User talk:Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Help with Lewis Libby?

Saw you protected the Libby page. This dispute has been going on for a very long time now without hope of a resolution. I've tried to bring in outside folks from the WP:BLPN twice, but it hasn't helped. Tried a request for comment, with no luck. My initial suggestion for arbitration was rejected a while ago. Could you help mediate in some fashion? Any other thoughts? Mediation cabal perhaps? Thanks. Notmyrealname 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Madiation granted. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Things are deteriorating again. Could you enlist the help of a few other admins here? Notmyrealname 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FPOC

I have re-submitted Portal:China to WP:FPOC. A lot of work have been contributed to this portal, but the previous nomination ended up receiving few final attentions. I wonder if you can look at the portal again and see if your previous comments were addressed, and of course, and further comments that should be addressed. Thank you so much! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection; Kaymaklı Monastery

Dear Michaelas10,

You protected this page that requested by User:Ashkani. I think some points was overlooked;
There was no edit-war there; there were some users edits and Reverts of this user.I mean page reverted by this user many time without addind any word to the content.
We can not assume Good Faith for this transaction; User Reverted page firstly and one minute later request page protection for his version.(Please check history in article and request page)
Here my main edits on this article. I added infos and cleanup irrelevant links; Before my edit there was a garbage of linked articles,infos etc. Kaymaklı monastery was located in Cappadocia, there were cappadocian links and so on. I created Dab page (Kaymaklı (disambiguation)), I directed links to the relevant pages, I made required cleanups also linked pages etc.
Here] is users' Rv before one minute protect request. Deleting all data about architechtural construction on Monastery, deleting "founded for the honor of Jesus by .." to fork "Armenian genocide" here. Which version is less POV.
There is another point. Please see Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Makalp, I think this can be tied as a motivation for this request.
I kindly request from you, to review your protect decision under the light of these points.
Regards, Happy editing.Must.T C 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10 please ignore Makalps request he obviously doesn't understand Wiki policies this is a content disputes in which admins have no business in than to do admin chores, admins can't simply revert and protect. I reverted than requested protection theres no rule against it, so tell me why you remove Armenian Genocide from every article again? Ashkani 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking XCentaur

Hello, Michaelas10, I understand that XCentaur is in violation of the 3RR-rule, but if you block (and so far, he has been a really excellent editor), I think User:Shez_15 shoud be blocked, too.

Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shez has already been warned, but 3RR is violated after the third revert, not second. Michaelas10 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

A pretty flower to cheer your day up :)
Be happy today, dear Michael!

Phaedriel - 16:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] XCentaur's block

Hello, Michael, I see you lifted the block from Centaur, but his IP is still auto-blocked. Is that suppossed to be happening? Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. Michaelas10 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Michaelas10. I'll be more careful in future. Best regards, xC | ☎ 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One small step FSC

Hey there, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in your post on my talk page in reference to the nomination of "One Small Step".

Yes, I understand that a simple support vote can be assumed to mean that the voter agrees with the nomination. However you had registered a weak oppose vote (here's the diff [4]) with no explanation. I am assume it that your notification that playing it in the browser cut the file short was not a justification as this was an issue with the player, not the file itself.

You then go on to say that, "It should also be pointed that featured content candidacy results are decided by opposing arguments, rather than sole !votes." which was precisely my point - that's why I asked you to elaborate! I'm not sure why you are reminding me of WP:!VOTE when it was you who was going against policy in the first place.

So yeah, can you clarify this please? Can you see why I'm puzzled by your message?

All the best, Witty lama 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've registered my oppose due to the sound cut issue, but once it had been addressed (explained, that is), I've changed my opinion to support. I meant to weak oppose at first because I was indeed unsure whether it was a file issue or not — if it was, my opposing argument would still apply. Hopefully this clarified my initial comment. Michaelas10 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
ok cool. That explains the oppose vote! Thanks. Could you address the second part of my confusion too please?
Also, on an unrelated note, I'm a pannellist on the Wikipedia Weekly podcast and in the most recent episode I recount the story of your inadvertent main page deletion. Just thought you'd like to know. We didn't mention your name in case you didn't want to be known and there was no meanness or anything like that, but it was worthy of mentioning. You can hear our discussion for yourself at timeindex 23:10 of episode 17 - Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/Episode17. Of course we will have to reprise this theme now in the light of the actually harful recent events...
Witty lama 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

