User talk:Throwaway85/Archive 2

Re: Signature

I don't know why it's displaying my URL. I don't want it to do that, I just want it to display my username. Any ideas on how to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk •contribs) 14:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the source, idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added byBobStinkyButt (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. It was in "preferences". Many thanks, o helpful Bob.Object404 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol that was a vandal who came by in February. I was going to remove his comment, but I kind of liked it. Struck now. Glad you got it sorted out. Let me know if there's anything you need help with. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks :) Object404 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot(talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I swear to god, SineBot, if you don't stop this nonsense I'll arcsin your ass. Go away. I'm making things. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

I noticed this. The image had already been deleted and not by me. I was just tidying the commented text away. Self-revert? --John (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

i was wondering why the picture didn't come back. I'll go ahead and revert (if someone hasn't already changed it) Throwaway85(talk) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[1].Nathan ^T 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What the...? I have no idea how I did that. Thanks for the catch and the heads up. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 07:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Really not sure what's going on here. I've been accused of sockery. Was a CU done? If it helps, I've been editting from the public wireless at my university. If there's any info I can provide to help clear this up, I'd be more than happy to do so. Just for the record, who am I accused of being a sockpuppet(eer) of? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:53 am, Today (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Using multiple personas to troll ANI is generally frowned upon. Brandon (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What multiple personas are you talking about? I seriously don't know what's going on here. Can I see the results of the checkuser?Throwaway85 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking into this further, I came across this post on J.delanoy's talk page. I'm actually somewhat concerned about this. I've had (ancient) dealings with Nja, and he questioned my status in the past. If you look, somewhere a C/U was done on me in regards to Domer48, which came back negative. Also, check comments from rd232 on one of the first messages in my talk archive. I've yet to see what sockpuppet I'm accused of having. Furthermore, there has been no evidence presented of a c/u having been done. I'm concerned here.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[2]. Brandon (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think is that there was another person at my university posting on an/i at the same time. I'd still like to see the c/u, as I'm sure I would be vindicated. Actually, having just done a whois lookup, it seems that that is exactly what happened. Both of those IPs listed resolve to my university (of over 10,000 students). I'm not sure who technical reasons is, but the account was created today. I've been here since August, I believe. Furthermore, if you look closer, you'll actually see that we were on different sides in the discussion (of which I was not a part, save for one comment). I had not posted on Talk:Holocaust denial until after reading that thread, which you'll see from the talk page there. Prior to today, I had never posted on any jewish-related topics, rather my attention was primarily on the IRA page, although I'vew been branching out recently. Furthermore, I don't recall ever having any interactions with the people technical reasons had beef with. I merely made one joke in reference to crafty's tongue-in-cheeky claims of being in a cabal.

It seems this has been a misunderstanding, due primarily to bad luck and to one of my fellow students having a grudge against Jews. I can't speak for them, but if you wouldn't mind reviewing the points I have made and reconsidering the block, I would be most appreciative. Also, I think it best to mention now that I would appreciate it if this comment could be deleted from the record after my case is reviewed, as I don't want to out myself. One more thing, if you could whitelist those IPs, I would appreciate it, as they belong to my university and I do a lot of editting there. I don't know what the proper channels are to request that, but it can wait until after my case is reviewed.

