User talk:VirtualSteve/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5| 6

Contents

Uranquinty

I noticed some recent vandalism on the page Uranquinty, New South Wales to the effect that "Danika phelphs lives here!" Some text was removed as well, and I am not sure how far back the vandalism goes.

Perhaps you could take a look... Hugh16 09:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you - since fixed by Gimboid13. Cheers--VS talk 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought

Talk:Leanne Clare RE: →Chris Hurley - remove hopelessly POV commentary, how did all this get by without my noticing?

Hi Bec, OIC, VS and CJ (Aussie Admins that I know of); wow Jb3 can go on! I think we have a wikilawyer-in-training, although he/she only seems to ever focus on this one issue.

If you're interested I'd like to know your opinion, the section seemed pretty blatant POV to me, the neutrality of the sources themselves could also be questioned. His analysis is flawed but I think it would be counterproductive for me to get into a whole point by point technical argument for pages and pages, I didn't have the page on my watchlist otherwise I would have been on to this long ago. So your third opinion is sought on how much I should engage/disengage on this issue, or if you might like to come in as a non-involved party. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi

I noticed you as a prominent member of Wikiproject Australia Photography. I had a look at your "about me" page and I saw all the impressive disclaimers such as "this user drives a Harley Davidson" or "this user has a Master of Business Administration degree", etc etc ...

I was wondering if you could help me get a few of those disclaimers on my user page. Also, I would like to join WikiProject Australia/Photography, as I have uploaded a picture of Melbourne and plan to upload more. But I have no idea how to join, and/or put disclaimers on my page.

As you can tell, I'm a very new Wikipedian and I would appreciate any help you could provide me. Thanks! Gay15boy 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 :(

We miss you VS, hope you come back soon. WikiTownsvillian 11:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Cheers guys - I am around but just so snowed under by work and volunteer task I am working on that I only have time to come in for a look every now and then. I will return with appropriate gusto soonish. --VS talk 10:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 :(

We miss you VS, hope you come back soon. WikiTownsvillian 11:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Cheers guys - I am around but just so snowed under by work and volunteer task I am working on that I only have time to come in for a look every now and then. I will return with appropriate gusto soonish. --VS talk 10:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I miss you too, Steve. Hope you aren't working too hard and come back when you can! Take care, :) Sarah 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And a reply....

...has been sent. I will be touch soon. Cheers, and thanks -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks VS, but unless it attacks someone other than me or is racist or otherwise generally offensive (as opposed to merely unpleasant) I prefer to keep it on record. See User talk:Mattinbgn#David Stein (Toronto actor for my favourite! :-) Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No problems - I understand - didn't know you were around at the time.--VS talk 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Riverina FA Nom

I hope you don't feel that this is premature, but I have listed Riverina as a Featured Article candidate. I feel that nothing ventured, nothing gained and you never know it might just get up. If you have a strong objection I would be happy to withdraw it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Definitely no objection from me Matt. I will be happy to follow through with you as much as my 15 hour days allow.--VS talk 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag

  • It was starting to get a bit silly - but I really must have more discipline! Pleased to see you back again--Golden Wattle talk 08:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Thanks for the photos of Blayney, etc. If you go to a town like that again which is served by a railway station (especially one served by passenger trains), could you get a photo of the railway station if you are ever able to? That would be really helpful. JRG 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I can do that for you - on my next trip (whenever that may be). Cheers --VS talk 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you - any help would be greatly appreciated, no matter when you get them. The list of towns served by CountryLink is here. We have some already, but not all by any means. JRG 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

Hello VirtualSteve, remember me? It is HarrisonB and I wanted to catch up. How are you? HarrisonB - Conributions 09:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I most certainly do remember you Harrison - I have been super busy doing two full time jobs of late hence the lack of wiki edits but I am trying to get back here a bit more now. Cheers. --VS talk 10:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Gee, sounds busy :). I have been busy too with school exams and assignments but I am quite lucky that my work is finished at around five. Right now on Wikipedia I am trying to get the Toyota Aurion article up to GA Status with a couple of other people. HarrisonB - Conributions 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Australia

thanks for the backup against the people who keep changing the australia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Australia

I think the australian page should be locked until further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Kevin Rudd is winning by 800,000 and the deputy oppposition has claimed victory so it is not vandelism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz11 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look here is the facts - until John Howard concedes defeat or Kevin Rudd accepts victory - what anyone else says is not too important. Just leave the page for an hour - as I have protected it for that time from all edits (other than sysops). --VS talk 10:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me I want to know if there is an Australian administrator watching the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz11 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Have a look at VS and tell me if you think I might be an Australian? Please just think about it - there are certain steps required to absolutely win an election - not just your gut feel - or even the claim by the Deputy Opposition Leader. Take a break for a little while - Kevin's name will get up there soon enough if that is to be. --VS talk 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do not have a reply to that then go to www.news.com.au unless its to un-patriotic and its so un-american that we have a news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz11 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard has phoned rudd to be the new prime minister please remove the block —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz11 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Howard concedes defeat 10:36 GMT+11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz11 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and thank you for your interest and accuracy Poz11 - well done! --VS talk 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Australia page

could you please lock the Australian page as people are in an edit war i would like it left as Kevin Rudd (incumbent) because that is what the P.M status is thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well...

...don't you pick a perfect time to come back?! The very night that all the intellectuals and (how can I say this nicely?) political "experts" decide to pour themselves a glass of sherry and hop on the computer to share with the world their knowledge on Peter's Costello's smirk and Mr Krudd's ear wax! :) Nice to see your page active on my watchlist. Drop by or send me an email to say g'day some time. Trust all is well, Steve. Cheers, Sarah 14:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the lovely comment Sarah. I have been as active as I could be (still have too much work in real-life but...) anyway yes I expected a flurry of activity as the various television stations starting rolling up computer predicitons. An hours full protection solved a lot of heartache and potential 3RR violators - even though I note that after I changed to semi-protection and finally went to bed, a bit more intellectual adjustment continued on Australia. So now I am off to Melbourne for a couple of days work. Will talk to you again soon. --VS talk 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Riverina FAC

!!! - :) Congratulations to you and other contributers - a great addition to the encyclopaedia - especially if you cast your mind back to early discussions on defining the region --Matilda talk 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia triple crown

VirtualSteve, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown in thanks for your contributions at WikiProject Australia. Thank you for volunteering to build a better encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
VirtualSteve, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown in thanks for your contributions at WikiProject Australia. Thank you for volunteering to build a better encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Hello!

Good to see you back around. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

{{User:HarrisonB/Sandbox2}}

HarrisonB - Conributions 04:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

HI VS and thanks for the congrats. I am still finding my feet a bit as an admin. They are great photos of Tassie, I hope you enjoyed your trip and it will be good to see you back here on a regular basis. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the compliments on photos - will put a few more up today as time allows. Cheers. --VS talk 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VivioFateFan‎

Hey there, VirtualSteve. Just a note to say that I think it is very poor form for someone like yourself - i.e. someone who is an administrator and knows how tough RfA can be - to add the fifteenth oppose to a nom that stands at one support, three moral supports and fourteen opposes. I'd like to ask that in the future you extend the minimal extra effort it requires to close the RfA and drop a note on the requestees talk page, or, (if that is too much) not say anything at all and let someone else deal with the issue. Thanks in advance, and happy new year. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting comment Cordelia - you will note that I left a very polite and positive message in my oppose and that the RfA was only one day old at the time of my legitimate iVote - not in my opinion to late for it to gain support of a more substantial nature. Please extend me the courtesy of AGF also. --VS talk 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year Steve

Hey Steve, Happy New Year my old friend! I hope that you have a very happy and healthy 2008. :) I noticed that Harrison left you the same Christmas Card that he gave me which unfortunately has been doing screwy stuff on my page, causing all the messages left after it to be invisible except for the user's name in their signature. I haven't much idea about coding and such so I eventually just archived it and no wiki'd it. I noticed that it was causing the same problems in your archive, making the messages archived to the page after it to be invisible, so I no-wiki'd yours, too. I hope we see more of you in the coming year. All the best, Steve, Sarah 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Happy New Year to you also Sarah - my good friend. I appreciated so much your message to me - it was just lovely to hear from you. Thank you for fixing the discrepancy caused by HB's Christmas Card. You will see me around a lot more in 2008 (and on Commons with the uploading of many photo's already). My very best wishes to you and your family. --VS talk 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Good to see you back :) Orderinchaos 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers and Happy New Year - yes back with some vengeance! --VS talk 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


  • And many Happy New Year returns from me too! Thank you for your lovely message - here's to a GR8-08 for all of us goodies.--VS talk 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Steve, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...and further nationalist conquests ;) All the best!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Cheers BBB and thank you for your New Year's wishes. Here's to working on that P R O S P E R O U S year! --VS talk 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

gawd

what fun with me old mates the mountains - your contribs hist looks like you hit a brick wall at full speed - sorry about the mess - hope you had fun cleaning it all up!!! have a good new year by the way SatuSuro 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey cheers Satu - I see that you have been (broadly speaking) visiting my neck of the woods. And indeed I have been visiting Tas. Nice to hear from you. Happy New Year to you too my friend. --VS talk 09:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well i am not impressed by the southern eastern edge of what some call queensland or the north east part of the whales place which some call northern rivers - the buckets of rain make the hills around the edge of the tweed feel like they want to compete with tully or lake margaret for the 1 metre of rain a year records - hmph SatuSuro 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruny Island

Gudday mate,

moved Bruny Island to Bruny Island, Tasmania: All Australian town/city/suburb/place articles should be at Place, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.

You should read the naming conventions again: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Australia. You'll find that Australian cities, towns and suburbs are always at Place, State no matter what their status of ambiguity, but geographic features are only disambiguated when necessary, and then with the parentheses convention.

