User talk:Bbatsell/Archive5

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revive an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Image:Chinacard.jpg

This page seems to have been created in the Image space instead of the main space. If you have a chance, could you move it? Burzmali 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an image. The table there is part of the image description. The same person who uploaded the image created an accompanying article at China Card, but it was speedily deleted as an advertising page (G11). The image will probably be deleted soon since it does not have appropriate licensing information (it is a copyrighted book cover, and no fair use is asserted). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, checked the deletion log but I must have had the wrong name. Is there an easy way to check is a specific user has created an article that was deleted? Burzmali 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge :( One of my biggest feature requests atm. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log for the page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

Hi. I think I screwed up my edit to the Emma Watson article. I wanted to correct the word "Maths" to "Math" and get rid of the overly verbose and possibly OR passage given in the eighth and last source under References, but it ended up chopping off the last few sections of the article after Personal Life, and my attmepts to revert this by restoring prior edits didn't work. (The verbose passage in the seventh source also seems unnecessary.) Thanks. Nightscream 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed up now. It's my understanding, though, that the English use the word "maths" to stand for mathematics (where as we just use "math"), so that's probably why it was listed that way in the article. That change may get reverted, I'm not sure. I didn't see any reason for the quote sections either, so I removed them. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletions from Carfax (company)

User:SpuriousQu is up to the same tricks as User:Roybuoy with that article and I saw you were responsible for the permanent block of Roybuoy. Perhaps I could entice you to take care of SpuriousQu? Thanks Cornell Rockey 01:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both SpuriousQu and Wikiboyy have been blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your question on AN/I

see AN/I. Dmcdevit explicitly stated in that particular AN/I thread I provided that the community's patience with that user is exhausted.--Certified.Gangsta 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in the thread. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded again.--Certified.Gangsta 05:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive indexer code

I was just typing up a comment and fixing the archive indexer opt-in for you, but it looks like you've figured it out yourself. If you have any suggestions for improvements to the instructions to make that more clear, feel free to let me know (or simply make them, after all, they're part of the wiki :)) —Krellis (Talk) 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just noticed that it doesn't seem to have worked properly for your archives. Everything else it's running on currently has a space between "Archive" and the number, so I'm guessing that there's a bug in there somewhere. I'm just heading off the computer for the night now, but I'll be sure to look at it tomorrow. Sorry about that! —Krellis (Talk) 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, thanks for looking into it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that space you removed did the trick - when I first saw that edit in your edit history I thought it shouldn't make any difference, but I didn't pay enough attention to where the space was. The code tolerates spaces around the "|"s, but not around the "="s. I've changed this so it will tolerate spaces in both locations, so others don't get tripped up by this the way you did, and your archive index looks like it has been generated correctly now. Enjoy! —Krellis (Talk) 16:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D. Looks like I really need to clean up some headers in my archives, though :P —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you

You abuse your powers by censoring my discussion opinions. I thaught Wikipedia had a policy of no censorship. Manic Hispanic 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken, but since when is the drudge report not a reliable source and the New York Times is? I just am angered after reading wikipedias articles on politicians for years, how much controversy and or criticism is written of any perticular politician left right and center sometimes even more then is needed i.e bush and hillary clinton. And then I read Obama's, and you'd think it was written by his publicist. Manic Hispanic 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed

I've e-mailed; I hope I'm doing the right thing. --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About those samples - I just gave three, but there are at least ten times more => if that's the problem, just tell me and I'll send you some more evidence. --PaxEquilibrium 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like to point out to you that this is not the first time PaxEquilibrium is accusing someone without real proof. I have just found this: Check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kubura, he also accused Kubura on the same basis as me, he is from Croatia and edits Croatia-related articles. Tar-Elenion 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I would like to see the so called proof PaxEquilibrium sent you (by email) as per talk at WP:AN/I. Thank you. Tar-Elenion 13:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide a summary of the evidence if I find it conclusive on your talk page and AN/I. I won't give specifics due to WP:BEANS. I'm not there yet, though. If you have anything to send me, feel free to e-mail me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. If you need anything more, don't be a stranger. --PaxEquilibrium 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Going to follow up in a bit. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more proof

The IP used by both Afrika paprika (and Factanista, Zrinski & the others) and Tar-Elenion isn't just an ordinary one used across Croatia - it's a localized one - Zagreb (Croatia's capital) or its surroundings. --PaxEquilibrium 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? No. My ISP is based in Zagreb (as is any other ISP in Croatia), I am not (don't know about these other people as I don't even know who they are). Fine "proof" you have there. Bbatsell I had enough of this lunatic and of this charade, can you please hurry up and get him off my back, please? Tar-Elenion 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop calling me a lunatic? It doesn't help because this is exactly how Afrika paprika used to call me. Please read WP:NPA (I remember that you gave a personal attack warning to Nikola Smolenski recently). --PaxEquilibrium 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I say or do, you say: "this is typical behaviour by AfrikaPaprika" or "this is exactly the same thing AfrikaPaprika used to do" or "this is just what AfrikaPaprika used to say" and whatever bla bla bla. This is a charade! Tar-Elenion 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; I'm just discouraging you from using vulgar and obscene wording. --PaxEquilibrium 12:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bbatsell, any news? --PaxEquilibrium 12:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming along; waiting to hear back from some people with more access than I at the moment. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

