This is an archive of past discussions with User:TParis. 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.
Hello TParis! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether to thank you or just marvel at your cojones for being wiling to wade into the whole thing, but I appreciate your agreeing with me that JC's chastising of RAP while leaving other editors' conduct unnoted was rather dubious. Doniago (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is where the WP:CABAL comes in to save one of their own and now I've been called disruptive for pointing out obvious bad behavior (there's not really a cabal, I'm just p/o'd). Whatever, this is why we have WP:DGAF. At the very least, Moni seems willing to fix the articles that RAP has pointed out.--v/r - TP14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep. FWIW, the response you got both from Moni and—no cabal needed—the gang of lackeys who will typically rush to the defense of any sysop (or experienced editor for that matter) who's behaving inappropriately was disgusting (particularly Sandy calling you disruptive). I greatly respect that you made the effort, though (evidently where no one else would). Regards, SwarmX18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
On October 27 2011 you deleted the article "Jacque Maroun" from Wikipedia. (01:31, 27 October 2011 TParis (talk | contribs) deleted "Jacques Maroun")
What we feel is alarming and cannot understand is that we (at Mr. Maroun's production company who have started/created the article) have received a friendly note/disclaimer from yourself or Wikipedia stating that the article was incomplete and needed to be revised with references in order to legitimize it. The note also stated that the article would be deleted on OCTOBER 31st 2011 if we failed to complete it. We started gathering the references, as per Wikipedia's request. But somehow, you changed your mind and decided to expedite the request for deletion and went ahead and deleted it 3 days prior to your chosen deadline. We do not feel that these actions were fair, but mostly the manner in which it was done, which was to give us the chance to complete the article, give us a deadline, and then decide to retract it all and decide to delete anyway.
Moreover, you then decided to place a block on our IP address for suspecting us of Vandalism even though we never attempted to 'add, remove, nor change content in any deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In fact, we did quite the opposite by adding to the wikipedia resources by creating a new geographical location page/article.
Mr. TPARIS, we understand the grueling process of policing Wikipedia and respect and appreciate dedicated volunteers like yourself
We feel like sometimes, decisions are made quickly and not deliberately without having given the subject matter second thoughts. We believe that this could have been one of these matters. The speedy deletion of the article and the undeserved block for vandalism.
We read your Profile and Award section and we were very impressed.
We read your section about "Recall" and we were glad to see that we both value open communication, honesty, and fairness. We hope that you will reinstate our article, or lift the deletion ban/visible notice currently stated publicly, and give us a chance to complete it and provide the references you requested while giving us a fair deadline. We also kindly request that the block for vandalism be retracted/lifted.
We thank you for your cooperation and offer you our sincere regards.
Wikijacques - Firstly, I've restored the article. I'll give you a few days (the 31st seems reasonable) to make changes before I send it through our delete process. Keep in mind though that you have a conflict of interest being that you represent the subject of the article and that is severely frowned upon on Wikipedia. Also, your username may violate our username policy. User accounts must represent a single person. Your account cannot be used by multiple people in your production company. This is because our content license requires every contribution to be attributed to a single person. You may want to go to our username change request page and ask that your username be changed to something that represents you individually. When you work on the article, take a look at WP:ENT and ensure that the article asserts and has sources to prove that the subject meets those guidelines. Also, I haven't been able to find any sort of block on your account. If there was an IP Address block, I'm not able to look up your IP address. You may want to send an email to the unblock email address that will be shown on the blocked page.--v/r - TP20:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: deletion
Thank you for this. Also is there a way to communicate through inbox our inbox/email? We did not realize this communication would be public and added to the blog/page. We apologize for that. Can we delete this conversation so it stays private? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijacques (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello TPARIS. I am the actual person the article is referring to. My PR person was the one who initiated this article about me without my knowledge. She did it with the best intentions. She has briefed me about the communication. I have taken over the ID as per your suggestion and will change it accordingly and will be the sole user. Moreover, I have asked her not to pursue this article (or any article about myself without my knowledge or consent) as i don't believe my filmography is substantial enough to be listed on this site. I have already erased the content but unable to expunge the name. Please feel free to do so. Will appreciate not placing a barrier nor log so the name, credits or filmography could be created and listed in the future. Peace.
>Reply of previous log:
>Thank you for this. Also is there a way to communicate through inbox our inbox/email? We did >not realize this communication would be public and added to the blog/page. We apologize for >that. Can we delete this conversation so it stays private? — Preceding unsigned comment >added by Wikijacques (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
>> It's the Wikipedia way that communication be public and transparent.--v/r - TP 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijacques (talk • contribs)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz
See [1], [2][3][4][5] and [6]. I believe you are well out of your depth here, and being given the run around by an experienced wikilawyer who is skilled in disrupting any process - in short, you are being taken for a ride. To that end see [7] - I believe it would be better to request a fresh uninvolved admin to close the RfC in the normal manner, by summarising the discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Elen,
Please abide by the prohibition against misuse of the term WikiLawyer.
You are just attempting to stifle me. Again, you and the 2 main critics took 2 months to prepare the RfC, and you have been tag-teaming against me ever since. You have been threatening me with AN/ANI/ArbComm for months.
You also have been repeating the falsehood that I view all criticism as personal attacks, again and again and again, despite my recognition of LK and Professor Bialy's fair-minded criticism. You have failed to apologize for attacking me for "smearing" DGG (in your words), when he has issued only non-denial non-denials of his failure to read the RfC for more than 6 minutes.
It is time for you to apologize for your latest behavior.
"you and the 2 main critics took 2 months to prepare the RfC" - no, you demanded a two month delay, and Worm very helpfully agreed to that even though he was under no obligation to do so. When that delay was over, you demanded three months of additional delays!
And no, Elen took no part in preparing the RfC/U, other than reviewing it when the basis was complete, to confirm that there was a valid basis for an RfC/U - which, again, was something that you demanded of Worm.
And, again, no, Elen did not threaten you with AN - you opened an AN thread yourself, after the previous ANI thread (opened by TFD, I believe?) had been sensibly closed at Worm's suggestion. And the numerous previous threads at WQA, etc., had produced no results other than you sneering at the inability of those you insulted to obtain any helpful resolution to the issues.
This "6 minute" thing is yet another empty smokescreen and delaying tactic, and yet another indication of the way you react to constructive criticism.
Sorry guys, out of time [8]. It is my opinion that - given this trollish behaviour - he has no intentions of taking the slightest notice of anything you say no matter how long you take in crafting it. I recommend wrapping the RfC and proceeding to the next stage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
As an administrator and ArbComm member, your tone to TParis and the others, now and before, lacked sufficient respect.
Rather, you are obligated to hold yourself to the highest standards of user conduct. You made two mis-statements, and failed to correct them. Please do so. (Compare the behavior of Bill Clinton's lawyer in the Lewinsky proceedings, when all the truth was out, and he submitted a correction to a mis-statement, fulfilling his duty as an officer of the court.)
Let me be clear to both and keep in mind I have great respect for you both. 1) I am trying to find a close that will prevent us from going to Arbcom, and 2) If this is not possible, I will summarize in my own words and close it. I will not be taken for a loop and I will close this in a way that matches the discussion. Now, Elen, if you feel I am unqualified I wouldn't blame you and if you can find a willing uninvolved admin to close this I will step aside. Until one can be found, I'm not going to let the process linger. I've been working on a close, it hasn't stalled, and it will be closed soon.--v/r - TP23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
Closing this RfC seems painful and thankless, which is why I suggested that this committee's make-up, which gives the greatest likelihood of fairness in both the form and content. Thanks to all of you for your work.
TP, I apologise if I seemed harsh. I believe you have acted throughout with the utmost good faith, and this is also shown in your closing statement. However, from experience, I would say that generally one should be cautious when one party or another attempts to impose their own conditions outside of the Wikipedia procedure; and it has also been my experience that it is not possible for an uninvolved editor to conclude an RfC/U with a summary that everyone will endorse 100%. If it was, the parties would already have agreed on it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
TP, although I would have hoped the rfc had ended with some greater progress, & I would have emphasized different aspects, you did a very fare close. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for destroying the work that I did, after three people appreciated my efforts and changed their opinion to keep. You have now lost a user. Greenodd (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Alex Biega
You might not be aware that the comment you left on the talk page points to the wrong discussion. ExaltedQC (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
TParis, your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Marshall (2nd nomination) was misguided in a number of ways. For one, simply redirecting (and not even merging the content to the proper article, Portland, Maine City Council) was not the consensus of the discussion. As I noted, a SPA nominated the article, there were two policy-based !votes for keeping it, and two much less details !votes for deleting / redirecting. Either way, that is not a consensus, as you know.--TM00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that he even deleted the history of the page, as he did with the article I had worked on as well. Fortunately, I had already copied the content. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
TM - I've relisted the article. Greenodd - if you want to troll my talk page, please make yourself at home. You're not helping yourself.--v/r- TP04:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization of my opinion as "less details" (sic) since I relied on WP:POLITICIAN and the precedent of past outcomes in similar situations. I firmly believe that candidacies should normally be dealt with in NPOV articles about the entire campaign, as opposed to POV articles that all too often come to resemble campaign literature. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Paris, I am doing fine and do not desire your help, which apparently takes the form of verbal abuse. If you had actually read the AFD, you would have known (beside that there was a clear consensus to keep) that I have withdrawn myself from this hostile environment. I advise TM and Cullen to do the same, and suggest that you stay behind. This was my last post. Greenodd (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you have said that before. Hopefully this time you actually commit yourself to it. Goodbye.--v/r - TP13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
May I commend you on your summary, noting, for the record, that my involvement was negligible. You took on a difficult job, and carried it out with good grace and aplomb. While I should apologize for not contributing further, I'm very glad that my offer of assistance proved to be unnecessary. Geometry guy00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and thank for volunteering to help close. I had looked forward to working with you and Worm on it.--v/r - TP14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The page was deleted by you and I think it should not have been.
My history is as an author (Search Engine Optimization All-in-One for Dummies, 746pg., Wylie), speaker at every major conference (90 of them just in the USA), I have the earliest copyrighted site containing the phrase Search Engine Optimization (1997), and Danny Sullivan and others give me reasonable credit (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/smx-west-2010-man-on-the-street-interviews) for coining and popularizing that important industry term. I receive thousands of searches for my name, and Google reports (quoted search query) 230,000 references for my name. Google suggestions for bruce c shows my name as a suggestion. Competitors buy ads on my name.
I did not write that page, and while it is descriptive of me it is not a resume. I have been doing this since 1996.
You have your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A Foster (Actor) please can you look at this page again, it has been having plenty of visitor and I Note that you even deleted the history of the page but I had say it had 560 visitors in the last 30 days.
Robert A Foster is a young actor who first big TV show was Just William (2010 TV serial) he since has been in a short film and people are interested just like the other main leads in the TV show.
The page has good sources and reference and he does have a fan base too.
The show is up for a 3 BAFTA and interest again in the actors from Just William. Gem09 (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi sorry just wanted to give you some more info please look at this and undelete the page. The page is about a young English Actor who first lead role as Henry in [[Just William (2010 Tv serial) Just William has just been nominated for 3 Baftas, it has had many visitors to the page and people were intreated in the page. He also had been had done TV adverts and a short Film, It had good referencing and links and links to other wikipedia pages too. It met Notability guideline WP:NOTEWP:PEOPLEWP:BIO if people did not want to know about him, they would not of visited the page but they did and you could see this from the visitor history before the page history was delete the other day, he had 560 visitors in 30days. In a nutshell this page shouldn't have deleted, please be undeleted it is WP:VERIFY and is of interest to people who wanted know about TV actors, as others young actors from Just william are list on Wikipedia like [Daniel_Roche_(actor)]. Just william Cast BBC WebsiteImage of William (Daniel Roche) with the outlaws Ginger (Jordan Grehs), Douglas (Edward Piercy) and Henry (Robert Foster) in Just William,Cast up date on Just William Someone has also used info from his wikipedia page to make a Facebook public figure page [10],Cast and Info about Just WilliamIMDB Boy with the Chocolate Fingers as you can see this is just a few links. I think he can be classed Wikipedia:ARTIST and it was unreasonable to delete the page.Gem09 (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:V is a guideline that requires all content to be verifiable; it is not an inclusion policy. WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ENT are the guidelines that cover the inclusion of this person and the young actor fails them as described to you in the AFD. Sorry, it's too soon for an article about him.--v/r - TP13:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The keep !voters base their rationale on the presumption of notable. The delete !voters argue against the google sources but don't even address that the website has interviewed notable people which leaves the presumption of sources.--v/r - TP02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not inherited. It's presumed to have it's own notability based on the interviews of notable people. I don't neccessarily agree with the argument, I fall on the deletionist side, I just call 'em as I see 'em.--v/r - TP13:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't understand your response, but WP:NWEB#No inherited notability directly states that being associated with notable people does not confer notability upon websites. The AfD in question is a rather clear example of this. The consensus after the relist was unanimous that the general notability guideline takes precedence over a single user asserting that the website's interviewing of notable people conferred notability. Goodvac (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said, it's not that it confers notability, it's that there is a persumption of notability. Ever read WP:N? Sources do not have to be in the article to prove notability. The argument is that sources must exist. If none are found in 6 months, nominate it again. The close was well within community standards.--v/r - TP01:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say sources must be in the article—I don't know where you got that; in the AfD, I said I searched for sources and found none. Other participants did not bring up any sources as well. The burden of finding sources is on those voting to keep the article. WP:V states that if material is challenged, editors must provide sources. Because they failed to do so, the "delete" editors who took the time to search for sources and found none carry more weight. There is no need to wait six months when consensus has already found that 1) notability is not inherited and 2) no sources document the site in detail as required by the general notability guideline. Goodvac (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If you havent figured it out yet, I'm not going to change my mind about the result of that discussion. I feel there is no consensus.--v/r - TP01:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The section on advertising the election is a bit vague.