Hesperian 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes thanks Hesperian - I have noted my error on Bruny Island. Cheers. --VS talk 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion

    • No worries. It's a stupid convention. Why we have two clashing conventions is beyond me. But it's all that stands between us and total anarchy ;-) Hesperian 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What you just wrote couldn't be better stated - but I didn't want to say words to same effect first in case anyone thought I was being uppity! Cheers again. --VS talk 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's too late for me; everyone knows by now I am prone to get bees in my bonnet over such issues. I was heavily involved in framing that convention, and if I recall correctly I was the long voice amongst many calling for a single convention. The fact that we could potentially have a town article at "Margaret River, Western Australia" and a river article at "Margaret River (Western Australia)" was of no concern to anyone but me. I am glad to have an ally after all this time, even if it is too late to change, which it isn't, but I suspect most people would think it is. Hesperian 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in but if you are saying what I think you are saying (i.e. All disambiguation for Australian places should be done with parentheses) then I am all in favour of this as well. If you are saying that towns like Orroroo for example should not be disambiguated then I am not so sure. I am prepared to raise option 1 again if there is any interest and if someone can tell me where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My priority would be a single convention for all places. Any single convention is bettern than multiple clashing conventions. My personal preferences are (i) to disambiguate only when necessary, and (ii) to disambiguate with parentheses. However I would happily concede both points if we could attain a single convention. Hesperian 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Never any need for you to apologise for coming to this page Matt. And, well because this is my talk page and I am happy to maintain the thread of the conversation here (until we decide a more suitable location and copy paste) I would add that my preference is also to have a single Australian convention. Personally I prefer the following for all (other than capital cities and obvious impossible places like Murray River) >>> Place, State i.e. Orroroo, South Australia or Mt Buffalo, Victoria but for the sake of a single convention I would also concede to another convention of similar common sense. --VS talk 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely in agreement - I think the need for separation between geographic features, regions and informal locations on one hand, and gazetted suburbs and localities on the other does need to be made, although there may be a better way to make this distinction. I use AWB a fair bit to make mass changes and it's handy to be able to search on one string and know I'll pull in only one type of article. Orderinchaos 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is categorisation a way of allowing for this to occur?--VS talk 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
They're already categorised, but that doesn't work as well as it could when you've already isolated a list and can simply use the filter option to get what you want. I did this the other day with links to the major political parties. Orderinchaos 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm also opposed to mandating a "State" disambiguator. Admittedly the state is the best disambiguator 90% of the time, but that still leaves ten percent where there are better disambiguators: islands in an island group e.g. North Island (Houtman Abrolhos); islands in a river or lake e.g. Alexander Island (Collie River); tributaries, sometimes; arguably suburbs in a city. Hesperian 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep that's a good point - and shows me I wasn't putting my thoughts down as clearly as I could have. I guess that means that the point of this discussion revolves more around whether we use a comma "," , or parentheses ()in the case of any disambiguation? So the next thing might be to re-open the discourse (with a cut and paste of this conversation) in a central location. Any ideas?--VS talk 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The current convention was hammered out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places. But that page was more active then than it is now, so if you move this discussion there, consider advertising the discussion at WP:AWNB. Hesperian 07:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved

I have now moved the discussion and title it Naming convention (places) - renewed discussion - towards a single convention to here and have advertised same at WP:AWNB so as to invite all editors to provide their input.--VS talk 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Mary Gilmore

Hi Steve, thanks for your message. My plan was to move this section about Mary Gilmore (which I added recently) to a new page, which I thought could be linked to the Wagga history page. A slab of info about Gilmore seemed inappropriate amid the other more general & various historical material. Will ensure to add editing comments in future, George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVM (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A good plan GeorgeVM, cheers. --VS talk 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks steve, had a look at the link but couldn't work out how to proceed - ?! Could you pls assist? Thanks, George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVM (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay I'd be happy to help by nominating it for you - please can you provide me with a "hook" which is defined as a short and concise sentence of fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces - which will give readers coming to the main page a reason to click on the article. Please go here Template:Did you know and look at Current Hooks for some examples. Once you have a hook send it to me as your suggestion and I will assist from there.--VS talk 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, how does this sound? 'That the Wiradjuri people of south-east Australia made their land ecologically healthy and abundant by reserving large areas for animals and birds?'--GeorgeVM (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A good start but you need to consider that the Hook should be related to Mary Gilmore (indeed her name needs to be in the Hook itself). Suggest you have a quick look at this link which should help you a bit more: Wikipedia:DYK#The_hook.--VS talk 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, just left you a message via editing your page. Not sure if this is appropriate? Should I instead use this message sending option? Thanks, George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVM (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean here?--VS talk 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may, "...Australian poet and writer, Dame Mary Gilmore recorded her childhood memories of the dispossession of the Wiradjuri people and the destruction of native habitat by European settlers in the Wagga Wagga area?" -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks Steve, how about the following?

…that the acclaimed poet Mary Gilmore recorded how the Wiradjuri people of south-east Australia made their land healthy and abundant by reserving large areas for animals and birds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVM (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, have just seen suggestion by Mattinbhn, happy with either. --GeorgeVM (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for suggestion about joining the Riverina group, will give it some thought, --GeorgeVM (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Cool - sorry I have been away (working) for a couple of hours - if you don't mind I think Matt's version has a bit more bait - so I will load it up for you at WP:DYK and provide you with a link shortly.--VS talk 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Congratulations - it will take a few days before this article is up for possible inclusion and placement on the Main Page - you will be notified but you should also keep watching the page here in case the Admins dealing with this part ask you any further questions. Cheers --VS talk 05:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Fingers crossed... -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I noticed you were online. Could you temporarily undelete Image:Yuliya.jpg for me? I need to fix the transwiki that was done to Commons. -Nard 06:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The image is not deleted - but up for deletion only. --VS talk 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Look again. It is deleted on en.wiki for reason of having been copied to Commons. It was copied with incomplete information which I would like to fix. -Nard 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes sorry I meant it is up for deletion at Commons - see [1]. What do you want to fix?--VS talk 06:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Everything. The original author isn't credited, nor is the original description given, and I would like to verify the licensing. I want to add a complete {{information}} to the file and add the original upload log. You know, the stuff you are supposed to do when you transfer a file to Commons. -Nard 06:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry no - I don't want to be difficult but not whilst it is up for deletion process. I suggest you enter the discussion and indicate what you would like to do if the image is to be kept.--VS talk 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Barney vandal...

Thanks for your prompt action and for ignoring my substantial outbreak of 'tude. :) Gladys J Cortez 06:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • My pleasure - stay calm, keep editing!--VS talk 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Happy New Year - pleasure to see you back. I have been on holidays and back now. I really liked George VM's contribution on Gilmore - thanks for pointing me to it. Happing editing - Regards --Matilda talk 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Matilda. Thanks for your comments. Hope you enjoyed holidays - I did mine (10 days in Tassie - with pics up on Commons to boot). Best wishes as always. --VS talk 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Luxxury

Hey there VirtualSteve-

Thanks for your comments about the [Luxxury] article, I tried to address them at the AFD page] and was wondering if you had any more suggestions. Again, I feel as though the entry more than meets the requirements of the Notability criteria, so any specific thoughts you have would be appreciated!

Butterscotch79 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Butterscotch79 - As the admin who moved Luxxury from speedy to AfD I do not have any particular comment regarding the article - other than to suggest that you look at what the other commentators are saying (I note most are delete) and try to address their exact problems. In a nutshell however the band must meet WP:Band and I note that the editor Tevildo points you in the right direction. Cheers. --VS talk 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, I will see if they have some specific comments - thanks for your help VS! Butterscotch79 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

David Sams speedy deletion nomination

Thank you for your prompt input on my nomination of the David Sams article for speedy deletion. I was also glad to notice that you made a constructive edit eliminating obvious spam links. I should have done this myself, because this page has been bugging me for quite a while. I finally decided to nominate it for speedy deletion after I performed a google search on the page's contents. I found near identical adverts at both MySpace.com and imdb.com. Please review the matter again when you have time. If the community keeps the page based on his notability (i.e. KingWorld experience), then the community must write an article that adheres to Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your time and attention. --Spcleddy (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ujwaltickoo/Social_Network_Aggregation

There were multiple articles which User:loeth redirected to Social_Network_Aggregation The author who started the article User:Ujwaltickoo WP:AGF can use some help with formating. I recommended to him to do it in his sandbox User:Ujwaltickoo/Social_Network_Aggregation Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ahmmm I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about here? --VS talk 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, so nevermind! I do not want to waste your time explaining how and what. Maybe next time I CSD you drop by and ask before you say no. Cheers! Emily Litella —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Attempt to put incorrect signature struck through and general note of caution left at talk.--VS talk 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Emily Litella

Sorry Steve, I am not Emily Litella but was trying to make a point, but you did not seem to get it. So have a nice day, Igor Berger (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps if you were clearer whilst remaining civil, and remembered to sign your name Igor - we would both not waste time?--VS talk 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Igor - again please be clear. Firstly where did you ask me to delete a duplicate page - please provide me with the exact place of the request. Secondly, it appears from messages posted earlier on your talk page that you are having some issue with Ioeth which I am not involved with - but for some reason you deliberately referred me to his doppelganger account at User:loeth which gave me no more clearer information - and you used the following rather cryptic message to do so There were multiple articles which User:loeth redirected to Social_Network_Aggregation The author who started the article User:Ujwaltickoo WP:AGF can use some help with formating. I recommended to him to do it in his sandbox User:Ujwaltickoo/Social_Network_Aggregation Thanks . I do not think that we have ever crossed paths before so unless your request was a Speedy Delete that I declined, would you please take the time to state your problems in clear non-riddling English and I will be happy to help!--VS talk 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Steve I left you the explanation on my talk page, and I am sorry for being dickish with you! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your apology is accepted.--VS talk 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help out with copyedit Andy Beard

Andy Beard and your input here would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard#Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have received your message - I have put the AfD on my watch list and in a few days - when a consensus is reached I will look to closing the discussion (unless another admin beats me to it).--VS talk 09:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • PS I suggest that you spend as much of your time as possible finding notability references (which do not appear at this stage to be convincing many others) that can be verified according to the guidelines and you might get some other editors to change their mind.--VS talk 09:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you! Should be very interesting...invited nobel ladies and gentelman. Igor Berger (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor - I don't want you to thank me at this stage - indeed having looked at the article and the discussion to date - if I was admin closing the discussion now it would be on the basis of a consensus to delete. I am however trying to point you in the right direction and I wonder if you have read the actual verifiability and notability guidelines in detail. Perhaps even more pointed, and speaking quite frankly; canvassing for support will not help the article one iota. Writing verifiable material will!.--VS talk 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I am not thanking you to get support. I am thanking you for the time and attention to the matter and objective neutrality. Igor Berger (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your thanks are therefore accepted - thank you Igor.--VS talk 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I in the wrong?