I am not a newbie to Wikipedia, I have been reading articles here forever, specifically the history and politics related ones. I have been an editor for awile now, but I choose to focus on minor edits and certain topics like El Salvador and eccentric radio hosts i.e Alex Jones. Manic Hispanic 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism on my user page

Thanks! I can finally use the vandalism counter userbox. I feel so cool! ;) --Kimon^talk 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job

great job —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.127.15 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

another one

hi - could you have a look at this? Looks like another vandalism-only account. thanks Tvoz | talk 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was fast! thx - it's depressing having to revert such idiots Tvoz | talk 04:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abul_moosada here too please. thanks! --HailFire 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that one, but he hadn't been warned until after his last edit, and he appears to have stopped. If he comes back and vandalizes again, he should get a block immediately. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._Rushton&diff=prev&oldid=115099932 --HailFire 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a terrific help keeping the Barack Obama article open to all who seek to improve it. Many thanks. --HailFire 08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can fully appreciate the need to take a step back from Wikipedia now and then. But may I just add that your expert admin work during the recent window of open editing on Barack Obama offers a clear and convincing demonstration that semi-protection is not the only option we have to deal with unhelpful edits. I counted less than half a dozen troublesome unregistered editors that were active when the last sprot was applied. If the admin who applied sprot had followed your example and instead applied a few carefully selected blocks to the repeat offenders, the article might still be open to all. The recent flood of angry edits by one user looks to have been in part a frustrated user's reaction to the application of sprot and the shutting out of the article's anon detractors. More evidence (for me at least) that open editing promotes more open thinking. Enjoy your break, you will be missed. --HailFire 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report by User:Mardavich

I responded to the complaint. I was pretty uncivil, but only while talking on my own talk page, another editors or in repsonse to his numerous complaints. he kinda freaked me out with his behavior, which approaches Wiki-stalking (having been stalked, it's a panic button for me). I realize that may not condone my opinions of him, but I hope they can be seen in context.Arcayne 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you guys appear to have worked things out on your own. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Wikipedia

Regarding Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and earlier items with MiddleEastern/Okedem, I feel sorry I stepped in now. User:Slimvirgin has used it as an excuse to make false accusations that I am someone I not, apparently because I reported her abusive friend user:Bastique for his attacks upon me.

I'm quitting Wikipedia, there's no point in remaining if this is how administrators behave. I'm sorry that my earlier view of administrators as helpful individuals turned out to be a disgustingly poor misjudgement, and most of them are abusive jerks like Slimvirgin, Bastique, and Jersey Devil. One Elephant went out to play... 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words in your post to AN/I with respect to the Essjay controversy talk page. This article is just a tad more controversial than my usual Wikipedia work; it's a relief to have a respected editor like you say that I've been doing okay. Risker 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly earned it. You have a lot more patience than I. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing"

While what I done is not canvassing (since it is only a neutral invitation to editors), I'm surprised that you did not note that Corticopia, the article nominator AfD, did the same, before I did it.

In fact, I started inviting editors when I noticed he was inviting those who voted "delete". Again, I'm surprised that you passed judgemente without investigating first. Please check the message I've left. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you should edit your comment there, because it doesn't say anything about Corticopia's "canvassing". However, again, he started, and when I noticed he was inviting those who voted delete, I invited the rest of the editors. AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you're not being neutral, since one thing is that a third party points the "canvassing" and another is that I, as the nominator, point it. Anyway... thanks... AlexCovarrubias

^{( Let's talk! )} 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bb, thanks for being on the ball -- please note that I have invited a variety of editors, administrators, and (earlier) commentators at other articles (e.g., Talk:Canada, Geography wikiproject) -- not just those who opted to 'delete' -- to weigh in again. Thus, I don't think my actions qualify as 'canvassing'; however, I apologise for any real or imagined breach in protocol. Corticopia 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Microperfectcorp

Oh, sorry. Thanks for letting me know. So should I undo the block and block it again with the correct settings? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've redone the block, but it was autoblock-off before already. The problem was I didn't enable account creation, which I've now done. Thanks again for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenstone93

Would you please review this. Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Wikipediahistory

