User talk:Naerii/Archives/March 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Naerii! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Addhoc (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Re: Bored (Asteroids)

I have been creating a few stubs, but I wanted to make sure I was creating them properly before doing so en masse. See Special:Contributions/Cobi. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Wow, it is really ironic that I had an error on the same type of page. However, I was unaware of the correct spelling of asteroid, which I now know. On the other hand, Cobi's mistake of "Septemberember" was much more obvious. You'll notice that I did change my !vote at his RFA to reflect my commending of his work in that area. I am now aware of the difficult and tedious nature of what he was doing. Anyway, thanks for the information on the correct spelling. P.S. - Nobody ever writes on your talk page? Useight (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Well, that explains why there aren't any comments here. You don't have to archive the comments, but that's what most editors do. Useight (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Nomination skipped

You skipped 101-200, 401-500, 501-600. Since you've already speedy deleted the rest of them, do you mind completing the collection? Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything (I'm not an admin), but I'll tag them for you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blah

it's not a copyright violation, it's a short preview allowed by wikipedia for demonstrative use. --76.250.184.110 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

the fact that it was taken down my amazon shows that it shouldn't have been released yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Advice needed

I'd say block as vandalism only account. The good contributions appear to be coming at different times to the "bad ones" - so maybe the account is shared? Either way, I'd block. Try asking another admin or go to irc and ask someone else. If you don't know how to connect to irc, see User:Rudget/irc. Rudget. 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Wikipedians and WP:AC

Hi. You just nominated WP:AC for deletion. I have speedily closed this as disruptive and absurd. You also moved WP:Wikipedians to WP:Mob rule. I have reverted this. Please stop being disruptive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gavia Immer is right

[1] Frustration is fine, but taking such actions in the heat of the moment isn't the best way to make your point. Take your time and think carefully about what the alternatives are before suggesting that the committee be "deleted." It handles a lot of cases that are just too wearying or divisive for the community to take care of; what alternatives to you have to suggest for those kinds of cases? Risker (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Community decisions, but as in the eyes of supposedly respected admins the community is a lynch mob, we're clearly unfit to decide for ourselves. Pathetic. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, Doc Glasgow is not on the Arbcom, and he is one voice amongst many. That discussion has just begun, and will go on for some time now. More editors and admins who agree with your position are logging in and concurring with the community ban proposal. Please try taking a somewhat longer view here; instead of over-the-top reactions, pull together the best arguments on why the community ban is a good idea. Risker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

Just out of interest, what is your purpose here? You've been here just a few days and you seem completely dissatisfied and some would argue you are participating in disruptive editing with your nomination of ArbCom for MfD and moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to mob rule. They were very pointy edits and I suggest you stay away from that sort of thing in the future. I'm going to be blunt - If you're this unhappy here already, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Just out of interest, what's the name of your other account? You clearly aren't new here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send this to AIV. Glad someone's noticed this. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be making lots of XfD votes that "agree with the mob", probably to make the point that Wikipedia is under mob rule. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at my user page? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have. Fail to see the relevance. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:17, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Ryan. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:19, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for that - I hadn't checked your userpage. Still, that only strengthens my opinion that you should re-evaluate how you want to contribute here, because you are clearly not happy with things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm here to write articles, but it's pretty hard to ignore when the people meant to be taking care of the encyclopedia completely fail to do so in a most spectacular manner. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it might be a very good idea for you to stay out of meta-discussion and stick to articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I was the only one who had a problem with him... hmmmm--Niro87 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, is this about the copyvio thing? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Advice

I noticed you have added the exact same comment to several AfDs. You should leave a custom summary for eack AfD. Otherwise, it seems as though you did not actually look at the article. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the reasons that Naerii gives in the AfDs are short, but are certainly policy based reasons which is better than most.... Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I open tabs for the things that I think should be deleted as I go through the list of AfDs. I don't bother writing long explanations as most of the time it's self evident and I don't feel like repeating what has already been said. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your account's editing privileges have been revoked

It has become clear that your contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project, and that your presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole. Your recent filing of an MfD discussion on the Arbitration Committee, your disruptive communications with fellow editors, and a general "chip on your solider" attitude are conclusive proof of this.