It's important to know that there are four tools for notices:
Centralnotice (the large, graphical banners used for the fundraiser, which direct to all projects and can be subset by project, language, and location)
Sitenotice (textual banners that direct to the project as a whole)
Watchlist notice (textual only, on the watchlist, and therefore logged-in only)
Geonotice (textual only, above the watchlist, assigned to a particular geography).
The fundraiser will be using Centralnotice for anonymous users during this period. They will not be using it for logged in. However, sitenotice is the right tool for this - so, technically, the closing summary isn't exactly right. it's not technically the same banner as the sitewide notices for fundraising (it's a different tool) and we may want to clarify that.
The good news is that Zack Exley tells me that fundraising banners will not be served to logged in users during that time, so you won't have to compete for banner space. :) - Philippe03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't split articles to make them less comprehensive. We split when the article becomes too large.--v/r - TP20:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi TParis,
Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you move a few articles?
Thanks for closing the color-article RfC here. As a result of that RfC, there are a handful of articles that should now be moved/renamed. I tried, but there are REDIRECTS in place, so I cannot do the moves. Would you mind doing them? The moves are:
... The two most prominent of these article (red and blue) were given notice of the RfC when it started, over a month ago. For example, see Talk:Variations_of_red. So, persons monitoring the two most important articles were given notice of the proposed rename on the individual Talk pages, as well as where the RfC happened (in the Color project). --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I'm not worried about audience. Wikiproject Color was the correct place for that discussion and plenty of folks had input.--v/r - TP22:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course you know how I came to the 60% mark. It's obvious. However, you've put a new perspective on it that I hadn't considered. What would you propose to do at this point a week after it has closed? I don't feel comfortable making that kind of a change after folks have considered it over.--v/r - TP14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
4 days, not a week. I'd have brought it to your attention earlier, but I didn't notice the close until I read this week's Signpost. T. Canens (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I could fix the RFC and then make a thread about the error on WP:AN, WP:VP, and then I can ask Sven to edit his report with some kind of correction. Does that sound like a plan?--v/r - TP14:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For your willingness to correct an oversight the moment it is brought to your attention, something I wish more admins would possess. T. Canens (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I request your attention on blatant political agenda of user:DIREKTOR who was blocked by you too: this guy was blocked 9 times for edit warring and he was 2 topic bans! He persists vandalizing and removing all sources against his blatant political agenda which is idiotic too because issues are well known and reported by all historians! These are latest vandalisms:
Are you positive you want to draw my attention to these articles? Ever read WP:BOOMERANG? You might want to make sure your hands are clear of WP:3RR and WP:NPOV before you start accusing others.--v/r - TP15:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Continued but minor incivility issues are not blockable for long. Direktor has had his problems with collaborating with other editors, but he is generally a net positive. If you feel he is POV pushing, you should ask for a third editor to give an opinion at WP:3O. However, I would hazard a guess that Direktor would have the exact same thing to say about you. POV tends to go both ways. And we generally do not call good faith edits vandalism.--v/r - TP15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can request third opinion but when I will elected admin sure I will ban this guy: he is detrimental to project and I consider him a payed political propagandist!--Daneto (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
An interesting point has come up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011. Due the the removal of an active Arb, we are now filling 7 vacancies. If any further vacancies occur before the conclusion of the election, the outlier 8th seat will be available. Your close of the RFC does not make it clear how long the term of the 8th seat would be. As the closer of the section, I thought you might be able to provide either some clarification on what to do, or alternatively whether we would need a new RFC in that eventuality. Monty84515:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Coren's proposal was the most supported. However, with a reduction to 15 seats there was no discussion at all with how to deal with the middle-seat. I wouldn't feel comfortable making that decision alone. But if I had to wager a decision, I would say that an 8th seat would be a 1-year term and let next year's RFC determine how to handle the 15 seat imbalance.--v/r - TP16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I respectfully want to let you know that I disagree with your close of this AfD as a redirect to "Athlete". WP:REDIRECT says one reason is "Likely misspellings (for example, Condoleeza Rice redirects to Condoleezza Rice)."
How "likely" do you think it is that any reasonable percentage of Wikipedia users will misspell "athlete" as "afflete"? If a reasonable percentage in your estimation, then perhaps we should create redirects for "asslete" and "abslete" and "alcoholete" and "antilete" and on and on and on. I think that a prankster is having a laugh right now that their little absurdity continues to exist on Wikipedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I just close 'em how I see 'em. Four people suggested deleting and redirecting and no one disputed it. Had I not done the redirect, someone else would've been here arguing that I should have. In the end, I dont think redirects are all that harmful.--v/r - TP01:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Missed one
Hi, there is also English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) which was bizarrely put under the 1 Afd for 2 different books, and was confusing as this ones notabilty was even agreed as such by one editor/admin who thought delete for the canberra book. But both meet notability for books. I'm drawing your attention to this as you closed the Afd. Many thanks. --BSTemple (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Howdy, TParis. Thanks for this; I agree with your conclusion. However, the creator of that article did dig up a few potentially RS refs in an effort to prevent the article being deleted, and I'd like to pull 'em out, dust 'em off and see if any of them is suitable for inclusion in Starter motor. Would you mind please tossing the last rev of the deleted article in my userspace? Thanks! —ScheinwerfermannT·C03:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm done and would like it nuked from my userspace. Have CSD-U1'd it, but if you get a chance before its turn comes up, and would see fit to ooze your malevolent evility in the direction of my userspace, I would be most appreciative. —ScheinwerfermannT·C04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like you to consider overturning your close of this AfD. While it was clearly made in good faith, it was based on an unreliable source. If you look at FIFA's match reports for the two games in question, here for the game on 11 November 2011, and here for the game on 15 November 2011, you'll find that Julien Edwards did not play either match. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears you may be right. I can't find any other sources to corroborate Wifione's source.--v/r - TP15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Amazing. I actually saw these two additional news reports also corroborating Edwards playing for the match.[11][12]. (Look for "Julian Edwards" instead of "Julien Edwards"). Irrespective of these additional two news reports, I guess we should go by the FIFA report only for the time being. WifioneMessage23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to reversing the decision, but I'd appreciate it if ya'all would agree on the sources before I do. I dont want to keep going back and forth on this.--v/r - TP23:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a BLP; no need to reverse your decision. We'll see whether he attains clear notability and confirmation of having played for the national team later. Thanks. WifioneMessage08:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Patsy
Could you explain why you closed Hurricane Patsys AFD as a keep i would of thought the arguments were clearly in favour of a deletion. Kind regards.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
1) The nominator changed their opinion, 2) Another delete !voter changed to keep, 3) Stuartyeates's rationale is not based in policy. 4) That makes you the lone delete !voter. Consensus was definitely leaning toward keep. You and Hurricanethink were the only two arguing to delete it and there were just as many if not more arguing to keep it. Hurricanehink's argument was mostly "the content also exists over here" which per WP:SUMMARY isn't necessarily a bad thing.--v/r - TP16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly thankyou for responding to me - i respect you for doing so. However i do not think some of the keep arguments were valid, in particular some were saying that it passed WP:Event when it clearly doesn't because it is lacking independent reliable sources. While per WP:Summary its not a bad thing to have a summary of the article somewhere else, i would of thought that WP:EVENT would be given more weight.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:EVENT is only one inclusion criteria. But even with WP:EVENT considered, there were some arguments that it passed WP:EVENT. Keep in mind that I'm reading the AFD from an uninvolved perspective. I've no concern which way it goes, I just close 'em like I see 'em.--v/r - TP16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you are reading it from a NPOV, but as i said in the AFD i do not see how it passes WP:Event when there are no independent sources or widespread impact.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, and I sympathize. But you didn't convince anyone else of your perspective. That's why I judge the consensus didn't lean toward delete. In fact, being that two original delete !voters changed to keep, and not the other way around, is an indicator that consensus leaned toward keep.--v/r - TP17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actully there was only one who changed their mind the nominator didnt change his mind during the AFD. it is also worth noting that Hurricanehink had expressed his wish to delete this article on the talkpage.Jason Rees (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The nominator, Yellow Even, changed to keep here and TropicalAnalystwx13 changed to keep here. I noted Hurricanethink's opinion, he wasn't ignored even though he didn't actually !vote.--v/r - TP17:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe its me interpreting the nomming statement as bull as i am pretty sure he didnt change his mind. But o well life goes on, thanks for clarifying your position.Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I was looking through AfDs and noticed that there are two articles that were a part of this AfD that you closed that weren't deleted. I marked them for G7 which is the reason you gave for closing the debate. Just thought I'd mention it here in case you wanted to finish the job. OlYeller21Talktome19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me that User:Omen1229 also have some problems with agressive users who treat Wikipedia as battleground here while at the same time he has also engaged in edit warring over multiple articles triggered by his POV pushing as can been from his edit history just with an idle click [13]. Does his report remind you of anything [14]?
Natch, I remember that you told me that you were tried of it , however, I received a highly controversial one long month ArbCom block for wikistaling and editwarring[15] issued by User:Ironholds who I have never ever encountered on Wikipedia; it is likely that Ironholds is a talk page stalker of yours. Please note that the diffs could be as old as 5 days within the block entry at that time when I received the ArbCom block. Furthermore, it is not possible to issue a digwurren block for edit warring unless I am subject to a revert restriction as per WP: digwurren ,nor is it possible to corroborate wikistalking with 3 diffs without formal proceeding. It is a serious claim, and it requires very serious proofs. And in case there is no formal proceeding, a block still requieres some kind of interaction between the blocking administrator and blocked user and that did not happen[16]. So I am obliged to appeal this poppycock here unless I want to leave Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As your block happened on 5 October, you were placed on notice based on the old restrictions at WP:DIGWUREN. You were notified of the editing restriction on 17 April 2008. WP:BLOCK nor WP:DIGWUREN require you to have interacted with the blocking administrator prior to being blocked. In fact, the opposite is true. It is more appropriate for the blocking administrator to be uninvolved. I cannot see how this new dispute Omen1229 has with these other editors relates to you other than that he has a dispute, but trust me that the folks who respond on WP:ANI will take full inspection of Omen1229's behavior in addition to the user's he has reported and if they find any problems, the WP:BOOMERANG effect will likely happen. I'd suggest you drop the stick and let it go before you find yourself under more restrictions or blocks relating to this issue. I'd rather not see you quit editing over this, but you should know that this behavior is disruptive. You need to quit blaming others for the wikistalking and just forget about him. Edit your own area of interest and just avoid contact and editing overlap with him.--v/r - TP14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody.
That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under WP:Stalk. Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Wikipedia, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other... --Nmate (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was: you blamed others actions for your behavior that led to the Wikistalking. I can go back and get the diffs, but I think you're already aware of them. There is no need to appeal a past block, generally the community forgives after 6 months or so. But if you decide to go to Arbcom to appeal your sanctions, then my participation will likely be requested if not required.--v/r - TP13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ask that you carefully reread the pledge that I wrote. Please note that it does not refer to the status of the image - it does not require that the image stay the same, change, or be removed. It is a pledge not to engage in futile discussion.
Now that you've read and internalize that, I'd like you to read WP:AGF. Please do not, ever, accuse people of acting in bad faith after they have contributed all of four comments. Your behavior is unbecoming a Wikipedian - even worse, an admin. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Self-reflection is always a good thing. So is shutting up when you realize that everything that could be said in a discussion has been said many times over. :-) I don't see Hipocrite's pledge as likely to get any traction, but neither is it a bad thing, or something to assume bad faith over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sarek! You're of course always welcome here, you should visit more often. ;) I might agree with you had Hipocrite's proposal not used the word "Shun" or involved ignoring others as a "pledge". I can't imagine a scenario where that would be considered a "good intention." Has the issue fallen to beating a dead horse? Yeah. That doesn't mean there isnt a chance that a new idea, criticism, or proposal might spring up within 6 months. The difference between Hipocrit's proposal and Olive's proposal is that Olive's involved restricting oneself, Hipocrite's involves restricting others.--v/r - TP23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
While I had the same reaction as you to the word "shun", I think we might be taking it too seriously. Either way, I'm not sure how you can say that Olive's involved restricting oneself, rather than others, when the basis of the proposal was to not let anyone put an image at the top for 6 months (or whatever). Gotta run, bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that perspective. Having considered it now, though, I still have to disagree. Olive's may involve removing the image for six months, but it doesnt have to do with silencing others. If, and this is a long if because I'll admit that discussion hasn't gone anywhere, someone were to come along with a radical new proposal that changes everyone's perspective and the community can come to a unanimous consensus than the image could be restored prior to six months. Self imposed restrictions can be self-unimposed. Hipocrit's proposal would silence anyone with any idea whether new or old for six months with no opportunity for a change in consensus. I'll await your response.--v/r - TP23:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Protecting article talk pages
Hi, TParis. Earlier today I unprotected an article talk page that you had semiprotected for one month, apparently to prevent IPs from posting non-editing-related comments.
