User talk:John254/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Personal Attacks?!

WTF!!! Did you read the discussion - I was the one being attacked, and yet you reverted my edit and did not tell Emir Arven to stop personal attacks against me. Unbelieveable! —KingIvan 03:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2], and [3] constitute personal attacks, which violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Responding to personal attacks by other users does not justify making personal attacks yourself. I will, however, warn any other users involved in this dispute who made personal attacks. Please do not restore the personal attacks to User talk:Elaragirl. John254 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My last comment on that page (which was "Spread your shit on bs.wikipedia - on the en, we don't take crap!") was not a personal attack - I'm merely directing someone to the Wikipedia which is in the editor's first language. But besides that, if my last comment on that page is removed, then that discussion will have ended with a personal attack against me. (The last version without any "personal attacks" is this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elaragirl&oldid=102135133). It's either remove all of them, or none of them. —KingIvan 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But yes, I do realize how they can be seen as personal attacks. I've calmed down, and might go watch some TV (I think the Australian Open is on) —KingIvan 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on AIV

I inadvertently removed your report before applying the block rather than the other way around. I should have realized that the two functions aren't commutative. :) Please pardon the mistake, this is my first hour of doing this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"No longer needed"

You do realize that there's zero benefit in deleting old user or talk pages that contain significant content? It remains on the servers either way, and issues such as turning up in searches can be resolved by blanking. The only reason to delete is if you want to hide something from view. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fake newbies welcome message spambot

Hello I see you placed a speedy delete tag on User talk:Lhenryiii. Actually if you had placed the correct wecome message {{wellcome}} if would have fixed the problem at once. There is a vandal bot adding these. Any chance of some help reverting it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and medical science article

Would you mind moving that articlle back to the mainspace? Redirects to userspace are not allowed and as such the redirect to your user subpage has been deleted per WP:CSD. That means there is no way for people who were planning to work on the article to find it! There have been various discussions about the page and I have suggested it be split into articles about- (1) HIV/AIDS and its incidence among the gay community, (2) whether homosexuality is caused by genetic or environmental factors and (3) reproduction for same-sex couples. Which seems better than this bizarre combination of those topics. References can be added during this process. But it would be helpful if the article could go back to mainspace so contributors other than yourself can work on it. Many thanks, WJBscribe 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've now seen the AfD so understand the move. Is it OK if I make known the presence of the article in your userspace to those interested in developing new sourced article(s)? WJBscribe 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WJBscribe 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting OrphanBot

Could you please look at what you're reverting before reverting OrphanBot's actions? OrphanBot correctly identified those images as not having a source, and tagged them accordingly. --Carnildo 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report in respect of User:Jochic on the page Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, we have been unable to block this user because the user has not received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) recently or has not vandalised since that warning was given. If a user who has not been warned vandalises a page please ensure they receive the appropriate warning and only report them on AIV if they vandalise again soon after receiving a final warning. Thank you.

Sandstein 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jochic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of 87.116.145.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for the exact same vandalism. We need not give each sockpuppet a series of warnings before being blocked. John254 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the revert of that troll on my talk page. Looking at your history I see you're active in helping and reporting these, keep up the good work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

John, Thanks for your help with correcting the Stoke Newington School web site. I am Chair of Governors there and am concerned at the wide range of inaccurate information (Mark Emmerson is in fact still the head), abuse and libel (accusing senior staff of coacaine use and other acts).

While I hugely value wikipedia's model of open editing, is there nothing that can be done to stop such practices?

Henry, henry@happy.co.uk

Vandalism comments

Hi John, I appreciate that you took the time to explain your case. I just saw your comments at the vandalism talk-page but I'm at work now. I'll take a look at it in more detail when I get home, but thanks very much for registering them. Ekantik ^talk 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey John,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The

Without prejudice, I've reverted your close of this debate. Please make sure that when you close deletion debates that you user Template:Oldafdfull on the talk page, eh? - brenneman 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