Further to your disruptive contributions, I have blocked you indefinitely. AGK § 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef is a bit harsh don't you think? Seems like a temp cool-off period is all that's needed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:29, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Really? Other than my past actions in the twenty minutes or so - which of my edits do you feel show my "chip on my shoulder" attitude? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, which part of half a featured article, writing half a good article, uploading images I took and images from Flickr, helping other people improve articles, creating FAQs, creating articles, and spending hours reverting vandalism led you to believe that my contributions were disruptive? -- Naerii · plz create stuff

Whilst I believe some of his edits are clearly trolling, I don't believe an indef block should be made here - he's got an extensive history over a previous account that should be taken into account. I don't actually believe a block is in order at all here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ryan. I would say a block of a few weeks could suffice. I only support this, however, if the editor removes "I WILL DEFINITELY VOTE FOR YOU IN RFA IF YOU DO THIS BORING CRAPPY JOB" from his/her userpage, as that is not appropriate (that's what led me to this talk page). нмŵוτнτ 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke. You can delete it if it really bothers you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issue with it is that new editors may see that, & they may think it's a game & that simply exchanging favors & voting is the way to adminship. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it, and I know you originally meant no harm by it. =) Cheers, нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No trouble, I didn't actually consider that aspect of it until you pointed it out. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I too think this is block is excessive. This short spate of disruption was inappropriate, but she does have a long history of contributions to the project - a short block, if any, would have been the best solution. krimpet✽ 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the block should be lifted if this user agrees to stop being disruptive. I make this recommendation despite Naerii's opinion that much of my wiki-time is spent as a member of a useless waste of space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, do you agree to stop being disruptive? All blocks are on a damage-limitation basis only, and if you agree to stop all disruptive behaviour, then I don't see why I would object to a lifting o the block. Do you have thoughts on the matter? AGK § 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true. If the editor agrees to stop, then even a "few weeks" wouldn't be necessary. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc. But I'm not going to agree to stop doing the behaviour AGK described either, particularly as I don't know why my "contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project" and my "presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole." -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a differentiation between "nominating the AC for deletion" and "the behaviour AGK described"—they are one and the same. I will assume that you are going to take steps to ensure that the disruption ceases? AGK § 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the way you phrased it it sounds as if it's a long term behaviour problem. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you picked me up that way: rather, it was simply a reflection of the serious nature of your contribution's disruption level at the time of the block—that is, it was a matter of the gravity of the disruption (an MfD on the ArbCom is pretty disruptive), rather than as a matter of time span. Again, my question: will there any any further disruption? AGK § 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. As I stated a few paras up: "Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc.". -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the other admins who have already given their opinions, I just want to add that I support lifting the block. Addhoc (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Y Unblocked. I've lifted my block, in the spirit of WP:AGF, and after my discussion with you: please, don't disrupt. Additionally, some editors above have expressed the view that some contributions from your account are constructive, and I'm only too happy to accommodate their views here: I do feel confident that I won't need to reinstate this block. However, please be aware that I am willing to re-block if disruption re-arises. All the best regards, AGK § 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oki. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone remove my autoblock please? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've lifted it. To check that it's now deactivated, could you please click here and report the presence or absence of block messages? Cheers, AGK § 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post the template :P It's gone, thank you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I am of course a childish, petulant asshole who is trollish at times. I get pissed off easily. I overreact. I completely waste people's time... all these things. Sorry, I feel a bit ridiculous. Thanks to the nice people who supported unblocking me. I will obviously be spending a lot of time working in the mainspace to make up for it now. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought you made a good contribution. Sorry you got slammed, Naerii...--99.139.147.168 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the guy who was edit warring over the imeem link, right? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Costello Music

No worries at all. Just wanted to give you a heads up on why I took out the graphic. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on your first ban!