I recall that somewhere around here there is a guideline against protecting article talk pages except in extreme circumstances.
This particular instance, involving Talk:Northcentral University, pretty well illustrates why that "rule" would have been adopted. A different user had shown up and deleted some reliably sourced content from the article, claiming it wasn't true. I reverted, and left a message on the user's talk page suggesting they bring their concern to the article talk page, since that's the place where these kinds of things are supposed to be discussed. But this user isn't autoconfirmed yet, so the discussion got started on my user talk page (a totally inappropriate place to start a content discussion, but the appropriate place wasn't available). One thing leads to another, and that another leads to some other thing... To avoid these kinds of unintended consequences, let's try to keep article talk pages available for article talk -- OK? --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Before protecting, I consulted WP:SEMI where it says "In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are...Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions." I took the latter part into consideration but considered the libeous edits worth a month of semi protection. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not going to run back and reapply it; but then let's both keep an eye on it, ok?--v/r - TP02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe several years of editing articles about educational institutions with bad reputations has given me a thick skin, but I have to say that I find nothing particularly unusual about the content that was posted on that talk page. Similar stuff -- and worse -- gets added to article pages on a rather frequent basis. Defamatory content is more damaging in articles than on talk pages, so when that kind of content is added to articles, it gets removed pretty quickly. Additionally, if it's added repeatedly the articles do get protected, but 10 edits by ~8 different IPs over a 3-week period is not, as a general rule, enough "persistent vandalism" to get an article page semi-protected at WP:RFPP. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Meh, well like I said, I'm not running back to restore the protection and I dont generally hang out at WP:RFPP. Your concern is noted though, I'll keep it in mind in the future.--v/r - TP04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding this to mean that you were strategically attempting to get other editors to lose their cool? Does that include me? Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I was being less than polite edging on uncivil, but I wouldn't say I was being any kind of 'strategic'. That would imply I was trying to get either of you banned or otherwise admonished, which I was not, or was trying to 'win' by frustrating you guys into oblivion, again which I was not. I felt your responses were borderline ridiculous and I was replying in kind.--v/r - TP16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You wrote "I made several comments to ... cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate." Are you saying your goal was not strategic, or not designed to get other editors to lose their cool? Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I mean exactly what I said. I don't want HiLo to be unfairly judged for my poor behavior. You should not read into it anymore than that.--v/r - TP17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
2 months ago the Daily Mail, the 2nd biggest news website in the world called Tyler Shields "hollywood's hottest photographer' and artinfo.com called him "hollywood's hottest and most twisted photographer". It's easy to find those articles on the web. This month British GQ put him in te Best 100 Things in the World, bit that's not available on the web yet.
I should've made a comment earlier, but I got sidetracked. I've restored the article and added some of the sources you mention.--v/r - TP20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Re your question at AiV
Sorry I missed your question earlier. Pé de Chinelo's m.o. is to change genres on film articles against consensus, and to edit-war over these issues until he is finally blocked. In the last 48 hours or so, he has been back in a big way, in some cases, simply vandalizing film articles by deliberately adding false information, in other cases, as above, altering genres to fit his personal opinions. He is also vicious when it comes to personal attacks, and does not like being contradicted. MarnetteD can give you more background on the situation. The current rash of edits are in the IP range Pé de Chinelo has used in the past, and the edits match his history. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive04:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Request for a copy of the text of a deleted article
I see that you closed the Robert Florence AFD. I don't know whether you noticed, but I had made a request during that AFD to see the deleted content that had been at this article:
As a matter of fact, I levied the block for 1 week; I would have levied the block in seconds instead of weeks, but I didn't think of it until I was in the middle of leaving the block template :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflicts. I kept having 1 more thing to say and I guess it ended up being three more things. It appears this is a case of WP:IDHT.--v/r - TP19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in. But as you can see from the article history, it is another IP which started adding this to the article and behaved in a remarkable similar vein to the IP you just blocked. One could perhaps expect this to be a case of IP-hopping or socking, and that another IP will return as soon as this one is blocked. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I did see that, but it's only two IPs and one is stale. We'll see how this goes. If more IPs show up then we can semi.--v/r - TP16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Bullying hurts and has a great effect on us all
i dont understand why many ppl go on an article but well have you read the letter i have wrote to defend my article.if you dont have i can repost and im french sry if i dont be protoclar in my talking my englich not enough good for that.
k so if i can prove or sustain the death of Marjorie Raymond have provoke a massive change in the perception of bullying in Quebec and thats the case. did that become signifiant to be added in an existing bullying article if i bring strong proof of massive mediatisation that the intimidation on school of Quebec wont be tolerated no more and the fact people now cannot deny her children suffer in school.
Plz tell me did direction school official response to the movement in process is a signinificant piece.if yes i gonna try to found and submit to you. december 2011 the 5 Dreamofpeaceinschool tks in advance
I suggest you bring it to Talk:Bullying and discuss the matter there. Be sure you do not post your essay there and make sure you address changes to the article or your essays will be removed.--v/r - TP20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
K so tks for your time i gonna sleep alittle and do. and i gonna present the adds like an adds not like an article have a anice days let me 2 second to copy this before delete tks
Dreamofpeaceinschool 5 december2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamofpeaceinschool (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the article is a mess. But issues are addressable even if so far unaddressed.. and no matter the article's lack, multiple sources are available showing the topic notable per WP:NF and WP:GNG. I'll report back and request a withdrawal once I address some. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and withdrawn already. Plenty of sources have been provided. I dont need to wait for it to improve to admit I'm wrong.--v/r - TP23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
At the DRV, you wrote: "I find that the 'keep deleted' !voters did not address the Atlantic story from after the AFD at all". Because the Atlantic story was mentioned after the AfD, the AfD close wasn't incorrect at the time. I feel that "Deletion closure vacated" is more accurate because it doesn't imply the AfD close was wrong. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I am writing to you regarding your closure of the the Body Sensor Networks topic on the DRV discussion.
As I was in the process of gathering references and editing the page, the Body Sensor Network page was deleted and redirected to Body Area Network. Since I was tied up with other matters, most of the new information was not yet provided in the AFD discussion before it was closed. As posted in the DRV discussion, we have shown much information to highlight and support the argument of keeping the BSN page, and the editors who joined the DRV discussion seem to agree. Although it did not seems to be any consensus, the editors participated in the discussion either suggested relist or reverse redirect. Since Body Sensor Network (BSN) is a specialised topic, this could be the reason why there are less participant in the discussion.
Since I have provided new information, I would like to ask for the topic to be relisted at an appropriate forum for further discussion rather than just close the discussion. Could you please advise what would be an appropriate action I should do further to keep this page? (Airuko (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC))
You just deleted the 3dchat article I tried to start, stating it was (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) but it's not any of the above, it's a downloadable virtual world just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imvu with over 150,000 current members. I don't understand this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read both of those link you provided and modeled my article format of the first paragraph of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life I do not see how this is promotional at all. It's descriptive of the 3dchat software system and virtual world without links or advertising of any sort, just facts. As a member of both Second Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life IMVU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMVU and 3Dchat I do not see why 3Dchat should not be listed here just like them and allowd by other users to expand on. I'm a Moderator for a few different virtual worlds and I get people asking me all the time where they can read about 3Dchat with an unbiased article and wikipedia should be the place for this. I also have plans to update this article with 3Dchats history, system requirements and other useful info. I have emails into there corporate office to verify the data before I was going to add it. What can I do now? Please look at the other virtual worlds pages and let me know how my article is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I've userfied the article to User:Workmuch/3dchat. Incorporate those sources into the articles, using inline citations and the {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates. Read the guide to layout and then come back here and we'll see what else is left to get it ready to move back to article space.--v/r - TP20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a start, but not at all up to snuff yet. You need more third party sources, like the ones you linked above. Read those articles you linked me to, find material that is relevant to an encyclopedia, include it, and cite the source. Make sure not to do a copy/paste, you need to rewrite it in your own words.--v/r - TP15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I think I have gotten the page to a good start, still waiting on some more information from there corporate office and looking for more articles. Is this good enough to get pushed live and then others and myself can add more when the research is back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's really not. The article is heavily promotional still. Look, in [17] article you're given some really cool information that I dont know why you havent used. For example, 3dchat uses identity verification service to ensure user's gender and age. It also provides a 3D dating service. There is a whole paragraph on the company that developed it. This is the kind of content Wikipedia covers. The "vitual world" itself is of little importance. Details about the software are what is important. Do you get what I mean?--v/r - TP19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You're still so far off. You need to delete 80% of what you have. Take another look at Second Life. Notice the tone of the article. The article you've written is very much written like an advertisement. You initially wrote things like "You can sign up for free and you get 3d chat dollars." This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide or a fansite. Write about the facts that you see in third party independent sources. Don't write about how fun the game is, how you play, what you can do, or what not. Write the article from a detached perspective. Imagine you've never played the game, have no interest in playing it, and you just want to write a fact sheet about details of it's development, income, marketing strategy, ect ect.--v/r - TP20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And " 3dchat as it's relatively new" may be the answer to your question about why SecondLife has a Wikipedia article and 3dchat doesn't. Keep trying but keep in mind that there is a chance that you may not be able to meet the inclusion criteria yet. You may need to wait a year or two and see if 3dchat gets more attention from independent media.--v/r - TP21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yea there office said more information should be rolling out soon as there doing a big marketing push this week. You would think after 3 years and with over 150k members there would be more information on the web. I will continue my quest for info tomorrow, have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Made some changes today, not much more added but I re-wrote what was already there to make it sound better and have the same "tone" as other articles I researched on here. I should be getting more info/web articles in the next week to add more content to this article. Can you check it out really quick and let me know if I'm back on the right track? Again thanks for your help, my goal is the same as yours.. To get the best possible information written in the correct way/format for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this - but note that the complaint was brought by Luciferwildcat, not Purplebackpack. I think Lucifer should be the one dropping the stick, yes? Or did I misinterpret your close? Thanks, UltraExactZZSaid~ Did15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a place to register the stalking behavior engaged in by Purplebackpack89 yesterday due to your having shut down the ANI report on him just 8 hours after the open. Wikipedia is a global entity and it seems unreasonable for someone to sit glued to the monitor around the clock. You're welcome to check out the history of my talk page for his behavior, if you are interested. I'll leave aside his seeking out a page I was working on with a CONSTRUCTION banner clearly indicated and dropping a ONE SOURCE banner on top of it since it is technically correct in that case. But it is indeed indicative of stalking behavior. Just so you know. Best regards. —Tim. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to make an accusation of wikistalking on an editor, they should either provide the diffs or wait until the person with the diffs is available to corroborate their story. No action was going to be taken in the thread, and if it had continued then Luciferwildcat would've continued to receive a community lashing for unsupported accusations and it wouldn't have been good for their own morale and we could've potentially lost them as an editor. There wasn't a reason to keep it open. Now, if you'd like to start a new thread involving Wikistalking and you have the diffs to back it up then be my guest.--v/r - TP19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
And any discussion of WikiStalking shouldn't take place on TParis' page. It should take place on ANI, my page, or Carrite's page (although Carrite apparantly is deadset on removing content he doesn't want on his page) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should just avoid Carrite's page then? Then we wouldn't have any problem of wikistalking: real or alledged.--v/r - TP20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If he doesn't want to talk about it, shouldn't he refrain from posting about it on your page and other people's pages, then? (For the record, there have been previous ANI threads about Carrite trying to shift discussions away from his talk page when in all rights that's where they belonged) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. If he doesn't want to interact with you and removes your posts on his talk page, he can do that. If he wants to make an ANI thread because he feels you've been stalking him, he can do that. You know the best way forward from here? Move on.--v/r - TP20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
You didn't exactly answer my question. My question was, "Why is a discussion between two editors (me and him) happening on a third editor's talk page? Shouldn't it be happening instead on editor 1 or 2's talk page, or in a community forum?" I'm more than willing to drop the matter, but he is bringing it up on 3rd and 4th editor's pages Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I did give you an answer. The answer was that it doesn't matter, just move on. When you linger on these trivial matters, that's what creates drama. Consider me a no-drama zone. I don't pick sides, I cut to the heart of the matter.--v/r - TP20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If you want to criticize Carrite, you should focus on the likely fact that he is a Beavers fan and they got beat by the Ducks a week or so ago.--v/r - TP20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Very sensible advice there, you wouldn't have lost me as an editor but I was frustrated by the peanut gallery. I think the best course however would have been to allow it up for at least 24 hours, it doesn't hurt anything to discuss an issue like that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
One problem there, TP...my family's always been Beavers fans. My dad was born early because my grandma jumped up and down too much at the 1946 Civil War game Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈23:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not a problem, that's just another poor soul for me to torment. In all fairness, half of my family live on Corvallis and half live in Eugene. I actually live in Texas but I grew up in Eugene.--v/r - TP00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments in the here|ANI debate, I am willing and prepared to address all issues of potential copyright violations within my edits. Unfortunately I operate in a different time zone to Cúchullain and therefore am not in a position to immediately respond to his requests. I didn't realise that he had only given me 14 minutes to respond. I am not a full-time wiki-editor and therefore can not respond immediately to every request. I can only edit when it doesn't interfer with my normal life. I do feel a little out of my depth with this debate. All I can reiterate is that it was never my intention to plagarise other articles and that I am more than prepared, given a little time, to address any concerns raised. I am posting this here as I am not certain whether I have a right to reply on the ongoing ANI debate. Dan arndt (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You absolutely have a right to reply in the ANI discussion. If I were you, I'd let them know that you intend to reread Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT and then go through each of your articles and check the attributed sources to ensure you've properly rephrased the ideas in your own words.--v/r - TP14:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
DRV
[18], I'd point out the the DRV had new evidence that the two topics were separate. I'd ask at least for a relist for wider input. Otherwise we are stuck with low attendance at DRV resulting in things not being changed even in the face of new evidence. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The AFD was open 2 days longer than it was supposed to be and the DRV was open an extra 4 days. There was opportunity for plenty of discussion and indeed there have been participants in other discussions. As far as I can tell, there just isnt any support to overturn and I can't make that decision on 2 editors (3 with nom but he's a SPA) disagreeing. When it comes down to you, Chick Bowen, and Stuartyeates there is no consensus to overturn. What I'd suggest is that Airuko (or you) create an article in userspace with the new sources and then bring it to WP:DRV again. You would probably get a better result. Hell, if you used the new sources and then put it back in article space, that'd be enough to avoid a G4 anyhow.--v/r - TP23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Humm, all three felt the article should be restored in some sense. And I don't understand how you can give more weight to the AfD when it lacked the sources in the DRV. So local consensus is clear (3 for 3 to restore in some sense) and the old consensus is now clearly flawed. If you treat the nom as an SPA I guess I can see it though. I just don't like seeing an unopposed undeletion request being turned down. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello TParis,
I would really love to have you're experience and guidance for my latest article on an individual by the name of Kenny Tick Salcido of the Latch Brothers . I really feel he is relevant to what the subject of the Latch Brothers are and on further discovery, I found more relevance and ties to other artists as in Beastie Boys, Wiz Khalifa, Grand Royal Records, etc. I understand this is my second article, my first being approved and now this article up for debate. I am sure a tremendous amount of time and energy that must go in to maintain quality control and I am all about hardwork and dedication to be a better author and contributor. I really need help with my format in cleaning the article, could you help?