Thank you, and I look forward to continuing to contribute. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One final note: While I don't disagree with the block of technical reasons, I'm not sure it's a case of deliberate sockery. He could very well have closed his browser, opened it again, and editted as an IP without realizing he had been signed out. Our entire campus is a hotspot, with dozens of access points. He could have reconnected to the university's wireless network and been assigned a new ip, or he could have editted from a different building, etc. Once again, block = yes, sock = not necessarily. If you check my history, I think you'll see that I've editted from many different IPs, all within the same range.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was hoping to hear back from User:Brandon about this, and perhaps I'm being hasty, but there are several ongoing discussions I was participating in that I'd like to rejoin. It appears that I was a victim of collateral damage, as I commented on an an/i thread started by another user at my university who was subsequently banned. The CU, naturally, showed us as being on the same IP range. No hard feelings, but I'd appreciate it if somebody could review the post I made here: User talk:Throwaway85. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your request was already reviewed and declined, I agree with that finding. The IP and useragent evidence is convincing. ^Chillum 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You know, a total of three users or IPs have used Firefox 2.0.x from your university within the last three months. You, your IP sock, and another person who created an account with it in early October and never edited. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Check again. I'm on 3.5.5 and have been for ages. I did switch from Ubuntu to Windows7 a couple months ago, not sure if that entailed a new ff version.. Here's a snip of this screen and my about: [3] Or you could just look at the edits in question, look at my edit history, and realize there's no way we're the same person. Please. Just assuming the tiniest bit of good faith, actually look at the edits/editors in question, and ask yourself if we really seem like the same person. Then go back and read what I've written here. I'm not mad about the intial block, these things happen. But this is starting to get a bit silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sorry but I do think a couple of the computers either in the library or in one of the labs are runnning an ancient version of ff. Still, You'll see I'm currently on 3.5.5. I don't even think you can get ff 2.x for windows 7. it certainly hasn't been available for download since Windows 7 came out, and there's no reason I would ever use an outdated browser, with all of the security flaws that entails. Also, and I really can't stress this enough, I was on the other side of the debate from the blocked editor.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And, seeing as I have time on my hands, ask yourself this: Why on earth would I create a sock to start a thread on AN/I, about users I've never encountered, on a page I hadn't visited until after the thread was made? Look at what I posted in that topic and tell me that it was the reply of one of the OP's socks. This is just plain silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But hey, if you really want irrefutable proof, I can give you the netlink ID I use to sign onto the computers/internet at school and the contact info for the network administrators here. You can ask them if I was the one who was using those IPs at those times. Just give me an email address and I'll send it to you. Seriously, it wasn't me. I just want to get this cleared up so I can resume contributing to the project.Throwaway85 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to ask your network administrators what IPs you were using. I know which ones you used. You have used quite a few browsers, including several versions of FF3.0.x and 3.x. You only used one version of FF2.0.x, the same one as your sock did. I conducted my queries based on my own initiative - no one asked me to look at you. Indeed, I did not directly look at you until I saw that you were editing from the same place as that IP. Before blocking you, I talked it over with another checkuser and he came to the same conclusion that I did. Looking at your IP information and your contributions again will not change my opinion, since I reviewed both extremely painstakingly before I blocked you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't ring true. My edit history has nothing in common with that editor, and, again, we were on opposite sides of the debate. I criticized him directly and called him a conspiracy theorist. If you are so certain that that editor was a sock of mine, then surely you wouldn't object to contacting an univolved admin and asking for a second opinion. I'm literally a 5 minute walk from the network admins' office right now. I can get them to send you an email with my netlink ID, my internet activity, and even the netlink ID of the person who actually made those edits. Hell, given that I'm pretty sure Holocaust denial is against my university's TOS, they could probably revoke their internet priviledges as well.

Look, I know you're confident, but you're wrong. Please either take another look or have an uninvolved admin/cu do it for you. If I'm in the wrong, then surely that will be their conclusion as well. I'm telling you, empatically, that I am in no way related to that other editor, save for attending the same university. Why is it so hard for you to believe that two people from the same university, and thus necessarily the same IP range, could comment on the same thread independently of eachother? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the version of firefox in question is the one installed on the public computers here. I'm sure I've editted from them at some point. If you want, I can log into one of them and edit again, then edit from my laptop again. Hell, I'll take a picture of the two of them next to eachother and upload it to photobucket. Also, I wasn't offering to have the network admins tell you what IP I was using, I was offering to have them tell you what students were using each IP. We all have individual logins, and our histories are tracked and logged. You will quite clearly see that I was not the one making those edits. Do you understand the concept of open wireless? You have thousands of students all using a limitted IP range. I wouldn't be surprised if we were using the exact same IP, that's how wireless works. Same IP, different port.Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I'm not trying to abuse the template here. I know what the IP and useragent evidence says. Of course it says we're the same person, we were very likely editting from the same IP as I was in the library on the open wireless at the time. I've explained all of this, and have offered irrefutable proof that I am not the same person I am accused of being a sock of. If anyone wants to provide me an email address to contact, I would be more than happy to have the network administrators at my university send you a message with the logs detailing what students each of us were. I know the checkuser process is usually very good, but in this case it returned a false positive. Please review what I have said on my talk page, and take me up on my offer to have my school's network administrators contact you. I am not trying to disparage any admin involved, or even the process itself, but a mistake has been made and it needs to be rectified.}}