Hey Qxz, I'm concerned that Conservapedia has been added to "Related projects and forks" in this template. To be honest, I'm not sure how it's related to Wikipedia at all (except for their baseless assertions of bias, but that's irrelevant). I think that including Conservapedia in this list (and I haven't checked the other members) could imply that it is, in fact, "related" to Wikipedia in an official way, which isn't at all accurate. Could you clarify your reasons for adding it? Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "related" because it's a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that makes repeated references to Wikipedia in its principles – in fact, it almost defines itself by pointing out issues with Wikipedia which it wants to avoid. I think that counts as "related". If you can suggest a different wording that you think doesn't make it sound official, go ahead and change it; however, given some of the existing items on there (Wikitruth, for example), I don't think anyone's going to mistake it for a list of related projects – and I would argue Conservapedia deserves to be on there at least as much as Wikitruth does. Thanks – Qxz 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I wasn't speaking to the other items, but I agree, and would argue that Wikitruth should also not be included. :) Forks I don't have a problem with including, but from what I can tell, there are only 2 listed that could possibly be called forks. I guess my problem is with what the definition of "related" is — who determines whether a project is related to Wikipedia? I guess I should move this to the talk page of the template. Headed there now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Another editor is being uncivil and continues to make remarks directed at me. Please tell that person to stop. QuackGuru ^TALK 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty categories

Hi Bbatsell. I asked this question before but was told it can't be done, but your answer to my question on WP:AN makes me think it can, so here's the question. How can I tell how long a category has been empty? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you can't tell through MediaWiki (to my knowledge, anyway), but I checked really quick to see if the user who created it had been in it until recently, and I couldn't find at all, so I made an assumption based on what appeared to be a complete lack of activity w.r.t. the category. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar Point!

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for deleting rampant original research nonsense from the Godwin's law article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing

I believe we have a problem - please see this - the edit summaries and the edits themselves. I reverted the whole thing back to an earlier version from today as it's too much to wade through, but I think some intervention might be needed. I can't tell if this is well-meaning or not - maybe you can. See also the article's Talk page. Thanks Tvoz | talk 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, it appears to be the same individual as this. Tvoz | talk 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello again - same thing happened today - I reverted a bunch of stuff, some of which had new errors, some of which is obviously unnotable, and tried reason, but it's not working. Some of the edits would be ok,and I kept a few, but the volume and the nature of some - and the edit summaries - makes it difficult to go through one by one, for me anyway. So I think this fellow could use some mentoring, giving the benefit of the doubt (which I'm not so sure is warranted). thanks for any insights you have Tvoz | talk 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The guy has been warned, and blocked for 48 hrs, so maybe we're ok now. Or maybe not - we'll see. Sorry, I had not noticed the note on top of this page that said you were pulling back. I totally understand that and didn't mean to intrude on your time. I hope you'll be back soon, as your voice is always one of reason. Best wishes Tvoz | talk 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.147.27.52

I have just had to revert some vandalism on the Ghana page. I was about to leave a warning on the talk page and realised you had them blocked ten days ago. Well, they are at it again. What is the next step? I am not sure. Can I leave that to you?Natsubee 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you have taken some action. Hope it discourages further misbehaviour from this IP address. Natsubee 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user page essay

I'll just assume you're right. My concern is, I have a short "essay" on my own user page, too. Could you tell me where to I ask whether it is ok with policy or if it should be altered/deleted? Or, since you're an admin, would you mind taking a look at it and telling me? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to Wikipedia, not soapboxing. I don't have a problem with it at all. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that, thanks for taking the time. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[1] [2] Thank you for looking out for my interests :-). WjBscribe 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strange revert on WP:AN

Obviously, you're already aware of this problem. There's a thread about it on AN/I; do you have any idea what might be causing it (are you editing through AWB, or scripts, for instance)? Obviously I (and presumably others) want to get to the bottom of this, and as it's just happened to you I thought you might be able to help determine the cause. --ais523 17:02, 22 March 2007 (U T C)

Nope, no editing scripts, just a couple admin-related ones to help close AfDs and such. No AWB, don't use Windows. I guess this is the same bug that popped up about a week ago. Might help to tap Greg on the shoulder in case he doesn't already know, as I recall he was the one that fixed it then. My guess is it's server-related rather than a Mediawiki bug. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one of your scripts, apparently :D (monobook.js) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, I suspect it's a server bug too. Thanks for that! --ais523 17:16, 22 March 2007 (U T C)

Hello i just want to say that all what i typed on Serbia ( on december ) that i was right did you saw what happened on 26 february 2007 ??? Serbia was accused for not respecting the genocide conventions Truth is not a vandalism as you told me that i was doing !!!! One thing that i will tell you Never forget the Srebrenica Genocide, Serbs did it as the International Court proclamed !!!

Best Wishes on Wikipedia

Question

Just wondering if it would be acceptable to remove from my talk page that warning. Although I have no proof that it wasn't me who vandalized, I've got an otherwise clean record (two instances of vandalism; I make it a point now never to leave my computer unattended). If it's okay to do this, is it possible to wipe it out as though it never existed? I hate the idea of it existing in my history. Joe Dick 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, then. I guess I'll just leave it. Joe Dick 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how I missed this. You can blank it from your talk page, but it cannot be removed from the history. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's too bad that I can't remove it from the history, as I'd rather not have a record of vandalism that I didn't do, but oh well. Blanking it will have to do, but I didn't want to just go ahead and do it in case I got in trouble for vandalism! :-) Anyway, thanks for your reply. I was kind of afraid to check back, as after I'd posted it I thought my wording might have conveyed a negative meaning that wasn't intended. 70.50.53.164 13:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I have a pretty thick skin. Yeah, there are very, very few instances in which we're allowed to delete user talk pages, and this isn't one of them. Even if I were to delete it, anyone would still be able to see the vandalism in your account's contributions. As long as it doesn't happen again, I can't see it being a problem, though. No one's going to care if there's not still vandalism coming from it (and if they do, just give me a ring).