I started the article off wrong but upon my fixes ie, mentioning Latch Brothers first and his association I feel it truly flows.
I do feel this person's web of music artists and their relevancy as well as most of them being Wiki inductees, made me feel very passionate in contributing a solid article on an individual who will continue to have a story grow, and others will contribute. I have family in military so I was psyched when I saw the profile.
Thank you for you're time and excuse my inexperience as a wiki contributor, I will be better at this.
Sincerely,
Kurt Nardone
Kurtnardone (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kurt - Wikipedia bases all of its information on [third-party independentsources. If you want the Kenny Tick Salcido article to stick, you need to prove the subject meets one of these guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSICBIO. If the subject of an article meets one of these criteria, then you need to prove it using published sources. They don't have to be online, they can be in magazines, books, journals, ect ect. But you need these sources to establish notability. Often times we hear "Well it's hard to find these sources" or "there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of him". These issues are usually a indication that the subject of an article doesn't yet meet our notability guidelines. Our guidelines are based on lasting notability. We're building an encyclopedia that should be relevant to an audience in 100 years from now.
You can't just have a list of links at the bottom of the article either. They must use inline citations. Check Britney Spears to see what a music bio should look like. You need to use the {{cite}} template. Also, you can't use Wikipedia or IMDb as a source; neither meets our reliable sources policy. Hope this helps.--v/r - TP14:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Afaria
Hi there,
I'm the third user who would like to create a page for the software product Afaria. Previously it was deleted (twice) for lack of notability, and for reading like an advertisement. I have made significant edits to the article, adding historical information and references that I believe establish notability and maintain neutrality; I'm ready to try posting again. When I made the request to create a new page, the content there directed me here to contact the deleting editor. Part of the deletion discussion included concerns about sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. The two users who previously tried to post the page are not the same person, but do know each other, and I know both of them. All three of us are engaged in some kind of employment for Sybase, the maker of Afaria. We've read the information about editing with a conflict of interest, made adjustments based on that, and would like to give it another go. Please let me know if I should do anything further to clear up that issue before I proceed. Thanks. MC Wapiti (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the last version of the article and moved it to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Afaria. You can make changes to the article there. You'll need to improve the article with third-party independentreliable sources that significantly cover the article to establish notability. When the article is ready, change {{AFC submission|T}} to just {{AFC submission}}. A user who is not affiliated with Sybase will review the article for neutrality and notability and move it into article space if it meets our guidelines.--v/r - TP23:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess I can never win in ANI. I report sockpuppets attacking me with help from MichaelQSchmidt, I fail and run away to a new account because of fear. When I report people cussing at me and others, I am told to chill out. I don't even know what is acceptable for ANI anymore. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I don't think anyone does. I had the same issue where I was called a father-rapist. I took it as I was a father who rapes but apparently the person intended it to mean I rape my father. Either way, I felt being called a rapist deserved some attention at ANI. ANI didn't think so.--v/r - TP04:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the trouble that I caused. I am thick headed because of what happened as Schuym1. An admin even said that I was sexually attracted to feces. I mostly just let people walk all over me because of failing to get across my own points. SL93 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if it help, I understand where you are coming from but I firmly believe you've taken WP:IAR out of context. Just keep doing what you've been doing minus the warring and you'll be alright.--v/r - TP04:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
You deleted my topic mej.org.uk.
This discusses the important subject of Thrombocythaemia, a blood condition which I have had for 15 years. It is life threatening, so I believe it to be a valid topic for wikipedia.
It points to my website, which has listed my many efforts to control this without the use of medicines. It also links to my discussion forum, which provides vital support to those diagnosed, and are sometimes very scared of the potential outcomes.
Please reconsider this decision, as there are many more people being diagnosed who need the kind of support provided by my websites.
Markejon (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, TParis, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support --Orekhova (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
After seeing this, I looked at the close and I wholeheartedly agree. You explained your argument very well and I hope nobody minds if I endorse this barnstar.RyanVeseyReview me!19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Djathinkimacowboy, who you blocked for creating an attack page that was directed my way, for whatever reason seems to be incapable of leaving me out of his constant drama with (INSERT EDITOR'S NAME HERE). Most recently with these statements [19]. Mike's user space has been on my watchlist for a while, so I responded to being dragged into more of Cowboy's nonsense. My response was here. [20] This guy must have a screw loose or something as he seems not to understand that A) we have nothing further to discuss, B) his constant comments on my talk space are harassing, creepy, and completely pointless, and C) he is on a collision course with getting another block to prevent yet another needless war of words over absolute nonsense. FWIW, I'm going to go have a beer and deal with it tomorrow if someone else doesn't. Erikeltic(Talk)02:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Still needs work. Ref 1 is good, Ref 2 is a press release and can't be used to determine notability, Ref 3 and 4 come directly from a company that is financially invested so it cant be used to determine notability, I cant check Ref 5 but that is probably a fault of my computer, Ref 6 is 'ok' but says almost nothing about the software itself, and Ref 7 comes from 3dchat's website. I'd say you still need another or two independent reliable sources. I don't want to move this back into article space only to see it deleted again.--v/r - TP19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok I have added a few new notable references and removed the 3dchat.comm and PR ones. I left (the new) ref3 as it just shows the other work Golem has worked on, as background to there history. Let me know how it's looking I think were pretty close if not already there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if we can get this to go live under "3dchat", I just worked out the license for the logo with the OTRS permissions department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workmuch (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked at it. It needs some tweaking. I'm going to make some changes in the next few days when I get a minute.--v/r - TP04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Good afternoon, just checking in. Wanted to see what else I had to do to get this live or if you had any suggestions. Thanks in advance for your help.
You asked me a question on ANI
Hi. Your question was probably rhetorical, but in case you really wanted to know what made me think Risker might not be aware Orangemartin was being discussed on ANI: it was the way she spoke to him here. She gave him a block reason that was all about a ten-days-old post on his own talkpage, and it seemed to me that if she had seen some of his ANI posts, she would likely have said more. But what do I know. I merely thought there was a certain risk she didn't know about the ANI uproar. Probably she did. Bishonen | talk22:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
Alright, I can see that perspective. Although maybe she only saw the redacted comments. Had I done the block, I would've used the more recent PAs.--v/r - TP23:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI
You might want to keep a tab on this, your comments along with mine were moved. I have given a clear explanation of the scenario and asked Ed, if some one would put the comments back where they belong since I'm keeping out of editwar here. Incase you (request some one or on your own) move them to their original position move the follow ups with it. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to wait until someone sets JCAla straight before doing anything there. I'd rather just walk away than stress over this guy. He won't last long. His comments toward you and I certainly arn't blockable, but he is certainly putting his train on that track and it's just a matter of time. The more he says them, the more he will feel confident in his ability to make accusations against others and at some point he'll cross the line and he'll find himself blocked. At that time, we can hold a civil discussion with anyone interested in discussing the meat of the matter instead of discussing the motives of the people involved.--v/r - TP15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Right. I had similar thoughts.. and advised the same by another experienced editor. In anycase, I don't really have POV here, my aims for opposing the word military were to tone down the many details he was adding and biasing the content. There is no point on going through this over a single word. I'll leave an 'oppose' in the new section and let the consensus decide it. So much discussion and so less work, something like BRDDDDDD... as a page states. Thanks for getting involved in the first place. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You protected Time in Portugal back in October, with the reason "For review at WP:DRV". The deletion review closed in favour of keeping the article. As a result, having the article still under indefinite full protection seems a bit excessive. Do you think you could unprotect it? Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk)06:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Good morning. I came back from a short break to see AfD seriously backlogged. If you are willing, I'd like you to look over my edits today and see if my non-admin "no consensus" and "merge" closes looked correct. Please inspect my shoddy merge work and either provide me feedback, or fix the problems with the tagging yourself. Any help you could provide as to my education would be appreciated. Seeing the need for closers, I'd like to put myself forward for the mop, and I want to swim in this stuff a bit more first. Thanks even if you choose not to participate. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I've had a couple of editors look over my body of work and they seem encouraged with the likelihood of a successful approach to service. But I still find myself doing unfamiliar things. Any feedback at all would be useful. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I know it was a month or so ago, but I probably would've closed [one] as keep. I saw another one from today that you closed a no consensus that I would've also closed as keep but your no consensus rationale was fine. I dont think anyone would've been upset over it.--v/r - TP14:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the notification. I'm not really party to it, I've had very little interaction with Direktor aside from the issues involving Timbouctou.--v/r - TP01:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You closed this AfD as 'delete', which is your perogative as the closing admin, basing your judgement on the opinions given. I had been expecting a relisting or 'no consensus', but these things are not always so predictable. I would have no problem with the outcome, except for one thing: you attribute the deletion rationale to a comment I made, when I was supporting that the article be kept, not deleted. As was clear in my comment (I believe) "it is common for established artists to come together" was, in context, meaning "it is an established principal" (that we cover such bands), not that this is run of the mill (and we do not). So it seems you may have misunderstood me, in which case I would ask you to re-review it, or you are possibly deliberately mis-representing me in which case I would ask you to change the wording you used. Thank you. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I read your support as an inadvertent rationale supporting delete. I read it as "it happens all the time" which made me think such an event is common and unremarkable. You said "there is no established principal that we ignore it" but you didn't provide a reason that this particular ensemble was notable in it's own right. I may have misunderstood what you meant by that line, and I sort of think I still do. I don't see how that line meant "it is an established principal". Mind clarifying?--v/r - TP19:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That particular comment was in direct response to the (weak, I thought) deletion rationale "Two solo artists making one record together does not establish a duo" - I indicated the fallacy of that by showing there are many established counter-examples. Note the important distinction - I was not saying there is an established principal that we do have such articles, rather that there is no established principal that we do not - which was the only argument being put forward for deletion at that point. You will see that as the discussion ensued I additionally pointed out that WP:BAND #2 is met, which is the reason this particular ensemble is (IMO) notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Intellum, Inc.. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Medra42 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
First off, it's not your article; once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article, and it be edited in any way deemed fit within our guidelines and common sense. Second, we can't read your mind as to whether or not you would like a userspace copy to work on, so coming off and bashing him for not doing so right away when you gave no indication whatsoever that you wanted one is not very appropriate. Finally, it helps in the future with communication if you're a little nicer in tone; you'll find that more people are willing to be nice back if you are nice. That is all, –MuZemike02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about my tone. I just wanted like a PDF version of it. I may repost it on a video game wiki. Do you mind if that happens? The Pikachu Who Dared (talk / contribs)22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I could email it to you if you are the sole significant contributor to the article, but you don't have an email address assigned to your account.--v/r - TP22:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The AfD for the The Gatehouse Mystery closed as merge to the Trixie Belden article, which I have performed. As a non-administrator, I'm unable to do the history merge to the Trixie Belden article. As you closed the Gatehouse Mystery article in AfD, I respectfully request your assistance to perform the History merge. Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk)17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
History merges are only done when there is a parallel history because someone has copy/pasted an article and then worked on it. For normal merges, the edit summary you've left in this diff suffices to provide the right attribution. We'll leave The Gatehouse Mystery article's history available for attribution by not deleting it. I've left a note on the source article that it not be deleted.--v/r - TP18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
recent close
moving from yr admin review, which i thought was a subpage of your talk:
Actually, the nominator !voted to delete it. Also, any AFD can be closed after 7 days despite a relist.--v/r - TP13:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The nominator !voted to delete the article history? yeah good one. Any AFD can be closed, but preferably not terribly. You're not into justifying your actions, ok. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What made you decide Hold Fast isn't noteworthy? Are you connected to the sailing community at all? It's insanely popular, and people actually organize real-world meetups based on it. There are actually ~100 people sailing down to Guatemala right now for a meetup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.102.243.225 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't make the decision. Two other editors agreed it should be deleted with no opposition. See WP:PROD. My job is just to carry out the consensus of others. However, what made the others decide it wasn't noteworthy was that our criteria for films is WP:NF. Read that guideline and perhaps you'll have a better understanding.--v/r - TP14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Illyriad
Hello,
You closed the deletion topic for the advertisement article Illyriad without counting my vote. May I ask why?