I see you've been having a very nice, polite conversation with Igorberger. I had a rather terse (if that's the right word; not sure how to describe it) one myself, which snowballed (no, not WP:SNOW ;-) into accusations of a personal attack and trolling. I'd like an outside opinion on the conversation and his trolling warning, left on my talk page. Was I in the wrong? I do not feel as if that is the case, but if I was wrong about what I said, I could be wrong about my own behavior. :D Thanks in advance for your input; I came to you because, well, you're "available***". :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello and thanks for your message - I did skim read the posts between the two of you. I will look more closely now and give you my opinion in brief in a short while; if that suits?--VS talk 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That will do quite nicely; thanks for the quick response! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      Tuvok, it is not who is right or wrong, but you tell me one time and it is enough. How many times did you come to tell me the same message? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Running the risk of turning this page into another battleground... Once. Each of my messages was different, wasn't it? And you never exactly answered my question, which is a little off-putting. I'm also not concerned with being "right" or "wrong" -- these situations often don't have such answers -- but I am worried that I might be misjudging my own behavior, which is why I asked an admin I've never dealt with before. (Sorry for the extra notifier bar, VirtualSteve, BTW.) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay my pesonal views and response to both of you in brief:

  1. You are quite correct in your initial comment regarding Igorberger being incorrect with having both a userbox for adoption and an offer to adopt - the adopter criteria is clear that Adopters should not be current adoptees. Of course who puts what userbox where is not of any particular concern but I understand that you were probably trying in good faith to make a point to Igorberger because you were genuinely interested as to what part of the adoption program he was interested in.
  2. Your comment Please "graduate" the adoption program yourself before adopting others. maybe slightly curt (and I mean only very slightly) - probably reflecting the general difficulty of this form of communication or perhaps your ability to word things. However you are to be commended for wanting to improve your communication style. That said, whilst I think that Igorberger in general means well he seems to have a particular way of understanding and expressing himself that is initially unclear and confusing. I have spoken to him about that before so he will understand that I speak to him now politely and in good faith also.
  3. The blow-out that Igorberger then instigated accusing you of STALK et al is in my opinion quite misplaced.
  4. Igorberger's warning on your talk page is inappropriate and I will strike it out and refer to this conversation under that warning.
  5. I also note Igor's return immediately below your question and I agree with his point that you need only tell him once - however that only holds water if was to simply reply to you that he understood your point, or agreed with your point - but of course he chose rather to start a debate about the matter rather than to refer to the actual adoption guideline.
CAVEAT - my opinion above is just that - my opinion because you have asked and as an administrator I am willing to help as much as I can where I can. If you (or Igorberger) feel the need to take this further - although there shouldn't be any reason to take this further at this stage - then I can point you in the right direction and my talk page is definitely not that place!!
I trust his helps? --VS talk 10:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Steve I totally agree with you, but the caveat is this! Why was it brought to you an User_talk:Ioeth#Would_like_another_opinion at the same time? Is there a headen reason? Like I said, he could have gave me a friendly advise and go on about his business instead of coming to my page 6 times or so! I have no WP:ABF against the user, but he seems to raise signals of it. Oh he was also involved in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard at the same time that he was lecturing me on WikiPedia policy. And we are a consensus not dectatership! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Tuvok is entitled to seek the opinion of editor/admins in regards to this type of matter. Putting the request up at two or more admins is no problem - although if he is satisfied also with my answer and with your admission that my views are correct he could go to the other admin and indicate the matter is resolved.--VS talk 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you Steve. And I also welcome Tuvok to my page to talk ab out why I have two user boxes, one as adoptee and one as an adopter. Igor Berger (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I posted to Ioeth's talk page a good while before coming here. I was about to go and strike that comment, too, but I got EC'd here, three times. I'm on my way there now. Just as disclosure, Ioeth and I have collaborated on the tool Friendly (his writing, I just had a couple ideas), and I went to him first because I feel he's sort of a "friend" (OK, acquaintance).
Igor, if I recall correctly, I stumbled across the Andy Beard AFD first, then noticed all your comments on it and went to your userpage, where I saw the userboxes and started this whole thing. I was patrolling the Recent Changes at the time, and I might have a tendency to assume slightly ABF when I'm doing that; that is my problem, and one I am working on ("Not every edit in the RC log is bad!").
As for being a consensus-run community and not a dictatorship, I didn't mean to be telling you what to do. I hope you'll forgive me for all this drama. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(Re to Steve) Quite a bit, thanks! Re point 2 from your views, Steve: Looking back on that, I see where that could have come across as curt. Intentions are worth nothing if the other party can't see your face, I guess; it must be the curse of Internet-based, text-only communication. Probably the same with my interpretations of his comments. Curse the ambiguity of straight, unembellished text! :-P All's well that ends well, I suppose (forgotten what that's from; argh!). Thanks again for your input! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Tuvok, we all have certain predispostions towards others when we first meet, so no foul no harm..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad we got this resolved. :) Now I can sleep peacefully; ongoing, unresolved wikidrama keeps me up. ;) Have a good morning/day/afternoon/evening/night (whichever applies; did I miss one?), both of you! Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well done you two. For me it is very very late evening.--VS talk

Andy Beard AfD

Sorry Steve, User:Jehochman told me that an article has 5 days when nominate AfD but you deleted it after 2 days! Why? Igor Berger (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delay in responding Igor _ I have been busy at my real life working. In fact AfD guidelines state not that there is a minimum of 5 days for the debate but that Articles listed here are debated for up to five days. In the case of this AfD not only was the consensus clearly to delete the article - the discussion had degenerated to a limited conversation between a number of parties - with no improvement reflecting notability to the article itself. My suggestion is that you consider rewriting the article slowly in your own sandbox and then when you think you have met the criteria set by Wikipedia for such articles ask one or three experienced editors if you think it is ready to go back up.--VS talk 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No-one was actually helping you directly with notability and BLP edits. If you set up a sandbox page I will copy and paste the deleted version to that page for you to work on - you will be able to ask friends to help there but not renew the page until you get an okay from others that are more experienced. If you renew it before it meets wikipedia guidelines it will probably be speedy deleted. Let me know once you have your sandbox page up - please tell me on my talk page as I am not actually watching your page.--VS talk 07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It sounds like you are set then (Dude?). I did notice before I deleted that you had discussed this with User:Cumbrowski who had told you that it was likely to get deleted and how to set up your own sandbox article. Figured that you were probably just having a little whinge - which is fair enough because no-one likes to get an article deleted. However you know what they say - once is a mistake twice is being silly - so take a note also of where User:Cumbrowski said Keep in mind that you can add the article again, if it is deleted, but make sure that the article is solid, especially regarding reliable sources, which by definition imply notability as well. Personally I think you are getting the hang of Wikipedia - you carry on a bit from time to time (as you admitted on my talk page) but you are getting there. Keep editing - stay calm!--VS talk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


please delete User_talk:Peachyms/

I started it by accident User_talk:Peachyms/ do not delete User_talk:Peachyms Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The following copied from Cumbrowski's page as a direct example (if needed later) of the type of confusion Igorberger creates with his posts to talk pages

WikiPedia cononical redirects

You may want to chime in on this being it consernce WikiPedia SEO bugzilla foo/ redirect to foo request Igor Berger (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Go to bugzilla and read the story, I am sure you will understand what I am talking about, being that SEJ did a post on this a years or so back. Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the post SEJ protect yourself against canonical triggers Igor Berger (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That's old stuff. I put even source code up on my site to fix this problem programmatically in classic ASP, if you don't have an ISAPI filter for rewrites installed on your MS IIS webserver. [2]. If you use Apache, simply use a simple mod-rewrite statement to 301 one version to the other. I mentioned that in several posts of mine at SEJ as well. What is your point? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I brought it as a bug to bugzilla, maybe it will get traction..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get what you are talking about. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a bug User:Cumbrowski/ no such page right? it should point to User:Cumbrowski blog editors will add a trailing slash to the end of the directory. Igor Berger (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Taiwan Aborigine issues-related articles in the news

Hey VirtualSteve: Regarding the article List fo Taiwan Aborigine issues-related articles in the news, I admit, I need to change the name. As far as the article, I need more time to compile it. We are creating an article that examines aboriginal issues in the news by showing which issues are most reported on. To do so while not violating copyright laws, this page necessarily requires many external links. We are first putting up the various headlines, then we will divide them in to various categories, finally we will build up content. Tasks are being performed in order of their tediousness: most tedious to least tedious. This article will be a nice supplement to Taiwanese aborigines don't you think? Please tell me how, besides adding more content in general, I can improve the article. Thanks so much!