• I'm kinda puzzled here myself. Is there evidence somewhere that's not visible on this page or via Checkuser? I also don't understand what's going on with Chillum saying "The IP and useragent evidence is convincing"; Chillum, not being a checkuser, should not have access to such evidence. As far as the Firefox 2 evidence, it looks like it that browser was used on exactly one day (local time, it spans two days UTC); the IP involved is quite explicitly a university library. What am I missing here? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I have no reason to doubt our checkusers findings, I don't have to look at the data myself as competent trustworthy people have already looked and presented their findings. If I get contrary information from the same or another checkuser then I will of course reconsider my position, however an IP and a useragent match is a very strong indication that it is a the same person. If your findings disagree with another checkuser then I will defer to whatever decision you two can agree upon, I have no objection to someone with more information coming to a different conclusion. Throwaway85, after you get a response one your 3rd unblock request I ask that you stop posting. 1 is enough, 2 is plenty, 3 is borderline. ^Chillum 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. He has used several other browsers as well. A few other checkusers are discussing this on the mailing list.J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave it to your capable hands. ^Chillum 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking to the network admin people as we speak. If nothing else, they can show at what times I personally was assigned each IP, although they are not allowed to release the logs. They also are not allowed to tell me what student was posting as the other user, although if a violation of the TOS occurred, which it may well have, they will follow up on that independently. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What I've learned so far is that the 142.160 IP was from one of our labs. I was not personally assigned either of the two IPs listed on the AN/I page at any time, according to the help desk. They are composing a request that the network administrators compose a detailed log of every IP address I was assigned last night, and what times I was assigned them. Also, if it helps, I would be happy to provide my MAC address (in a private email) to anyone who wants to check the access logs of wikipedia.org. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, they can't look by netlink ID, but only by individual IP addresses. They've determined that I didn't use either of the two that were posted on AN/I. If I could request the exact IP address that technical reasons was using at the time he was blocked, as well as the IP address I was using when posting on that thread, they can say which students were using them during which times. There's a 3 minute buffer before an IP is reassigned, so there's no chance of direct overlap, although two users can use the same IP if 3 minutes has passed. Throwaway85(talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Much obliged. This has been a trying ordeal, and I'm glad it's finally over. Thank you.Throwaway85 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what your looking for:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee. Since most of us can't have access to checkuser info, these guys look like your best opportunity to discuss the issues with people who can truly grasp what happened. AniMate 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks promissing, although it is not any particular c/u's conduct that I take issue with, but rather the way in which sockpuppet investigations of large organizations with thousands of users on a limitted IP range are conducted. I don't wish to denigrate the actions of anyone involved, as, while they may have acted hastily, I believe they acted in good faith and with the best interests of the project in mind. Perhaps I'll take the issue up on the mediawiki checkuser policy talk page, here. Does that seem like an appropriate venue? Thanks for your input, Throwaway85 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think the subcommittee would be willing to handle your questions or point you in the right direction. I'm guessing that since most of the cases they deal with involve an editor calling for a checkuser/oversighters head, this would be a welcome request. Worst thing they can do is decline to investigate. Also, I've dealt with J.delanoy before. He's one of the good guys and I wouldn't be suggesting any of this if you were out for his blood. Either venue will likely lead to your questions being answered. AniMate 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion[4]. I'd be grateful for any input you might have. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologize for declining your unblock request in error. Our check users are a stand up bunch of folks who I trust, however they are human and make mistakes. In the same circumstances I would probably make the same decision, but that does not mean I don't regret being incorrect. I will be watching your discussion with interest. ^Chillum 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. As I said earlier, I take no exception to the actions of any administrator or checkuser, as I'm well aware of the optics of the situation, and the great utility of the checkuser tool. I wouldn't even describe J.delanoy's actions as incorrect, merely that they gave undue weight to the checkuser results given the circumstances. Still, your kind words are greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your dealings with Slrubenstein

Hello. You wrote this diff [5] in which you spoke about your dealings with Slrubenstein and his misuse of tools. However, your editing history under this username shows no prior interactions with Slrubenstein. Which misuse of tools are you claiming? The above diff is problematic: please could you explain it? Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Right here: [6]. Also, I found his behaviour in the corresponding AN/I thread to be inflammatory and unhelpful. Best of luck to you if you actually try to sort through that mess though, it spans numerous talk pages, the AN/I thread, and my corresponding comments in the archive. Rd232 might be a good person to talk to in regards to the matter, also I believe Wehwalt was involved. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't helpful that you didn't provide a diff there. Your statements seem to have resulted from a feeling of injustice about a block connected with the editing of a Troubles related article. Is that correct? It was User:Wehwalt who undid User:Slrubenstein's block, a prior involvement not mentioned in the D4D thread. Thanks for that information. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was merely opining on my previous dealings with Slrubenstein, not filing any complaints about specific behaviour. Yes, Wehwalt undid Slrubenstein's block, the latter being in direct violation of WP:WHEEL, as stated under the ANI Defense heading in my talk archive, and corroborated by other admins. Also, my problem with him is that he reblocked me for an "offense" (see the archive for my feelings on that) that I had already been unblocked for, apparently without bothering to fully read my talk page, the only place where I could edit. He apparently formed his opinions on the AN/I page, and wielded his tools on the basis of those opinions. His actions showed a lack of the due care and consideration one would hope for in an administrator. Also, the block had nothing to do with a troubles related article; the initiating incident occured on my talk page. Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to say any more on the matter, as it's still a sore spot.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Garter Snake

An uncontentious posting seems something of a rarity on this page, but here goes. Listing sources at the end of an article was accepted practice at one time, and is still used by some inexperienced editors. However, in-line referencing is the standard now, and is essential for article gradings of B, GA, A and FA. If you look at yesterday's front page article, Tawny Owl (one of mine I'm afraid), it should give you an idea of what referencing should look like. 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the advice. I'll review the sources in question and see if I can bring the article in line with current style guidelines.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Closure and so forth

I would rather he hadn't closed it. However, you've had your say, and another admin formally closed it, so I guess it is OK. Do you feel there is more to be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with the close, I really didn't think it was actionable. Like you said, I would simply have prefered if another admin did it. I've apologized to Moreschi for any offense he may have taken. Thanks for looking into it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hiya, would you please consider refactoring this, to not include the "immature and petty" comment?[7] Better is to discuss someone's behavior, rather than trying to make judgment calls about the person's character. For example, you could remove the above phrase and replace it with something like, "Does not reflect well on you." Thanks,--Elonka 06:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Irvine's behaviour speaks volumes about his character without anyone having to point it out. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Throwaway! Irvine22 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for any offense. Happy editing! Throwaway85 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22

Howdy, the IP who made a change on Irvine's page, was actually Irvine himself. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well nevermind then. Thanks for the heads up! Throwaway85 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tholzel block...