Because your comment wasn't a valid delete rationale. See Wikipedia:ATA#Poorly_written_article. Articles written like an advertisement can be rewritten. When you are discussing a deletion rationale, it's best to focus on our inclusion criteria and explaining why it doesn't meet any of them.--v/r - TP14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It was actually per WP:SNOW, I should've said that. The subject was a Major General and we generally (no pun intended) include all general officers. However, since WP:MILPEOPLE is only an essay, I suppose I'll reopen it.--v/r - TP14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Given your occupation and familiarity with WP, I would encourage you to join the debate, even if to argue on the other side from myself. The dominant "keep" argument seems to boil down to "generals are notable because they are", and I think the question merits something a bit meatier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not create this page but it was pretty cool to have, and I have referenced it on my electronic press kit, etc. Your main argument seems to be that I am too obscure to be included. I have chosen to remain an independent artist, refusing deals from Virgin Records and Sony Distribution, amongst others. Much of my track record has now disappeared due to the nature of the internet and my choice to remain independent, and this deletion of my Wikipedia page is a harsh blow on top of it all. I've put a lot of time and energy into my career, and many notable abstract hip hop artists will agree that I've played an important role in the genre, from my past label, Motion Recordings, to a one-thriving online community called The Motherboard, and now my current incarnations as Magical Bass and DJ 0.000001. I recently executive-produced a compilation entitled Occupy International, featuring many notable artists including Dead Prez, and I continue to put out releases regularly, under a variety of monikers. But it is hard to prove my worth to promoters, media, etc. when my history is constantly erased from the web. The fact that I have changed my stage names and created numerous alter-egos, some names being common English terms (such as "The Mole"), may confuse the issue, but I think that a few Google searches for my past and present titles will prove that I've been very active and influential in the underground hip hop and abstract hip hop scenes. You could search for "The Mole Whirlwind World", "Th' Mole", "DJ 0.000001", or "Magical Bass" to name a few. Thank you very, very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jonah Mociun, AKA The Mole, AKA Th' Mole, AKA DJ 0.000001, AKA DJ 0.0001, AKA Turbo Punx, AKA Captain Daydream, AKA DJ 1 Billionth, of Magical Bass, The Motherboard, Motion Recordings, New Cocoon, Fresh yO!, Anti-Party Music, Hectic Records (AKA Hectic Recs), Daly City Records, We Are Disco Doom Revenge, and Occupy International — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.222.45 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Jonah - I understand your concerns that there is systematic bias against independant artists. I'm sorry but there isn't a whole lot I can do to help you except give you the tools to help yourself. Wikipedia has guidelines on what is considered notable. To take the matter of ambiguous personal opinions out of the equation, we've created this guideline. I see you've suggested search terms, but you've probably done a little bit of accumilation of media coverage of yourself over the years. If you can identify sources in published media, I'd be happy to reconsider the deletion. I need to see multiple sources that have no connection to you and are published through an editorial process (like the news). Promos, press releases, mentions on the websites of venues, ect ect won't do it because they are financially invested in you. Has to be completely independent. Good luck.--v/r - TP18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for being receptive. I've compiled a list of published articles focused on Th' Mole and/or DJ 0.000001, on sites that have no connection to me. As I said, some of my more notable articles are no longer online, and I can probably dig up more that are online, but hopefully this is enough for you.
Jonah - I'm going to need time to review all of these. I'll let you know if they are acceptable or not. If they arn't, I'll try to explain why.--v/r - TP23:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Feedback on the essay
Hey man,
You have definitely been beavering away. Kudos. My thoughts:
1. Try to make the tone even more man to man and less Wiki like. This is for the bewildered newbie
2. I think the first, most baffling thing to the newbies is not our numbers of policies. It is the mechanics of editing here. The policies come more in when the newbie gets PRODed or has textbox turds dropped onto his article in minutes of making it.
3. The sections should be in a different order. Most important stuff for a newbie first. IAR can come later (actually I would just leave it out. It is really not "true". It's more a saying than a truth. Like "Admin is no big deal". I think it is confusing. Let them think about it later..not as a newbie.) I think "be bold" is the important thing. Not IAR. Let them know that they won't break the Wiki and the only way to learn is to try.
4. One of the easiest ways to learn to use the Wiki is to open a page in edit mode and see how what text produces formatting or inserts a picture. One can do a lot by just copy-pasting. Really...I still use that, when I see something nifty. But a newbie wanting to do an image for the first time...that is how he can do it easy.
5. We should advise against making a new page as the first step. The easiest first step is copyediting typos. At least it teaches them to open the page and save it and feel like they did something. Next easiest is to add pieces of info to an existing article. We should also advise against making edits to GA (plus sign) or FA (star) articles. They are already fairly good and it is better to work on the many, many articles below that. More forgiving for a newbie. Also advise against controversial articles while starting out.
6. We should tout the help desk (I use it lately and it rocks even for a veteran). We should "keep it real" by mentioning not good sources of help (dead projects for instance).
7. Addressing notability is important and should be included here. I would keep it relevant still (not your high school teacher).
8. We should emphasize that the thing wiki needs most is content. Sourced content. People can/will fix the formatting and newbies will learn that over time...but sourced content is value add. And they don't need to learn how to make the reference look pretty (that will come later or other people can help). I think for a newbie, a bare URL is fine, for instance.
9. I think a different title would be helpful. Simplified instructions for getting started.
Awesome upgrades. It shows a kind heart and a willingness to talk in real world language for the newbie. I would totally leave a link to this essay for newbies, I was greeting. Kudos.TCO (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Basinet in light of two factors: several of the votes were from sockpuppets, and Nobel Prizes nominations are sealed for 50 years from the date of nomination, so there is no way any such claim can be substantiated (despite what the press releases used to source the article may state). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can give me a good reason why Carrite's improvements and the two subsequent keep !votes are invalid, I might be willing to close it as a procedural keep so it can be relisted without the socking.--v/r - TP22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Carrite has never edited that article. I have explained above why the "Nobel Prize Nominee" claim offered by Carrite in the AfD is nonsense. If that isn't enough for you, I will take it to DRV, but I thought I would ask here first. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
El duderino at AN/I
Are you aware that El duderino has restored that which you removed from his talk page and has been continually refactoring comments and the header at the AN/I report involving him? (talk→LesHB←track) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not wrong. Putting them where I did had nothing to do with you, and certainly nothing to do with "crowd[ing] out" your responses. El duderino continues to refactor the original header and move my responses where I did not originally place them. (talk→LesHB←track) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Your comments regarding the merge of cave infoboxes
Howdy there. I read your comments regarding coordinates on cave infoboxes. I would have responded, but it was closed before I had a chance. Your analogies to Tiananmen Square and the Iraq war were very gross exaggerations and more importantly, too Human centric to be properly analogous. Sure it could be viewed as censorship for humans, but this isn't just about humans. Remember you share the world with other lifeforms who can't tell you on Wikipedia that they'd like to be left alone in their cave homes (which is what coordinates disrupt). Regarding censorship, if someone posted coordinates for your privately owned cave, that would be analogous to someone posting your home street address on the internet. Coordinates are routinely and predominantly used for visitation among the general public. I'm sure you can understand that this causes cases of trespassing from visitors who use sites like Geocaching.com and Wikipedia after someone willy nilly posts coordinates to something they know very little about. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had an article explaining how hot-wiring a car worked and someone hot wired a car and stole it; is Wikipedia to blame or are the actions of an individual the responsibility of that individual alone? Wikipedia's purpose and goal is to be an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia were to censor this information, it would only make a legitimate case for others who want to censor more serious information such as what I've compared the situation to. If we allow censoring some information, than we'd have to allow censoring all information. Keep in mind though that WP:VERIFY could come into play to still protect these caves. If information is not already published (ie. verifiable), than it could be removed. But as I said, Wikipedia is not to blame for the actions of others. Stronger laws to protect caves may be needed and perhaps the private owners should (continue) to press trespassing charges. However, deliberately not publishing the coordinates is effectively using Wikipedia to support a cause (protecting the caves) and to censor information sensetive to a particular group.
Bottom line: Wikipedia does not have to play by the de facto rules that an inner circle of US cavers have developed as a culture.--v/r - TP21:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concern. But you are making some more wild analogies (I also see that Wikipedia strangely doesn't show a detailed how to guide on hot-wiring a car). At the encyclopedic level, coordinates are in excess of the definition of "encyclopedia." Encyclopedias are not considered academic nor are they sources for esteemed information. Yes, Wikipedia has to be responsible for the content it publishes, hence the sources it requires. There is a proven link between the information disseminated and how it is used by it's viewers. To suggest there is no connection is a spurious argument, much like saying Pirate Bay (a pirate torrent site) is not responsible for the content it links to, but it still remains that everything there is still ill-gained. Or another good analogy, that you posted the personal information of someone, but you weren't responsible for how it was used. The link is there and they do not operate independently of each other no matter how much you say to the contrary. Coordinates are utilized by the general public (Wikipedia's user base) for mainly visitation purposes, especially those concerning cave locations. I think that the bigger and more immersive Wikipedia gets, that the more it will have to police itself. No one is advocating that just because "such and such" has censorship, that everything else has to as well. I don't see anyone saying that we need to paint large brush strokes that affect everything across the board. Ultimately, like any trial case of law, it may have to be done on a case by case basis, especially when the role and user base of Wikipedia changes and evolves. Sometimes, there are exceptions and Wikipedia has already demonstrated that. Caves may very well be just another exception, but perhaps not in all countries, and not for all caves. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, hot-wiring a car would be a "how to guide" and that is why it is not covered. Anyway, the problem is that you are arguing Wikipedia should recognize an ethical rule adopted by a certain community that goes against Wikipedia principals. It's just not going to work. It may be the Libertarian in me speaking, but personally I believe that a website like piratebay is absolved of wrong doing if they themselves are not providing the content. It's like these websites that tell people how to commit suicide. They arnt responsible for what some numbskull does. I believe in personal responsibility. Each and every person is responsible for themselves. If someone defaces a cave, they are responsible for their actions and cannot push the blame to someone else. Wikipedia is not obligated to follow anything but the law of the US State of Florida and the laws of the United States. What you might try doing is adding a "Private/Public" option to the infobox instead to discourage folks from going into private caves. As far as the public ones, you can try advocating for strong laws against defacement. But hiding information on Wikipedia is in the interests of the cavers (for obvious good-intentioned reasons), but is not in the interests of Wikipedia. These are private servers, as are the caves, and defacing Wikipedia by removing sourced content will get you in as much trouble as you should be getting in for defacing the caves. That's just how it is. Have you tried writing an article on Cave Defacement and the impact of illegal cavers in the US? Perhaps such an article can be included in the "See Also" section of all of our cave articles; sourced of course.--v/r - TP22:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ha, that's good to know about how to guides. I am not arguing for a certain community, I am arguing for respect of culture which is much larger than a community, in this case the entire U.S caving culture. Wikipedia takes a global stance on something that just isn't global. That's one of my concerns. Wikipedia expects everyone to follow its worldwide policy; it's not the other way around (that U.S. is making Wikipedia adopt a worldwide policy used by it). By the way, I agree that removing perfectly sourced and reliable sources is not a good idea. No one is advocating that either, unless it's a private cave (see private info on living people). To address your first comments, the cause and effect of these sites is well established (especially for pirate sites). What it comes down to is policy. Do you want to be associated with criminal behavior or apart of the solution? It is also shown that people commit suicide when easier access to quick methods is attainable. Without this access, the outcome is less likely. Ultimately, we're not going to stop trespassing to privately held caves, but we would necessarily be contributing to it, if not in whole, at least in part. Again, this POV is still short-sighted. This isn't just about humans but the contents of the cave as well, whether living or not. Pro non-censorship Wikipedians may think they can dictate policy on the rest of the world and its inhabitants, but that doesn't make it the proper policy (again case by case basis, let's not paint with large brush strokes). I have not written an article on cave defacement, but enough material exists should I choose to do so. However, I don't see the point when Wikipedia would not consider it's own content pages (even when properly sourced) when enacting or enforcing policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedians may think they can dictate policy on the rest of the world and its inhabitants" - Wikipedia is privately owned. It doesn't dictate policy on the rest of the world, it dictates policy on itself. If the rest of the world choses to use it, they'll abide by the policy of the site. Would you argue that the owners of these private caves have less authority to dictate the policies of their property if it infringes on the interests of others?