Hello. You recently closed the AfD discussion for Jocelyne Couture-Nowak as "delete". Would you please explain your reasoning? Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Same question here. And why isn't there at least a redirect to Virginia Tech massacre? <KF> 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It should be noted that AfD is not a vote, so the number of keeps is irrelevant; I've only addressed myself to the arguments. As far as I've read, none of the keep arguments provided any policy-based reasoning except unconvincing claims of her notability based on the sole event, or simply requests to withhold the nomination for several months. Just a few examples: "..not because she can't be notable in death (Squeakbox) but because she wasn't the focus of the notable event that happened to involve her death", "Renominate for deletion in six months. Lets just see how this whole incident pans out", "...notable for involvement in Monday's massacre", "...it is too early to delete these pages". The given sources were all elucidating the victim details, and a lot of them weren't reliable anyway. Please don't get me wrong — as much as this event was tragic, we must still continue to function as an encyclopedia. The possibility for a redirect would still be left in editorial discretion. Thanks. Michaelas10 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi. I knew the closing could go either way, but I thought this was worthy of a review. --Oakshade 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk about unfairness and favoritism, while Hari Seldon has repeatedly and more than 3 times in less than 24 hours edited all my contributions over and over again, only I get warned about the “edit war” dispute on Vicente Fox. The edit ban needs to be removed, because the article is lacking much information.--Dcrcort 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Continually reverting each other's edits without consensus is edit warring, and will get you blocked. I believe you can both strongly benefit from the protection. Please assume good faith meanwhile. Michaelas10 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favor

Could you possibly peer review this article here? Thanks. Sr13 (T|C) ER 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rani Mukherjee

Could you please unlock the page now as we've resolved our issues? If you go on the discussion page of Rani Mukherjee, you will find that we have gathered some new ideas and the sooner we can commence them, the better. Thanks. --shez 24:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Fingers crossed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35 24 April 2007 (GMT).

[edit] My talk page

Sure, take it off! It's been so long since I took something off my watchlist, which is probably why it's crept up to over 7000 pages now. I admire you wholeheartedly :) (The only thing I've taken off is WP:RFCN, which is probably the most useless discussion page in existence...) – Riana ऋ 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Hi!

Just dropped by to thank you for the protection on article Rani Mukherjee. We've had a hell of a lot of discussion on the talk page while the article was protected and resolved most of the issues. Another admin unprotected it recently on the request of editor Shez 15.

The article has come from this (before the edit war) to its current version here - Rani Mukherjee.

This wouldn't have been possible without the article protection, so heres a big thank you!

Best regards,xC | ☎ 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the information and help. The other wikipediae had a bit different system when I applied for adminship. Thanks again. --Eukesh 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Okay, though I always thought typing my signature was an alternative to ~~~~, and that I could just do that. Did your message to me mean to put a timestamp along with my signature? Or just use ~~~~? Get back to me when you can. Brain40 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. Michaelas10 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'll use the ~~~~ from now on, with maybe a few exceptions. Thanks for the advice. Brain40 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your kind message, Michaelas. Don't worry, my real life issues will be over by the end of this month and I shall be back in full swing in May. Kindest regards, Húsönd 23:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an Emerald Scarab for you! Emerald scarabs somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 23:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Michaelas. Thanks very much for the Barnstar. Your critique was of course necessary and improved the portal significantly! Keep it up.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Hi!

I am afraid I had to request page protection again, this time for Preity Zinta. I made sure not to violate 3RR, and I hope I won't be blocked this time round.

I'd like to point out the involvement of Shshshsh (talk · contribs) in this, as well as the earlier revert war on Rani Mukherjee. I was blocked for the Mukherjee fiasco, however this time round Shez 15 (talk · contribs) discussed everything on the talk page. It was Shshshsh who kept reverting.

Both editors have contributed heavily to both articles and it is natural they feel strongly about it. However, editors such as Plumcouch,Ekantik,Zora,me, and many others, we are simply trying to bring the articles up to the highest level possible. In this unencyclopedic content ends up being removed, and the resultant wars are there for everyone to see.

Again, I'm only trying to help, and I hope I won't be blocked. I didn't even make 3 reverts, although Shshshsh did. I refuse to edit the article again, until the entire matter is sorted out on the talk page. Unfortunately Plumcouch seems to be busy off-Wiki and it becomes difficult for me to deal alone with the POV brigade.

Again, thank you for protecting the article. My apologies for you having to do so.

