User talk:J Di/0107

january 2007 |

Thanks for the userpage revert

Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated, Gwernol 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan93 (talk · contribs) requesting unblock

Aidan93 (talk · contribs) is requesting to be unblocked, claiming that someone hacked into his account and vandalized. I'm not sure how sincere that explanation is, but I thought I'd run it by you, to see if you had any thoughts as the blocking admin. -- Natalya 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock request has already been reviewed([1]). I don't believe that their account was hacked, but if you do want to unblock them, I don't mind. J Di ^talk 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

You appear to have cunningly concealed the "Block user" link with a little yellow sticky label. Are you trying to tell us something? :) – Gurch 15:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on 149.9.0.27

Why did you block the person for only 3 hours? Usually, on the first block a user receives, it lasts for 24 hours. Diez2 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like blocking IPs longer than they need to be blocked, and there's no "usually" about 24 hours. J Di 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User 149.9.0.27 has deleted an entry from the List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and left no remarks on the discussion page and ignored the valid, verifiable sources cited. I see that this user's page is full of warnings and that they just were unblocked last week. Thanks for any help. Steve 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do anything right now because the IP has only made one edit today, but I'll do something if it happens again. J Di 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Steve 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Fyi, just noticed this: [2] Regards, Accurizer 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun... Thanks. J Di 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you bad, bad, vandal. I left a note on the IP's talk page (User talk:66.194.114.163); I hope that you two can resolve this issue. See you around :) Gracenotes ^T § 22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently another IP did so again. I left a note on their talk page as well.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Lungwortwitheggs

I think it's safe to block as vandal-only account. – Ch acor 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see any of them. I've blocked the account indefinitely. J Di 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of completeness

In the interests of completeness, have you considered offering an explanation as to why you deleted Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism, even though I had placed a {hangon} tag on it? If I understand the procedure, administrators are not supposed to complete the speedy deletion of articles that have had a {hangon} tag placed on them.

I didn't ask you earlier because I didn't figure out where the master log of deletions was, until today, and I couldn't figure out who was responsible.

I maintain a log of attempts to delete the articles I start that are related to the "war on terror". I didn't understand the deletion procedure when the first attempts were made. I started the log after the dozenth attempt, because I found I kept repeating myself, in each and every {afd} -- which I found very aggravating and time-consuming.

Unfortunately, when I went back and reviewed the deletion attempts, having learned a little more about the deletion procedure, it seemed to me that both some of the editors who nominated those articles for deletion, and a few of the administrators who closed the debates, had committed errors.

Unfortunately, all of the errors were in favor of deletion.

Before I create an entry to document the attempt to delete this article, I want to offer you an opportunity to explain yourself.

I'll look for your reply here.

Cheers -- Geo Swan 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with {{hangon}} templates on them can still be speedy deleted if no reason for not deleting them has been given, and according to the timestamps, no reason had been given on the article's talk page when I deleted it. I deleted the article per CSD A1 because the article at the time contained only a line of text and a near-empty table (link). J Di 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are such a fan of timestamps:

21:51, 2006 December 27	Geo Swan	Article started
21:52, 2006 December 27	Tarinth	Nomination for speedy deletion - (Less than one minute after the article was created.)
22:03, 2006 December 27	Geo Swan	It takes me about ten minutes to populate the first entry to this table. I notice the speedy, and refresh my memory about how to challenge it.
22:10, 2006 December 27	Geo Swan	I place the {hangon} I start working on the justification for the article on Talk:Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism
22:48, 2006 December 27	J Di	Deleted "Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism" (CSD A1) Deletion 38 minutes after the hangon was placed. Deletion 57 minutes after the article was started. But, in effect, for most of that 57 minutes I was working on the explanation. In effect you only allowed me 12 minutes to populate the table.
23:15, 2006 December 27	Geo Swan	I complete my explanation as to why I think the article shouldn't be deleted -- 65 minutes after I placed the {hangon}. I shouldn't have to explain or justify taking an hour to compose my explanation. But I will, since you seem to need to have things spelled out to you. For the first 8 months of 2006 I made numerous contributions - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] - to the Tablighi Jamaat article. I spent much of that hour reviewing them, because I take my responsibility to other wikipedians seriously.
23:21, 2006 December 27	Geo Swan	I look for an explanation from the administrator who performed the over-hasty deletion on the talk page.
00:16, 2006 December 28	Geo Swan	I look for an explanation from the administrator who performed the over-hasty deletion when I open a discussion on undeleting the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 28
16:04, 2006 December 28	J Di	Your reply to user:trialsanderrors, justifies the deletion because the article contained an "Almost empty table". You declined to follow up on your deletion by weighing in on the undeletion page.
00:16, 2006 December 28	Geo Swan	When I have a chance to populate the table's entries, without worrying about out of control administrators, each entry takes less than ten minutes. There are three dozen individuals in the table. Fully populating the table, and completing the rest of the article is about a full day's work. Not one hour's. And not the 12 minutes you effectively allowed me.