Public dissent never goes unnoticed. The "vandal only" lie was a nice touch, too!

Now people can use this to attempt to discredit your opinions, like that sockpuppet tried to do on the Don Murphy DRV.

Congrats! Here's to many more! 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Um. Okay... -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naerii/onblps

I noticed the essay you appear to be writing on BLP issues so I thought I'd go and point out my own essay on the subject which may interest you: User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much an essay as me trying to figure out what I think about things. But thanks for the link, it's certainly very interesting :) -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I especially like solution #4. The "However, Durova pointed out that this standard would make almost anyone who has ever acted on Star Trek be automatically outside the acceptable range of penumbra BLPs" bit doesn't trouble me as it's not very likely that anyone from Star Trek is likely to ask for their article to be deleted. However I doubt that it's anywhere near close to current standard at all. Very few people who ask for deletion succeed, and those who do have usually done so after many, many AfDs. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Hi Naerii. I just wanted to let you know that you are not supposed to cross off reviewer's comments. Instead, just write "Done" under the comments you've addressed, and let the reviewer double check and then strike his or her own comments. That makes sure there isn't any confusion in the meaning of a comment. I'm going to take a look at the one(s) I've mine you've stricken and verify that they've been addressed, so don't feel like you have to undo it now. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, all this FAC etiquette is a bit tiring. Especially as it changes from day to day. In the last FAC I participated in, *everyone* struck things when they were done. Never mind. Do with my edits as you like. -- Naerii 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That comment came off as a bit rude, sorry. Thanks for letting me know. -- Naerii 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Costello Music

I'm sorry..but i don't have the magazine anymore. I wish I could help...have you tried looking online? maybe they have a review archives or something...if not i'd say just take it out. I'm sorry man...-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

( It's okay! thanks anyway. -- Naerii 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at the AfD

I believe that these comments construe a personal attack and would request that you review our policies on civility. Furthermore, were you to have read all my comments, you would see that I was pointing out that your accusations of meatpuppetry were inappropriate, and as you yourself admitted somewhat hypocritical. I use the proper on-wiki channels of notifying five Wikiprojects, two Arab, two Jewish, one neutral, and you get your information from the Wikipedia Review, and you are the one casting aspersions of meatpuppetry? I find that sadly humorous. Lastly, statements such as "you're part of Jayjg's mailing list" are completely inappropriate, as I have no control to whom he sends his e-mail. Should you now be referred to as on Hershelkrustofsky, Johnny Cache, and Kelly Martin's e-mail lists since you are a reader of Wikipedia Review? I would request you strike your attacking comments and restrict yourself to edits that are on content, policy, and/or logical arguments about them, as I and G-Dett have been doing. I will reiterate that it was not my intent to call you a meatpuppet, but to point out the logical inconsistency with your argument, even before you admitted to being canvassed off-wiki :( -- Avi (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I really hope you're joking when you insinuate that [2] is a personal attack.
• Wikipedia Review is a public forum that is visited by most people who are interested in Wikipedia's internal politics (or if you're like me, find the drama amusing). It's hardly canvassing, unlike the case of Jayjg where he emails people privately that he knows will support him. People on Wikipedia Review rarely agree on anything, and I didn't post at that AFD because someone messaged me there asking me to watch their back, ya know?
• Amusing that you pick some of the members with the worst reputations for your comment, when you could just as easily have mentioned User:Alison, User:Lar, User:Viridae, User:Neil, User:Fred Bauder, User:A Man In Black, User:Doc glasgow, etc, who are all admins and in some cases checkusers and stewards. But I guess that doesn't advance your position as well as tarring me with the same brush as Johnny Cache, does it?
• But seriously, give me a break. A person who has been shown to canvass off wiki to people he knows that will support him has an article he is involved in editing AfD'd and he and all the people he is known previously to have canvassed just happen to show up? Lol, pull the other one, it's got bells on. It's pretty sad that nothing happened on Wikipedia about it at the time, but as far as I am concerned you have zero credibility and I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother posting things to my talk page in future that could just as easily be posted to the AFD. -- Naerii 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• PPS: Kelly Martin doesn't actually post at Wikipedia Review. -- Naerii 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• PPPS (loool): Funny how I mention meatpuppeting and you automatically just know I'm talking about you, isn't it? -- Naerii 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • (Edit conflict) No, but I was the most vocal member of the opinions that you argued with, and in a sense, was lead counsel for the opposition -- Avi (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know KM doesn't post there often, I read that board every now and then too, likely for the same reason you do. Naerii, have you ever been involved in a logical discussion with someone who used reductio ad absurdum? It appears to me that your responses are a result that you feel that I have been attacking you personally. If that is how you have interpreted our discourse, you have my sincere apologies. My points regarding you, as I tried to make clear on both the AfD page and here, were to show you that your statements could just have easily been turned around on you, and since that logical reversal is likely untrue, it stands to reason that the initial statement is just as likely untrue. I did not mean to say that you were to be considered the same as HK, JC, etc. What I meant is that "guilt-by-association" statements apply to everyone, and as they should not apply to you, they should neither apply to anyone else who opined in that AfD.