Best regards,xC | ☎ 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done. I will block Shshshsh on his next instance of edit warring, rather than applying page protection. You may feel free to contact me if such thing occurs. Michaelas10 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonjour!

Could you review me here and comment on the peer review on the Punahou School article? Thanks! Sr13 (T|C) ER 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Michaelas10 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For protecting the Greenwald page, I based my reverts on the community decision, but stopped when I noticed I was about to do my third. Now I don't have to worry about that. Whstchy 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zzzax

Hi - thanks for the msg. Looks like there'a decent debate going on at Talk:Zzzax, with both the original parties discussing. Regarding whether to unprotect the page to permit them to discuss the problem, not sure whether that's necessary, if they're able to update the talk page ok? Perhaps leave Zzzax protected for now, until there's something approaching concensus on the talk page? --Oscarthecat 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vicente fox

Can the ban be removed already? There's no longer a dispute. New information is pending to be added.--Dcrcort 05:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection has already expired, lets see how it goes. Michaelas10 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Universe 2007

Hi! Thanks for protecting Miss Universe 2007. Just a heads-up that it doesn't seem to have worked, as there are still anon editors editing the article. Can you please figure out what's going on? Thanks! PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Ooops forget about that... I had the dates wrong. Someone eroneously added a protection tag and I didn't look closer. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 06:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shshshsh

Hi there,

I had a small question to ask you. In these edits, replying to me - this - Shshshsh (talk · contribs) has said - As for now, I don't know if I should believe in you at all cause you are very strange. All of us working on the bollywood bios, we're all used to this editor saying things like this. In my reply, I've already requested him to comment on content and not editors. I just wanted to ask, should I leave a no personal attacks template on the editor's talk page? He has a past history of WP:CIVIL and NPA concerns, and it doesn't seem to end.

Another thing is Shshshsh saying this about Shez - I don`t know why but he hates Preity for this reason and he was always proving this in his edits. Shshshsh also accuses me of the same thing on my talk page - this. Shshshsh seems to believe that everyone other than him hates Zinta, and so Shshshsh is the sole protector of the Preity Zinta article.

Is there some template for this? Requesting editors not to keep saying the same things over and over to all editors that try to edit a page?

Thank you for your guidance in this, Regards,xC | ☎ 03:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted on Xcentaur's talk page by Shshshsh - me. It has been copied here so as to help you decide who is right -
It looked like you have something against Preity. That`s exactly what I said. I didn`t accused you.
As for now, I don't know if I should believe in you at all cause you are very strange There is nothing bad here. I said nothing wrong cause your decisions change everytime. You`re abusing the fact that we have arguments and demanding other users to do something with me. BTW, this user is the same who has blocked you earlier and I understand your intent here. Anyway, If I did something wrong I`m sorry, so forget to put something to me.
As for Shez, everyone, from Zora to Pa_7 to Plumcouch said what I said and by the way that`s not your problem, that`s my with Shez. He called me once "loser", once "ugly" and I did nothing. So please don`t interfere.
And here is what you have told down our history together:
I said: "Oh god you`re so confused" - you replied: "coming from you, that is quite entertaining" you answered me as well. That`s a PA.
You said: "A lot of your edits have had to be removed because there was no reason to include them in an encyclopedia." - Apart from Preity`s page, which edits are you relying on? This is a personal attack cause I have a lot of edits. You can`t determine such things on me, only from these edits. It`s a personal attack too.
You said: "you seem to believe that everyone except you hates Zinta" - you know nothing about me, you can`t say that. You answered me in the same manner. About shez everyone knows that. Take these last Pa_7 writesShez removes and of course Plumcouch [1]
Here is the proof that he hates Preity [2] and here is the proof that this IP belongs to him [3]. That`s why I said what I said. I told you once. I`m going only as per facts.
Now, you have never answered me this question so please answer now cause this one also considered as a PA in disguise:
I'm not surprised that Shshshsh has raised concerns about this article. What did you mean by that when you posted it to Rani`s page?
Best Regards. --Shshshsh 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
End of post Thanks, Best Regards, --Shshshsh 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here to "decide who's right". Xcentaur, if you truly have a problem with Shshshsh's conduct, please refer it to requests for comment; this way you'll receive a wide community output rather than a single person's opinion. I feel Shshshsh isn't quite here to build the encyclopedia (after reading his vastly off-topic conversations with Shez as well as article talk posts), and should observe several of our core policies. Michaelas10 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for referring me to the right area. On a side note, I think its funny that Shshshsh goes through my contributions periodically looking for what edits I make where. Anyhow, thank you, happy editing! xC | ☎ 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went through the RfC pages. It seems to me it is quite a serious step. If things don't improve, then I will have to add a request there. Thanks for pointing it out. Regards,xC | ☎ 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just inquiring

