User talk:Jonny-mt

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Here because your article was deleted? Read through this first to find why.

Please help delete my account

Could you please assist me in deleting my account, and all vestiges? I have tried now several times, but cannot seem to be able to do it. Although I have blanked the contents, and tried chaging its name, it always reverts, and new, rather insidious material keeps appearing. If you read my "talk" page, you will see where I have reached in my exasperation. All of this seems to be an aftermath to my having been the nominator in an (unsuccessful) article deletion discussion. You seem to have assisted another victim of the aftermath of this, user: Proscience in deleting his account, so it is clearly doable. Could you please provide me some similar assistance? (You are the third administrator I am turning to for this. The other two did not seem able to offer any useful help.) Many thanks. R_Physicist (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a user in good standing, you have a right to vanish, but we can't actually delete your account and contributions (partly for technical reasons, partly for licensing reasons). Some users take this farther than others--one user recently replaced all mentions of their name with "Vanished user". While I would much prefer (and personally recommend) that you simply take a Wikibreak, cool down, and come back with a clear head, if you are serious about vanishing then you can request deletion of your userspace pages either by putting {{db-userreq}} on the individual pages or by indicating what content you'd like deleted here or via e-mail. What you do next is up to you--if you want to continue editing Wikipedia under another name, you are welcome to do so provided that you completely abandon your current account (see WP:SOCK for information on multiple accounts).

Once again, I encourage you to take a breather and think about this a little longer, but if you're serious then I'll do what I can to help out. --jonny-m t 07:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really would like to delete my account, and the talk page. I have said all that I wanted to say and those interested will have read it. I see no reason for maintaining a permanent record of it here. (The issues at stake will be pursued, if at all, in another forum.) I would appreciate your help in deleting everything that went under "R Physcist". Many thanks. R_Physicist (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted your talk page per your request here, citing your right to vanish in the deletion log. Once again, we can't actually delete your account, but as part of your right to vanish you can simply stop using it, scramble your password, or do whatever you will to not edit under the same name. The best of luck to you. --jonny-m t 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that you cannot delete the account, but it seems as if the discussion page still exists, and people can still write to it. Can it not just be eliminated altogether, or, e.g., have its name changed, and "frozen" in some way, so that people cannot add to it, or try to contact me through it? Sorry to persist in this, but it does seem as if it is still an active page, using a name that I invented, and hence is a potential target for further abuse that I would rather see removed. I thought this was what was done in the case of user: Proscience, where no talk page exists any more. R_Physicist (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused now--I deleted your talk page per your request (you can see the deletion log here), which is the same thing I did for Proscience. While people can, in theory, start a new talk page there, I (and, I imagine, several other admins) have the page watchlisted, and so we'll be able to respond promptly to any abuse. I see no need to protect the page against creation now, although if it becomes a target for abuse or vandalism then it's a fairly easy thing to do. --jonny-m t 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD from 3/23 ready for closure

See here. Vast majority of keep votes were made by sockpuppets. I struck them, leaving only the comments of the sockpuppeteer. Seems like a clear Delete to me. Enigma ^message 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I've closed the debate as delete. Out of sheer curiousity, is there any particular reason why you brought this to me personally? If I'm on some list somewhere of admins willing to close contentious AfDs, I'd like to know now :P --jonny-m t 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it was so contentious now that the sockpuppets were blocked. Pretty open-and-shut, except for one guy deciding to vote 5 times or whatever. I came to you because once the issue at WP:SSP was resolved, I figured it should be closed. I looked at the AfDs around the same time, and you had been closing them. It was the logical step for me. Thanks for giving it the attention it deserved. Enigma ^message 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old disputes

Given that the section of the WP Hawaiʻi talk page dedicated to disputes was last updated in August 2007, I think the first thing to do it take a look at the issues with fresh eyes.

With regard to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii#Current_disputes, I'm taking you up on that offer, Jonny. :) No hurry on this, but it would be nice to see a re-evaluation of the status of dispute tags on the following eight articles:

Although it isn't listed, I've also started a rewrite of Hawaiian sovereignty movement at Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Temp due to the ongoing dispute on that page. It should probably be added to the list. Any help you can offer is appreciated. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, disputes! Actually, that sounds like a great idea--I wasn't around when most of these disputes were happening, so I'd be glad to give them a look over the next month or so and see if we can't figure something out. Don't think I'll be able to solve them single-handedly or anything, but I'll do what I can :) --jonny-m t 09:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any chance you could give the articles a quick reassessment for dispute tags, by let's say, April 15 or around then? I would like to have a status report in May's newsletter. I've noticed that some of the dispute sections on talk linked above have been moved to the archives. Basically, I'm just asking for you to take a look at the gratuitous use of dispute tags, and if you are unclear as to whether the article still needs the tag or not, I was wondering if you could comment on the talk page. I'm asking you to do this because you have good dispute resolution skills, and I want to see these articles improved. I bet that the dispute tags could probably be removed in many instances. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather paradox RFP