Could you clarify the block reason on User talk:Tholzel#January 2010? You state that "your behaviour at the holocaust denial talk page was inappropriate", but he hasn't actually discussed anything on this Talk:Holocaust denial. With respect (I don't agree with this editor's views), but are you sure that you reviewed this issue thoroughly? Or was it just a mistake... if so, could you clarify on his talk page? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I just realise a. you aren't an admin, and b. you didn't do the block. Oops. Sorry about that. - Tbsdy lives (formerlyTa bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just saw that mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

Thank you Throwaway85, for helping me by telling me off of my personal info on my user page, User:CamrynRocks! Talk to me again. I like to talk and listen to pepl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamrynRocks!(talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Is there anything else you'd like help with? What brings you to wikipedia? Perhaps I can help point you in the right direction. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Help please?CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you start an article? I have tried and tried but i can't seem to figure it out. Could you help me?CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camryn, I answered this question on your talk page. If it helps, why don't we keep discussion there to avoid having to go back and forth? Cheers, Throwaway85 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem?

This edit was in 100% compliance with WP:TERRORIST

You are NOT a dictator and this is NOT a platform for your bizarre extremist views. I suppose you think Osama Bin Laden is a "Muslim Volunteer?"

67.189.107.193 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:EXTREMIST links to the exact same place. Your edits are considered vandalism. Stop. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Catch & release

No, you're probably not; I mentioned edit warring because Rockpocket already had. The trout waving was actually because your editremoved my decline, although it looks like it was a edit-conflict-induced accident. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. Vaguely threatening trout wave accepted. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:AN/I vs AIV

That is correct. If a new user is being outright incivil/disruptive/vandalizing, then report them to WP:AIV for quick administrative action. But if the situation involves complex or complicated matters like a heated editorial dispute between long-established users or someone gaming of the system (e.g. prolific sockpuppetry) ect, then a report to WP:ANI is warranted. Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards, FASTILY^(TALK) 09:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy explanation. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bat-eared Fox

Hi, you removed an external link from this article, pointing out that WP is not a collection of links (I agree, and since this is the ONLY link in the article, I don't see how it can be regarded as a collection) also that WP should not "be used for advertising or promotion" (which this link does not do....). I think the site is very useful for depicting skull shapes. Could you explain why you find the link offensive? cheersAndrostachys (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, allow me to clarify further. There are a couple of issues with that link. The first is that the link is simply a hardlink to an image of a fox's skull. While informative, if such were to be included in the article, it should be uploaded to the commons and inserted as a picture. This brings us to the second problem: The picture is watermarked, which is a very good indication that it is not available for free use. Unfortunately, only picutres released under certain types of licenses are able to be used on Wikipedia. The image you linked to is certainly informative, and would make an excellent addition to the article, but it would have to be released under one of those licenses. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled - I thought the whole idea of an external link was to give a reader further useful information, information which was, for instance, copyrighted and could not just be pasted onto the article. Androstachys (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've been reading it over, and I can't find anything that specifically outlaws it, although my understanding is that we shouldn't link to images in the way you did. I'm going to contact an admin who is far better vesrsed in these things than I, and see what they have to say. I apologize for the template message on your talk page, as I realize it was vague and didn't convey much usefull information.Throwaway85 (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussionhere, and I invite you to participate in it. I might well be wrong, but we'll see what the people in the know have to say about it.Throwaway85 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Carnildo has mentioned that, while probably not a copyright violation, it is considered poor manners, as we are eating up their bandwidth without providing extra hits to their advertisers. It's generally frowned upon in the web development community. Throwaway85(talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand it correctly, deep-linking is impolite because it bypasses advertisers. Presumably going in through the front door would be the right thing to do eg http://www.skullsunlimited.com/ cheers Androstachys (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my undesrtanding, although I never got a definitive answer. I say go ahead and add the link, as it certainly is informative. Be sure to properly label it, so people don't think it's someone adding random links (as I originally thought). If there's an ability to link directly to the page that contains the image, without linking directly to the image itself, that would be best. I wouldn't be surprised if you run into more resistance on the matter, but I can't see any reason why it would not be allowed. Good luck! Throwaway85 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit comment

Made me lol very hard. Thank you very much! Jolly Ω Janner 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol no problem. I figure injecting a bit of levity into a tense situation is never a bad thing. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22

Thanks for letting me know, I've made the only comment I am feel is needed at the page --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation: you have no diffs. Irvine22 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer this conversation take place elsewhere. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Frederick II and the Kingdom of Sicily

If you need a reliable source about the central and powerful role of Sicily in the Empire of Frederick II, you can see "David Abulafia, Frederick II. A Medieval Emperor, Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1988, ISBN 88-06-13197-4" that also was in the sources of the wiki article about the same Frederick II. I know very well this book because I studied it when I did my examination in Medieval History. Thank you for your attention.---kayac71- (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say your are wrong, I'm sure you know far more about the subject than I do. I'm simply saying that the language you chose needs to be directly sourced, otherwise it violates WP:OR and possibly WP:NPOV. Please don't take offense to my reverts, they were nothing personal.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