Joylalala (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008

Thanks VirtualSteve! I have done as you suggested and will carry on with your comments in mind.

Joylalala (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2008

  • A pleasure Joylalala - stay calm and keep editing.--VS talk 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Your deletion policies.

Dear Steve, You deleted the article of Sonnet Mondal.How to recr4eate it?Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsfrance (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your question at my talk page - my delete comment notes the following:
20:35, January 10, 2008 VirtualSteve (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Sonnet mondal" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement)

I chose to speedy delete because it was clear to me that you had added material directly from another website - which is a breach of WP:Copyvio. To recreate the article I suggest you read carefully the rules regarding adding material to Wikipedia and then put the article up without violating the copyright of another author. I will add a welcome template to the top of your page so that you have links to other important wikipedia pages and guidelines. Cheers!--VS talk 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary Gilmore and the history of Wagga Wagga

Updated DYK query On 11 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Gilmore and the history of Wagga Wagga, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Les Tyrell

Thank for your input, i know that i should shut up but the way that this user went about it was wrong, he had put any page that i worked on up for deletion and then went on to remove over half of the info from the Thuringowa page and everytime i would re-add just a small bit of...off it would go again...i'm just really sick of some users on here thinking that becasue i have Thuringowa in my username thati have something to do with council, and i don't, Plus i know of lots of other uses that have city or town names in the username, it just sees to be a pick on Thuringowa again and i am just sick of putting in hours of work to finly get a B rating only to have it all removed by a editor that can't control themself. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message. Remember that Wikipedia is bigger than just a very small minority of editors who at one stage form an incorrect opinion about your user name TCR. Stay calm, keep editing - put up good, researched, verified, well written material - and people will realise you are not actually the Thuringowa City Representative - and you will have far more wins than losses. Cheers. --VS talk 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC) PS And vote only once under your own, original user name - please!!--VS talk 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that not everyone had the view he was in a COI re Thuringowa. I think he may have misunderstood some remarks I made at the Les Tyrell AfD to imply that - I was in fact referring to his comments that he knew and received information from the mayor regularly, so to write an article about him was a clear CoI. I know others did accuse him of a wider conflict, but it is somewhat amusing to me that all of the good suburb articles (FA-standard) have been written or largely contributed to by local residents, so I don't think living in and enjoying an area is a COI in and of itself. Orderinchaos 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the delay in responding Orderinchaos - have been away for a couple of days to warm and sunny Melbourne. I agree with your general points on my talk page and tried to reflect it in my post to TCR also. I certainly agree with your comment that almost all good articles regarding locations have an interested editor or two who come from the place or region and that certainly isn't COI. I also noted the good work that you (especially your thoughtful empathic decision only to block the sock), Mattinbgn and others did - and noted an initial comment above on my talk page with regards your investigation also. TCR is a little too close to his editing and his civility leaves a lot to be desired. Of course it would be good if he could just see that there are many other opinions and that process in relation to verifiable articles will win out in the end - but that appears to be difficult for him at the moment.--VS talk 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)



Hervey Bay Image

Dear steve I have already been in discussion's about this image and me and other fellow editor agreed that it should be placed better and now i have the same problem what is the use in trying to edit if you have to battle with other editors every couple of week i have been through this already i think it should be included there are may other pics on the Australian artical that have no plce there.Jay2k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Please show me/us exactly where you have had the discussion on this image so that I can review my concern. I will also post this question to the other editor that has removed the picture. We will await your return and until then please do not put the image back up. Cheers!--VS talk 10:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay Image (part 2)

Please look around oct-nov last year.

  • I have checked through the edit history of Australia and there is NO discussion regarding the Hervey Bay image at all.--VS talk 10:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay

Well could you please help me i think it should be included where would be a more suitable spot.

  • Yes - it should be included at Hervey Bay - which I note it has. It is also I note, included on a number of other pages that seem okay. Now I understand that you took this image and that you are very proud of it, and I note that on your editor review page you note that you are most proud of your edits on the Hervey Bay page ... because of the pics and added some missing item but the image should not be included in Australia at this time because it is not conducive to the explicit content of the article. Merely saying that a location is the fastest growing, slowest growing, hotest, coolest etc is not enough for an article such as Australia because it would set precedent for the inclusion of 1000's of images. I hope you can understand this logic?--VS talk 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Hi i was not being untruthful about the discussion on Australia and im sorry if i seem disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair enough - but please show me exactly where you had this discussion?--VS talk 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Jugiong, New South Wales

Hey, Can I please ask why you deleted what we wrote? We are not trying to advertise just advise. There are no phone numbers or contact information. The Long Track Pantry and Cafe had much stuff about themselves written so we updated it to inform. Can I ask what are the guide lines so we can rephrase? Should it be more about the History? What can we write? I am not trying to be mean or spiteful and I am sorry if it seems that way. I just dont know what I am allowed to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.56.98 (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I will reply on your talk page/s with a welcome template that will point you in the right direction. Generally speaking though you should be considering the encyclopedic content of your edits and therefore not pushing your Point Of View (POV). Thus edits such as:
  1. The Long Track Cafe & Pantry is a gem that could have been lifted straight out of Fitzroy or Potts Point,
  2. and it is pure pleasure to have fresh and delicious food on the road, instead of the usual truck-stop stodge, and
  3. Jugiong Motors for all your car needs includes the post office and corner store. The Roadhouse/Cafe has two menu's where you won't find fast food but fresh food as fast as possible.. A motel with many rooms and a licenced restaurant. Gino's Fruit and vegs which is a treat for all your fresh needs. And a town swimming pool. It has a school that consists of aprox 12 primary students. River access for swimming, camping and a good old riverside barbeque. Sir George's Pub is a Historical land mark that Jugiong will always treasure. And soon to open... A Bed and Breakfast and an Antique Store. Today Jugiong is growing, but will always remain a land mark on the Old Hume Highway. A memory old and treasured for some. A new memory just begining for others.

all belong in a tourist brochure and not on an encyclopedic website. Please don't get me wrong - I am very fond of Jugiong (the images are all mine) but content must fit within the guidelines of wikipedia - and the template welcome I will put on your talk page will help.--VS talk 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you only include one business in your images then? There are many here. But there is only one photo of one business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.56.98 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You will note that image captions are factual - that is they describe the image only. Images can be added by you or any other editor but should be added to Wikipedia Commons - for which you will need an account. That said, I think I understand the point you are trying to make and so I have adjusted the page to remove the images (other than the one in the info box) and left them where they always have been - which you will note can be found through the link to Wikipedia Commons at the bottom right of the page. Best wishes. --VS talk 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed minor from Narre Warren

Yes, it has been a interesting evening! Never a dull moment on wiki. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Ed O'Loughlin

Since we can now salt deleted pages, I took the liberty of deleting the article entirely and then protecting it, since this leaves it as a redlink and removes the history. While I argued, unsuccessfully, for its remaining as part of wikipedia, once it was judged inappropriate, I believe salting the deleted page is a better way to go than protecting a blank page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you Avi - I appreciate your logic and actions.--VS talk 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

You recently closed an AfD for Michael Q. Schmidt where you stated the result was RESULT. Little confused on the "logic" there. — BQZip01 — talk 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the pickup BQZip - since fixed - obviously my mind was in keep mode but my fingers were asleep. Cheers! --VS talk 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had a dollar for every time I've done that... — BQZip01 — talk 08:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy message

Hi Steve. I wanted to thank you for the "courtesy message" left on my Talk page. Much appreciated! Johnfos (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pleasure is all mine.--VS talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga Question

Thanks for the answer to my question mate. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

syngrete

y did you delete Syngrete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrio (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Answered on your talk page already - please also heed the warning.--VS talk 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural Edge Project

User:Johnfos was not the original author of the article. As a TWINKLE user, that is done automatically. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes I understand about TWINKLE and I appreciate your feedback - but what am I missing here? Isn't this the earliest edit? - and if it is ... it appears to have been made by User:Johnfos - who wasn't warned about the impending speedy? Please let me know on my talk page.--VS talk 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I offer you an apology Realkyhick and I hope that you will accept it. I have been going in to bat (so to speak) based on a mistaken belief that you or TWINKLE had not warned Johnfos about an impending speedy. That is clearly incorrect and on closer digging I see that Johnfos has not been forthright in his returns on this matter. I copy for your information from his talk page his and my response upon my questioning him with the same material I provided to you as detailed above

I haven't read your Talk page, Steve, and don't intend to. Seems like my little article has caused a lot of fuss, and I am moving on to more important things... Johnfos (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes fair enough - I can see why it has caused a lot of fuss - specifically it seems because you deleted the original CSD template warning message that was placed by Realkyhick as per this edit. You could have of course let me know that at the time you replied to my courtesy message - and you would then have showed a return courtesy to both myself and that editor!