Here is another point: do I go around saying that G-Dett, eleland, Noor, and Tiamut are all meatpuppets of each other? Of course not! They are editors who share many of the same interests due to their common upbringing and religious faith. They frequent the same Wikiprojects, work on the same articles, and likely have each others' talk pages watchlisted. That is actually a good thing about wikipedia (in the main) in that it fosters collaboration between editors with shared interests. Furthermore, I will take full responsibility for the detailed responses to this AfD; I cross-posted it to the deletion discussion boards of five separate projects. That is exactly how we are supposed to get "more eyes on the subject". Insinuating off-wiki canvassing remains, in my opinion, unfounded, uncalled for, and inappropriate. In regards to civility, I accept the fact that your tone of voice and responses come from the fact that you felt attacked, but if you would kindly re-read your statements, I think you would agree that they could have been phrased in a less accusatory fashion.

Lastly, I will extend to you the same invitation to an exercise in intellectual honesty that I have extended to others. My editing history is clear and open to all. While it is true that editors with similar backgrounds and upbringings will often tend to edit similar articles and have similar points of view (e.g. Tiamut and eleland, for example) there are plenty of examples where I argue, vociferously, against Jay, and others who may be lumped in with him (SlimV for one). In my 22K+ edits here, I have always taken pains to make my own decisions, regardless of who has informed of what and when, and I daresay my history proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I invite you to look, and make up your own mind, and I am truly curious as to what you would have to say.

Thanks for listening. -- Avi (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'm sorry we got off to such a bad start, and I wanted to thank you for striking out your meatpuppetry comments. I have reciprocated. -- Avi (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling corrections: millenium

I notice that you are correcting some occurrences of "millenium" to "millennium". I commend you in your efforts - I have recently made several hundred similar corrections. :-) However, you are 'correcting' some which I have deliberately left, because they are correct misspellings, or accurately reflect misspellings on external pages. In each case, I double-checked the spelling and left a note in a comment in the page text:

<!-- PLEASE NOTE that "Millenium" is the correct spelling here. -->

or

<!-- PLEASE NOTE that "Millenium" is deliberately spelled incorrectly here, reflecting the mistake on the external page. -->

I'm going to go back and undo those edits where "Millenium" really should be there. I'm sorry that some of your efforts haven't worked out, but please keep up the good, tireless work. :-) TimR (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry - I noticed that after you reverted one of my edits. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for fixing my mistakes! :) -- Naerii 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for taking it so well. :-) TimR (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain

Thanks for the quick response, but you might want to check the history of the article to see what I was refering. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Naerii/Archives/March 2008! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)