During that time the Kingdom of Sicily created one of the first relatively modern bureaucracy and so it was one of the first well ruled states in Europe, it also has a very flourishing agriculture and was at the center of the Mediterranean trade; thus permitted at Frederick II to have a solid base for his imperial policy. The book of Abulafia that I nominated above affirms exactly the same. Thank you.---kayac71- (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Please be sure to properly cite any and all additions. Let me know if you need a hand.Throwaway85 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Noob tube

I have declined your PROD on this article because it has previously been PRODded and declined. I raised the original PROD so I support its deletion; this is purely procedural. I have not had time to take the article to AfD, but this is clearly the next step. I42 (talk)

I was just about to ask you about that. I've seen CSDs go through on pages with more value. I'll look into AfD. ThanksThrowaway85 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD raised now. I42 (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that was fast. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm getting writer's cramp here thanking everyone who came to my defense on that ANI matter. It is, however, worth the pain.  :) Thank you, thank you, thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I was glad to see the matter come to a sensible conclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Throwaway85. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Look at section 5 & 6 please. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Accidental Huggle revert

I don't know how easy it is to make this kind of slip in Huggle, as I don't use it, but just a heads up that you must haveclicked the wrong thing here. --McGeddon(talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting and letting me know. I've been having problems with Huggle doing reverts on articles that aren't displayed, usually before a crash. You can see the thread I started on the Huggle feedback page here. Throwaway85(talk) 12:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Catsouras

Re this -- I believe their last edit did add a source for the driver (http://www.ocregister.com/news/accident-177033-minor-highway.html). Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, appreciate the heads up. When I saw the name of article and the multiple people reverting, in addition to the 3RR vio, I thought it was a 4chan vandal. My bad. Thanks again. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an issue at all, I thought the same at first and I just wanted you to know. Doesn't mean their 3RR and attitude should be ignored however (reported to WP:AN3). NJA (t/c) 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Throwaway85, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-freefiles are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Throwaway85/PIRAdraft. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to youruser-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed todayhere, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Keep it up.--John (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I eagerly await their response, although I doubt I'll get one. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Collapsetop"

I know you're trying to help, but please do not use collapsetop archiving "just to free up real estate" on ANI. See also Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Collapsetop archiving. –xeno^talk 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

js test

One more time

Goatse mediation reply

Throwaway; ultimately I'm unable to keep up with the discussion at the moment and feel that while progress is being made we're back to the same situation as we were at the Goatse.cx talk (i.e. long-winded, circle discussion) and so more time is required than I can/am prepared to offer. I'd be happy to pass opinion if required/requested but I don't think that my view on the situation is markedly different than any other 'pro-imager' so I'm happy to let the mediation run it's course and see what happens. Cheers, raseaC^{talk to me} 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Fair enough. I share many of your views. Happy editing! Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey, you recently edited some of Pingorm (talk · contribs) work at Livermore, Pennsylvania. I have told him (and repeated) that his commentary-like style and unsourced additions are inappropriate and have reverted them, but he has been unresponsive and continued to reinsert the same material. Would you take a look at the page and see if you could help out? I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Throwaway85. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

en.wiki.inactivemailerbot@gmail.com

I need that email forwarded to a place I can read. Click the confirm link WP sent there as well. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ok

i've been sick, so i guess life isn't great. on the bright side, i've missed school! yay!CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are better. Welcome back!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth reincarnations

Permanently blocked User:Tfoxworth has commenced his weekly noctournal vandalism, at the moment using sockpuppet User:166.166.208.119, as previously reported here and demonstrated by his incarnationshere and here. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been inactive. Hope everything worked out well! Throwaway85 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just saying hi (and thanks)

Hey, Throwaway85. just wanted to say hi, and thanks for being patient with me. And thanks for being my friend on here.CamrynRocks! (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem Camryn. How're things going? Excited for Easter? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

totally!

of course im syked for Easter! i am going skiing all weekend, and am also helping a friend with an easter egg hunt.CamrynRocks!(talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm jealous. I love skiing! The easter egg hunt sounds fun too. I remember when I could eat all the chocolate I wanted and not get fat... Now I'm on a diet =( Throwaway85 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from67.226.161.29. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. Enti342 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Throwaway85

I need all the help i can get. My friend Mountain Girl 77 and i need some help. We would like to make an article on our school, Eagle County Charter Academy. Could you give us some advice? ;)CamrynRocks! (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! The first thing you want to do is gather sources. If your school is mentioned in newspapers, or on news websites, that would be great place to start. You'll also want to go over your school's website to gather information about how many students it has, who the faculty and administrators are, and the like. Try asking your principal if your school has ever received any awards, I'm sure they'd love to have that in the article!

Once you've gotten all of the information that you want to say, and can source it, then it's time to write. Check out some articles on other, similar schools to see what they say and how they're written, then try and copy that.

