User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 Archives |
|---|
My RfA
- Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for block
- Thanks for blocking User:Mauridsr though one weeks seems too leniant as s/he's vandalized several articles including blanking whole articles, most recently as a few hours ago (see here: [1]). This isn't a person who comes to Wikipedia to contribute anything positive. - Throw 19:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking one week as a bit of a stretch, i.e. too long. Cbrown1023 talk 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikibreak
LIES!!1!!!ONE!!!! Majorly (o rly?) 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- lol... I'm just leaving :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Protect article
I was wondering if you can semi-protect Rosario Dawson there has been a lot of revert edits and useless edits.--Migospia 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sprotected for 1 week. Cbrown1023 talk 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Majorly's RfB
Casey, thanks for your strong support on my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I really appreciate the support and your faith in me, and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you're enjoying your wikibreak, and I'll see you soon. Majorly (o rly?) 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by Grafikbot 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has started but needs some effort to get all the components set up. Look forward to your return and hope you has a good Easter break -well deserved!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Akhilleus
 |
Archive_7, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
Final round of image deletion
I am going through the hundreds of posters I've added and resizing them to comply with the small size fair use requirement. On my Sandbox I have a list of posters that need the original file deleted. If you have the time (when you get back of course!) could you go through and delete the original files? Right now there is only about 15, but I'll work on more tomorrow and hopefully have them all done within a few days. If you do decide to take a stab at them, just remove the ones you've completed from my sandbox. Thanks in advance and I hope your break was as long and refreshing as mine was! --Nehrams2020 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Cinema Collaboration of the Week
You want me to change the film again? --PhantomS 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Argh... that would be great. I was on Wikbreak while the change should have taken place, I forgot about it and I guess everyone else did as well. It would be great if you could do it. Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to note...
Unprotect to first vandalism on Freemasonry was 1 hour, 42 minutes. :) MSJapan 02:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That may not have been vandalism, it could have been a legiitmate edit by a less-knowledgable person or a test edit. However, I see your point. :) But no page should be protected forever. Cbrown1023 talk 02:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, and it was likely not well-intentioned; the only people who think Freemasonry is a religion tend to be against it for their own religious reasons. There's been enough exposure through National Treasure, Da Vinci Code, a For Dummies book, and a Complete Idiot's Guide to... book such that it's pretty clear in general what Freemasonry is and isn't. I was more interested in the trivia value, though. MSJapan 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, it made me smile before I even looked at the edit. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, and it was likely not well-intentioned; the only people who think Freemasonry is a religion tend to be against it for their own religious reasons. There's been enough exposure through National Treasure, Da Vinci Code, a For Dummies book, and a Complete Idiot's Guide to... book such that it's pretty clear in general what Freemasonry is and isn't. I was more interested in the trivia value, though. MSJapan 03:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Protection issues
I wonder if you might mind reading my thoughts on protection and edit warring. I'm serious, I know it's long, but it'll give a context for what I'm about to say. I disagree with your protection of Ordu and wonder if you might be persuaded. In particular, note that the two major edit warriors there [2], ArmenianJoe and Baristarim both have prior blocks for edit warring. Note also that many reverts occurred in the space of a few minutes, with not even an attempt at discussion. The talk page shows ArmenianJoe never made a single communication about his disagreements[3] and [4] shows even more unconstructive (even trollish) behavior. To me, this is the textbook example of when a block is more productive than protection, and when, indeed, protection simply enables edit warriors who we already know are not communicating or resolving their conflicts amicably, despite prior instruction and blocks. Would you consider taking such an action? Dmcdevit·t 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- They both need official {{3rr}} warnings and a statement explaining that they will be indef blocked if they continue. I only protected it because someone requested semi-protection and it looked like ther was an edit war going on that involved more than IP. Either way, the protection will expire in about 2 days. Cbrown1023 talk 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that such an attitude enables edit warrriors. They shouldn't get to war an article into protection, and then go do it again (and again) because admins will just protect rather than addressing the behavior problem. Especially if the admin will simply protect without any warnings to the edit warriors or notes on the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those users should have already been warned, it is something a good user should do before requesting protection. The users in question have also already been warned (or so it appears). The users are blocked in time. Cbrown1023 talk 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- If they are to be blocked in time, what would you do about [5]? The same two (and others) edit warring again. I think it's time someone did something rather than protection, which just enables them to move to another article. I'm already busy elsewhere; care to quell the edit war? Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have spoken with you on IRC. Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- If they are to be blocked in time, what would you do about [5]? The same two (and others) edit warring again. I think it's time someone did something rather than protection, which just enables them to move to another article. I'm already busy elsewhere; care to quell the edit war? Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those users should have already been warned, it is something a good user should do before requesting protection. The users in question have also already been warned (or so it appears). The users are blocked in time. Cbrown1023 talk 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that such an attitude enables edit warrriors. They shouldn't get to war an article into protection, and then go do it again (and again) because admins will just protect rather than addressing the behavior problem. Especially if the admin will simply protect without any warnings to the edit warriors or notes on the talk page. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please restore protection
Please restore the protection to the article horse. We keep having this protection fight over and over again. Within a few days, I guarantee that the anon IPs at the school computer labs will be back with a constant barrage of nonsense edits and comments on horse genetalia. It has been such a relief to not be constantly birddogging this article. Please reconsider. Montanabw 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing should be protected forever, this is a wiki. If it gets really bad, re-request protection. Cbrown1023 talk 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did. The vandals are already back. There really does need to be more provisions for permanent protection of some articles, the humor of 12 year olds wastes everyone's time. Sigh... Montanabw 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Why???
Why did you delete the page of "List of television ratings during the Monday Night Wars"???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.65.210 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- List of television ratings during the Monday Night Wars was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1998 WWE television ratings. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Above user blanked portion of talk page; reverted and re-added query as new section. Madman bum and angel 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your block on 75.16.217.78
(Sorry for this repeat -- I placed it in the wrong place.)
I see that you have given a 48-hour block on IP user 75.16.217.78. Personally, I think "life" would be more suitable -- that user is one of over 40 sockpuppets under user Mmbabies, who was recently community-banned for his wanton vandalism. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mmbabies
-- azumanga 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- We do not infinitely block IP addresses. Cbrown1023 talk 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Bot
I stopped a while ago so you don't need to leave anything else, I guess I am not allowed to use bots and it was my first bot so it was kind of crappy. Sorry the grammer in this message also sucks because I am typing fast so that I can leave this message on other pages as well. Sorry about the problem, it won't happen again :) --eskimospy(talk) 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific acupuncture
Given the heavy canvassing for votes for the deletion of this article, including posting a link to the discussion in the "Urgent attention needed here" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism [6], could you explain your rationale for closing this AFD discussion as delete? Thanks. John254 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion I read, ther ewere interesting arguments on both sides... so I guess we can change it to "no consensus", but you can expect nothing better from me. Cbrown1023 talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this overturning was appropriate. I am going to ask for a deletion review if that's okay. I believe strongly that this article should be deleted and the sour grapes expressed by the creator (John254) shouldn't be influencing this decision. --ScienceApologist 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scientific acupuncture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScienceApologist 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, overturning a deletion consensus because one editor complains on a user talk page? I also don't appreciate John254's implication that my participation was due to canvassing. --Minderbinder 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- It wasn't just because of that. Obviously, I was over-stretching the consensus by thinking it was a delete. "When in doubt, don't delete." I also do not believe that this article warrants an article, but I was basing it in the consensus (or lack thereof). I believe that a deletion review is exactly the right course of action. Cbrown1023 talk 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, overturning a deletion consensus because one editor complains on a user talk page? I also don't appreciate John254's implication that my participation was due to canvassing. --Minderbinder 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scientific acupuncture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScienceApologist 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this overturning was appropriate. I am going to ask for a deletion review if that's okay. I believe strongly that this article should be deleted and the sour grapes expressed by the creator (John254) shouldn't be influencing this decision. --ScienceApologist 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin Info
How did you become an admin? Jaymac407 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was elected by the community. Cbrown1023 talk 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Arctic MUD
Thanks for the comment on my talk page explaining why you redeleted this article. I'd like to point out that the article wasn't simply re-created - it was in fact ammended considerably to address the problems cited during the AfD before re-posting, as follows.