It really comes down to two different private properties have conflicting interests both with worthwhile causes. Which one gets preference?--v/r - TP23:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia affects the rest of the world and is used publicly. That's the distinction. So it is a global policy, which is kind of the definition of encyclopedic. And therein is the responsibility. Private property owners are not making global policy regarding their ownership. Just the opposite, it is trying to leave itself out of the global picture and maintain some privacy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
We're still a private site. I understand your concerns, but your asking a private site intended to contain the sum of all human knowledge to delibertly not include a particular peice of information because it doesn't suit the interests of another private (physical) site. In this case, you are putting the interests of the cavers above the interests of Wikipedia; which is specifically why we have WP:COI. COI doesn't only apply to people who work at companies.--v/r - TP23:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this is great. We understand each others concerns, but now we are debating what Wikipedia is and isn't. I do see a conflict in your thinking though. You suggest in your last post that Wikipedia is the "sum" of all human knowledge. No, it's not. It's not even trying to be that. Certain things are off limits as you and I well know, and that is dictated by policy that Wikipedia chooses for itself. It has purposely chosen not to display certain things (like how-to guides as you put it) for many different reasons not the least of which is because it may be wise to do so and in its best interests. Wikipedia does suit the interests of private groups, including itself, and to name one instance, living people (see privacy issues on biographies of living people). Why such exceptions? Wikipedia may be against censorship (generally speaking), but censorship is not a one-dimensional term. It's multi-faceted, meaning good in some instances, bad in others, or mixed. Basically put, Wikipedia can't have it both ways. It can't both be "private" and pretend to be in an isolation chamber from the rest of the world, and then act contrary by posting the "sum" of all knowledge on the world. To do so, means it is inherently influencing it as well. You can't have isolation and full immersion coinciding at the same time! Privately owned, does not mean it's not privately operated. That's two different kinds of "private" which should not be confused with one another. Wikipedia is publicly operated, publicly distributed, and publicly consumed. And when you meddle in the affairs of the public, you can't claim isolationism or privacy for your defense. Much like freedom of speech in the U.S. is not always defended if that free speech impinges upon someone else's. Wikipedia is wiser than that and has made demonstrations to prove it. It can and will be done again too. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
See the first line of Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Until there is a US Federal or law in the State of Florida prohibiting the release of the coordinates, there is no legal reason not to do this (Not legal opinion). The only position you've offered is an ethical one and frankly ethics are subjective. What you propose is well-intentioned and obviously well-purposed, but from a Wikipedia-centric position it will lead to problems for Wikipedia not related to these caves down the line. The line must be drawn as no-censorship. No censorship is an objective line. Some censorship is a grey line that can be shifted. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you'll never get support for it on Wikipedia. I think the phrase is "It does the sheep no good to preach vegetarianism if the wolf is of a different mind." I might be a little off on the phrase, but the point is that when it comes to Wikipedia, editors will side with Wikipedia's goals. You're trying to enforce an ethical point that Wikipedia editor's just don't share. To Wikipedians, it's ethically responsible to share information freely.--v/r - TP19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you're right. I'm not suggesting there is a legal reason. Only the reason that Wikipedia has seen fit to censor in the past and presently for matters that it considers choice. Those reasons can be done again. Wikipedia does not have a 100% homogeneous policy towards censorship, so it is perfectly reasonable to see censorship applied elsewhere as Wikipedians see fit. Yes, I am advocating censorship on coordinates for certain cave locations, especially those held by private residences. Those reasons are obviously cultural, ethical, and privacy issues. Wikipedia may be part wolf, but it may also be part sheep, since I'm a Wikipedian too. By the way, can I be like a bear instead? Because they're omnivores and that fits my position better. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha, yes, you can be a bear if you would like. If you want to try to get this done as a policy, you're going to need an RFC somewhere other than TfD. Try the Caves Wikiproject and advertise it on the Central Community discussions.--v/r - TP19:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this and this just more of the same that User:El duderino was told not to do anymore on his talk page? (I am the "Editor B" he is referring to in the second link) Especially with this statement, "See how editor B is ignoring a fundamental policy (consensus) by invoking the absolutism of NPOV?" I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he is intentionally trying to game the system and skirt your instructions per the outcome of the AN/I from yesterday. (talk→LesHB←track) 04:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No. He was trying to find folks on WP:AN and bring their attention to that section. It's different than collecting diffs for himself.--v/r - TP13:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain...
Could you explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahabshiil as "no consensus"?
{{Afd}}s are not decided by voting, the closing admin gets to discount opinions when they think they are counter-policy, nonsensical, or bad faith. Personally, I prefer it when administrators acknowledge the arguments they discount, or offer a brief comment as to why they discounted those opinions.
It is my understanding that administrators should discount all "me too" arguments. They add nothing to the discussion, and there is an unfortunate subset of participants in the deletion fora who routinely leave nonspecific "me too" comments -- whose pattern of comments show they don't bother actually looking at the articles in question, or bother informing themselves on the underlying issues.
I thought this was a bad nomination -- as the justification offered by the nominator was not one of the justifications for deletion established by policy. Basically the nominator's argument was that the article had been altered, so it lapsed from WP:NPOV. Aren't concerns over lapses from NPOV normally supposed to be fixed not by a nominated for deletion, but by removing or rewriting those passages that lapse from neutrality. The nominator is a very experienced long term contributor. I am disappointed that they didn't return to see whether their concern had been addressed. I believe I fully addressed the concern over bias.
The casual nature of the two delete opinions, and their unwillingness or inability to be specific about passages that showed bias suggest to me they didn't really take a meaningful look at the article. This suggests to me these two opinions should have been discounted, first because the justification was counter-policy, second because they couldn't back up their opinions by pointing to specific remaining bias I strongly suspect the first contributor voicing a "delete" relied solely on the newspaper account that a PR firm introduced bias, without bothering to check to see if that bias had been corrected.
I'll get to this later today. At first glance, I don't know what was going through my mind when I closed it. And it's a bit early in the morning to tackle an AFD. For the record though, I don't count votes and you need to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've taken a look and I know why I closed it as no consensus. I read HJ Mitchell and Middayexpress's remarks and I felt that their arguments were significantly concerned with whitewashing by Bell Pottinger and I was reluctant to close an article as keep that had significant WP:COI issues. The result is the same, the article still exists.--v/r - TP22:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw the facepalm art, but the "*Allows you to pee all over your FACE.", "*BTW, my nipples are very ticklish. I am a 70 year old obese man that weighs 300 lbs." fell in the realm of offensive or disruptive material. But that's fine, it doesn't matter.--v/r - TP13:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello TParis. During my wikignoming tasks I fell upon these deletions, which I considered insufficiently explained, so I reverted them. But the editor in question has since gone on to edit war over it, refusing to explain themselves on the article talk page, all the while being extremely hostile and repeatedly making personal attacks against me (especially in their edit summaries). The editor is about to cross 3RR, but I don't particularly feel compelled to engage them in an editwar myself, so since you are an admin and most likely a much more experienced editor than me, I would please like some assistance or advice. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a SSgt in USAF Security Forces. I just wanted to know when you got promoted and why you have your Air force photo as your profile page. what do you do in the air force. how did you get to that position. How long have you been in... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.95.12 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not in Security Forces. I'm actually a computer programmer. I got in by going to my recruiter and I've been in for almost 8 years.--v/r - TP14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted page
Could you explain me why have you deleted my page about Giovanni Dürst? It's written:
(A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) The page DID indicate the importance and significance of the subject! It was about Giovanni Dürst, the drummer of White Wizzard! And I assure you that the bioghaphy of any band member is of importance for the band! The page was perfect and I want you to restore it!!! It was from reliable sources, it wasn't from copyrighted site and there were references for everything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monica borisova (talk • contribs) 18:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"the bioghaphy of any band member is of importance for the band" Exactly. The page did not indicate the importance to anyone else. Don't come back to my talk page making demands. Next time you come here, you need to have a respectful attitude and be ready to talk collaboratively.--v/r - TP20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Chip123456 again
Out of courtesy (as the admin who blocked this user four days ago) I'm letting you know that I have reported the user at WP:ANI for the exact same behaviour that brought about the block i.e. repeatedly inserting the same unsourced content to an article. Thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you were involved... the WP:POINT there has restarted with the editors there changing the settled sentence without consensus. They've also called an RFC after getting no consensus at NPOVN, talk and DRN - notifying you as an involved editor. --lTopGunl (talk)13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added a proposal to keep the contention and editwarring to a minimum at the article. Can you advise if this needs a separate RFC, to be transcluded to ANI or somewhere else to form enough consensus to take affect or fail. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk)17:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
TP I just looked over the comments in the RFC so far, I think you have misunderstood my intent. The RFC is should we mention military support in the article, not in the lede. Sorry if I have created confusion here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a question concerning this block. This is either a new user or a previously banned one. If the former, then someone should take the time to explain the rules rather than come down hard on it like that. When I first started editing, someone (from ArbCom no less) accused me of being a sock puppet and I had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Why was the guy concerned with socks? (as in the kind you put on your feet), I thought. Well that was indoctrination by fire. Seems to me that this account should be politely informed of the rules before getting the most severe sanction. Now if it is a sock, then perform a CU but my guess is that its a new account that is completely unfamiliar with the rules. Can you unblock it? There is no harm in doing so and if it continues the "disruption" then you can re-block. I don't think that is too much to ask.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Later this evening, I'll ask WP:AN for a block review. Watching the Oregon-Wisconsin game right now though.--v/r - TP00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, I've taken a look here at TParis's request, and this looks like your run-of-the-mill vandalism only account to me; it's just one that happens to be focusing on Israel/Palestine articles. The mass blankings alone, especially on such a rapid scale, are block worthy. This does not appear to be a case where explaining the rules would be beneficial; the user seems very intent on disrupting rather than supporting the encyclopedia.
Since TParis has designated this as an arbitration enforcement block, any appeals do need to be directed to the Arbitration Committee, however I am not sure that third-party appeals of this sort are necessarily recognized. Nonetheless, you can email us at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if you are unsatisfied with this response. Hope this helps. Hersfold(t/a/c)01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion Jiujitsuguy. I don't enforce Arbcom sanctions often and I was seeking clarification if I could ask WP:AN for a review or if Arbcom had to review. I believe the block is justified and I'm reluctant to unblock considering the rapid assault on Isreal/Palastine articles.--v/r - TP01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed the report and I agree with Doc9871 that there is not an edit war on that topic. You have made several personal remarks concerning DocOfSoc when you've accused them of making it personal.--v/r - TP18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(1) Yes, I made personal remarks and none of them were personal attacks. Did you take the time to read the "personal remarks" she made about me on both her talk page and the article talk page? What she wrote was definitely borderline personal attack and some crossed the line. (2) I fail to see how you can miss the edit warring behavior, but you're the admin. (talk→LesHB←track) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You are editing back and forth, but there are only 2 actual reverts in all of it. You removed content, s/he restored, and you removed it. I read through all of the comments and I dont see anything that crosses the line into personal attack. I think you should step back from the article for a day and reflect on what has transpired. I think you're perception is a little more charged than it actually is. Just take some time to calm down and then take another look with a clearer head.--v/r - TP18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing Section on Jimbo's Talk Page
I vehemently disagree with your decision to collapse this section, and to characterize my posting of it as associated with harassment. My post did not, in any way, constitute harassment according to Wikipedia's definition of it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with my suggesting that editors contact an organization using paid editors on Wikipedia and letting said company know how they feel. If a person is willing to accept pay to edit Wikipedia articles, he/she should be ready to have his clients contacted by Wikipedia editors who feel that such a situation is diametrically opposed to the foundations on which Wikipedia has been built. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi TP, I have found another copyright violation on this article. The soundtrack version is copied from here[24] That was posted on the same day as the movie released so it is not a copy from here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Rick Santorum
In my opinion you should indicate him as Italian-American because both parents were the Italian, and this is commonly the rule here in Wikipedia. Thanks! Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I did not intend to bother you with this, but I believe this is Timbouctou's way of informing you his actions are up on ANI again [25]. Regards --DIREKTOR(TALK)05:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks
Closing this discussion on Jimbo's talk page was not called for, in my view.