As an administrator, aren't you supposed to be familiar with the wikipedia procedures you exercise?

The nominator, who seems to be a responsible editor, applied the {db} tag within a minute of the article's creation. The second paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." -- you are supposed to know this. Not bothering to recognize that this nomination was in violation of procedure was your first mistake.
How many of your fellow administrators do you think you will find who will support your ignoring a {hangon} and carrying the speedy deletion to term, less than 2/3rds of an hour after the {hangon} was applied, and less than an hour after the article was created? In my opinion, this was your second mistake.
The rules for undeletion tell the person requesting undeletion to advise the administrator who performed the deletion of their undeletion request. Let me suggest that the reason for the heads-up is so that the administrator can follow the undeletion. Let me suggest that the reason the administrator would follow the undeletion, is so they could recognize if they made a normal, human, mistake, as early as possible. And the reason why they would want to do this is so they could cut short the unnecessary procedures, and save the time of all the other people involved. In my opinion, not showing any interest in the after-effects of the actions you took was your third mistake.
The administrator who undeleted the article also placed it in {afd}. They wrote that they did so after consulting with the administrator who performed the deletion. That would be you, wouldn't it? Were you aware of what they wrote? If you were, then, IMO, that would be your fourth mistake. And, if you weren't, IMO, that would be your fourth mistake.
I wrote you, and left you a civil message, giving you an opportunity to explain yourself. In your reply you show no sign of giving any consideration to the possibility that you may have made any mistakes. In my opinion this is your fifth mistake.

Half a dozen people weighed in on whether the article should be undeleted. A dozen people weighed in on during the {afd}. Don't you agree that, if you were taking responsibility for the implications of your actions, you could have cut short these procedures, saving the time of all these other people?

I am trying not to be any more blunt than necessary here, but if this is typical of how you exercise your administrator's authority, I am going to encourage you to sit down, take a deep breath, and consider whether you might be tempermentally unsuited to exercise an administrator's authority. I urge you to do so in the strongest possible terms.

There would still be plenty of other ways you could contribute to the wikipedia, if you decide to resign your administratorship.

Candidly, -- Geo Swan 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anywhere how long an administrator has to wait for an article to be finished before they can speedy delete. You hadn't edited the page for 38 minutes when I got to it in the speedy deletion category and I thought you may have gone offline because in many cases where a {{hangon}} tag is added to an article, a reason for not deleting the article is on the article soon afterwards. Had you known that I deleted the article and asked me to restore it, I would have. As for the deletion review, I followed it as much as I felt was necessary at the time but I didn't see the AfD discussion because I had forgotten about the article by the time I woke up later that day. All I can do at this point is apologise for the fact that you feel I acted too hastily and do not want to accept responsibility for my actions. J Di 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Apology accepted.

Some questions:

Am I incorrect to think that part of the administrator's role, when completing a speedy, prod, afd, is to make sure the nomination conforms to the wikipedia's policies and procedures?
Are you aware of any place in any of the dozen or more wiki-documents that deal with deletion where readers are told how to find out who deleted an article? If any of these documents explain how to find the deleting administraator, they weren't prominent for me to find during my first two and a quarter years on the wikipedia. Perhaps this explanation should be added, or placed more prominently?
Perhaps the administrators who finish the deletion of speedy nominations should fix on the period to wait, and inform readers of that period in the same place where readers are informed they need to place a {{hangon}}?

Cordially -- Geo Swan 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't wrong in thinking that it is the deleting administrator's responsibility to make sure that an article they are deleting is being deleted in accordance with the deletion policies, and I do my best to make sure that I give a clear reason or a link to a relevant policy page in the deletion summary box. Special:Log/delete links to Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, and this page explains how to check who deleted a page, but it has only existed since November 10 2006. Finally, there are a few places where you could propose that policy change, including the Wikipedia:Village pump and the criteria for speedy deletion talk page. J Di 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You (Lloyd song) nn?