Jonny, we're up to five incidents now. I don't want to jump the gun, so I'm wondering at what point I should make another request. Please let me know. Thanks. f(x)=ax²+bx+c 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do it right there; I've semi-protected the page for 31 hours to account for any stragglers. As a rule of thumb, protection is a last resort reserved for when vandalism or other disruption hinders the natural development of the article--I held off on denying the protection for a while to see if it was going to be a problem, but it looks like I was the one jumping the gun instead. Thanks for the heads-up :) --jonny-m t 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking care of it :) f(x)=ax²+bx+c 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bit of trouble with Segagman (talk) vandalizing Grandfather paradox. Thought I'd give you a heads-up on that, since I'm going to bed now and won't be staying up to revert further edits. --TerrorBite (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AFDs

Hello - when you relist AFDs, could you please make sure to remove them from their original page and paste them on today's page? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - you've been doing so. I confused you with someone else. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering; I've asked more a few people to do the same thing myself :P Regardless, I appreciate the reminder! --jonny-m t 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lava Studios

Double sorry, didn't pick up on your decline, and also failed to give a reason. I deleted because

very short article without substantive content
no assertion of notability (no refs, no link to Kirkpatrick - name meant nothing to me)
not sure why being owned by someone notable makes it notable - on that basis you could have an article about his dog or car
At best, if this article exists at all, it should just be as a redirect to Kirkpatrick
for what it's worth, I would have speedied the other two on sight as nn bios, even if the second one had not been a hoax.

Jimfbleak (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whoops!

sorry about this. Twinkle hiccuped, or something. It was supposed to land at ARV, where it eventually did, since the RFCU was done. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries. I've got most of those pages watchlisted as a matter of course, so I picked up that you had reverted the majority and simply removed an extra one that you missed. Thanks for the help getting the latest sock! --jonny-m t 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for feeding the socks to the dryer monster. Ours is especially hungry today having eaten three over night. I don't think these are socks anyone would miss, Have a good day! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the user. But I do think that it still would be pertinant to protect my user page and talk page. Otherwise they may come back with socks, which would be undisireable. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I blocked him with autoblock enabled, though, which means that it something hasn't happened yet, it's not particularly likely to. If something does flare up, feel free to post a request to WP:RFPP, note that you suspect socks of the blocked user (tell them to look at the deleted history on your user page for confirmation), and even post a link to this discussion if you'd like and I'm sure it will get taken care of. --jonny-m t 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will do that, if it does flare up again. Did you take a look at User:James Bushnell45's user page? He was an admin, any idea who is trying to stir up trouble in Wikipedia? Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Emile

A little unfinished business: It appears that you deleted the redirects but not the article Jonathan Emile (Jon E). Cheers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah; thanks for the heads-up. It looks like the page was moved during the AfD, so sadly the original links hadn't been updated and I didn't noticed the "Redirected from" notice under the article title. Appreciate it! --jonny-m t 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Adding to Reference List

I was trying to add references to the refernce list, but when I tried to edit it all I saw was "Reflist" in double "{ }". What should I do? Dan326 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the MediaWiki software handles footnotes automatically, so all you need to do is add <ref>reference info here</ref> to the part of the text where you want the reference to go. There are a number of templates used to standardize the "reference info here" part ({{cite web}} and {{cite book}} are probably the most commonly-used), but more general information on putting sources into articles can be found at WP:NOTES. Hope this helps! --jonny-m t 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (3rd nomination)

Dear Jonny-mt, I encourage you to maybe give the discussion a little more time. You claim in your close that "no sources have emerged;" however, please consider this exchange from yesterday:

Keep nominator does not provide sufficient reasons for deletion. This is topic covered in several published works over 20 years of nearly continuous publication. Web Warlock (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure you are not confusing this with the "real" UFP? Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  - I know exactly what this is. I have many of the books for the game. Web Warlock (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Great. Do you have any third party references? Jobjörn (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Yes. And I am adding them now and will continue tomorrow morning. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus, perhaps Web Warlock would have been able to or was even planning on adding these sources today (8 April 2008) as he firmly stated he would. Even if the AfD normally closes in 7 days, when we have an editor stating assertively that he has and will add sources today (8 April 2008), I see no reason why we should not give him an extra day to see if he has indeed found sufficient reliable sources to address that concern with the article. Given the amount of good faith editors and admins arguing to keep, why not see if Web Warlock has enough to make a more clear consensus? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Grand Roi,