Hi John, could you please let me know what your involvement was in the User:ElKevbo 3RR incident? If you'd like, you can email me. Thanks, Crum375 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the content dispute over Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. I discovered this situation when ElKevbo reported an apparent three-revert rule violation by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling on WP:AN3. Looking through the history of the article, I noticed that most of the edits that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had reverted were made from various IP addresses, and that ElKevbo had joined in the edit war started by the IPs. The use of IP addresses, especially multiple IP addresses, for the purpose of reversions in a content dispute raises the possibility of sockpuppetry by the established users participating in the dispute. Thus, as a concerned user, I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. If the result of that request had been a determination that ElKevbo was unrelated to the IP addresses in question, that would have resolved the situation. Indeed, if ElKevbo really were editing from "(rural) Tennessee" as he claimed on his talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo would have almost certainly have found that ElKevbo was unrelated to the IP addresses in this dispute, which were located in Chicago, Illinois. Perhaps this issue could be resolved by asking Essjay, who responded to the checkuser request, whether the IP address used by ElKevbo at the time of the incident is consistent with his claim that he is editing from "(rural) Tennessee". John254 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided after consultation with all involved to reverse the block. I appreciate the work you put into your evidence, but I think we don't have enough to make a convincing case, and decided to give ElKevbo the benefit of the doubt. Thanks again for your effort, Crum375 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing autobacklog settings on AIV

Greetings! I've noticed a couple of times that you have changed the autobacklog settings on WP:AIV "due to the time-critical nature of reports on this page". I haven't, however, seen you changing the settings back after your report(s) was/were handled. In these cases, it would probably be better/easier to simply change the {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} by hand, rather than changing the settings so the bots will change it. Manually making the change will not cause any problems for the bots (as long as you don't change anything other than adding/removing the "no" in the template), and the bots will not reverse your change (as long as the number of reports is more than the RemoveLimit setting). This way, the setting will not remain different than the consensus-derived value for extended periods of time, but you still call attention to the page by enabling the backlog. Thanks, and thanks of course for your contributions to keeping Wikipedia vandalism-free! —Krellis (Talk) 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ejaculation

I'm not sure where you have been for the past three months, but discussion on the ejaculation article is an old and well argued discussion. I'm not going to rehash the whole discussion with you. You could read the archive of the talk page and you would see that a group of people negotiated movement of the image from lede down to a section. Since that time there has been a consensus supporting the current version. The linkimage is a new change, not one discussed first. No attempt to discuss this has ben recently made. This was discussed many moths ago, and an agreement that linkimage was not appropriate was the outcome at that time.

I don;t mean to be unfriendly, my apologies if I seem that way. It seems every third day there is someone who comes along and tries to remove the image becuase they think it is pornographic. After long debate we have worked through that for some time. For a month and a half it has been quiet, and we have had a consensus. Now, you feel that it should be different. That's fine with me, but you will need to discuss it on the talk page, and get others to agree with that. In the mean time I am going back to what has worked the longest. Thanks, Atom 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Looking at the current discussion, there appears to be strong opposition to inline display of the photograph by several users, and strong support for inline display by only one user. In any event, I see no need for inline display; if readers want to see the photograph, they can simply click on the link. Linkimaging the photograph simply means that readers who don't wish to view the photograph won't see it; examining the discussion on the talk page, there appear to be quite a few readers who have expressed this preference. John254 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that you have wound up in the same fight as I did. I just wanted to point out the same as Atom did that the discussion has gone round and round. If you really want to do something about the image, you are probably going to have to go through arbitration. Atom will do little more than call you a bible thumper, discredit any other image as "not as good", play dumb about the image's content, make broad misquotes of law, use and army of fellow "anti-censors" to make reverts, and deny that there is a consensus until you drop it. This has been going on since December. At some point, I simply decided that when users like Atom can set up camp on a page and impede it that Wikipedia lacks sufficient oversight and is wrapped in too much red tape. I decided after several attempts to get someone higher involved that it just wasn't worth the effort. Wikipedia can continue to suffer if it doesn't have the collective foresight to clean house and enforce policy. However, if you should decide to go to arbitration, I am willing to back you up, since I was for the longest time the only one willing to counterpoint Atom's daily horse shit. -- jsa 08:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

about your edit on CVU

About this edit [4]. The template {{unmaintained}} is not a "bad" template, it's a pointer that there are data on the page that are inaccurate and outdated, and by checking the contributions of said page, not much non-vandalism edits had been going on lately. If you are active maintaining the page, I'm sorry if you felt overstepped, and I hope that you might fix all the inconsistencies. The major problem is that the IRC section is totally outdated, only one still part of the CVU could fix that (for example #vandalism-en-wp belongs to WP:VCN not CVU).