—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoinking your sig code

... 'cause it's the prettiest I've seen so far. Hope you don't mind. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Might want to change the colors on the off chance we get confused. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report

It was just reverted again.[3] Arbustoo 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies and an explanation

Thanks for closing the Friedman Unit AfD discussion. I apologize if my comments became heavy handed towards the end, but as you saw in the discussion, I was responding to the actions of a small group of editors who took it upon themselves to delete whole sections of the article without any discussion on the sections that they chose to delete. I was particularly annoyed because while they claimed they were deleting whole sections to "improve" the article, they also firmly reaffirmed that they were strongly in favor of deletion. It was F. Scott Fitsgerald who said that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function" but given the circumstances of the AfD debate, I could only interpret their actions as having the intent to override the AfD process, and make deletions despite the fact that there was still no consensus. I saw myself as defending the article rather than badgering any particular editor. I am very sorry, though if I was too aggressive in doing this. I'll be more careful in the future. Davidhc 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that section is unquestionably original research and synthesis and should be removed following discussion on the article's talk page. I'll leave my response to a recommendation that in the future, you simply state your opinion. If you take issue with another editor's comments, you can respond inline if it is constructive; I felt that the majority of your comments there were badgering editors who you disagreed with rather than constructive discussion. Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. BTW, Could you please ask Croctheface to stop putting up bogus warning messages on my talk page? He's now trying to use your authority to say that they should stay. Thanks. Davidhc 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, although, as per my edit summary, I strongly encourage you to archive it rather than removing it entirely. That page explains how if you're unfamiliar. The warning was valid, as you were edit warring (along with others — it takes two to tango and all that), but it has served its purpose. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on my page

OK, thanks for giving me the heads up. Personally, I'm not sure that he's taken the warning to heart, but I'm willing to assume good faith and operate under the assumption that he has. I definitely expect resistance to removing the table, though. He said that he considered it an attempt to "delete the page" rather than an editorial decison based on WP policy. Croctotheface 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a lot of it was some flared tempers; if not, that'll be clear soon enough. I've left my view on the article's talk page, and I hope everyone can chime in constructively. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Honda Pilot - I need another set of eyes or two

Hi Bbatsell. I'd like another admin to have a look at User:Honda Pilot's talk page and contribs (neither is very long, he just arrived today) so that I can get a second opinion on his good faith. I'm also going to consult Alison and Nawlin Wiki because you all seem to be around right now. A Train^talk 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You block of User:129.120.244.17

Can you please cite a diff for the personal information posting? --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot; it has been oversighted. You can see discussion about it here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small question about blocked users

Hi, I just had a small question about blocked users: Should all their edits be reverted, including valid ones? Some people are insisting this and I have argued with them, infact its silly to revert valid edits, no matter what. I wondering what your opinion was on this. thanks and sorry to bother your busy time with this small question. --Matt57 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That only applies to banned users. Blocked users should only have their edits reverted on the basis of the edit, not on the basis of whether or not they have since been blocked. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation! Just what I thought. --Matt57 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm talking specifically about reverting edits made before and after a block. If the user is evading their block, that's a whole 'nother issue. I'm pretty sure you're talking about the same thing that I am from your comment, but just wanted to be clear. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that, no matter what, if its a sockpuppet evading blocks and what not (no matter what), an edit should only be reverted if its a bad edit. It doesnt matter who made the edit. So what I mean is, if a user/sockpuppet makes a good edit, it should not be reverted. Am I correct? --Matt57 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a grey area. I would personally agree with you, that each edit should be weighed on its merits, but it's certainly not something that I can use the word "absolutely" about (like I did above), nor say that it's mandated by policy. If it's an unquestionably good edit, then I would say it shouldn't be reverted. Beyond that, it's a matter of degrees and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I meant, if its a good edit, it shouldnt be reverted. For example if a really bad socket puppet improves an article, then its obviously not a good decision to revert. But if its trolling or spam that he did, ofcourse it should be reverted. thanks --Matt57 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bbatsell, please see this section on my talk page. Matt57 has taken to posting uncivil and aggressive blocking threats, citing this discussion. i undid contributions initially made by a block-evading sockpuppet under the premise that such edits should not be supported[4]. i removed this uncivil, unnecessary warning, and he has warred to restore it. your intervention would be appreciated. thank you. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bbatsell, I would appreciate your input as well, if you could directlty tell ItaqAllah that his reverts were wrong. All I wanted to tell ItaqAllah is that he reverted valid edits of a user, only on the basis of the fact that it was a sock puppet and that as you pointed out, should not be done. As I also thought, you said that valid good edits should not be reverted. Sorry to bother you with this silly issue, but these users are not willing to admit that they made some wrong reverts and further they might keep doing this in the future. Also I dont believe the block warning I gave to ItaqAllah was uncivil and aggressive. --Matt57 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't threaten blocks unilaterally with no policy to back you up; blocks aren't meant to be wielded to "win" a disagreement. That applies to anything. As I said, I know of no policy forbidding the reversion of edits made by a blocked user evading their block, especially not major edits. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, unless I'm misreading, I see 2 editors who take issue with the blocked user's edits in question. That is not what I would describe an "unquestionably good" edit, so what I said up above would not apply. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - please also see: [5]. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a bit of advice to anyone and everyone for the future: if you are involved in a dispute and want someone's opinion, then point them to the dispute in question. Don't speak in overly broad generalities, then use that as a sledgehammer in the dispute when it really doesn't apply to the situation in question. Doing so really pisses people (e.g., me) off. I guess it teaches me a bit of a lesson, as well—looks like I need an addition to my talk page header.