Thank you for the message. I saw the exchange you mentioned while closing and went to examine what new sources had been added by looking at a diff between the nomination and the most recent edit so I could take this additional factor into consideration as well. While I did see an addition of sources, they were being used only to verify in-universe information and thus did not, in my opinion, have an impact on the comments supporting deletion.

As for the timing of the close, AfDs actually run for five days as a rule, so the discussion was already technically two days overdue. As you may know, WP:AFDO (transcluded on my user page) is used as sort of a central location for keeping track of expired AfD discussions, with the number of open items being automatically tracked by Mathbot. When there are less than 20 items in a given day, Mathbot starts linking to them individually (like so), which in turn prompts administrators to focus on those discussions in the hopes of clearing out that day--in my experience, they usually do so in fairly short order. In other words, I couldn't have let the discussion run an extra day even if I had wanted to, as it would certainly have been closed out by another administrator if I hadn't done it.

As I mentioned in my closing statement, though, I am only too happy to userfy the content so it can be improved further, so if you would like to give Web Warlock a chance to add his references, just let me know where you'd like me to put it and I'll do so! --jonny-m t 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have more sources to add and edits I have been working on. I request that you re-open the discussion. I have only been working on this since last night (my time). This closing was premature and I still feel the nom was in bad faith. Thank you. Web Warlock (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the nomination was done in bad faith--that's a fairly serious accusation and, if true, would be well-deserving of a speedy keep comment--but if you wish to work on the article more I'll be glad to userfy it for you. As for reopening the debate, the deletion was done in line with the AfD deletion process (in fact, it was given two extra days beyond what is called for), and I think a reopening and relisting is unnecessary. Now, if you feel that I made a poor call or that the deletion was done outside of proper process, you are more than welcome to list it at deletion review for additional comment. Personally, I was hoping to make it more than a week and a half as an admin without having a deletion listed at WP:DRV, but c'est la vie :P --jonny-m t 11:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do believe that. Yes it is serious and I am fine with that. The article has gone through three rounds of this already and to AFD it again so soon is bad faith and I stand behind that. I will be taking it to deletion review. I find the lack of consideration to an editor's work (in this case mine when I said I was going to be working on it this morning) due to some time-based guideline to be a very serious problem. Basically you have said "I don't care what other editors are doing, I am closing this because time waits for no one". It disregards the efforts of the volunteers and quite frankly is a little insulting. Plus I do not feel there was consensus to delete, at best there was no consensus as the three other AfDs showed, that is when it was not keep. Web Warlock (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if you would like I would be more than happy to userfy the article so you can work on it without a time limit, but if you wish to take it to deletion review then please let me know when the discussion is up! --jonny-m t 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point. I'll spend all this time working on it only to have some ediotr with an agenda just put it up for AfD again and catch some Admin in the right mood. Common courtesy is dead here, killed by people more interested in policies and guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulteo

Could you please "Userfy" the deleted content from the Ulteo article to my user namespace at User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo. I believe the notablity of this software is undisputable and I am shocked by the elitism that was exhibited by overlooking reliable third party references provided in the debate by new users. Regardless I'm not going to dispute your decision as this would seem to be a rather frivolous venture; rather I would like to preserve the existing content as a foundation to build an article that does not have whatever shortcomings which may have been present in the previous embodiement. Thank you for your time and attention. Kind regards, Avant Destiny (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If I could just address your comment about elitism real quick, the comment about SPAs was directed at the fact that none of them put forward any valid reasons for keeping the article--in that sense, they were disregarded not simply because they were anonymous but because their arguments did not address the underlying issues. That level of anonymous participation in an AfD is quite rare, which leads me to think that it was the product of a blog posting or some other "call to arms", if you will. As for the third party sources that were posted, although I took that into account it doesn't seem to have overcome the notability barrier--many of the links were simply mentions of Ulteo in relation to OpenOffice online. Your challenge, then, is to find more substantial, independent coverage in order to fulfill the notability requirements. If you'd like me to take a look at the improved article before you take it back to mainspace, just drop me a note and I'll be glad to do so! --jonny-m t 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]