Hello, I would like to know on what grounds you consider the song "You" by Lloyd as being non-notable? A Google search reveals more than 120,000 results, it is listed on AOL Music, and it is currently #9 on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay and #3 on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay. Until I recieve a response from you I am reinstating the article with corrections and citations. Thank you. --AndreniW 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unsourced and didn't have any information in it relevant to the single that couldn't have been put in Lloyd (singer) at the time. J Di 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just wondering how you're going? Shaggy9872004 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 216.46.79.2 and User:David Betesh

Hi, JD. An incident you did some enforcement action on back in November has resurfaced: 216.46.79.2 has yet again begun removing the middle name of killer in the article Emanuel Jaques. Surprise, surprise: it came after I had a dispute with User:David Betesh about this very issue. You can read the dispute here, here and here. See also Ttiotsw's warning here, which User:David Betesh has elected to remove, as he does with all warnings.

Could you advise on where best to submit a report? At WP:SUSPSOCK or WP:RFI? --Rrburke^(talk) 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want other administrators to look into the problem, post a comment on WP:AN or WP:SPP; WP:RFI is listed on WP:MFD and may get deleted. The IP's most recent edits aren't too bad so I won't block them at the moment. J Di 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike your tone.

I've been reading through your archives, you seem to be one of the most unpleasent characters that I've ever had the misfortune to run into on wikipedia.

Not only did I find numerous warnings about civility (or INcivility, in your case),personal attacks and 3RR breaches.

In my opinion, you are not suitible to be a Wikipedia administrator.

I am going to read ALL of your comments, and, if the tone doesn't change, I will request that you lose your administrator rights.

1B6 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you do that. J Di 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realise, 1B6, that complaining about administrator incivility while being incivil yourself is likely to result in your complaints being immediately dismissed. -- Steel 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original comment. I find this user to be incredibly naive, not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages

I disagree with your recent change to this page; it seems only to make the infamous orange bar more confusing to new users being welcomed, in my opinion. I've requested for it to be reverted on its talk page; maybe you'd like to discuss this change there? --ais523 19:00, 26 January 2007 (U T C)

The Wedge (Australian TV show) "early"

I'm just here to ask you why you reverted that edit unexpllained because on official website it indicates and says that 'The Wedge: Season 2' will be broadcast in the next 1 or 2 months. That is still in the first half ot this year, therefore it is "early" in 2007. Thanks! Shaggy9872004 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say "in the next 1 or two months", or have words to that effect? All I saw on the website was "early in 2007", which means different things to different people. J Di 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

82.32.33.192

Remain civil when "warning" users; comments like the ones you have left on User talk:82.32.33.192 are unacceptable, even if the person behind the IP has made personal attacks against you. J Di 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at the history of the event before you interrupt. 1B6 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: thanks, you just proved that my original comment was true!

What history do you want me to look at? I've looked at Special:Contributions/82.32.33.192, and the IP has only made two edits (that haven't been deleted). Also, if you want to continue being uncivil towards me, I won't bother trying to help; I don't have to help if I don't want to. J Di 10:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have seen that those comments left were incivil, and I didnt even ask for your help in the first place, you decided to interrupt, as usual, and turn everything into a struggle. 1B6 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm an administrator, so I can block users that need to be blocked. You posted a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and by doing that you asked me and every other administrator that gives a damn about that page to look into your report. Even though you didn't post the report in the correct section either time, I spent my time on looking into your report and decided that the IP doesn't need to be blocked because no edits have been made by it today. If you want to continue disliking me for whatever reason (I don't even know where I'm supposed to have run into you or why you decided to let me know how much you don't like me), you carry on, but don't give me a hard time for doing something I said I would do. J Di 11:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are to be blocked on site. And I dont hate you, I loath you with a passion. 1B6 11:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Please also read Wikipedia:Civility. J Di 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Then I suggest you also read wp:civil, as you are more incivil than me. 1B6 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about who you think is "more incivil", it's about the fact that you have been uncivil in response to incivility and in response to me doing things I would do whether you were on Wikipedia or not. I can see that you don't really care so I'm just going to stop this now as I have better ways to waste my time. J Di 09:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare try and throw this on me, first off, you had the cheek to interrupt in a situation which dosent concern you, then you tried to tell me that I was being incivil by making a response to some anon.

Clearly you are not suitible to be an admin, so I suggest you read wp:ARL. 1B6 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV does concern me, and your messages to the IP were uncivil. J Di 09:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get it through your head that I was NOT BEING INCIVIL! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1B6 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your userpage

Seeing you don't have a userpage, I've decided to redirect it to your talk page. Hope you don't mind. And thanks for reverting the vandaism on my page. I appreciate it! --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well

I am sorry, it is apparent that i am a meta:DICK, never mind though 1B6 09:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]