To summarize where I stand, reversions based on the content of the edit (as these were, by multiple editors), are a-okay. As that answers the question originally addressed to me, I'll bow out of this dispute, since I now have a predisposition due to peripheral actions (in English, I'm pissed off and can't be neutral). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I contributed this addition. I think it aligns with you pretty well. User_talk:Itaqallah#Comments_on_my_talk_page --BozMo talk 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks about right to me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum

I was not aware of that discussion. I've moved the article back. Sorry! —tregoweth (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out

Just in case, I should tell you that the reply to "Question" by an anonymous IP was me; somehow I got logged out and - somehow - I didn't notice! Okay, I'll stop bothering you now! :-) Joe Dick 13:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfD discussions

Remember when you relist an AfD discussion to remove it from the old page it came from.

For example, when you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra, you would have to remove the listing from the April 3 2007 nominations. If you just forgot, no worries, just a friendly reminder! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict) Scratch that, was looking at Mathbot's AfD/old list. Keep up the good work! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

for this. I really appreciate the help. alphachimp 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pupster21/monobook.js

		The Original Barnstar
		For getting me my account back Pupster21 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, but I did nothing — make sure HighInBC gets full credit. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a reply

I left a reply to you on the BLP noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Greenwald__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_WP:BLP_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Of Links

I am at a loss on how this is incorrect. The Lutcher Theature is am member of the city of Orange Texas. It is a member of the Stark Foundation. And the Stark Foundation has asked us to do this.

Please advise me on how to do this if I am doing this incorrectly. I have read the guidelines and I feel that I have followed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catanich (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello...

Hi, I hope I'm not bothering or anything. But I was wondering whether you can help me? There's an article about Methos in Highlander universe section where everyone is contributing. There is a new editor that who took it upon himself to delete a large portion of the article without any discussion on the sections that he chose to delete. I was particularly annoyed because while he claimed he was deleting whole sections to "improve" the article, he also firmly said that he will report me because I "accused" him of wrongdoing (discussion page). I was not. I was merely said that the article he was deleting has many sources and were compiled by many editors. He deleted the section because he disagree with the article. Because I'm not an Admin, he threatened to report me if I bother him again. Do you have any suggestion for this? Thank you very much :) HoneyBee 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings

I have recently made some changes to a couple of articles, Methos and Duncan MacLeod, and have had them reverted and had what I believe are invalid warnings on my talk page. I thought it was okay to remove these warnings if I chose (it being my talk page and all), especially when there were not left by administrators but just ordinary users. The changes I made to those articles have not been as extensive as these other users seem to think, and I was in fact removing non-canon information. Although I did initially revert their reverts without explanation I have since made my reasons abundantly clear. Regardless of what happens with this, I am probably done with Wikipedia anyway because this experience has thoroughly soured me on the whole thing. I might not bother to see how it turns out, because I have a feeling no matter what I say or do I think that I will be the one to go down. I might wait to see if you reply. You might even side with them. I will say that at least everything I did was done in good faith. Joe Dick 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Paul Soter promo headshot.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul Soter promo headshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LARC

Hello, Im not sure if you are still interested, but the slow burning edit war (of which I am part of) has started up again on London Action Resource Centre. If you feel like continuing to monitor the page, I would be grateful. Thanks! Mujinga 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellerophon (band)

Hello there,

I formed the band (well, actually, more of a collective, but hey . . . ) Bellerophon way back in 1994 (I've only just started mastering some of our earliest tape reels!). For some reason, wiki says you deleted an entry related to the band Bellerophon on something like December 26th 2006. I'm assuming this entry related to some eroneous entry created by someone trying to muddy the water of my band's history, but who knows? Maybe one of the members of Bellerophon wrote it. I would be interested to read what this entry was, but . . . oh, I think that was it, really. Maybe there's a copy of the deleted page somewhere. I'll write more about my band when I have the chance, making sure I keep a copy of the entry in case of accidental deletion!