I note that it is Johnfos who should also be apologising - but for now mine might be the only one you get?--VS talk 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no problem. User:Johnfos was also questioning my qualifications for the Veteran Editor ribbon on my home page. He was doing so in a snide and insinuating way, IMHO. This editor appears to be working in borderline bad faith. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am forced to agree with you on your last point - and am at the same time disappointed considering the duration and quantity of his editing credits. Thank you for your forbearance. --VS talk 12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Per this. I've done everything I can without losing my cool, which has taken extraordinary measures. Now I'm told I'm a coward and not a man for going to ANI. I obviously am not going to block the guy myself for incivility, but his trolling my talk page is entirely unprovoked. He's had his final warning so I'm going to rely on your judgment. the_undertow talk 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I made my point clear at ANI (in conjunction with User:Kurykh). This type of name calling is inappropriate. As detailed previously further offences (especially within such a short time period) would result in blocking. That task is now completed as a first block - I trust (and sincerely hope) that Hoserjoe will reform once he cools down. I also have left what I believe to be an appropriate comment regarding his second account User:BomberJoe - and a strong suggestion that other admins may wish to take a second block on that account if Hoserjoe edits from it during the blocking period.--VS talk 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been editing technical info on the Doman-Fleet L2 5 helicpter since I've only recently been advised of the whinging from from the youth wing. I object to their persistent puling because they're using it as a cover to vandalize my quite competent & reasonable contributions. The worst action is simply deleting an entire template from an article with no explanation, and then refusing to address my civil request to discuss the destruction. If WP caves in to this sort of adolescent destruction, then WP will have to do without my useful contributions. But I'm not apologizing to destructive special interests. That's simply giving in to destructive & temperamental adolescents.
I would like an apology from this organized gang of sycophants (who publicly declared their "love" for each other on their respective Talk pages) for their destruction of my contributions, but I'm not holding my breath. Note that I'm NOT asking that they be banned (a cowardly and bullying request), but would like them to respond to my request as to why they vandalized my contributions repeatedly. I'm not holding my breath - they know they've "done wrong". Hoserjoe (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't ever touched one of your edits. But calling me a sycophant has put you on the road for block #2 for incivility. the_undertow talk 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Your love partner was the one who torched my contributions, and you rushed to her defence. I'm assuming that you work together on these adventures? Be a man - tell us why you did it. Stop hiding behind VirtualSteve Hoserjoe (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You insulted her, I asked you to remain civil. You insulted her again, I requested your block. As a man, I could just block you myself, but seeing as schadenfreude is frowned upon, I'll request it again. I don't need to hide behind another admin; it's done out of courtesy to you, so other users can review your actions without bias. the_undertow talk 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you have to be told that I didn't delete the template. What don't you understand? Show me where I deleted the template. You can't. So get off it. And stop with the insults and ageisms. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Your baseless accusations and claims are proof of that. Lara❤Love 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah - see what happens when I step away from my computer for a couple of hours. Look I'll make this as clear as I can Hoserjoe ... If you have an issue with LaraLove or Undertow then show me the proof - without resorting to their age, their sex, calling them sycophantic or any other such nonsense. Also I couldn't give a raspberry if they declare their love for each other or even practice that love so please don't come to my page with such churlish "out-of-wiki comments". Furthermore - just in case you feel the need to rush to an assumption about my dealings with you on their behalf - of which I would do again if East718 didn't beat me to it and block you for 2008 minutes - I wouldn't know either Lara or Undertow from a bar of soap - other than their presence in the wiki-community and my duty as an administrator. Finally threatening the wiki-community with the loss of your valued knowledge holds very little weight here I'm afraid and so I would ask that you do not so comment again. You have two choices (1) co-exist within the rules, or (2) depart. Hopefully this next block put on your page will give you time to reconsider your allegations, the associated comments arising from those allegations, and whether you couldn't next time just walk away for a while?--VS talk 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The diff Joe posted shows I only reverted his edit, I did not delete the template. His example of what the template now looks like includes the show link which he must click to reveal the information. I've told him this multiple times; why he keeps ignoring this is beyond me. And this is, of course, not something I did. It's a project-wide template change affecting all such templates. Additionally, regarding his unfounded claim that I've taken ownership and am abusing my admin tools, my reversion of his edit was per this conversation in which I did not even participate. However, this is not the first time it had been discussed and consensus reached against him, as I detailed at AN/I here. I view his continued personal remarks, unfounded and inaccurate accusations and refusal to acknowledge sound explanations as harassment. Lara❤Love 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BomberJoe

  • Having also looked at your alternate account at user:BomberJoe and noticed that you have started re-using it since the first block by me (when it had laid somewhat dormant until that time) I have placed a similar block on that page - also of 2008 minutes.--VS talk 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack on James Stewart (actor)

See: 172.143.87.209 using the same MO as Harv. See: [3] Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Sorry - have just woken to this message. User has been blocked for 1 week by another admin. I have also removed his edits at Steve McQueen. Keep me informed if further action is required and if available I will be ready to assist.--VS talk 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin (2)

I'm puzzled by your close of this AfD given that O'Loughlin is highly notable and is a extremely willing public figure. If we are having trouble writing an article about him, that means we need to be careful about it. That doesn't mean we should salt it, otherwise we'd quickly have almost no articles about controversial people. Could you explain your close in more detail? Thanks, JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your question Joshua. To answer your question in two parts (a) this was the second deletion of the article in 20 days, and (b) during the 2nd AfD process clear breaches of WP:BLP were raised - most specifically by Ed O'Loughlin himself (as detailed here. To my mind and as a result of the overall consensus reached, the combination of those factors required a salting - certainly at this time, and were agreed with by another administrator who had actually argued for retention of the article during AfD. That said I understand your point and the future may see an appropriate reconsideration of this outcome but IMO that should only occur if (1) an editor can start such an article in sandbox which (2) an administrator or other senior editor can see is the start of an article that does not infringe BLP. Then when posted (after reversion of the current protection) the article can be protected again if necessary to stop the type of BLP concerns that had occurred earlier. Your thoughts?--VS talk 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm divided between wanting to DRV this (in general, I think the long-term deletion of willing public figures is a really bad idea), and of making a draft that is more BLP compliant. I think there were actual BLP issues here, but I'm not sure if they were large enough to justify the complete deletion. I may try to make a draft of a BLP compliant article. If so, I'll let you know. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds positive. I note also (whilst there would be COI issues to be handled) the subject of the article has a user page and could perhaps assist with your sandbox page....?--VS talk 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw the note on Ed O'Loughlin's talk page. Shouldn't any attempt to recreate this go through DRV? Also, there was an extensive search for reliable sources and the AfD hinged on whether the sources provided satisfied WP:BIO. A large majority of editors said they did not. If an article appeared without substantial, neutral mainstream press coverage, I would expect I or someone else would take it to AfD. Perhaps as a first step, Joshua, before investing a lot of effort in DRV or a new article, you could identify what reliable sources were missed. If I missed something, I'm certainly willing to backtrack on this. Regards, --A. B. (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks A.B. - I will maintain an arms distance on this issue at this stage- although I suggest DRV would be unlikely to assist the return of the article in its previous state; and that there is nothing to absolutely prevent return of a factual article in the future just because of the closing of 1, 2 or 3 past AfDs. I am however happy for you and JoshuaZ to continue the thread of the discussion here.--VS talk 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also saw the note on Ed O'Loughlin's talk page and fully agree with A.B.'s comments. There was a strong consensus that Mr O'Loughlin does not meet the relevant criteria for an article. Given that it proved impossible to maintain a neutral article on him, I don't see any reason to encourage a new one at this stage. I'd also add that WP:BLP explicitly applies to user pages as well as articles, so it may not be appropriate to create a trial page there either without a deletion review first concluding that an article on Mr O'Loughlin would be justified. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well made although WP:BLP issues can of course be addressed on user pages a little more easily if they arise there. Also of course user:JoshuaZ is a long standing editor and admin and I would suggest would be most unlikely to write edits of BLP concern - and of course he could protect the article whilst it was being written. All of that said - I remain at arms distance on this matter - and welcome the continuing conversation and interest.--VS talk 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it didn't seem that I was accusing user:JoshuaZ of potentially violating WP:BLP. My concern was that other users could edit this article when its in user space as easily as when it's in article space. There appears to be some kind of politically motivated campaign against Mr O'Loughlin which will make any kind of article on him vandal/POV warrior bait. As there was a feeling that he doesn't presently meet our notability criteria, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain JoshuaZ would not think that of you Nick. Your excellent editing and general work are sure to be as noted by him as they are by me. --VS talk 09:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't see a consensus in the AfD that he doesn't meet WP:BIO, nor did VS make that claim when he deleted it; if that claim is being made also as a reason to delete, VS can note that (I'm divided about whether or not he meet WP:BIO given the sourcing from the earlier drafts but right now at least lean towards him meeting it). . Otherwise there shouldn't be much of an issueThe BLP concern is serious if one makes a draft, but if we applied that argument we'd never be able to make any drafts of any BLP in userspace or talk space. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, actually looking at this further, I'm still convinced he meets WP:BIO but am uncertain enough about it that this shouldn't be a high priority unless I can find more sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Joshua, given the history already of 2 AfDs and the subject's BLP complaint, I think any draft created in user space needs to meet our content requirements from the get-go or face a likely MfD. I think most community members would see a consensus on the AfD page after subtracting out the comments of WP:SPAs. Essentially just Avi, Brewercrewer and 6JS7 wanted to keep it the second time and there was just one weak keep the first time.
If you're still unsure about the consensus, I suggest taking the AfD to DRV. --A. B. (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. On the other issue, I didn't want to jump in too soon but enough was enough. Always fun! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blocking on user:Hoserjoe

I'm not sure I like that call - they were only editing their user talk page which is generally allowed unless they start abusing {{helpme}} or {{unblock}} - and I'm not sure why their alt account was blocked for evasion when it didn't edit at all post-block. east.718 at 08:20, January 25, 2008

  • Okay yes my bad perhaps? I certainly see you point - I will return his edit - Your call if you want to change your block back - certainly not trying to "wheel".--VS talk 08:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nah, I don't really care if you choose to extend their tariff for incivility or mess with my block (or yours) any further - it just strikes me as a bit unfair that it got extended solely because of something that they didn't do. east.718 at 08:26, January 25, 2008