Doesn't this seem to violate this policy (especially

...The hammer of AfD finally cracked me, wielded by 12 year olds who through their sheer number of votes (unable to write, they choose to administrate delinquently) have put themselves in a position to be in charge of appraising which articles are (and are not) historically notable...

which bothers me)? Sr13 (T|C) 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Afd

Regarding her article, upon which you adjudicated the first time, are there further appeals to be made? Or should it just be relisted again, probably in months' time? Or should nothing be done? Thoughts? Pablosecca 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that another deletion review/AfD will ever reach consensus at this time of being. I will attempt another one in a few months or so. I hope you can understand my position on this one. Michaelas10 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Thanks

Yeah, definitely one of the stranger things I've seen used to vandalise people's userpages :) – Rianaऋ 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for that wonderful barnstar. Sr13 (T|C) 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just realized you are an administrator.

I posted to the article Wikipedia community to be attacked and accused of being a single purpose account and a sock puppet. You said nothing at all about this uncivl behavior. So, I am saying good bye for now. I don't know why Mr. Scott has so much power to behave as he did with me but it's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't protect the new editors or the disabled ones. Have a good day! --Crohnie 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Being civil is one thing, but trying to force people to be nice in light of obvious situations is not what our civil policy is about. The editor thought I was making a SPA accusation, which I wasn't, and I was trying to make that clear. You might disagree with how I go about this, but in no way has anything I've done in this situation been "wrong" or something blockable. Why would you further escalate the situation with giving such an absurd warning after I said I was done with the article, and had taken it off my watchlist? Why would you warn over such a message? You might feel differently, and maybe you'd try to block me yourself, but I wouldn't expect it to last very long. You can't force AGF. You have a point about being civil, but AGF is not "anytime, anywhere". So please, don't warn me when I've done nothing wrong. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologies. While I still don't think I've done anything wrong in the Wikipedia community discussion, my reaction to you was not like me. Lately I have been a bit frustrated, and it is coming out in my messages. I've been a dick. After I left the above message it kind of hit me, that I was just responding out of frustration. I shouldn't be biting your head off, when you really haven't done anything wrong. I'm sorry. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Wars of Religion

I relooked at the history, and you are correct. The RFP report was exagerated so I immediately semi-protected it. I will warn the IP and the reporter. Thanks. Sr13 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protecting Jazz

What is the criteria to semi-protect a page? You said, "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." How much activity does it need? I counted the last 50 edits and 41 of them are vandalism or reverting vandalism. I have this page on my watchlist, and it is frustrating that I have to constantly check it for vandalism instead of doing constructive things on other pages. TK421 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection option is used when blocking or reverting users individually is no longer a feasible option. However, it seems in this case the editors pretty much manage to handle the (quite low) level of vandalism. A protection at this time may prevent good-faithed editors from working on the article, and thus case more harm than good. Just continue reverting any vandalism for now. Michaelas10 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind my saying so, that sounds pretty silly. How many constructive edits can you find in the last 200 from anonymous editors? Likewise, how many people are going to access the article and find crap in it? The reverts don't happen immediately. Personally, this is discouraging enough that I don't think I will keep reverting vandalism. I could be doing other things so much more productive. TK421 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
We judge the need to protect the article by the current level of vandalism, rather than the amount of vandalism in comparison with constructive contributions. Michaelas10 07:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Which policy document says that this is how to judge semi-protection requests? I agree with TK421 that this is silly. It makes much more sense to judge the issue on the proportion of productive edits.
What constitutes the time period over which you judge "current level" of vandalism?
This example [5] on a page you declined shows that, of the 18 most recent edits, a max of 4 are productive. Surely, since these are the most recent edits then this means that the "currenly level" of vandalism is high.
With this [6] decision you decline at least 2 protections where 80 - 90% of the IP edits are vandalism - see Genetically modified organism here [7], Genetically Modified Foods [8]. Like TK421 I find it so disheartening to be editing these pages and all you get to do is revert vandalism. With the inforcement policy you are implementing it is almost worth while to deliberately vandalise a page repeatedly in order to get it semi-protected.
Your method of enforcement seems inheriantly biased against pages with lower volumes of editing. This is silly because it does not matter over what period of time a bunch of distructive edits happens - it is just as hard to undo them. Yes you should only look at "current" vandalism. But this should mean the most recent N edits on the page. With N being a number up for policy discussion. The definition of current should not have an arbitrary time cut off.
Ttguy 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Beatle song samples, and specifically for restoring the Ticket to Ride sample. I've updated the FU rationale for two of the songs and will update the others in the next few minutes. I believe that will satisfy the requirements and the media files will not generate FU warnings in the future. Whether it works out that way or not, I appreciate your help. John Cardinal 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your note about the other audio samples. I was mostly concerned with the Beatle songs, as that has been the focus of my article editing. I don't have the time to update the FUs for all of those files. I will try to do a few, but we'll need help and a sponsor for most of the other files. John Cardinal 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On your recent declines on RFP