Kind regards,

Jonathan Machell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunchily (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safari hang image

Thanks for taking the time to fix the Safari article and image properly. Every time I've tried to work with images I've ended up breaking something, so I took the easy way. :) --Steven Fisher 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Images can be tricky. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iphone edit

I see what you're saying about the pricing information being already described, but stating it explicitly like I did will get the information across to people with much more frequency.

Also, the speed at which you removed my edit after I posted it tells me that you probably have no life, and should get off the computer a little more.

--Davidweiner23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweiner23 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with that is that the information in question a) is a guess by an unrelated company, b) was made 6 months before the device was released, c) posits false information, and d) ignores lots of integral facts. Presenting it as unchallenged fact, as your text did, is neither accurate nor neutral. And thank you :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Your comments are so illogical, set up a straw man and knock him down. (1) CSD A7 is not limited to strictly those enumerated items - you call this my misunderstanding but it is the understanding of most admins - as you may recall someone wanted to make that statement in the policy language itself and the community forced its removal; (2) I see that you have an expansive view of whether we can go beyond the actual article to weigh its merit vel non - either to save or axe it as the research turns up - so if someone claims in the article something that cannot be backed up by research that claim of importance or significance should be discarded and if that's the sole saving piece of the article from A7 oblivion - adios. Similarly, if your research had definitively shown that at least one episode of Pat's_Calculator had appeared in print anywhere you'd have come out differently. If so, you should read WP:BUREAUCRACY - follow the spirit of the rule. Carlossuarez46 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely understand all of your points, and I've had a rough week so I didn't have the time to sit down and respond point-by-point (and I still don't, though I do owe you a response). Firstly, I do believe A7 is limited to those enumerated items, and so do lots of other admins. I've been here for quite some time with lots of breaks due to personal issues in between, so it's possible I've missed some monumental shift in consensus, but the CSD were VERY carefully written, and continue to be carefully scrutinized. They're designed to apply to only the most obvious, blatant cases of articles incompatible with Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, videos and books and CDs were intentionally left out, because if they have been published, then there is an inherent assertion of notability. In any particular instance, it might not have enough notability to satisfy WP:N and all of its associated guidelines, but that is a discussion that is intentionally left for the more involved AfD process that allows multiple editors to come together and suss out a consensus. CSD A7 was designed to cover blatant instances of non-notability where there exists no inherent assertion of notability. Persons existing does not assert notability. Companies being incorporated does not assert notability. Websites at Tripod do not assert notability. A video being reviewed, purchased, and published DOES assert notability, no matter how flimsy that notability may be.

Secondly, regarding your response to my statement that I do research on the topic before contributing to a discussion. Again, I'm not entirely certain I understand what you're saying, but I don't see this as incompatible with... anything, to be honest. It's how stubs get fleshed out. It's how articles become FAs. Yes, I look at articles that are nominated for speedy deletion, and especially at AfD, and see if there is more information from reliable sources available than what is presently in the article that might change its suitability for Wikipedia. If such sources exist, then I add them to the article. I think that's quite in line with Wikipedia's design.

It seems that you're asserting that if I came across an article nominated for SD, saw it asserted notability, but did research and determined on my own that that notability was not "good enough" or some such conclusion, I would delete it. If that is indeed what you're asserting, then I can unequivocally tell you that is false. Any assertion of notability automatically equals AfD.

Thirdly, about Pat's Calculator. If, in my research, I had found that the cartoon had been appeared in print, put out by a valid entity with editorial oversight, such as a newspaper or published comic book, then I absolutely would have had a different opinion. As above, such review and oversight and publication inherently asserts notability. Had I found that it was a cartoon printed up on the artist's inkjet printer at home and pasted to bulletin boards, then no, I would not have had a different opinion, because no notability is asserted in such a case.

I don't believe that I'm doing anything other than following the spirit of the rules. Again, CSD was designed for clear-cut cases of non-notability and not for any borderline article or subject — such an instance requires discussion and consensus. I do want to apologize for getting so heated, it was uncalled for. I did have an issue because the article had been nominated for speedy deletion, the nomination was declined by a trusted administrator and a note made on its open AfD that it did not qualify for speedy deletion (an assessment, as I've outlined above, I believe to be entirely true). Looking at either the history of the article or the open AfD would have revealed that fact (looking at the history, at the very least, is required before deletion according to administrative guidelines — I would argue that looking at the AfD would be common sense). An administrator declining a speedy nomination means it is no way a clear-cut violation of the CSD and discussion should continue at AfD. And yet, armed with this information (one hopes), it was deleted anyway, and when that was brought to your attention, rather than acknowledge a simple error, you went on the offensive, attacking everyone who disagreed with you (quite a number of experienced administrators) and basically claimed we were idiots addicted to process for the sake of process. You also illustrated (in my humble opinion) a complete misunderstanding of the deletion guidelines — for example, in response to Haemo, you claimed that it did not meet WP:MOVIE, so it was a valid deletion. An even cursory glance at WP:CSD or WP:MOVIE would tell you that only AFD can assess compliance with notability guidelines. And yet, when errors such as that were pointed out to you, you exhibited no desire to review the guidelines in order to make more proper decisions in the future. I viewed that as unnecessary stubbornness and not helpful in an administrator. None of this (or the discussion at that time) is meant as an attack, but as a (not-so-gentle) corrective so that decisions in the future can be more solidly based on policy rather than ideology. It's clear that you do a lot for the project, and it's not my wish to discourage you from doing all of the AfD closures and speedy deletions you do. The vast, vast majority are unquestionably correct. I only wish that you would have a bit more of an open mind and realize that perhaps you're not right all of the time, and when several other administrators say, "Hey, your reading of the deletion guidelines isn't quite right," perhaps it's appropriate to step back and consider that maybe-maybe they might be right.