I would love to help you write it, but unfortunately I'm travelling in South America right now, so I don't have regular access to a computer. Fortunately, Wehwalt, who you know, is widely recognized by the community as one of our best article writers. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to give you a hand.

Good luck with the article, and let me know if there's anything else you need! I think it's great that you're going to write, and I wish you the best of luck!

Throwaway85 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very flattering. I'm happy to help, but Camryn and her friend need to start the article (I've given very similar suggestions as to how) and I will be happy to look it over and smooth out the problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary media reporting on the Holocaust

Glad to see some support for the idea of having such an article, I'm also interested in working on it once the AfD is over and the dust settles.Fences&Windows 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it just makes sense. I'm on the road atm, so I'll be limitted to finding information available online, but it certainly seems both doable and desirable. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

==

Before accusing me of something, you should check what you are saying. I have not violated anything, since i have been repetetly insulted, threated by that user. I came to request an intervention after days and days of harassment, violent threats and insults. I have never been warned or blocked or anything here. I virtually have no activity in Wikipedia except for my userpage. Anybody who is tempering my entries and/or stealing my identity is commiting a serious violation. Now i understand the dozens of threats made by that user when he says "he and his team" will continue to vandalise my page forever , i didn t understand which team, but now I start to get an idea about his "contacts". That 's absolutely shameful, after been insulted, my page vandalised dozens of times, violently threated, one people came saying it was me not him. I requested an investigation and answered about that. It is becoming clear to me now who are the "friends" of that user, tempering my identity and fabricate false accusations. Remember the rules say any editor, active or less active, administrator or just IP editors are all the same, there are not class A or class B users. Maxcrc (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Barryispuzzled

Here is the link to the Barryispuzzled archive: [[8]]. It's obvious from his edits, his pointed attacks on me in particular, and (for a "new" editor) from his familiarity with editing practices and linking formats that this is Barry trying again to disrupt things. Once you see the archive (and the other two cases involving scores of socks, you will draw the same conclusion. Smatprt (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you still can't assume they are a sockpuppet and remove their contributions without a finding of such. If you believe it to be true, take your supporting diffs to WP:SPI. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew that the links didn't mention him, they were provided as context for Smatprt's actions. And I think he found his way around quickly enough to suggest that he isn't a newbie being bitten. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in all these comments in the context of the Shakespeare authorship question and how people over-interpret evidence. You don't think it's possible that I might have been reading these pages for some time? RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I had an hour to kill (and lose forever) - here is the beginning of the SPI report:[[9]]. Smatprt (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And a block we gave him. Good work! Spent a lot of time rattling on about his grievances that one! No matter. Hang the devil, I say! The squeal at the end is the most pleasurable bit. That's when we all get to pat each other on the back at a fine piece of old-fashioned lynching!FranceIsHog (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Blocked indefinitely. Haven't closed a case since before my partial retirement two years ago, so you'll have to wait for someone else to close it I'm afraid, a bit caught up with other things at the moment off-wiki. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your speedy attention to this matter. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

Strange that supporting a candidate based on his shameless arrogance and slimey, weaselly nature should draw such an earnest, good-faith response as yours. But looking over the other supports, it seems mine isn't even the most ridiculous - oh well :( Badger Drink (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree (sincerely) that this user is good natured. But even the good natured sometimes fall victim to the mob instinct.FranceIsHog (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, now that you point it out, I must have been rather absent-minded when I wrote that and completely missed the tone of your comment. Also, there are ways to express one's disapproval of a candidate without calling them shamelessly arrogant, slimy, and weaselly. Please reconsider your word choice in the future. Francis, I did end up switching my !vote to support, after some discussion with MZ and taking into consideration the enormous contribution he has made, specifically with the admin bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey old friend

Haven't talked to you in a while. Check out my article, Eagle County Charter Academy. Help me extend it if u can! <3CamrynRocks! ^{|Live life} 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamrynRocks! (talk • contribs)

Sure, I'd be more than happy to help! I've made a few small changes, and emailed your principle asking if he has any pictures of the school that he'd like to contribute. I'll try and dig up some more information when I get a chance. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