Apparently, Ttguy has recently re-submitted his request for semi-protecting two articles. The user really tried to make his point by providing a detailed analysis, likely becuase you declined his original offers. Now, the situations may not meet the persistent vandalism an article needs to take before being protected, but the user went into that depth in order to get semi-protection on the articles. Judging the situation at hand, I decided to semi-protect the articles for the minimum 1 week. Hopefully you find my reasoning somewhat believable. Sr13 10:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the persistent vandalism criteria you are talking about? What policy page does this come under? Because I think the policy needs to change or the interpretation of it needs to be clarified. See my comments above on Semi protecting Jazz[9]. I am not the only editor that feels this way as we see from the comments in Semi-protecting Jazz
Ttguy 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, both because repeatably requesting protection against the judgment of several admins is POINTy and because the vandalism level on this page was quite low — hardly a single vandalism edit within two days prior to the protection. However, I will not reverse your decisions and will concur if you believe a protection was really necessary. Michaelas10 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy on WP:PROT lists the following as reason for protecting a page: "Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses." I read that before I submitted Jazz to be semi-protected, because it seemed to fit perfectly. "High rate of vandalism" can be interpreted several ways. "... when blocking users individually is not a feasible option..." is more clear, and it applies well to the articles in question. TK421 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've counted an average of two vandals a day for the past month. The users can be appropriately warned and blocked. Michaelas10 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at the policy again. It says "Preventing vandalism," not stopping vandalism after it has occurred. Warning and blocking does nothing to prevent the extremely high rate (90%) of unproductive edits that have happened recently to Jazz. TK421 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Michaelas10 are you going to block every IP address that vandalizes the GM pages or the Jazz page? Why don't you take it opon yourself to revert evey bit of vandalism and warn every IP address for it on both the Jazz and GM pages for a week and see how long it is before you are requesting semi-protection.
Surely this is a clear case of "when blocking users individually is not a feasible option"
As to what constitutes frequent vandalism I think you should compare it to other pages. Lets look at Precautionary Principle [10] for eg. 3 or 4 IP address edits in the last 50 - none vandalism. Two vandals a day is extremely high vandalism if you measure it relative to a page like Precautionary Principle. And having to revert two vandals a day is a major pain. What use is warning an IP address? They ususually do not have user page to warn them on. Getting a block is useless because of dynamic IPs. This policy really needs clarification.
We need an "objective criterion for semi-protection" policy. Because the way it is being enforced right now it seems very arbitrary.
Ttguy 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Per your assertion, almost each popular article should be semi-protected. However, the reason we don't do it is because protection may prevent IPs from improving the article in the future and goes against the spirit of "anyone can edit". Noting almost all the vandals — albeit in low quantity — have been quickly reverted and warned, I'm assured a protection will bring more harm than good. Michaelas10 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Michael here. 2 vandals a day, quite frankly, is nothing. Protection of a page should only be used as a last measure. If you are feeling overwhelmed by the vandalism, it's probably best to take it off your watchlist for a few days, and return with a fresh perspective. I agree that it can be frustrating at times, but we should lock out all new editors because of a few bad eggs. Regards, – Rianaऋ 14:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this issue here. You might want to stick your two cents worth in.
I understand that this might be major change in wikipedia policy and it regards a "foundation" issue. However, even under semi-protection - "anyone" can still edit because anyone can register. Perhaps the semi-protection could be modified so that it does not care how long you have been registered you can still edit a semi-protected page.
I agree that pretty much every popular page could end up with semi-protection on this basis. However, I don't think that is a bad thing and as suggested above even under this scenario we still have the "anyone can edit" feeling. The other side to this is that when the popular pages have vulgarity all over them and are visible to the world it degrades the credibilty of the project in the eyes of the public. This is so much so that a recent sketch comedy show here in Australia made a joke about this very fact. So this issue is in the public eye.
Ttguy 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I, Smee, hereby present The Editor's Barnstar to Michaelas10. You have done some fine meticulous work on the Project, specifically in the area of popular culture. Thank you as well, for keeping such a polite demeanor during discussions. Yours, Smee 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection of Noah Bennet