First of all, it's not usually a good idea to close discussions on other people's talk pages. Second of all, it's probably not a good idea to close a discussion like this. If you don't agree with the original poster, then so stating is an option. Closing the discussion isn't.
Of course we as Wikipedians should be able to discuss putting pressure on outside interests who are seeking to damage the Wikipedia. That is fairly incontrovertible I would think. It would be very idiosyncratic to put the interests of the Academy of Achievement or their employees above the interests of the Wikipedia, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not ok to harrass a Wikipedian's employer. It is bigger than this one issue. If you let the line slip here, you'll enter a grey area where it is "OK in some situations" which will greatly discourage editors from contributing when they fear harrassment at the office. I was fully in the right to hat the discussion.--v/r - TP13:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Twilight Sparkle and other Pony character pages:
For the Pinkie Pie article it appears you deleted it, and then recreated it as a redirect. This deletes the history of the page. It seems that some of the other admins however, did not delete the history and simply created the direct. This allows anyone to restore the page as it was with only a few clicks. I just caught user 94.194.128.121 restoring all the Pony character pages. This user does not seem to be aware of the AFD debates or the decision to delete those pages. I shall inform them of their talk pages. To prevent this from happening again, I request that the pages and their history be fully deleted, and then recreated as redirects.
Also, what are we supposed to do with the images from those articles? They appear to be still up. Are they to be deleted or incorporated into other articles?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free images should be deleted. As far as the redirects, try informing the user and see if that solves the problem. If not, we can try protection.--v/r - TP00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
RE your message to TG about bringing the article up to GA status. I began rewriting the section on the economy,[26] JCAla has also begun to contribute, your participation would be appreciated, if only to offer advice. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, but I'm going to have very reduced activity in the upcoming weeks and won't be able to participate. Sorry.--v/r - TP01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I read HJ Mitchell and Middayexpress's remarks and I felt that their arguments were significantly concerned with whitewashing by Bell Pottinger and I was reluctant to close an article as keep that had significant WP:COI issues.
As nominator I think HJ Mitchell had an obligation check back to see whether the concern that triggered their nomination had been addressed.
You write that MiddayExpress's comment helped make you think the article had COI issues? Well, MiddayExpress had worked on the article both prior to and during Bell Pottinger's covert attempts to sanitize the article. My reading of MiddayExpress's comment was that they felt I had succeeded in removing all trace of COI.
As the wikipedia grows there is a need for greater professionalism. When I look at contributions I made in 2004 and 2005, I see contributions that met the standards and conventions current, at the time, but some of which clearly wouldn't measure up to the standards current today. No offense, but I think the same holds for participation in {{afd}}. I think we should show zero tolerance for the substitution of insults and attacks in {{afd}}. And, I would like to see those who participate in {{afd}} actually take the time to offer informed opinions -- something neither of the contributors who voiced a "delete" opinion bothered to do.
As the closing administrator, do you think it would have made sense for you to form your own conclusion as to whether the article retained any trace of Bell Pottinger's attempt at subversion?
Yes, the article was kept. But I think various things went wrong. I think my concerns should be voiced.
HJ Mitchell could have withdrawn the nomination, when the issue that triggered their concern had been addressed. HJ Mitchell, as an experienced contributor, should not have let a concern over COI edits introducing bias trigger an {{afd}}, as WP:COI does not recommend deletion as a remedy for COI edits.
The two contributors who voiced "delete" opinions were uninterested in whether the concern that triggered the nomination had been addressed.
And, no offense, but I think you also fell short in your role. It is my understanding that part of the administrator's role is to form an opinion as to whether the justifications for deletion complied with policy -- as HJ Mitchell's nomination did not.
It is my understanding that a closing adminstrator's role is to discount opinions that were unexplained or counter-policy. I think User:Legis's "me too" should have been discounted. Subsequent discussion with Legis confirmed for me that their opinion was uninformed. User:Mtking wrote "Delete tainted article the neutrality and authenticity can not be relied on. There should however be no bar on recreation, providing it is started from scratch." Why should the article be started from scratch -- rather simply being rewound to prior to attempted subservion by Bell Pottinger? Mtking's comment shows they didn't bother to take even a cursory glance at the article's contribution history. As an uninformed opinion I suggest it too should have been discounted.
No offense, but it is my impression that you also didn't look at the article's contribution history, to draw your own conclusion as to the extent HJ Mitchell's concern held merit, and, if so, the extent to which it had been addressed.
As I wrote on User talk:Legis, a "no consensus" implies those who voiced a "delete" opinion may have valid concerns, that could be addressed. I asked Legis to help me by being explicit if they thought the article retained any remaining echo of Bell Pottinger's attempted subversion. They declined. I strongly believe they couldn't do so, as, before they voiced their "me too", I had already eradicated all traces of that subversion.
So, I think various things went wrong in this {{afd}}. I hope my feedback on the role of closing administrators is useful to you.
If I convinced you that various things went wrong with this {{afd}} I won't ask you to formally go back and revise your closure. But, unless you state otherwise, I am going to assume that you agree there seems to have been no meaningful concerns that any remaining trace of outside subversion remains in the article, and that there had been no basis for the "delete" opinions. Geo Swan (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean this to sound completely insulting because I've seen you around and I do respect you; but did you really just type up a wall of text over an AFD that closed as no consensus which you would've preferred to be keep? You've put way too much effort into this. It's too late in the evening for me to get through this without stumbling so I'll read your long message tomorrow morning when I can concentrate.--v/r - TP03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added the amended proposal per your request. You might want to review/comment if you haven't reviewed it yet. I've also noticed that we haven't seen any comment from the RFC invitees yet, can you request all the involved editors to keep it a bit less contentious so that outsiders don't feel like they'll be bitten? My doing that might have an opposite affect. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk)01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had seriously reduced editing lately. I dont know if I can give as much attention to the Taliban article as I have been. You might have better luck if Magog can help. I'd recommend approaching Magog with something like "I'm not going to name names, and I accept some responsibility, but can you help make it a more inviting RFC for newcomers?"--v/r - TP01:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Magog is rather uninvolved to comment on the proposal since he's taken administrative action but the latter seems a good idea. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk)01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure lists like that can be copyrighted, but anyway, I was told last time I did some big revdel's only to revdel the most blatant/serious copyvios only. Just revert and warn the user.--v/r - TP18:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I lost track of that thread again, argh. You wrote:
Yes, because as Orangemarlin demonstrated, other people's actions clearly justify flame warring.
Who or what is Orangemarlin?
In any case, that was not my point. The point was that the problem of disruption there is not as clear cut as a flame with an explicit insult. Admonishing the latter without addressing the root cause is not likely to bring about an overall positive effect in the long term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe your a sysop and haven't heard of User:Orangemarlin. In any event, Timbouctou and Direktor's problems go much further back and I've treated each case involving them on it's own merits. In any event, there was a recent ANI thread that resulted in a interaction ban so maybe they'll finally seperate.--v/r - TP17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
In my list, it's the second AFD down where it lists 3 diffs as other ARSers who !voted in the AFD after NA1K placed a rescue tag on the article. I'm not accusing you of anything, but since I linked a diff by you, I felt it was appropriate to at least notify you that you were mentioned.--v/r - TP22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I was not THERE because of the rescue tag. I was allerted to the article by the OTHER tag placed on the article... one by User:Gene93k:
"Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)".
However, I did not see Gene's use of that tag as as misused or canvassing. I think the nominator there may have a different undertanding of WP:DEL, WP:NRVE and WP:ITJ than do I. Would seem bettr for the project per WP:ATD to add sources to un unref'd article than to delete per WP:NOEFFORT. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see which link led you to the AFD but of course I'll accept your answer. My concern is that the rescue tag leads to !votes rather than improvements. This is one AFD where it appears that my concern is valid. I'd be fine with the tag if the result was improvement on the article.--v/r - TP22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It was through the automatic delsorts I have chosen to search, and just as similarly to Wikipedia:ARS, I am a member of
or as in the case of WP:URA, a listing of articles that have issues needing to be addressed.
These are projects where my editing skills occasionaly prove helpful to the project through proactive article improvement. And worth noting, is that far more often than with ARS tags, the tags from these other projcts do not result in improvements nor prevent deletion of unsuitable articles. Interestingly, if being tagged through delsort for input from projects (other that ARS) results in a keep or a delete, we do not cry foul nor cry canvas.
Should ARS tagging have beter instruction? Perhaps. But a tagging NOT resulting in an article being improved is never a reason to not use such tags. The ultimate goal of all such tags is the improving of articles to better serve the project. The use of any such tag is not predicated upon success, but upon hope. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference between ARS and any other project is the audience. ARS members have specifically identified themselves as inclusionists. Other projects have members on both sides of the "deletionist/inclusionist" debacle. In addition, the delsorts specifically target folks who are in the best position to improve a particular article. As I noted as the first article in my list on ANI, Northamerica1000 used terrible sources for notability when he tried to "improve" the article. He likely increased the argument for deletion, but that's neither here nor there. The point is not to prevent the use of the rescue template, although some people would argue in favor of getting rid of it, the point is to make sure the intention of the editor using the template is in compliance with it's purpose and not an effort to canvass !votes. My personal feeling is that NA1K uses the template for the latter and that is my argument. For the record, incase I didn't make it clear at your RFA, I strongly respect you and your arguments at AFD are far stronger than what I've seen from other ARS members.--v/r - TP01:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we can agree that any tag can be misused... which I think would call more for discussion with any editor doing so, and less for an ANI and MFD that now unfortunately casts aspersions on 400 editors for the perceived conduct of one or two. As for your last sentence above, thank you very much. I do what I can, and might hope ARS members might learn from example. Cheers, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The actions of one or two reflect on the entire project. It shouldn't, but it does. And even if the project does good work, the perception is that it doens't. You're a smart guy, I know you know that perception is reality. My feelings on the subject are that ARS should do a better job policing themselves. When Northamerica1000 goes to an article and makes major improvements, that's great. But throwing the rescue tag on after improving the article effectively makes that tag for canvassing purposes. When you, Dream Focus, et al see that behavior, you should correct it yourselves. Why is ARS waiting until someone makes a fuss to fix problems? It's very reactionary. Become proactive. Maybe the ARS project needs to have a project-wide RFC to determine how to change the perception of the project?--v/r - TP17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I should think his making improvements and then using that rescue tag to beseech assistannce from others in making even more improvemment would be acceptable... specially as most of us have lives away from Wikiedia, and we cannot expect one editor to carry the complete load themselves.
But yes... "perception" is definitely addressable. We'll see who complains when I be a bit bold and proactively redesign of the project page to bring in more into line with other projects. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal for ARS Project page redesign. As the editors who were part of its original inception and design have gone on to other pursuits, it seems that NA1K has single-handedly tried to address perceptions.[29] While I have avoided editing the project page, I think by being a bit bold and making the project page itself more formal and neutral will be of help in underscoring that its members should be proactive. I dislike setting up a hierarchy, but ARS lacks guidence. I think serious consideration should be given toward there being at ARS, just as with other projects, coordinators who help set a moderate and constructive tone. Suggestions toward my proposal? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to talk to you personally about this, perhaps IRC? Anyway, my observations are that the rescue tag does three things. 1) If canvasses support votes, 2) Someone improves the article, and than it canvasses votes, or 3) It does nothing. That's my perception and no one has managed to change it. I know what it's purpose is, but that's not what is happening. Can you show me an effort by the project to 1) Educate others to use the tag properly, and 2) Attack the perception of canvassing with positive goals that improve articles?--v/r - TP23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Lord TParis, please have the charity to reconsider the elimination of article: Jaume Cañellas GalindoWP:DELREV.
This is one of the best child psychiatrists now living. The older article has been deleted due to reasons that the last translation ( Spanish Wikipedia ) no longer exist.
The previous two attacks for deletion have been aggressively offensive (difamatory) and
shows a special interest by Catalan separatists (Independentists) to attack the character. Surely because is a defender of universal human rights and equality in the world (especially in Spain).
The character is a human rights activist in the world of psychiatry and child and adolescent. Spokesman of various organizations on childhood and adolescence and leading figure in the promotion and dissemination of mental health of children and adolescents throughout the world. Especially in the Spanish-American countries, where it is a referent in psychiatry and mental health.
The character is a philanthropist, activist for the rights of children and non-profit organizations and Ambassador for Save the Children Spain.
If such prominent figures like this do not deserve an article in Wikipedia, as we maintain the quality ?
