. I left a note for the IP to read up on Wikipedia:Criticism and WP:NPOV. Keegantalk 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just removed the section again. Some people don't get the concept that WP is an encyclopedia, not a consumer complaint forum. There are other sites to go to to post that kind of thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that the IP removed it again. The IP seems unwilling to communicate, I may block them eventually. I'll run it by WP:AN for review if this happens again tomorrow. The IP isn't frequent enough to break the 3RR, but I am certain they would if they watched the article close enough. Looks like daily frequents. I'll keep a good watch. Keegantalk 05:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just removed the section again. Some people don't get the concept that WP is an encyclopedia, not a consumer complaint forum. There are other sites to go to to post that kind of thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, Steve. Thanks for the look out. I removed the criticism sections yet again, it seems the IP has been doing this for a couple weeks. Additionally, the IP is located in Minneapolis and so are many of the criticism sources. Seems like someone has an axe to grind. I left a note for the IP to read up on Wikipedia:Criticism and WP:NPOV. Keegantalk 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Images pushing [edit] button around
The [edit] button for a sub-section is shoved down sometimes into the middle of the section or even into the subsequent section. This seems to be caused by the images in the sub-section with the skewed [edit] button. For example, in Composting toilet#Types the [edit] button is in the middle of the Commercial systems sub-section. Also, in the 'DIY' Systems sub-section, the [edit] button for :DIY systems appears along with the next sections [edit] button if my browser is wide. If you narrow your browser to four (4) inches or so, then widen it, you can see that the [edit] button is forced to follow the image that is defined in the :DIY systems section. I had no success in the WP:sandbox when I tried moving the image definition to the top of the section, or including a line-break. I don't even know how I'd solve a similar problem if I was using HTML, but I'd expect there'd be some wiki-way to correct the "wandering [edit] button" problem.Daven brown (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Image spam in Causes of World War II
Someone has somehow replaced a map of Japan's holdings during world war II with a spyware removal ad and apparently other ads. Somehow they did this without overwriting the original map image. I don't know how to fix it; someone should take a look at this. --Hrodulf (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the page by reuploading the map, but Image:Japanese_Empire2.png is still corrupted and displays ads that lead to off site links, this may be a problem with other pages also and may be difficult to detect or fix. When you look at the image on its own page it looks fine, but when inserted into a wikipedia article it generates ad spam. Very annoying! --Hrodulf (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, a friendly reminder that new topics go at the bottom of the page. As to your question, I don't see what you're talking about. Image:Japanese Empire2.png appears perfectly fine to me, and I don't see any evidence of tampering with the file at its location on Commons. Perhaps you could provide some specific links? Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, sorry about the protocol breach re posting at the top. I never posted here before. And you didn't see the problem because I fixed it by cloning the image (and got in trouble with the cloned image not being tagged, but that's another issue).
- Look at Xenu. That's another one I didn't touch. Just scroll down to the first image. It's a banner ad. With an external link.
- Seriously, people are inserting banner ads into your images somehow. Who knows how many of these there are.
- If you still can't see it, maybe it's my browser or my computer is infected. Let me know. I could have a virus. Of course if there's a virus that specifically targets wikipedia, you would want to know about that also.
- I will post a screenshot so you know I'm not making this up.
- Check this out:
- Termites are gnawing away at wikipedia as we speak
- Nothing wrong with the Xenu page images (using Firefox) - suspect your browser or computer has a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I figured that was a possibility. So there's a virus out there that turns wikipedia images into banner ads. And some of them were, shall we say, disreputable banner ads.
- This is still a wikipedia problem even if it is a virus; who knows how many computers are infected? --Hrodulf (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yours ! MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend taking your dilemma to the reference desk. Someone there who is more computer could illuminate what is going on with your browser. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- You probably have some kind of spyware/adware that's inserting ads into websites as displayed on your computer. Is it happening on any other sites besides Wikipedia? Have you tried a different browser? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, it's happened on other sites. I first noticed it on wikipedia so I assumed it was a wikipedia issue. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I tried running an ad aware scan but it didn't get rid of it. I will have to research how to fix this. Aside from the ads it's making the internet load more slowly also :P (and I tried two different browsers, and I get the ads with both of them) --Hrodulf (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I found an article on what I believe to be the virus, Vundo. Hopefully this will help --Hrodulf (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Prejudice against Non-Admins in AfD Closures
I am a Wikipedian who has been an user in Wikipedia for over one and a half years and made over 5,000 edits. Of late, I've been closing deletion discussions in Wikipedia by virtue of my fairly good knowledge of Wikipedia's principles and policies. However, two of my AfD closures have been conteptuously discarded by a couple of admins who have undone my edits despite the fact that the closures have been 'Keep' results arrived at by virtue of decisions arrivced at by general consensus.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortis (Doctor Who)
The reason was given that the closure has been premature. However, you might observe thatb the stipulated time of 5 days had elapsed and that the decision arrived at was Keep as per general consensus. However, any person caring to have a glimpse at the history of the article will observe that another admin has closed the discussion with the same result a few hours after I had closed the discussion.
Here is another instance when a closure was conteptuously undone by someone who demanded that the discussion be closed by an admin. However, a few edits later an admin has closed the discussion with the same results.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess
I dont understand this p[rejudice with regard to non-admins closing discussions. If this is the case, then I recommend that the Non-Admin closure rule itself be annuled and such a closure prohibited by the rules of Wikipedia.-Ravichandar 12:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Xena list discussion is gently troublesome. Did you try talking to Collectonian and asking why she thought your closure was wrong? I note that some other editors reverted her "un-close", so it seems you're not being treated with contempt.
May I ask: What do you want an admin to do?Dan Beale-Cocks 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)- I close deletion discussions, and I'm not an administrator. (I've only closed about a dozen or so.) I would not have touched the Xena discussion. Too much discussion and controversy, people on both sides of the question. See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Sure, you were right, but Collectonian had a right to have an admin close a discussion that was fought that hard.
- Regarding the Vortis closure, you should have contacted Edoktor on his talk page after he rolled back your second closure. Rollback should not be used to revert edits that are not vandalism, and he should have provided an edit summary, if I'm reading this correctly. I will inform him of this discussion.
- It seems like an extreme measure that you advocate, taking away the ability for other editors to close discussions because of your experiences. I like closing AfDs, it feels like a useful thing to do for the project. Darkspots (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, technically, I shouldn't have used rollback. And the term has been changed to 5 days only recently. However, I reverted him once before, with summary. And his second closure was done using multiple edits, so I coudn't undo (I wish rollback had an edit summary). Afterwards, I told Ravichandar why I undid the closure on his talk page.
- I have no problem with non-admin closures, but they are subject to some very strict rules. One of which is that closure must be non-controversial, and require no admin tools. I think the Vortis close was not uncontoversial, as consensus clearly leaned toward a merge. Also the blanket rational "as per general consensus" really didn't cover the discussion. What Ravichandar should remember is that anyone can contest non-admin closure for whatever reason, even if it is likely to have the same outcome. One should defenitely not close it again once it has been contested, as that does border on disruptive editing. — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)