There's a current problem that the talk page associated with it currently redirects to Talk:Mr. Bennet (Heroes). What can we do about this? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Michaelas10 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Don't get too possessive ;) AecisBrievenbus 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And please don't send me a message when I'm sending you one. It always makes me feel like a complete idiot :) AecisBrievenbus 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Guess you fell asleep as well.. Michaelas10 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Children

I noticed that you protected Islam and children recently, citing an "edit war". This is misleading. Please note that if you looked at the history [11], three of the edits in the last week were made by a sockpuppet of a banned user User:MomoShomo. Three more edits were reverting this banned sockpuppet. (giving the false impression of an edit war).

Following this, the other edits included 2 users (User:Arrow740 and myself) reverting the user Netmonger, who has been deleting referenced information. Netmonger's primary motivation in disallowing the cited reference is because it is from an ex-muslim woman he believes is homosexual [12].

Two more of the edits involve a self-revert by Netmonger, presumably for purposes of disruption. Anyhow that only furthered the false impression of an edit war.

Please re-consider the protection. I understand that "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version" but most certainly the wrong version has been protected. We were in the middle of discussing this problem on individual user talk pages when the protection took place... For that reason, I've began to try to point the involved parties to the talk page for Islam and children rather than on user talk.

Thanks, --ProtectWomen 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered this here. Thanks. Michaelas10 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Michael,

I just wanted to bring few things to your notice,

  • First my dispute with protectWomen started with this particular edit [13] not as claimed by the editor above.
  • Second I only suggested the ex-muslim whose reference web site I removed could be a homosexual, and no where in my conversations I said I removed the reference because she is a homosexual. I only based my removal of that reference on WP:RS
  • Third it is me who started the conversation at the article talk page to resolve the issue and not protectwomen here are the diffs diff1 and diff2
  • The editor protectWomen has called me a bigot and a homophobic for both which she/he should get at least a warning.
  • She/he has tried to completely mislead you by giving a completely inaccurate account of what really happened.

ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Children

I certainly disagree that Khomeni is a scholar on the basis that he self proclaimed to be a spiritual leader and a scholar. I placed the disputed tag because, I am not sure how accurate the translation is. Unless otherwise someone can prove the translation is accurate (the contributors of the section do not speak persian). I am certainly not here to disrupt wikipedia, I encourage you to look at my contributions to wikipedia along with the edits of the editors protectwomen and the gang, you will certainly see a pattern of contributions in Islam related articles that are only negative and my edits are hardly related to Islam articles ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cactus.man/Wikipedian cinema

Thanks for that but, with these compliments, you are spoling me ... Just go for it, add your stuff and let's see. After all, these lists are usually out of date - mine needs to be updated ... (Memo to self: ...). --Cactus.man ✍ 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching reply

Great, if its OK with Riana, you could be my co-coach, should I create a page where you can ask some questions and coach me from like Magnus anaimums coach page? Regards — The Sunshine Man 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have answered both questions (here)in as much detail as possible, when you're ready, you may wish to take a look and give some feedback. Regards — The Sunshine Man 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noted in your replies you didn't use any full stops; communication and proper delivery of statements are very important skills for administrators to have while engaging in discussion, so hopefully we'd also practice your English throughout the process. Michaelas10 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oopps, I normally use full stops and commas etc and I checked it and thought it seemed OK, I'll try harder next time. I am ready for some more questions. — The Sunshine Man 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might of missed my message before so just incase you did I'm ready when you are for more questions at my admin coaching page. Regards The Sunshine Man 13:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite busy right now. Hold on, I'll add about 10 additional questions soon. Michaelas10 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being annoying! I've answered the questions, if you're busy then I'll just tell you and you can review and add more when ready, The Sunshine Man 12:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to the e-mail

I thought the discussion was in accordance with WP:SNOW because the only comment (the one you cited) was rebuted as "It's clearly proven, but it's not clearly notable...", and considering that there was no opposition (and unlikely to be any). Of course, one could always report to deletion review if s/he contests the closure and sources have been found. Hope you understand, and thanks for noting the crticism. I'll try to explain my snowballs next time. Sr13 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting the closure, but perhaps we should avoid snowballing when common sense isn't clearly outlined. It's quite exhausting going through the entire WP:DRV process due to a single early close. Michaelas10 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
True. Sr13 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar, Michaelas!