The arguments were: lack of evidence of reviews/importance etc; that this MUD is unknown and does not stand out from any other MUD; that the article is self-promotion of this MUD.
I can see how the assumption that this mud is "unknown" would have been easily made given that the previous article contained no evidence of importance. Actually, although Dragonlance is a highly popular fantasy series, there are very few Dragonlance MUDs, and of those that exist, Arctic appears to be one of the oldest and most popular among MUD-playing fans of the series. I realise that no evidence was provided in the original article that shows this, so to address this problem, a number of amendments have been made.
- The new article contains references to this MUD's entries in two popular MUD review sites. The MUD Connector [7] is referenced due to its prominence as a MUD listing site, while Top MUD Sites [8] has a large number of reviews for each MUD it lists. Although it is not overly difficult to apply to have a MUD listed on these sites, they are actively vetted and the MUDs are ranked (Arctic ranks within the top 4% of MUDs listed on both sites). Arctic has been listed on these sites for a number of years.
- The new article also mentions the references to this MUD found on both the Dragonlance Nexus [9] and the official Dragonlance movie website [10].
- The topic of self promotion is always a difficult one to debate, but I will point out that all the information given in the article is purely factual as per the references and is presented from a neutral point of view. Additionally, this particular MUD is entirely non-commercial, not only in that it is free to play, but to the extent that the website is completely free of fundraising adverts, etc. Nobody would stand to gain anything from the promotion of this MUD.
I would be happy to present the above in a deletion review if you believe one to be necessary. However, considering the measures that have been taken to correct the deficiencies in the original article, I was hoping that posting the improved article would be more appropriate since a deletion review would have referred to the previous, unreferenced article, the AfD for which could only really have gone one way considering the distinct lack of evidence etc.
With the above in mind, would it be acceptable for me to re-post the improved article? If, despite the changes, the article is still considered unworthy, then I think a new AfD would be most appropriate due to the additional reference info and evidence available in the improved article. Thanks. Wiw8 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assume it would be okay... Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocking of User:Baristarim
Because I do not like to reverse other administrators decisions, I thought I should talk straight away to you, instead of doing any other actions. I think this is the most straightforward and sincere approach.
Legitimate questions concerning your blocking of User:Baristarim have been raised here, where you are asked to specify the explicit Wikipedia guidelines under which you blocked the above mentioned Wikipedia user. I think you should do that.
I also want you to take into consideration the discussion which is taking place here. IMO blocking of User:Baristarim should take place only after a decision in ANI resulting in broad consensus towards blocking.
Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are just a little bit late :). I unblocked the user a little over 45 minutes ago. Cbrown1023 talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Happy about that, although I still do not fully agree with the whole reasoning surrounding the initial blocking, the shrinking of the blocking, and then the final un-blocking. Anyway ... Sorry for the delayed comment; I should have first checked the block log, but my comments on the substance of the case still stand. Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- and of course all the above, is just "IMO" (well... IYO...) Cbrown1023 talk 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you are right. Goodnight (in Greece it is night!)--Yannismarou 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- yeah... 9 hours ahead of U.S.? have a good night. Cbrown1023 talk 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you are right. Goodnight (in Greece it is night!)--Yannismarou 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- and of course all the above, is just "IMO" (well... IYO...) Cbrown1023 talk 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Happy about that, although I still do not fully agree with the whole reasoning surrounding the initial blocking, the shrinking of the blocking, and then the final un-blocking. Anyway ... Sorry for the delayed comment; I should have first checked the block log, but my comments on the substance of the case still stand. Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
deletion appeal
An editor has asked for a deletion review of requested articles. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 69.140.164.142 05:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been kept deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion Review Request
An editor has asked for a deletion review of G.ho.st. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TareqM 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been kept deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Chiswick
User:Daniel Chiswick has an obvious sockpuppet in User:Andrew16. The similarities are so mind boggling that I almost feel sorry to bother you with this. Anyway, thanks. Gdo01 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The second user has already been blocked. I do agree with you that they are almost obviously sock puppets. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: Cloaks
I've gone in and fixed my system now, sorry for the trouble. —Sean Whitton / 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lost.eu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vantar 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Uchiha Clan's Dark Secret
Hey, Cbrown. I noticed that you declined the request for protection of Uchiha Clan's Dark Secret and I wanted to let you know I tagged it for speedy deletion (the reason is given on the page). Someone else might get to it before you do, though, so if that happens I'm sorry for bothering you. Happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it should be deleted as well, but the user has requested it go through an AfD instead, so I have nominated it. Feel free to comment if you would like. Cbrown1023 talk 15:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done
About time somebody stopped the insanity. - auburnpilot talk 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, shame about it being the wrong version ;) Majorly (hot!) 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez
Please make sure you add reliable sources for anything that can be considered defamatory per the WP:BLP. See also Template:Blp1. Cbrown1023 talk 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- A whitewash is not going to pass muster. Far too much of this article is full of his apologetics and far too little is left that is attributed to reliable sources. I'm fully aware of what BLP says and what it doesn't. The article as it is now is grossly unfair to the facts. Wjhonson 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- You may believe that, but it does not change anything. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And that is a two-way street. Wjhonson 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What I mean is that I am not going to argue with you. If the OFFICE, an administrator, or the subject believes it is defamatory, it will be removed and you may be blocked per the WP:BLP. Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The information in this article is sourced to reliable sources. We are not prevented from reporting on actual events, which these are. One aspect of defamation is that you cannot defame something by citing attributable facts, as these are. Wjhonson 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Look at the last version of the page you edited. Count the number of lines you contributed with {{fact}} on them. That is not using reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
If you review that again, you will see it was a *revert*. I did not contribute anything, I reverted to a previous version. Wjhonson 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well technically, you *did* re-contribute the information that was removed. That is also more disheartening, I was assuming good faith that you had just contributed information that you believed had not been reverted before by User:Bastique and other experienced/trustworthy users. I guess I was wrong. Cbrown1023 talk 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have any further discussion on this matter, please send it to the talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protected titles/Old SALT etc
Are these listed in any sort of order? —Centrx→talk • 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The order I found them in User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD, which I believe is chronologically. Feel free to re-arrange (or alphabetize) them if you wish, that would just be a lot of alphabetizing for no real reason. Cbrown1023 talk 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter Jones (entrepreneur)
Regarding 82.11.242.122's edits to this article, you may have noticed that he or she has been inserting this same sort of unsourced and speculative information into a host of articles. I have reverted most of those edits, but need a good warning tag to place on this anonymous user's talk page, in order to dissuade this sort of activity in the future. Have you any suggestions? ---Charles 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings should contain at least one you could use. Cbrown1023 talk 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Cheers! ---Charles 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Medium
There is a problem with the article List of Medium episodes but User:Matthew keeps reverting important reference links and trying to turn the reference links to external links which I think is inapporiate for a list of TV episodes, I try to ask him about his actions even tried to talk about it on the talk page but there is no third party coming in. I contribute a lot to the article, also think its very important to list the reference links to where we get the source of the information for the episodes like many other TV episode list have here on Wikipedia. Can you either help resolve the issue or revert back to my edit and semi protect it till it is resolved?--Migospia 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I cannot revert to a version and then protect the article (it is against policy). It also seems that you discussing this with Matthew (so no need for protection), I hope you get this solved... if you would like the page protected at a later date, just contact me or post a request. Cbrown1023 talk 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