And lastly, reviewing the resulting AfD should show the value of discussion in such an instance. In less than 41 hours, the article unquestioningly satisfied WP:N and was snowball kept as a keep. That's the value of AfD in my book. Again, I mean no ill will and only wished that the discussion hadn't devolved into mindless shouting of "I'm right" by both sides. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up two different discussions, and not really fairly portraying either, IMO. Let me tackle the second first: your statement that I "went on the offensive, attacking everyone who disagreed with you (quite a number of experienced administrators) and basically claimed we were idiots addicted to process for the sake of process." Re-read that debate, if that's your threshold for "attacking" and "everyone" I would expect that you would have blocked 99% of Wikipedians by now. It's hyperbolic.

Second, an admin attempted to put language in A7 that would make it exclusive; after community comment at Talk CSD - the statement was removed. There are admins on both sides, to be sure, but several of the "exclusive" people have more expansive views of G1, G3, A1 and A3 that really make up the difference. ("ABC is a band" - clearly in A7 land; "XYZ is a self-published album by non-notable ABC band" you say isn't A7 because it's an album - odd that you'd feel contented with deleting the group but not their album; an author's bio but not his musings that appear in print; any person's bio, but not their pet's bio, a non-notable company but not their product, etc.) Few admins have that hard and fast a rule. Suffice to say, we disagree. Even you qualify the "in print" with "put out by a valid entity with editorial oversight, such as a newspaper or published comic book, then I absolutely would have had a different opinion." which is nowhere to be found in A7 - have the same opinion about self-published books? If so, books even though not explicitly A7 could be speedied in your view. If not, I guess books have more value than comics.

Rather than trying to create a better article, or even request that I restore the 1-liner video article, the author went to DRV. Wholly appropriate if the article couldn't be bettered, a waste of everyon;s time if it could. I assume the good faith and rational actions of editors and rational behavior and you can judge whether the efforts at restoring the one-liner was worth the effort. Most rational people would have spent the effort improving the article (if it could be) rather than debating whether the 1-liner ought be restored. I have in the past speedied several articles where the author has requested undeletion - if not copyvio or attack - I am glad to either userfy or restore to take to AFD. If someone wants to stand put on a one-liner article that asserts no notability, that's a choice they make.

Also, there is a fundamental disagreement over evaluation of speedy tagged articles. If the article itself doesn't assert notability (actually the wording is importance, which to me seems higher than notability, but I digress), it isn't the admin's job to search for whether some claim of notability can be established: "Joe Blow is my friend" tagged A7, so we search whether Joe Blow invented the transistor? nope. "XYZ is the king of the world" - that's an assertion of notability, literally, but these CSD criteria are not Bible verses in a literalist's world. I'd have no trouble speedy deleting articles where the subject's claim to notability is being the king/queen of the world despite the assertion as required. I think this places me in the majority of admins, not the minority actually - but some would say it's nonsenese or vandalism and avoid technically (in their view) violating A7. So be it.

Let's move beyond process which is too often overrated: Consider this, If speedy had been declined in either of these cases, would the articles have achieved any betterment? Carlossuarez46 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Your initial claim was that I unnecessarily follow process and am bureaucratic, yet you criticize me for not following the letter of A7. As I've said, I'm not as active as I used to be due to real life, so I wasn't around for whoever added exclusivity language to A7. But either way, the language specifically lists several different categories to which A7 applies. It was written that way from the beginning because of monumental concerns when CSD was started that administrators would use such a clause to enforce their own personal opinions on articles. CSD has been a pretty big success, imo, so some of the hesitation was unfounded, but again, A7 IS exclusive for a reason. The fact that people didn't want to add language confirming its exclusivity restores my faith in the reading ability of our editors. However, even I don't believe A7 is hard and fast — there is definitely some leeway, in this instance you just took it to far in the other direction. I personally include self-published media as extension of the "person" part of A7. As I've stated, I believe the reason that books, videos, and other some such things aren't covered by A7 is because of the editorial oversight involved that necessarily asserts some notability. I would delete an article about a self-published album by a non-notable band for that reason. I would not delete an article about a label-released album by a redlinked band because there is an assertion of notability there. I would delete an article about a self-published book by a non-notable author because there is no assertion of notability. I would not delete an article about a published book because there exists an assertion of notability.