I just recently learned enough to very, very proud of it. Thank you.

And thanks for the gentle reminder, too. That's one of my besetting problems, crossing that oh-so-crossable line from straight reporting to creative editorializing. I do try to rein it in, I promise!

Yours in good faith, Magicmote 17:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Awards

There are three proposals which need some comments. Please weigh in:

Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik (talk)

[edit] Excuse me?

I think you've confused me with some other user. I don't even know Rob Lefield. Plz don't accuse me of something I didn't even do. Thank you. - shez_15

[edit] My RfA

Hello Michaelas10/Archive, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

[edit] RFA thanks

Thank you, Michaelas10/Archive, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

 Image:Admin mop.PNG

[edit] Apologies

I wasn't trying to cause trouble and I'm sorry that it appeared that way.

Ohgltxg 23:56 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page unprotection

Hi. Would you be willing to lift the page protection on Fleet captain (Star Trek)? In the interests of full disclosure, I plan to remove the unsourced, speculative section that went back-and-forth and led to the initial protection. My RfC went unresponded-to, but the other editor's proposed solution -- mentioning the dubious insignia in the parent article -- has been done (in fact, was/had been done when it was proposed).

I'd also like to do some other cleanup, such as removing the first two independent clauses in the second paragraph, leaving just the bit after "and". And, truth be told, after some more head-scratching, I may just nominate some of these excessively in-universe, no-real-world-significance Star Trek rank articles for deletion. But would like to tweak them some more to see where they land.

Anyhow, my two bits. Thanks. I'll look here and on the article/article talk page for any response. Thanks. --EEMeltonIV 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a wikibreakbreak to do that; much appreciated. --EEMeltonIV 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

Nice to see you on the article again, even if we do need to remove some images and shorten some stuff :(, but I guess that's okay in this case if it means an overall improvement in article quality. I will work on turning some of the redlinks in the article to blue. Smee 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

  • At some point soon, going to make 2 more redlinks from the article blue... Smee 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Another page to unprotect

University of the State of New York has been protected long enough. No nonsense has arisen on the talk page since April, so I bet it's safe to unprotect that article. 204.52.215.107 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelas10 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching

Ehh sorry, I saw the Wikibreak tag on your userpage and I didn't want to bother you with messages incase it annoyed you, but whenever you're ready to coach suits me; Regards --The Sunshine Man 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its OK for the minute, I've recently been concentrating on recent changes patrolling and image work so I put in hold, (hopefully) I'll get around to it... The Sunshine Man 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input

Hi Michael, I was just wondering when you think would be a good time for me to have an RfA, obviously I wouldn't attempt it in less than 3 months but I was juat wondering what your thoughts are about it, just incase you forgot I also edited as Tellyaddict between October 2006 and early May 2007 and had almost fourteen thousand edits so I actully have a lot of experience, just wondering when you think I'd be ready to get a second opinion. The Sunshine Man 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

You got email! The Sunshine Man 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal review

Would you kindly do a portal review for Portal:Environment? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question about statement

I'm not sure what you meant in your comment at notice board about using WP:ANI. I mean I literally don't know what that suggestion means, and why it would be faster to click on that link instead of getting to the page through the longer link. Also, that was one of the quickest reponses I've seen to one of my notices. Thanks for that. I'm also not sure what you mean by not insulting the vandal, since my description was all proven fact. If you mean the neo-Nazi adjective, that is not my opinion; that is a term the individual has used to describe himself on a talk page during one of his incarnations (minus the neo-). Spylab 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal review

Hi Michaelas10. I see some time ago you volunteered to help out with portal reviews. The energy portal was peer reviewed back in March. Since then it has been developed substantially and is now under consideration as a featured portal, but has had remarkably few people contributing to the debate, compared to other candidates. If you have time perhaps you would like to take a look? The candidate page can be found here. Regards Gralo 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Thank you, Michaelas10, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, Michaelas10, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