Fair enough - will adjust back your block back though - I was also trying to be fair (and wish to be seen that way). Alt account should be blocked in my understanding otherwise isn't it just a sock?--VS talk 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Admins willing to admit potential mistakes are in short supply around here. :-) east.718 at 08:53, January 25, 2008
    • That's not true. 70% of the time, I'm wrong every time. the_undertow talk 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Afd NIRS

Thanks for your understanding about my deletion on the NIRS page. I mainly made the explanation because it's an unfortunate notice to have on one's talk page, but I'm glad that you checked back to read it. I definitely would not intentionally do something like that. :)Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowen Staines

He is a musician, with a record contact and sponserships with over 10,000 copies is current sales. His father's music carrer might not look to famous on wikipedia, but he is a featured artist on Cat Steven's greratest hits album, the same album that won Rolling Stones' 500 Best Albums Ever Award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielndavis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message. If you read this page carefully you will see that I was acting as an administrator and only placing a procedural nomination based on other people's views of this article. I actually do not have any view on it personally BUT my job (amongst others) is to push a contested speedy deletion request (in this particular case) to Articles for Deletion. I suggest you go to that page and comment as to why the article should remain. Others will consider your input - but stay calm, civil and keep editing the article itself. Cheers!--VS talk 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Great Banquet - deletion

You recently removed the article The Great Banquet citing "blatant copyright violation". The copyvio is inaccurate, as I did cite the source, and even received explicit permission from the originator for my paraphrase (permission for a paraphrase is not even necessary, anyway) on the article's discussion page? Furthermore, the website cited by Redfarmer, and agreed to by yourself, as having been infringed was not the originator of the description that was paraphrased to begin with! DJ Clayworth's assertion that the scope of the movement is limited to one event at one church is ignorant (this is not an insult - just factual, showing a lack of any fact checking at all on his part), and completely unfounded, as easily evidenced by the link I provided in my "Keep" response on the deletion log. that link show the location of hundreds of Cursillo movements, including The Great Banquet. (That link, by the way, was also included in the article.) The copyright violation assertion is simply wrong - period. Just because a website has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, does not mean they originated all the text within the page. They paraphrased Lampstand's description of the movement on their site, just as many other communities have: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], et.al. I did get to wondering, though, if my article might be appropriate as a sub-article under the Cusillo article, anyway, as the Great Banquet, as is noted in the text, is a "spin-off" of the Cursillo movement anyway... Continuing to contend that the article was a copyvio is simply irresponsible. I understand you are absolutely swamped with articles to review, and may not have time to research each perceived violation; and I understand it is reasonable to trust your regular contributors/editors before some "newbie". But please take just a minute to look through the references I have provided, and reconsider reinstating the article. I will do my best to make any additional edits to make the article more palatable. But the historical information and description of the movement is factual, and not contested in any way. The scope of the movement is hugely noteworthy, with a 60 year international history, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of worldwide "Cursillo method" weekend alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsphoto (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) -Sorry - forgot to sign. Rmsphoto (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your message. I appreciate your recognition that admins have 100's (nay probably 1000's) of articles to review and other such tasks. I will add however that I personally do not trust regular contributors any more than I trust newbies - insofar that I check as thoroughly as I can the actual request for speedy deletion. In this case your article consisted almost completely of the following information:
  • To become familiar with the Great Banquet, look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Roman Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. The Great Banquet is governed by an ecumenical board of directors, using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the parable of The Great Banquet, from the Gospel of Luke. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in a growing number of American communities. Lampstand Ministries [12] was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.
The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience based on the Cursillo method. The cursillo method focuses on training lay people to become effective leaders over the course of a three-day weekend. The weekend includes fifteen talks, some given by clergy and some by lay people. One emphasis of the weekend is on preparing those undergoing it to take the movement's methods back into the world, on what they call the "fourth day". To assist alumni in after the weekend, the Great Banquet community offers specific opportunities. First, "fourth day" "reunion groups" may be established to examine their goal of spiritual growth and encouragement. Second, alumni may assist in future Great Banquet weekends. Third, guests are made aware of community needs via communications with other Great Banquet communities, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.
  • The page that was stated as the copyvio link at [13] stated:
The Great Banquet is a 72-hour experience, beginning on Thursday evening and ending Sunday evening. For three days, guests live and study together in a worshipful time of singing, prayer and discussion. During each of the fifteen talks given by laity and clergy, the theme of God's grace is presented. Guests participate in the daily celebration of Holy Communion and examine more fully the presence of Christ in His body of believers. They personally experience His grace through the prayers and acts of a loving, Christian support community.
To become familiar with the Great Banquet, let's look first at the history of its counterparts, the Cursillo and the Walk to Emmaus. The Cursillo (3-day course in Christianity) began in Spain in the 1940s in the Catholic Church. It spread to the United States and evolved for Protestants into the Walk to Emmaus under the auspices of the Upper Room and the United Methodist Church. An Emmaus Movement was started by the First Presbyterian Church in Madisonville, Kentucky in 1982. After a 10-year history of the Walk to Emmaus in Madisonville, Rev. John E. Pitzer and lay people from First Presbyterian Church formed the Great Banquet. Governed by an ecumenical board of directors and using the "Cursillo model", but with a different image, the Great Banquet continues to emphasize personal Christian discipleship. The Great Banquet Movement is institutionally sponsored by local church groups in these areas. Lampstand Ministries was formed as a covering corporation to move the Great Banquet Movement to other areas.
  • As I hope you will see I did do my research and, well I'm sorry but in a nutshell your content is a copyright violation. Best wishes --VS talk 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I might just quickly add that your content was not in fact a paraphrase - it was in the majority a word for word copy and actually fits more closely into the definition of plagiarism. Cheers. --VS talk 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted here also for sake of maintaining the thread Yes I can accept the latter part of your argument - (latest one put on your talk page). But that will mean that you point me quickly and easily to the original site that has the exact content you had put up (which you agree is plagiarized at this time from the page I was referred to in the first place) and (a) prove to me that it was written and posted by that site first, and (b) that it is not copyrighted - so that it can be put up on wikipedia. If you do that and return to my talk page with that prove I will restore the article and place a note on its talk page and as a a part of its restoration edit summary.--VS talk 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, VS, for continuing the thread. Well, those are quite some hoops to jump through... I cannot offer documented proof of law. One cannot create a historical log of the web server time-stamps and archives from the past many years to prove such a thing. But it is certainly implicit that the originator of the movement precedes the locales to which the movement spread. The discussion page for the original article (which I can no longer access) contains a statement from Lampstand Ministries giving permission to use the text from their site. I contacted Lampstand directly, asked them to register with Wikipedia, asked that they check the article for accuracy and acceptability, and provide permission to use text from their copyrighted website if they felt it appropriate; they did so on Friday afternoon - USA East time. I'm sure they would be happy to place the "I am the owner..." statement on the article if it becomes reposted - I would definitely contact them again to do so... Quick and easy original site link: http://lampstand.net/about_great_banquet.html Again, I do commend you for going to bat for intellectual property owners; I know that is a thankless job. I owned a photo lab for several years, and constantly explained (and sometimes argued) why it is not OK to copy your kids' school photos, or your best friend's wedding photos, etc.Rmsphoto (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

VS, Thanks for your willingness to continue to work toward a solution for this article, as per your message on [my talk page] I have done as you suggested, and created [my sandbox], and copied the previous article content. I will edit the article as suggested, as well as contact Lampstand again, to have them post their "I am the owner..." statement to the article's citation of their site. Please stand by... Thanks, again, Rmsphoto (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • VS, I have reworked the great Banquet article on my sandbox page. Please have a look at your leisure, and let me know if it's headed in the right direction... Thanks, again. Rmsphoto (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments left on talk page of the sandbox article.--VS talk 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthetic Entertainment

Hello Steve,

Thanks for flagging the few pages of mine you did.....to be honest they did need some work! As you can see some of my other pages are more detailed and referenced out/flushed out for starter/stub pages. I'm trying to develop my pages all up to a high standard. My Central Heat Distribution page I created recently I think is pretty solid and I hope to be my new standard for new pages.

As for the Synthetic Entertainment page and the 2 others (Denyss McKnight and Mark Sommer) you flagged I have done lots of work tonight on them! I have dug around the web and found lots of references to back up the validity of the 3 flaged pages. I have also rewrote and restructured most of the articles! Can you help me out and smooth out any other rough edges you see or if its ready can you take off the AfD alert please? Let me know your thoughts Cheers Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message. Good to see you taking such a keen interest. As you probably know I was only flagging these pages as part of a procedural nomination following the request to speedy delete the first by another editor. I would rather remain at arms distance at the moment - mainly because as an administrator trawling through hundreds of 'duties' I just don't have the time to be able to re-write each article. That said the AfD should stay there for its 5 day nominated time-slot but you should rest assured that other editors will see your work and nominate keep, delete or merge as a result of the changed pages - and in many cases take a moment to adjust the 'rough edges' you speak of. Again well done on your work. Cheers!--VS talk 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • thanks for the barn star...it’s great to know that work DOES get noticed and appreciated around here! :) No other editors have added any opinions on the AfD page for my pages. Is that a good thing or bad? Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure on the barnstar. No further comments and two keeps means only good things at this time. Keep up the good work!--VS talk 10:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogged.com entry

Greetings VirtualSteve,

I appreciate your time in evaluating my article. I am taking into account all of your comments and would like to address some of the concerns regarding the article. Most importantly, the question of "notability" is a valid one and I would like to address that if possible.

Would it be possible to give me a little time to provide some useful references that may address your concerns for notability? I do feel that my article has a place in Wikipedia because it discusses a new trend which is very significant to the ever-evolving behavior we call social networking.

Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback. It is my first wikipedia article and I am definitely learning a lot from my first attempt.