Surely we must improve the translation, but not delete it.
Hello again, here are some references independent and verifiable, on file with municipalities, newspapers and magazines, from 1994 to 2011. Writings on Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo by reporters about his legal claims in Spain, its aid as a psychiatrist expert in several Spanish courts and innovative initiatives in child psychiatry and adolescent.
Quick, don the tin foil hats! The Men in BlackCIA mind control are suppressing the truth about alien abduction through... having self-declared members of the U.S. military close deletion debates and bicker on ANI! They must be stopped! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ohh, now I'm CIA and I'm involved in the Area 51 conspiracy. I've got a busy plate, I don't know how I find the time for Wikipedia.--v/r - TP23:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Well of course. While I was navigating the time-space continuum in the Delta Flyer, I crash landed in the 1960s outside of Roswell, New Mexico where I made contact with US Air Force personnel who enlisted me as one of their own in coordination with the C.I.A. with the sole purpose of rewriting history to distort the future.--v/r - TP16:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Felix J. Palma
I think these links will go some way towards convincing you of Felix J. Palma's notability. The first one's in Spanish so you'll have to find some way of translating it.
Great start, I think I can use all of these and definitely build an article or articles (on the book and author). Do me a favor though and see what else you can come up with.--v/r - TP00:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, now, do you want me to write this article or do you want me to teach you how to write the article? I don't mind either.--v/r - TP00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mister TParis, please restore the article on "Jaume Cañellas Galindo". The page "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" in Spanish has been properly arranged, references checked and demonstrated its salience. Only needs to be translated correctly.
Kindly revert the deletion WP:DELREV.
Awaiting your good will, we send a cordial greeting.
Samen54 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Build a new article in your userspace using the references from Winterfree2000 and show me what you come up with. Use the Spanish Wikipedia version if it'll help.--v/r - TP23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mister Paris, we build a new article about " Jaume Cañellas Galindo" in my userspace "Samen54" using references from "Winterfree200" and also the Spanish Wikipedia version. Please Mister Paris you're the only one who can revert the deletion of this article. Our best wishes for peace and love for you and your family. --Samen54 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration
Dear TP,
I am not sure whether to name you as a party in the arbitration request. But I want to inform you nevertheless that I requested arbitration. Kind regards, JCAla (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at it. You'll need to completely fill out the request for arbitration or it may be closed quickly. You need to replace all of the username1, username2, username3 with the appropriate people and explain the problem with diffs. You'll want to do this right away or it may be closed soon by a clerk.--v/r - TP18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I havent read it yet, but you'll likely have a problem getting it accepted because an WP:RFC/U hasnt been attempted yet and Arbcom doesnt deal in content issues.--v/r - TP18:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If someone has a specific complaint involving me, I'm not opposed to being added and I intended to give my perspective on the issue anyway.--v/r - TP13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
TP had nothing to do with 1) the block and as for point 2) TP and me had a dispute surrounding the Taliban content dispute (I was unhappy, he was unhappy) but it was nothing uncommon for wikipedia, it did not even go to any noticeboard. Since then we were not involved in any dispute, not even a content dispute, and instead were able to constructively work and communicate on the Taliban article and with each other again. So, the only reason I see for an inclusion of TP would be his monitoring of the situation. But then again, User:EdJohnston and User:Bwilkins also have some knowledge about the situation. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment, TP? JCAla (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I was involved in the discussions all over yours and Magog's talk pages though which included discussing everyone's behavior. I can definitely understand why I'd be "involved".--v/r - TP13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: A barnstar for you!
Thankyou, TParis! I promise to keep it safe. Unfortunately it turns out my efforts this time were in vain, but nevertheless I'll keep trying. Best of luck with your promotion. --— PretzelsHii!00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited The Map of Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
We have made all arrangements in the article that you asked us.
Please see the article on this user page --Samen54 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) for reverse your deletion.
" Hello Mister TParis, please restore the article on "Jaume Cañellas Galindo". The page "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" in Spanish has been properly arranged, references checked and demonstrated its salience. Only needs to be translated correctly. Kindly revert the deletion WP:DELREV. Awaiting your good will, we send a cordial greeting. Samen54 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Build a new article in your userspace using the references from Winterfree2000 and show me what you come up with. Use the Spanish Wikipedia version if it'll help.--v/r - TP 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)".
With best wishes --Samen54 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for creating 3 different sections on the same topic. Can I ask what your connection is to Winterfree2000? I've asked another editor to take a look at your proposed article on your user page. I'm sure he'll get to it soon.--v/r - TP14:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"Only claim of notability being 15 minutes of fame on a radio station. Doesn't satisfy notability guidelines"[51] This statement is in the nature of a supervote rather than a summary of facts, & is demonstrably wrong. Try "Only claim of notability being 15 minutes of fame on BBC Radio One, an interview in Bearded Magazine, significant coverage in allmusic, and releasing notable work". At least you closed with consensus this time, albeit swooping in an hour after the last vote. Given your petulance in our last interaction, where after stonewalling and deflecting for days you ungraciously admitted error under wider review [52] i wonder if you shouldn't by contrast have made an effort to recuse. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't put up with dickishness. Had you just been friendly last time (or even this time, your tone is still rude), we might've discussed your issues with the close. You might find that people don't respond well to the way you present things. As far as this AFD, your argument didn't convince anyone and my close rationale is supposed to be a summary of the consensus, not my own opinion. Feel free to piss off.--v/r - TP18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It's telling that you still insist you were justified in letting an error of deletion stand because your ego was bruised and you basically felt you could get away with it. Last time my first comment noted that I was simply moving it here from yr Admin Review, where i had erroneously posted it. The instructions there are "be blunt", "say what you think". And you are still interpreting valid criticism of your actions and your tone as rudeness, which suits you. *pisses off* 86.44.31.8 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, listen, maybe we both got off on the wrong foot. I got pissed because I felt you were being rude and you got pissed because you felt like I was "stonewalling". Truth is I don't really care if something gets relisted and I have a history of relisting AFDs I close when folks have problems with it. I just didnt take particular care to (my perception of) your attitude. So, let's just start with a clean slate then since it's obvious your not a random IP editor and we'll likely run into each other on future music AFDs and it isn't going to do either of us any good to be pissed all the time.--v/r - TP20:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the past, is it approrpiate for me to edit this so that it doesn't appear smack bang in the middle of my own post - and changes my .sig in one strange instance as well? a_man_alone (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If you need something else about the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo," I´m available to assist you in whatever you want. I greatly appreciate your interest.
With my best wishes --Winterfree2000 (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've asked another editor to take a look. If he doesn't get to it by the time I take my test, I'll do it myself. Just be patient.--v/r - TP16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Magog recommends I take a third opinion from you as well as an administrator. Can you take a look and recommend how I should proceed? [53] --lTopGunl (talk)22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
About "Printz_Board" deletion. Searching for "Printz_Board" 157 results. Searching for "Printz Board" instead:351,000 results
I don'T know if the articles' quality was bad. But in the rather short deletion discussion there were no factual errors in the article alleged.
The people supporting the deletion obviously had no clue about the topic, and only clicked on the offered 'Find sources: "Printz_Board"'-Link. So voting for deletion were just the usual people with the urge to add their "lack of knowledge"-mark to every page on the internet. That's not a good basis to delete an article with unchallenged content.
Good call re: the "black friends" bit. I'm surprised nobody zapped it before. Not only is it not really notable, it's also grossly misleading; it seems to imply he did not associate personally with blacks before, which is quite patently untrue. —Cliftonian(talk)19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is kind of what I was thinking. That whole section doesn't really make much sense though. I had to read that last paragraph 3 times to understand who said what and why.--v/r - TP19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You see? You school admins. It's clear you should be one. But thanks for the help. I wasn't sure how to relist a DRV because it happens so infrequently.--v/r - TP00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I began following DRV discussions since December 2009 and do not recall seeing an admin relist a DRV. However, there is precedent for DRV relists. In 2006, DRV closer Trialsanderrors (talk·contribs) relistedRed Labor from the 15 December 2006 log to the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 21. (I note that he removed the DRV discussion rather than closing it with a pointer to the new link, but this is not good practice because this leaves a broken link if editors had been linked to that page.) Trialsanderrors also relisted discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 12.
With regard to your DRV relist, I believe admins should relist more DRVs when there has been little discussion and no consensus. I have frequently seen admins close discussions as "no consensus to overturn" owing to lack of participation, which prevents the DRV filer from receiving a fair hearing. For instance, see this talk page message to me and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead. My analysis of the sources, which was the first comment in the DRV discussion, was posted seven days after the initial DRV filing when the DRV was due for closure. In that case, a relist may have been better than a close, which prevented further discussion about whether the posted sources merited a relist of the AfD.
The relisting process is at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions: In the cases of deletion discussions that have separate subpages (WP:AFD and WP:MFD), the discussions "should be removed from the log for its original date" (bolding preserved from original wording) and "moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue". This "this does not apply at Categories for discussion", whose discussions do not receive separate subpages. A discussion about this was held at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 6#Relisting discussions, in which Explicit (talk·contribs) asked that the "does not apply at" be extended to "WP:FFD, WP:PUF, WP:TFD and all venues which don't create separate subpages for separate nominated pages".
Explicit's request received a single reply, a comment from SchuminWeb (talk·contribs), and the discussion was archived by the bot without any rewording of the guideline, His suggestions have merit, but unfortunately no one was interested in enacting them. Its enactment will also be difficult because I believe that closers at FfD remove the log from the original date, as SchuminWeb did here and the relisting instructions will have to be rewritten and the numerous relisting admins from the various XfDs will have to be reminded about any changes. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi TP. Thank you for closing AfDs. When closing as 'redirect', as you did here please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page as it populates an important category. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That has the tone of a template (even though it's not). C'mon Kudpung, no need to scold me. I intended to apply the template and it seems I overlooked it.--v/r - TP03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Aw, it's neither a template nor a scolding. You're the last person I would scold around here. It's simply a neutral personal reminder that I paste and have had to use about 30 times in the last few days - mostly for NACs ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hehe. Well I saw your note in the AFD and I suppose it slipped out of my mind between the time I saw it and the time I hit the close button. Thanks for taking care of it for me.--v/r - TP14:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Your comment was interesting though, because it does help to demonstrate once more that the tone of many of our templates, in spite of our efforts to improve them, are often regarded by some as stern words. I'm away from Wikipedia for a while now, but do consider joining the campaigns to improve our WP:UW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Music Radio Creative page
Hi TParis,
We have recently attempted to update the details on our Music Radio Creative Wikipedia page relating to the company (Music Radio Creative Ltd) and the page has been deleted (we were told that the details we try to input are untrue - for example the fact that company is based in the UK as opposed to the US - well we are UK registered company so I am not sure what else is there to say?) As we are a reputable UK based company (please Google "music radio creative") we would like to hold a Wikipedia page with accurate details. How may we rectify the problem?
Hi! Before I delve into discussing Music Radio Creative, have you had a chance to read our conflict of interest policy? If you are affiliated with this company, than you have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia. Not a discussion-stopping issue, but you will want to read the policy carefully. Now, about your article. The article was not deleted because of misinformation. The article was deleted because the article did not make a claim of importance or significance. What that means is, the article didn't explain why the company should be listed in a encyclopedia; which Wikipedia is. For example, McDonalds is important to an encyclopedia because it "is the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, serving around 64 million customers daily in 119 countries." Some kind of assertion needs to be in the article. Also, not a reason why it's been deleted but a reason it might be deleted again if restored now: the article contains no reliable sources that prove notability. We have two guidelines that describe our inclusion threshold of companies. One is the general notability guidelines that say that any article should include multiple significant third party reliable sources. For example, your company should be discussed in magazines, the news, books, ect but not including in publications that are financially connected to your company. This means no press releases, no PR firms, ect ect. The other is our notability guidelines for companies which includes company specifics like notability for chains and franchises, international companies, and publically traded companies. If you can provide multiple sources in independent media, I can restore the article so you can include it.--v/r - TP21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Please mister Josh Paris
We need the good name of our of the best Spanish psychiatrists (alive and active) is recovered. We are members of an association to promote mental health worldwide. The article has been modified with Multiple sources in independent media, its notability is proved. The article on "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" is on our user page. Please sir Paris, you can restore it ? --Samen54 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but I've received your message. You want your article restored. I've told you that I am studying for a test, there is a message at the top of my page. I've asked another editor to review your article for you. If he cannot get to it by the time I finish my test, I will do it myself. Please quit pestering me here and let you coleagues know that as well. If you want it restored so badly, take it to WP:AFC.--v/r - TP04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We do not want to bother Sir Paris, but we are inexperienced in Wikipedia. We tried to improve the article as best we could, but you know if you can do and improve a lot (in addition to protect other vandalism in the future).
We hope that your tests are successful, really. And although it represents a remarkable feat for our association, we welcome your news and we will not insist.
Sorry to bother you, really. We will not do it !!!
Good luck and kind regards --Samen54 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org if you are unsatisfied with this response. Hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