keep up the good work

Hi. What 'we' do, is sift through smoke screens of dis-allowable sources and invalid rational, whether it be for keep, delete, or merge, and based on experience working with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, make suggestions as objective as possible, that the closing administrators can base their decision on. What 'we' generally avoid doing, is basing our counter-arguments on inferred lack of knowledge of experienced users. It's interesting to note that most articles land at AfD because there is a strong chance that they will meet the criteria for deletion or merging and redirecting. It's also worth noting that I often !vote 'keep' on genuine cases of erroneous AfDs posted by inexperienced editors, and on debates where !voters have misunderstood our policies for deletion, and that I have no personal interest whatsoever in the outcome of any AfD. Apart from all that, do keep up the good work :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion you re-read GNG was based only upon your (apparent) continued argument that ECCA was non-notable because of some feature of the school itself, rather than because of the sources that existed on it. Notability being a commonly misunderstood policy, due in no small part to a poor choice in name, my suggestion that you re-read it was not intended to impugn your capacity or competence as an editor. Rather, it was simply intended to dispel a common myth: that a subject is notable or not based upon some inherent characteristic it possesses, rather than the coverage afforded it by secondary sources. At any rate, I would argue that ECCA is an edge case but that we can, nonetheless, write a good article on it in accordance with our policies and principles. Thank you for your encouragement, and please take mine as well. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree but only eventually to obtain better clarification at a future RfC on notability. (At the moment I'm heavily engaged in continuing to craft our policy at BLP). I generally !vote one way or another on all on school AfD because of my knowledge of schools, and because at the moment I'm the caretaker of a vast, but almost abandoned Wikipedia project that I'm recasting for clarity, while taking into account a precedent set by thousands of AfD outcomes that allows mainstream education high schools not to be deleted at all if their mere existence is not in doubt, while according the privilege to the millions of non notable primary schools not to be deleted, but to be redirected to their school district or locality, salvaging and merging any worthwhile content. Whether our policies are good or not so good, it's a bit like being a policeman who is obliged to uphold the laws whether he agrees with them or not. I personally know a magistrate in Malvern who now (at narly 90 years old) had to put gays behind bars during the 1960s. Now he has to conduct their civil marriage ceremony at city hall. Consensus at Wikipedia can change, but until it does, I stick to what we we have got.

I think we have to take each kind of article separately and establish what kind of events it could be notable for. For primary schools, if there are a thousand newspaper reports in the local press about Mrs Plum's apple pie being the best pudding on the menu in the school cantine, or the Grade 3 kids winning the village vegetable show for growing the largest pumpkin in the school garden, or the town council shelling out £20,000 for new toilets, or Mr Doe the headteacher having a car crash on his way to school, or two Grade 5ers being caught for stealing Mars Bars in 7-Eleven store, or the school winning the mayor's best Xmas pantomime prize, or organising a thanksgiving feast for the local orphanage - all these reports do not a notable school make. If a group of pupils won the Duke of Edinburgh Award, and there are a couple of third party reports to prove it, then the school is notable, while a school that disappears under a collapsed slag heap with the town's entire generation of children in one of the UK's worst ever catastrophes since WWII, doesn't have its Wikipedia page anymore - it got merged in spite of first-class multiple references. Quantity over quality was never a criteria for Wikipedia. Kudpung (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the deletionist (to use the term loosely) position that Wikipedia must, as a whole and in aggregate, adhere to a certain level of quality. There is a feeling that we must maintain in all our articles a baseline such that, if we can't write a B- or C-class article on the subject (which is to say if we can't write an FA-Class article), then we should have no article at all. I've yet, however, to hear a coherent argument for what we lose by having an informative, well-sourced, 150 word article on an otherwise unremarkable subject. If it has sufficient coverage to write a decent article on a subject that somebody interested in the field might care about, why not have it? We should not be in the business of refusing to include information in a project that aspires to gather and disseminate the sum total of human knowledge. Regardless, the notability guidelines are not in place to bar certain categories of subject, but rather to define what determines whether or not an individual subject merits an article. The idea of making high schools notable and elementary schools not, by default, has been proposed many times and in each case the community has come down against adopting it as policy. It may indeed be how things are typically done, but it's by no means a valid argument at an AfD.Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the community never came out against it. The results were, I believe, no consensus which is absolutely not the same thing even if it defaults to the status quo. In the meantime, we have a tacit consensus through the precedent of literally 1,000s of school articles that have been allowed to stay as de facto notable (high schools), and the quasi abolition of deletion of primary schools in favour of uncontroversial merging so that their articles can be reestablished from the redirect pages without having to go through the tedious delete/undelete processes. None of these guidelines suggest a war against primary schools at all. Primary schools simply have to defend their notability in the same way as any other Wikipedia article - and there is already enough imbalance (see here, policy section, #9). Besides which, we do not have a policy at all that articles that do not immediately start at 'C' or 'B' class should be deleted, and in 5 years and 27,000 edits, many of which are participation on policy issues, I have never hear anyhing of the sort. Our policy is, on the contrary, that even a short stub, provided it has a reference that meets our WP:RS criteria, is encouraged to be allowed to stay in the hope that it will be expanded by others. In fact, I helped craft the WP:BLPPROD which is specifically designed, ironically, to avoid irresponsible deletion of biographies. I only mention this so that you don't misinterpret my role at Wikipedia :) Kudpung (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "start out at" B or C, I said "potential to be". There is a very real dislike for articles that will likely never reach C class, even though they can still be fine and informative, if brief. Similarly, I would hardly call the wide-scale merging of primary school articles "uncontroversial", as it is, in essence, deletion. I feel quite strongly that taking a blanket approach to a particular type of article should only be done with community approval, which does not exist. Also, I'm not sure what pointing me to your personal policy in regards to templating regulars was supposed to show, but I'd welcome an explanation. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me - it was supposed to be #16 which reads: Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? So much for me trying to rely on my memory on what I have on my user page.

