User talk:Avs5221/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removal of PROD from Rupini (actress)

Hello Avs5221, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Rupini (actress) has been removed. It was removed by SpacemanSpiff with the following edit summary '(contest PROD - some news coverage showing she's notable)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SpacemanSpiff before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Article issues template

Please take a look at the documentation at Template:Article issues for the list of parameters the template accepts. Note that parameters are case sensitive and in most cases must be lowercase. Before saving the page you can use the "Show preview" button to see if all of your parameters have been accepted. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To our newest rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. JamieS93 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the message.

thanks for the message. I always come to wikipedia, but i never thought about registering. Thanks again -jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmpack (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. Are you an admin? I am having issues with another editor, and I would ask your assistance (if you are an admin). Please reply. Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

I am unfortunately not. If you continue to have problems with Île_flottant, I suggest taking your concerns to the edit warring noticeboard. I hope that is of some use to you, as I think you are making good edits. Proceed wisely. avs5221 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not continued to remove edits, infact if you look at the history, following the first message from the user, I have ceased, seeking to obtain concensus. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Concensus on what exactly? What is the offending edit? This is simply unreal. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Edit War

There is no edit war, as you can see by my previous comment on your talk page, I ceased reverting the page following a message from the user. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ile. That's why I presented it as an option for continued disagreements. If you are seeking consensus, I would highly recommend making a note of it on the [talk page] or by continuing to discuss any problems with 64.252.139.2.

Your more recent message on my page

Please correctly cite any messages, and the person whom you believe me to have bitten. I have deleted the message you posted, which I'm sure is a mistake on your part. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Île. My WP:BITE was in regards to your dispute with User:64.252.139.2. As I'm sure you've read over WP:BITE, I believe the correct response to the situation at hand would have been to revert edits you saw as inappropriate assuming good faith. As a consistent contributor to Wikipedia, I think you overstepped your bounds. I would point to two suggestions from WP:BITE that I think might be better followed in the future:

• Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
• Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.

I'm more than happy to discuss this further if you'd like. Thanks!

avs5221 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I personnaly believe the way I handled the situation to be without reason for complaint. The user made an edit; I reverted it, the user sent me a message, we discussed. The matter resolved itself. There was discussion over whether wikipedia is the correct forum for one to celebrate a relgious celebration; the user clarified himself. The matter was dropped and the edits went forward. Refrain from attaching pointless messages to my talk page save they are needed or I shall removed them on grounds of spam. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hello. Are you an admin? I am having issues with another editor, and I would ask your assistance (if you are an admin)." I think you are unaware that your attitude can come off as crass to others. When another (new) user approaches me because he is feeling accosted by your actions, I would personally stop and take notice. But if you want to ignore the fact the user hasn't made any further contributions, and is unlikely to, then be my guest. You are a rude editor and I made note of it.

avs5221 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the user was not competent in English he would have noticed that my correspondance was nothing but politely written, formal English. Feel free to look at the talk pages if you see fit. But this ends here, I don't need to justify myself to you. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I reported him, no need to report him again just FYI. --BlackAce48 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who? I don't see any dupes in WP:AIV. Just curious, thanks. avs5221 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to [this], 71.167.14.33 was reported, and you reported him again. Never mind, user blocked. --BlackAce48 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

I've been on a bit of a tear with the anti-vandalism. 'Till I got rollback and huggle, I had no idea what a problem it is. I see you use twinkle and huggle simultaneously... great idea.

One thing I find useful, if I see someone is vandalizing more than once or twice, I look up their contribs... sometimes I can quickly bust a vandalism-only account. Good feeling! I'll see you around, and thanks again! Jusdafax 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I find keeping multiple tabs open in Huggle works wonders. If I see a user spamming a page over and over, I'll just leave it open and wait for the next change. That way I can get them up to level 4 quickly and get their name out to WP:AIV. Enjoy the barnstar, fellow vandal fighter :D avs5221 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Just an FYI... You left a few welcome messages on the users's respective user pages instead of their talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh avs5221 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I feel dumb. avs5221 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly

Abrahmoff is still in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violationist (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting.

I was going to wait for a source, but reverting the unsourced content on Will Young was the way to go. Thank you. --Delta1989 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming he's dead is a pretty serious statement. I'd rather wait for a source, especially because I can't find anything in a quick review of google news. avs5221 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the first place I went also. Maybe later today, we'll have a source. --Delta1989 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaints

Why are you complaining abot me and where do I respond?--Curtis23 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The report will be here: [1]. I am writing it at the moment and will leave a message on your talk page when it is complete. avs5221 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We can work this out i'll stop.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been asked multiple times on the talk page to stop reverting, you've been warned on your talk page to stop reverting. Instead of having a constructive argument on the talk page, you made 13 reverts to keep the page from redirecting. It's not my choice to make, I think an administrator must take a look at this. avs5221 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on sheesh I try to convince them and I do make arguments some agree with me some don't so you can't make that argument and are you almost done.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to be impartial. I know nothing about Zack Ryder, I don't even know who he is. What I've tried to do is understand the arguments made on the talk page as to why a split should or should not be made. That said, it doesn't matter if the split should be made or not. The point is to maintain neutrality through open and thorough discourse to come to a consensus. By rev-warring, you've denied the wikipedia community their fair voice. The 3rr rules are very clear.

As an aside for the sake of transparency, this conversation will be going into the report. avs5221 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What! Why? and also i've only made 1 revert today.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been 32 minutes are you done yet (asked nicely)?--Curtis23 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here: [2] avs5221 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The 3rr rule states: "As a means to limit edit wars, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state that one may not revert any article more than three times in the same 24-hour period." You made three reverts on October 3rd. Listing every revert was simply to be thorough. avs5221 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the 3rr rule states that I can do at the most 3 I didn't violate the rule.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This also means that I didn't violate any rule.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the last response I will make regarding this issue. I don't mean to be rude, but I can't argue back and forth with you, as we obviously have different perspectives on the matter. If you read the 3rr rule, it also states: "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached." (emphasis added) I think an administrator needs to look at this because you didn't listen to anyone when they were trying to have a civil discourse regarding the Zack Ryder split. You persisted in reverting the page again and again. I don't want to see anyone's account suspended, but I hope you learn from this experience, suspended or not. avs5221 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Bugg author's request for speedy deletion?

I see you warned Blackbox1985 (talk · contribs) about blanking Stuart Bugg. Since he was the only substantive author, I would have thought that was an author's request for deletion (CSD G7).--Boson (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Zeichner

Hi, Can you please explain why you removed the non-notable tag from Daniel Zeichner? Neither local councillors nor parliamentary candidates are deemed notable. Wereon (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I think he satisfies this criteria: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." He may not elected, but he is referenced several times here and here. That said, I could very easily be persuaded otherwise. He may meet WP:NOTNEWS and a number of his secondary source mentions are both from one source and local. He does seem to have some weight/notoriety in Cambridge proper, but I'd agree if you have objections. avs5221 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I really should get round to putting in a proper deletion request for him one of these days. All of the press coverage seems to be relating to his parliamentary campaign in some form, but as the campaign itself is not notable I'm not sure if it can be used to justify the article's existence.

James Alexander, the Labour PPC for York Outer, is in a very similar situation, including being a councillor, yet his article was deleted just the other day. Wereon (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd probably be ok with a prod (seems you have precedence with James Alexander), but go with an afd if you have any doubts. :) avs5221 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Columbitech

Hello Avs5221. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Columbitech, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you recommend WP:PROD? I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it was written by an indefinitely blocked spam account and reads like a convention pamphlet. avs5221 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)