Another question that may be appropriate, is the question if CVU still exists, as VCN seems to have taken over much of that. _→AzaToth 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the information on WP:CVU is actually transcluded from Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools (which is also transcluded into WP:CUV). Consequently, the edit history of WP:CVU itself does not reflect the many updates that have been made to the tool list. If the information on the IRC channels -- which is from Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools -- misattributes the owner of these channels, you are welcome to correct it. As to whether the CVU still exists, I can confirm that it does, primarily due to the efforts of PseudoSudo and myself to defeat Bobby Boulders' plot to destroy the CVU by nominating it for deletion using Dr Chatterjee as a sockpuppet -- see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination), and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination). As a result of my extensive arguments against the deletion of the CVU, I now have the distinction of being the only user whose talk page is currently being targeted by Bobby Boulders for vandalism -- see Special:Contributions/Mister_Sunshine, for example. John254 17:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the IRC now, and the "only" cvu channel that existed vws #cvu, and it's invite only, so I removed all cvu irc channels from the page. _→AzaToth 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, John. Just a quick note to say thanks for your support at my RfA. The level of support was overwhelming and I intend making good the trust bestowed upon me. Thanks again. Bubba hotep 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:82.17.226.25

Hey, just to let you know I removed the above IP from AIV as it had only had 2 edits and one post your warning, I've given the IP a test 3 warning now, so hopefully this will stop further disruption. I'll keep an eye on the IP to make sure they don't vandalise anymore, regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good spot with the sock IP RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

82.34.168.166 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the vandalism - but it wasn't me. I think I must be sharing someone else's IP (I have a router, could that be it?) because I've never been to the Christian Aid article. 82.34.168.166 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LHTV

Hi,

I have put a redirect to Llanishen High School and copied the material to that entry. Regards Springnuts 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

blocking notification

Concerning the temporary block notice for 128.241.111.173, you and I had an edit conflict in issuing the notice. So, rather than having two show up (don't need to pile it on), and since I was the blocking admin (I'll take the heat), I removed the notice you added and left mine (which contained the specific reasons I had for the block). Thanks for reporting the problem. — ERcheck (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm new to Wiki

Could somebody explain what the difference between a "company promotion" page and info on a company? John254 decided that my Velma's Kettle Corn page is unacceptable, yet I see a Wiki link for Orville Redenbacher's, Act II, Pop Secret. Obviously those are "brand" names and I'm a nobody. Obviously these pages are ABOUT THE COMPANY. The Orville link has a logo and the Act II has a link to the company website. (That's basically what I did for my tiny company) Who gets to decide when I'm appropriate for Wiki? When a company enters the "national psche?" Do I need a certain amount of profits? Do I need to be advertising nationally? Every band in existance has a Wiki entry. Almost every band wants to sell you their CD or a song. THEY are in business to make money. My product is wrapped in plastic and so is theirs. What's the difference? If you're making money off of art you can have a Wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biksco (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2007

The biggest problem with Velma's Kettle Corn was that the article was written in the tone of an advertisement, including substantial praise for the product, and locations at which the product might be purchased. Like all Wikipedia articles, articles concerning consumer products should be written from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia's notability guideline is often applied quite stringently to consumer products. To establish the notability of Velma's Kettle Corn, you would need to show that this product "has been the subject of secondary sources... [which are] reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other". Finally, you describe Velma's Kettle Corn as "my product". If you do indeed have a significant financial interest this product, either through ownership of the company which produces it, as an employee this company, or otherwise, you should not create a Wikipedia article concerning it, as this would be considered a conflict of interest. John254 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Template:Notcensored2

This concerns your edits of 04:20 and 04:24, 23 March 2007.

Whether specific pictures actually "are", or merely "may be", necessary to the quality of an article is an argument I'll leave to specific article talk pages.

However, I simply can't see blanking from a talk page template the general advisory that "Off-topic discussions, including discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia, serve no constructive purpose in improving the article, and may be removed."

That remains true whether or not anyone warns the reader/editor of the fact. It's explicit in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. ...

The template just gave its fair warning up front, without the reader having to go look at the guidelines from the link atop the edit page.

This isn't about "removal of legitimate comments from talk pages simply because one disagrees with them"; it's about keeping on-topic.

To make that clearer, in case anyone else might get confused on the matter, I've rephrased it as:

As the talk page guidelines state, discussions which are off-topic (not about how to improve the article) may be removed, so this is not the place for discussions about the acceptability of images of nudity on Wikipedia.