Cheers,

-Kenneth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellidyr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Kenneth - good to see you taking such a fine interest in your first article. As you will have noted I have posted a welcome banner on your talk page with heaps of links to reading material that will help you create the perfect article. In particular you should start by reading Wikipedia:Five pillars which as you will see provides other links to Notability and Verifiability. I should also note that as an administrator on wikipedia I only tagged your article as part of the normal process that occurs when an editor puts a request for speedy deletion up on a page and another editor asks for the community to "hang-on". I do not have any personal view about your article. I suggest that you might get some more help from DanielRigal as he was the first to put the tag up. Normally editors who have taken the time to tag an article for speedy deletion are happy to provide more information. I will post a note to him about this conversation but also you can at any time contact him and ask questions. Just remember three important rules, stay civil, stay calm and keep editing. Best wishes. --VS talk 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


One other tip perhaps - go to .com and have a look at the list of ".com" sites and links about half way down the page. Click on one or two (or more) and have a look how the numerous editors have written an article based on fact and have removed the style of advertising spiel that will make an article more brochure and less encyclopaedia. Don't worry about being as good as this straight up but try and get more of this style into your blogged.com article. You have about 2 or 3 days to sway the reviewers who will come to post a suggestion of keep, delete or merge on the AfD discussion.--VS talk 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock attacks on celebrity pages

See: 92.8.159.121 and an MO [14] that matches Harvey Carter. Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Thanks blocked for one week. Both this one and the recent one you referred to on my talk page (and banned by another editor) are also tagged as suspected socks of HC.--VS talk 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocol on user home pages

I'm not up on the conventions related to use of user talk pages but is it appropriate to remove admin's message on a user's talk page? I think it's okay because it shows that the message was read but a questionable aspect could be a removal can sometimes "flavour" a "message string" or even putting a "spin" on things by use of controversial comments, see: [15] Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

  • It seems quite certain he is attempting to flavour his pages - especially with his moves of removing some posts and copying other conversation from my page above. Its absolutely certain that he is not a very rational contributor when it comes to his concern over LaraLove and the_undertow. In terms of his removal of messages - the convention is that he is entitled to (although they should be archived) and if he does it defines that he has read them and others can act accordingly. Thank you for your interest. Cheers!--VS talk 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rack N Road Deletion

Hi VirtualSteve,

I just had a question on why my Rack N Road entry was deleted. I'm not quite sure how it could be considered blatant advertising because it was just going over the history of the store as well as the services it provides. Looking at REI's entry, I don't see a real big difference, and if anything REI's entry is much more "blatant advertising" then my entry was. I also noticed that a peer in the industry "Rack Attack" also had their entry flagged. REI's has never been touched. Maybe their entry should be looked over once again. Please let me know what I can do to change our article to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines. I definitely read through the different Wikipedia sections on good editing and I felt I had follow them quite well. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Biligas74 1-26-2008

  • Thank you for your question Biligas74. I note the following history in relation to this article. Firstly it has been deleted 3 times, once on January 20 and January 27 last year, and then again on January 21, 2008. I deleted the article because user:Kesac had nominated it for speedy - which was not contested and the article was by and large written as an advertisment. Almost at the same time user:Figma put it up as a part of an article for deletion discussion here which as you will see was closed by another admin when a consensus of delete was reached - this time on January 26. I would suggest that with that many editors commenting that the article did not meet wiki's guidelines that it probably was not ready to stay up on this site. Particularly I note that the article had problems with notablility. You should also consider carefully the Wiki guideline on conflict of interest. In terms of your comment relating to REI - I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are referring to.--VS talk 09:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that

you got pwned!. By a bot, no less. Haha. the_undertow talk 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah I know I'm still laughing about it - It got me as I was doing merges. Bastard!!--VS talk 10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't have to lie to make friends. Just admit it Steve, you hate tildes. It's okay. We all have aversions. the_undertow talk 11:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey cut that out - all Aussies love tildes we even sing about them - You'll come a waltzing maTILDa with me--VS talk 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew it. Another Aussie Cabal member. I'm still getting used to the idea that the English edit here, much less my 'realisation' that there are many, many roos. For a country (and a continent!), your reputation for being bad-ass really is shot down by the overwhelming percentage of those who spend their time editing a reference book. the_undertow talk 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Bullshit - the only reason I'm responding to you so slowly is 'cause I'm holding off this frigging crocodile with my other hand!--VS talk 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
LMAO. If I wasn't busy on my Soloflex, while eating apple pie, I would probably block you for pulling the crocodile card. the_undertow talk 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Floating boxes

Your "wikipedian for" and "admin since" boxes are pretty neat, but unfortunately they get in the way when viewing diffs of your talkpage. :-( --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Cheers will fix as soon as I have a moment - thanks for telling me.--VS talk 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by moving to my user page - There was probably another way but for now that will do. Thanks again for telling me.--VS talk 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And now fixed I think - but let me know if not.--VS talk 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I miss those things. They always made me feel like I was losing my mind. But then again, really anything can do that. the_undertow talk 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Shit if you find mine whilst you are looking for yours let me know - that would be helpful.--VS talk 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rack N Road

Hi Virtual Steve,

Here is a link to the REI page, which I definitely took note of when I created the Rack N Road entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REI. If the Rack N Road entry is considered advertising, then REI's page should be considered the same. I notice you sent a link to "notability," which I read that to mean that unless a retail store has 20+ stores within the United States and beyond it wasn't considered noteworthy enough to keep on Wikipedia. It kind of seems like a popularity contest. Instead of useful/interesting information about a variety of chain stores and how they came about, it seems more about how much financial clout the business brings to the table. I think this aspect of entries should be re-considered, and notability really should not be a factor. It is really just a judgement call, because what one person might consider notable, another individual might not find that notable at all.

28-January-2008

  • Not quite sure how to answer you in a full and complete way so I hope that you don't mind me being candid (without rudeness).
  1. Firstly I should detail that whilst I am an administrator on wikipedia - (of which there are about 1500 and probably half of those regularly active) - there are also 6,000,000 or so editors. Administrators are volunteers and have some extra duties and functions that they are entitled to perform but one of those is not to unilaterally adjust policies such as Notability. This happens only in concert with all wikipedians.
  2. Secondly I'd suggest with respect that the timber of your Rack N Road article was quite different to that of the REI article particular with regards such issues as Verifiability and referencing.
  3. Thirdly because of the way that you are posting discussions to my talk page I am forced to the assumption that you are not very schooled in the wikipedia method and so I would suggest that you should initially spend a fair bit more time getting to understand the system before you return with a possible Rack N Road article.
  4. Fourthly all articles on wikipedia are being constantly viewed considered, reconsidered etc by editors. REI has been around since 2004 and has never been put up for deletion. That doesn't mean it couldn't be but it does mean that it seems to be meeting the guidelines.
  5. Finally - whilst I know you are not suggesting it outright - I thought I would say (despite the believe of some people who recently have come to my talk page) "There is no conspiracy" - or perhaps even more accurately "No-one has ever informed me about such a conspiracy" - in other words you have the right to question the system as much as any editor, put up articles for deletion etc - but only if you do not do so in a way that does not disrupt the project.

I hope that helps in some way. --VS talk 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sticky fingers

you have there [16]. --Veritas (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes I thought I might return the favour ;) Me and my Kangaroo will soon come to visit you to ask for your forgiveness.--VS talk 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A user I'm having trouble with

I once posted on the AIV talk page about a stronger stance on vandalism. You were kind enough to offer your help. I'm having a problem with a specific user. Seancarlin84 is continually vandalizing pages, edit-warring, violating the 3RR rule, and leaving personal attacks on others' talk pages. His edits are almost exclusively unconstructive. After considerable effort, he finally was blocked, but only for 24 hours. He is an example of someone that I believe should be blocked for a longer period. Thanks, Enigmaman (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I will look into it and come back to you shortly. Thank you for your post. --VS talk 06:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay my view is that he was fairly blocked - and as it was a 3RR type block 24 hours on a first offence is appropriate. I can understand your frustration but be careful you don't get sucked in by him - especially with regards un-blanking his page which he is quite entitled to do. Don't think that makes him look clean - most (if not all admins) will look at his edit history and these things stand out. My suggestion is to go to his talk page and undo your un-blanking edit but leave your later request to remain civil up there. Leave an edit summary that says something like "Removing content previously removed by Seancarlin84". Then I suggest you walk away and not even watch his page for a while. Come back to me or Master of Puppets if trouble returns. Best wishes--VS talk 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Enigmaman (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
He's back from the block and continuing what he did before. Enigmaman (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes so I see - okay I see also that Tony Fox has given him a warning on this article - and that he has not returned the information since then (some 20 or 30 minutes). I have put him on my close watchlist and will act if he returns that same material or otherwise edits inappropriately. Let me know immediately if you see anything also.--VS talk 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve

As you may have noticed I have not had anything on my userpage for a few months. Is it ok if I use your style? Revert it if not. HarrisonB - Talk 09:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I have decided on a more minimal style. HarrisonB - Talk 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey no problems Harrison pinch what you want. Nice to see you again--VS talk 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Badoian

I step away from the computer for a little bit and I miss all the excitement! Thanks for cleaning that up for me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • My pleasure - and still going on now - just about to block one vandal for good - he just won't listen or accept any advice and appears to have a sock (or meat puppet) here--VS talk 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

You should have an email. :) Sarah 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Stephen Cook