Secondly, I did not intend to imply that my personal method of dealing with AfDs/speedy candidates should be required by all admins. I was just relaying what I do whenever I feel it would be helpful because you criticized me for doing it at the second DRV and asserted that I was saying something far more pervasive than what I actually said.

Regarding your last question, I think what would have happened is what actually happened (and I'm even leaving alone that the speedy WAS declined by an administrator and an AFD was ongoing, you just chose to ignore that): 40 hours after the AFD opened, the article became a snowball keep and fully complied with all of Wikipedia's policies. Since my entire opinion was that Pat's Calculator should have been deleted (and I would have done it myself), I don't see why I have to make a claim that it would have been bettered by declining the speedy nomination.

At any rate, I think we're talking around each other in circles now. We have a disagreement over what A7 applies to. You think it applies to any type of article that does not explicitly assert notability in its text—I think that's an overly liberal reading of the CSD and discounts discussion. I think that a published book or video automatically asserts notability, regardless of whether the article consisted of one line or one hundred. But I'm not the bureaucrat addicted to process that you think I am, based solely on this one article (and I think the reasoning for my position has been clear). I have no problem with differing opinions, my main problem with this specific situation is that:

The speedy had already been declined with a clear rationale by another administrator.
A discussion regarding the article's deletion was already ongoing at AFD.
The initial speedy nominator restored the speedy template, contrary to the explicit rules governing speedy deletions, and you deleted in response. I feel that, since you are supposed to review an article's history, at the very least, before deleting (for example, the article could have been decimated by a vandal in an attempt to get it deleted out-of-process), and I feel that the AFD should have been glanced at, too. Either one would have shown Pascal.Tesson's declination of the speedy. So, either you didn't look, or you didn't care that it had already been declined. I believe either one is not appropriate. If a speedy has been declined, than it simply cannot be deleted without a discussion. Speedies cannot be questionable or borderline.
After having all of this pointed out at the DRV, there was no acknowledgment of the opinions of other editors (administrators, in particular), and there was, what seemed to me, to be grasping at straws to justify the deletion (for example, the claim that even if A7 did not apply, then G11 would, which is entirely untrue — the article did not come close to qualifying for G11).

And none of this is intended to malign your character or judgment. If this is the only "mistake" (as I would classify it) in the thousands of deletions you do in a month, then you're batting .999. I just wish that there had been more of an open mind during the DRV. That's what set me off so much, and I apologize for any perceived hyperbole or attacks. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I think we just disagree in good faith. Not everyone (or even every admin) agrees on everything. There are those who interpret A7 liberally or conservatively, BLP differently (a whole 'nother topic that I would guess I am in the minority on), whether G3 applies to sockpuppets of indef blocked people or just to banned users, there are the inclusionist/deletionist debates, there are the immediatist/eventualist debates, there are those who like consistency in xfd/drv debates/outcomes while others are more tolerant of inconsistency, etc. Its part of what makes WP work - middle ground is usually found.

P.S. I have had articles for which I declined speedy on and/or sent to AFD been speedied anyway but I don't "own" those articles nor the final word on a decision to spare them from speedy deletion. Were those speedies wrong? I wasn't offended nor was I even mildly displeased. And most, I wasn't interested in the drama that DRV usually entails. I don't have to prove any point with anybody. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you declined a speedy for policy-based reasons (i.e., it wasn't because you were involved in the article or something like that), and another admin deleted it anyway, then yeah, I think I'd have a problem with that. It's not my position that any administrator "owns" an article, but that if an administrator declines a speedy nomination for a policy-based reason, then it's not a clear-cut speedy deletion candidate, which is all that CSD is for — to weed out the utter crap and let AFD deal with the rest using discussion and consensus. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sybian

Hello, I have attempted to resubmit the link to the Sybian review and specs as discussed in WP:COIN#Sybian, but even with your acknowledgment that the link should remain, Ronz has removed it and threatens to ban me even though I have constructively contributed to the Sybian article since Jan 2005. What recourse do I have to put a stop to his overzealous actions? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttysquirrel (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

Thank you for helping out with the Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations backlog! I'm afraid we're rather shorthanded at the moment, and it's always great to see a new contributor. (Apologies if you're not new to this; I'm semi-active and may not have seen you last time you worked on it.)

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to stumble upon it today, so I'm definitely new. I'm not nearly as active as I once was, but it's watchlisted and I'll do what I can to help. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Thank you for unblocking me, I greatly appreciate it. Johntex\^talk 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey you, i just wanted to say thank you for deleting my page. I bet you feel all high and mighty because you are a big "Administrator" and I am very scared of you. bet you were really popular in high school, huh? Well, have fun deleting other people contibutions to "wonder" site, it will make you feel good about yourself, won't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycholgymajor101 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]