Such issues are too broad for a single article's talk page; they are certainly too broad to try settling by deleting content from a template, or by deleting the template itself. They should be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, and openly discussed there. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

"If an article topic has no reliable sources" is not the same as "If an article itself cites no reliable sources". We don't delete articles as unverifiable because they don't cite sources. We delete them as unverifiable because no sources exist. Please adhere to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which both state that one should do one's homework and look for sources onesself before nominating something for deletion for being unverifiable. For starters, a nomination that states "I looked for sources here, here, and here, and found nothing." will have far greater weight in a discussion. An article is only unverifiable if both it cites no sources and all attempts to find sources come up emptyhanded. Uncle G 14:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, John, I was just going to write you the same thing. I agree with Uncle G, most of WP articles do not cite sources but we cannot delete them only because of it. Try to find the sources yourself please :-) Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, Wikipedia:Attribution clearly states that

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

John254 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn a number of the AFD nominations. Also, I will make a reasonable effort to find sources for an article myself before nominating any more articles for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability. John254 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ejaculation image

After more than two days, I removed the speedy tag from the image. The image has been kept at IFD, and legal concerns are too complicated to be a WP:CSD anyway. Please use WP:IFD or WP:DRV as more appropriate venues for discussion of this issue, or wait for the image to be deleted as a PUI. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi there. You just added, perfectly correctly, a warning to the editor responsible for the article Sweaty Betty. The point is, I had just tagged the article for {{speedy}} and was adding a warning at the same time as you. Would you think it reasonable to assume that if an editor adds a tag he/she will follow up with a warning to the editor at fault? Certainly I always do, and accordingly for you to jump in and warn an editor whom I have tagged is very time-inefficient. Warn them, OK. But please wait a short time to see if the tagging editor is already doing so.--Anthony.bradbury 16:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your take on WP:ATT

John, I fear you may be misinterpreting the purpose behind the above link, specifically the text, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The purpose of the text, as near as I can tell, is to note something that constitutes a rephrase: if the reliable sources for an article topic simply do not exist, then WP etc. That is, a lack of attribution is not cause for deletion, if the sources exist, we just have to provide links. --Dennisthe2 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn a number of the AFD nominations. Also, I will make a reasonable effort to find sources for an article myself before nominating any more articles for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability. John254 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you also wait at least two weeks after an article is first created before submitting it to AfD? Imagine the poor new editor who in good faith creates an article, saves his work, then goes back to add something five minutes later andfinds a deletion notice on it. How likely is that person to edit the article again to add the sourcing? How likely is he to even remain on Wikipedia? That could be very hurtful both to the editor and to the encyclopedia, which may lose out on a good article on a notable subject (and especially a notable non-Anglo-American subject, of which we have far too few already). Had that happened to my first article, I would not have become involved in Wikipedia. --Charlene 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will also wait for a much longer period of time before nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability (unless the article is comprised primarily of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, and would qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G10). John254 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Diana Ross

Hello John. I have reverted a vandal removing of content in the article Diana Ross. Why do you repeatedly revert the article Diana Ross to the vandalized version? Please explain. Thank you! Wooyi 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced negative information from a biography of a living person is manifestly not vandalism. Indeed, such information may be removed repeatedly, irrespective of WP:3RR, and editors who continue to reinsert such information may be blocked for disruption. Please read WP:BLP. Thank you. John254 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Diana Ross problem

Ohh, my bad, I did not really see what the content was when i was using TWINKLE (you know that TW thing does many automatic stuff). What I examined when I was reverting was User talk:209.244.188.131, the anon user who removed the content, which has a bad record of vandalism and BLP violation. I did not intend to commit vandalism, in fact I have never vandalized a single page since I start editing long ago, please Assume good faith. Thank you! Wooyi 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

template:blp2 is not a vandalism warning, but merely a warning about Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, which nonetheless might, retrospectively, seem somewhat excessive under the circumstances. John254 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Byron Long

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, but it doesn't appear to be an attack page. Wrong tag? Natalie 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Byron Long for speedy deletion since it appeared to be entirely unreferenced, which, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, would constitute a serious WP:BLP violation. WP:BLP states that

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Looking through the page history, however, it appears that there actually was a reference for the article, which I have restored. John254 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm not seeing is the negative tone. We are probably just interpreting the same things differently, so I'm curious as to which parts you think are negative in tone. Natalie 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G10 does use the term "negative in tone", which is a somewhat unfortunate choice of words. The more fundamental policy here appears to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that "biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone" should be speedily deleted. The underlying issue is not whether we believe that a description of a living person as a "porn actor" is actually negative. Rather, for WP:BLP purposes, the issue is whether, if an article incorrectly described someone as a "porn actor", such a description would be regarded as defamatory for the purpose of Wikipedia:Libel -- that is, whether such an incorrect description, if widely believed, might be likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the employment prospects or general reputation of the subject of the article. I would contend that describing someone as a "porn actor" is sufficiently "controversial in tone" to invoke WP:BLP concerns for the speedy removal and/or deletion of any unreferenced claims of this nature. John254 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. That makes perfect sense. I thought, perhaps, that you were worried about the assertions that he is gay/bisexual, given the juvenile vandals' propensity for scribbling "Lol dude, he's gay. Pwned!" or similar everywhere. The idea that the description of him as a porn actor could have been inaccurate didn't even occur to me. But I see he has an IMDb entry and, judging from his film titles (!), it's probably safe to assume he's a porn actor. Natalie 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey John, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for all those reverts of my talk page. Busy night! :) Thanks again! - Alison^☺ 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling

John254, seeing as you've been previously very active in discussions surrounding Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion I was wondering what you thought of User:David Levy's original idea of merging this page with Wikipedia:Straw polls into Wikipedia:Polling? I am thinking this makes sense. Perhaps you could rejoin the discussion about this contentious page. This section is currently the most active. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Whats your reasoning behind all those accounts being sockpuppets of the banned user? I don't know what I'm looking for. Viridae^Talk 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD procedure?

I see that you decided on some AfD. I saw an article on Tiger Airways Australia that wasn't very good and tagged for deletion. However, I thought it had a lot of potential so I greatly expanded it and am going to work on it even more. The AfD was started on April 9th, more than the maximum 5 days. Since my major revision, the vote has been 100% keep. Before my revisions, it was mixed.

Who decides? Any administrator who decides to work on the backlog? A small set of people? Naturally, I'll recuse myself. However, in the future, could I work on the backlog? If so, do I just jump in and decide, assuming I can do it in a fair and rational manner? Or do I need some sort of qualification?VK35 00:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors who aren't administrators may close AFD discussions whose outcomes are "keep" or "redirect" under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. That being said, an important factor in the closure of AFD discussions is that there is currently a dispute as to the extent to which AFD discussions should be closed on the basis of "vote-counting", and the extent to which users closing AFD discussions are to weigh the arguments and evidence presented, and decide the outcomes of such discussions on the basis of their personal analyses of the strength of such arguments and evidence (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which is currently protected due to a dispute as to whether the page has achieved guideline status.) As a result, most AFD closures probably employ a combination of both methods. For instance, if an article is an obvious copyright violation or WP:BLP violation, it will, of course, need to be deleted, even if there is a unanimous consensus favoring retention. On the other hand, if there is an unanimous consensus favoring retention of an article, there is probably a very good reason for it; such consensus should not be disregarded without a compelling justification. To the extent that AFD discussions are closed on he basis of quantitative considerations, it is important to avoid counting votes by sockpuppet accounts. For this reason, only votes by established users are counted. For instance, if 20 new accounts whose only edits are to an AFD discussion favor retention of an article, this does not constitute a consensus to keep the article. Not all new users commenting at AFD are sockpuppets, of course; however, votes by new users aren't counted due to the potential for sockpuppetry. To the extent that a user closing an AFD discussion weighs the strength of the arguments presented, all arguments are considered, including those presented by new users. It is likewise important to avoid giving undue weight to comments in an AFD discussion which have been generated through canvassing in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Most importantly, to the extent that a user closing AFD discussions is called upon to personally weigh the evidence and arguments presented, he or she must be quite familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies and practices, and policies and practices which relate to deletion. For instance, if an article cannot be written from a neutral point of view due to the choice of topic, it would need to be deleted. If in doubt as to the correct outcome, one should not close an AFD discussion. John254 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:74.114.9.121‎

I suspect this IP is a sockpuppet for new user User:Killbunny109. VanTucky 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist Games

Hi, you undid my change on surrealist games. Despite the fact that it looks like I was vandalizing the page, Eat Poop You Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_Poop_You_Cat) is actually a surrealist game. I was referred to the Surrealist games page by the Eat Poop You Cat page, and was not trying to create any vandalism. Sorry about the confusion. Brekkbockrath 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Collins

Regarding the disambiguation page, Chris Collins. I restored the edit that user:D'Ranged 1 and added a source. Please let me know if you have any questions. -Will Beback · † · 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

checkuser

Please respond at the checkuser discussion before re-creating these user pages. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of abusive sockpuppetry was adequately described in the checkuser request. Also, note that the checkuser request would have been rejected had it not set forth evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. John254 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it appears so. Would it be at all possible to change my username and have the socks linked to the new username? I say this out of concern for the use of my real name. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10