I don't know how you assume that there is disdain for articles that will likely never reach C class - at least I've never noticed. I've never created any silly stubs, but I've made dozens of 'start class' articles that can never be expanded beyond their current content.Kudpung (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language)

I also want to congratulate you for your good work in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Y_(programming_language). Say, why don't add a short mention of Y programming language in Peephole optimization, using the sources you presented? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can do that for sure. I'm a bit swamped with schoolwork at the moment, but I'll get to it when I can. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WHAT?!!!

Why was Eagle County Charter Academy merged with Wolcott, CO? I thought the end of the discussion was that it was going to remain as is. What happened? Did I miss something? >: (Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm no great shakes at AfD, but I am surprised to find a redirect on a no consensus with no attempt at merge.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You guys might want to join in here and follow the links to read the discussion in Stifle's archives. I'm really starting to get annoyed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You're telling me! I can't believe how this is going down. I thought nothing was going to happen to the article. I am so very, very confused!Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, we are going to do something about it, or at least I am. I'd like Throwaway's thoughts on whether to just revert Stifle's redirect on the ground he had no right to do that as the AfD was closed, or take it to Deletion Review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, reverting wouldn't even violate 1RR, so I'd say go for it. The AfD closed as no consensus, which should mean keep. Yaksar decided to be bold and redirect it, which he's well within his rights to do, but that redirect can be reverted without issue. If there's a further problem, it can go to DRV. I'm a bit pissed that the original argument given was that the "usual practice" is to merge, as that's not an argument at all. Furthermore, I suspect that argument, which I argued quite strongly against at the AfD, would reemerge at DRV. Oh well. I'd say revert now and deal with the rest of it later. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Will this RfC and its summary help? It's new. (Recent events not directly connected with this AfD have given me much reason to reflect my own interpretation of the policies and guidelines.) I've also read the entire story leading up to the creation of Eagle County Charter Academy and it's creation, that goes back nearly a year.--Kudpung (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ECCA AfD, and accusations of socking/canvasing

The discussions linked to here in no way support a conclusion of sockpuppetry or canvasing, and I'm not sure why you thought that would be a possibility. The post I made on Wehwalt's talkpage was in relation to a prior incident that involved both of us and the identity of ECCA's author. The post I made on the author's talk page was self-evidently kosher, as I was merely informing her of the AfD. I'm not sure why you suggested merging or relisting due to socking, as neither action was appropriate given the facts of the case. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I should have written "canvassing" rather than "socking". Requesting users to come to a vote/discussion with the expectation they will vote your way isn't appropriate; see the "audience" criterion of WP:CANVAS. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where I violated WP:CANVAS. I went to Wehwalt to get confirmation of the author's identity, and informed the author. Neither of those actions constitutes canvasing.(unsigned by Throwaway85)

Stifle, I don't know what you were smoking. Having a quick, quickly archived discussion on your talk page to reverse the result of a somewhat contentious AfD in the course of which two established editors are quickly disregarded as claimed socks? Without any notice to same? I'm somewhat insulted for Throwaway, who was falsely accused of being a sock earlier in his career by a checkuser no less and had a devil of a time being unblocked. It strikes me as a lesson example of what not to do on WP, especially since it could not hope to evade scrutiny. If there is a feeling that the outcome of the AfD was wrong, there are more proper avenues for that, that will not expose the advocates to—well, I'll be mild and say "allegations of poor judgment". Think twice next time, please. If anything further happens here, I'll drop it all in the lap of AN/I. I have nothing to hide. My talk page and archives make it clear: the article writers on that article consulted me from time to time (perhaps due to my reputation for being a halfway-decent editor). When the editors asked me to do things I did not agree with, I told them that right there. They could not possibly have come to me in the expectation that I would follow their lead, and I'm insulted after all this time on the Wiki that editors could sit in a cabal somewhere and assume (not discuss, just assume) otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your contested CSD

I don't disagree that a lot of articles get swept up inA7 which don't really belong. However, I don't see why IIT JEE/Medical Entrance Double is not eligible. A7 covers individuals and organizations. While a list of people meeting a certain criterion isn't a perfect fit, it doesn't strike me as so out of line that it was intended that it should be exempt. The assertion is assertion of importance doesn't have to be proven to reject CSD, but it does have to be the case that could it be proven, it would be an example of importance. I assume a lot of people get high scores on one or the other of the examinations. Neither of those lists would be considered important (not to an encyclopedia, though obviously a different story for people on the list.) Adding the requirement that a person be on both lists sounds like trivia; on has to make at least a plausible case that the intersection is important.

Finally, 24 hours after starting the article, not a single example of someone of the list was included. It would be a waste of time to address this at AfD.--SPhilbrickT 12:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about the Indian educational system, I was unsure of whether such a list could be considered notable. Maybe there are thousands of eligible candidates, in which case it would not be. On the other hand, if there are 14 people in history who have ever achieved both of those criteria, then the list may well be notable and certainly many of the people on it would be independently notable. Without knowing one way or the other, I feel it's appropriate to AGF and give the author a chance to flesh out the list. Now, if it's been 24 hours and they haven't done anything, then I'm, fine with prodding it or maybe even CSDing it, but I don't feel A7 tags should be applied to brand new articles unless they are unambiguously non-notable. As it happens, the page seems to have been deleted anyway, so I suspect the issue is moot. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)