Hi, I'm not sure I agree with this block. What well-known person is he going to be confused with? And why in the world did you block account creation? It looks a lot like this user just wanted to use their real name, and got blocked for it. I'm eager to hear your thoughts. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your question. Request came out of WP:UAA by User:Wisdom89 an editor I have respect for, placing this link [17]. I considered for the same reasons that you have but saw his point. On your prompt I will ask Wisdom89 to also give his views if you are happy to see a third opinion. Of course user:Stephen Cook can contest the block if he is of that real name. Standby for my request to Wisdom89 - or if that phases you feel free to revert.--VS talk 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course he can contest the block, that doesn't mean it was right to block him it the first place. I still don't understand why you blocked account creation; in most cases, it's standard procedure to allow the user to create a new username. Stephen Cook is a fairly common name, and the Google search gives a lot of different people named Stephen Cook, none of them what I would call a household name. I'm not going to undo the block, but I'd like you to consider undoing it yourself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tone please Bongwarrior. I don't mind if you unblock ... if it is important to you. I also blocked a user in the same batch by the name of Jesus - which is also a real name for 10,000's of people in the world! Further as I am sure you know there are admin backlogs everywhere and I work through these as part of what I see as my duties. My decisions are considered - partly in relation to the request and partly in relation to the editor requesting. I will adjust my block to allow account creation and then I will wait, with respect, for Wisdom's return - or alternatively you can unblock - I have no concern if you do.--VS talk 08:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you're trying to help with backlogs. But the hard part of dealing with UAA isn't blocking, it's knowing when not to block. Since you've said you don't mind, I am going to unblock. Please don't take offense, but I really don't think this user has done anything wrong and I'd hate to scare away a new contributor. And in the future, please remember to allow account creation when blocking usernames, unless the username is an obvious display of bad faith. Thanks, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion Bongwarrior - absolutely no offence taken, and I appreciate your point of view. Will still be interested in Wisdom's return - perhaps you can keep me on your watchlist to see what comes back. Cheers and you take care too. --VS talk 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings - VS, I got your message on my talk page regarding the block of user Stephen Cook. I fully support your decision to block, despite my being the original reporter. I hope that Bongwarrior understands my position on this matter. Google searches return high hit values for Stephen Cook, an individual who is notable enough to have his own entry on Wikipedia. Now, it is quite likely that the user's name IS Stephen Cook, and not this particular individual - but that's my point. That's who he would be confused with. Does that make sense? Wisdom89 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wisdom89 - I understand your point and I understand Bongwarrior's point. I certainly won't get involved in wheel warring and note that Bongwarrior has decided - with my best wishes to unblock. I am happy for either of you to write any further comments here - I personally will let the matter go for now. Best wishes.--VS talk 09:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wisdom, hello again VirtualSteve. As noted above, I have since unblocked the user. My reasoning is that having a Wikipedia article isn't quite the same as being well-known. Of course there are a lot of Google hits, it's a pretty common name. But as long as User:Stephen Cook doesn't claim to be this particular Stephen Cook, I don't think there's enough potential for confusion to justify blocking. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve why did you remove WP:SEI from WP:ABF

Steve why did you remove WP:SEI from WP:ABF. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well first I think that your putting it in twice was overkill and another form of internal spamming; and secondly that it actually belittles your own essay which I know is meant to be a joke but it seems that by putting it where you did you look as though you are either trying to advertise or you are saying that using SEI as a link is an example of Assuming Bad Faith?--VS talk 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the esay is not a joke, but sarcasam to those who claim that they are being picked on. And also a study of social engineering on Wikipedia, because as you know it does happen. Igor Berger (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. Should I put it in one place on WP:ABF or leave it off completly? Igor Berger (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • EC :Yes I appreciate the small subtlety but sarcasm in of course a form of humour and a joke. Please don't take the word "joke" so badly I only use it because it is the category for which this page belongs (and which is part of the template). As you have said so many times it is not meant to be taken seriously and that is why it is so important as to where you put it. In answer to your question posted after our edit conflict I would suggest that a link to ABF makes it look like the use of SEI towards another editor is a sign of Bad Faith - so I would leave it off - but if you want to test that then at best put it up once with no further comment.--VS talk 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnSpoken Secrets

FYI, I repaired your relisting. You had tacked it onto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatles Concert Puzzle, by mistake, I assume. Jfire (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much I appreciate it - yes a mistake (working through old AfD lists). Cheers!--VS talk 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages and Edit Histories.

Yeah, edit histories exist, but does that fairly tell the whole story?

I mean, sure, someone can look deep and find stuff, but on the surface it gives a skewed picture.

This may have created some of the problem with the Timeshift/ROxBO thing as well. He couldn't see the previous complaints, without it he made them again...

And when you experience a rude editor or someone who breaches policy repeatedly, you sort of would like his behaviour to be obvious, you know...

Myself, I leave everything, up to the point of leaving a block unarchived - since it was only a week or so old. That bit me, because the next person who had a disagreement with me and visited my page and said "I see you have troubling getting along with others" or something. An unfair view, maybe (others may say a fair view) but at least I didn't feel I was hiding my faults.

There are others how immediately get rid of anything disagreeable said about them giving a glowing impression of them on their page, which makes the person saying it feel undermined, feeling that what they are saying is hidden and being ignored (by the writer and by admins in later problems that others have.)

As just an editor you feel there's no comeback that a pattern of behaviour will continue.

The policy as I recall is that Editors can delete anything they want but archiving is recommended. And, so technically, editors can delete stuff. But the spirit seems to say "don't delete stuff unless necessary". I know that the spirit of a rule can't be enforces, but it seems a shame that those who abuse the loophole seem to get away with it...

Is there a way, to feel you are being heard without abusing someone's page without drawing down the gods from on high for every minor dispute?

I'm not sure what I'm looking for here... just a feeling that everything's right in the world!

Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sometimes it's good to just politely vent. These are the rules we have and no doubt at times they are less than adequate. My way of assisting the process is to ensure that an edit summary is forthright and polite in encapsulating the point of the post - so that editors will see it as a clear stand out when edit histories are reviewed. Stay calm now - keep editing!--VS talk 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to stay calm, this thing kept me awake last night so I wish it hadn't happened. The keep editing... that may be out of my hands.
There needs to be some way to educate editors, such as myself, that this happens and how to cope with it.
You don't run into it often and when you do for the first time it seems wrong.
You have a disagreement with someone on an article page and the natural next step is to take into to usertalk pages. When you do that and it is deleted it feels like a slap in the face, it seems like a breach of the rules because it is a breach of the spirit of the rules. As such a natural reaction (it was mine and I saw someone else do it on the same page yesterday) to revert. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. It's wrong. It's playing into the owner of the page's hands because you're the one doing the rule-breaching. But it's a natural reaction.
Of course, the page in question have had a number of people hitting it, I guess because they see no one has addressed the problem (as far as they know) and so they make similar comments on it (only to have them, too deleted). So I guess they're hurting themselves in a way.
Another unfortunate side effect of the instant reversion of criticism, is that to address the person you end up on someone else's page or an article talk page, as happened last night.
Since the next natural step (discussion on the other person's page) has been removed, is it reasonable to report them for the original action? It seems an unnecessary esculation, but if you feel the issue isn't being addressed, what other options do you have?
Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Duggy - this is an on-line reference book with 6.5 million editors which seems vast but at the end of the day it is only wikipedia. My view - if this situation is causing you to lose sleep at night then put up a wiki-break sign and move off for a day or a week's holiday. What does Timeshift feel like for putting the rumour up in the first place? Pretty silly I'd suggest. Is it worth escalating? That's your call - but it sounds like you'd lose more sleep. What to do next time? Move it straight to WP:ANI but now a day or two later - probably not.--VS talk 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a heated argument ending around midnight. It shouldn't make me lose sleep again.
This incident, I'm not interested in escalating. The original incident is pretty much over, although I'm still feeling the affects, and so it's not worth reporting (although, the incident I was blocked over had been over for 18 hours when I was reported).
Future incidents? Well, with other editors who revert edits to their own page, I guess I'll escalate (unfortunately), but with Timeshift... well, I've already been told that I'm harrasing him, so I guess I have to leave him alone, no matter what he does.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Woodworking for Women

The speedy-deletion of that page has been overturned on procedural grounds. That article has been previously discussed in an XfD discussion. As such, it is not eligible for speedy-deletion. If you think that the article deserves deletion (a point on which I have no strong opinion), it must be renominated for deletion through the AFD process.

If you do decide to nominate the article, be sure to note the lack of improvement since the last deletion discussion. That's a relevant factor and might help the community reach a clearer decision this time. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you Rossami - done. I also have no personal opinion.--VS talk 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD List of CEP Vendors

Hi, I don't believe you have followed correct procedures for deleting this page. No concensus was reached at the discussion for deletion. Many of the "delete as per nom" comments cannot be considered, especially since policy dictates very clearly that it is not a headcount vote issue. The topic was still being being debated, and on the talk page for the article, a way forward had been proposed by the original nominator for deletion and was being discussed. Please reinstate the page until either a concensus is reached. I further encourage you to at least participate in the discussion and clearly identify and explain why you support this decision by clearly identifying which policies were breached and why. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Bardcom - yes I noticed your passion during the AfD which had in fact had reached the stage of closure. I have no personal opinion about the article page itself. I do not share your opinion that a "delete per nom" comment cannot be considered - whilst I agree that it is not a straight head count - if the nomination is valid then another can agree with it, without adding more verbiage. I note that Ronnotel has given you a link on your talk page as to where you can ask for a deletion to be reviewed.--VS talk 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And further, User:Bardcom, I encourage you to learn a little more about the deletion process. In particular, they generally run for five days, they are not affected by movement towards (or away from) consensus on the nominated page, and the decision is based on objective deletion criteria. The relative weight given to arguments in the debate varies to the degree that those arguments are judged to adhere to those criteria. A per nom argument can outweigh an extensive comment if the nominator has accurately cited a relevant deletion criteria. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ronnotel, I have read the deletion process and I am trying to follow this process as laid out - what part of the process do you feel I'm not following correctly? Specifically, I'm using the guidelines in the Deletion Process page. In the chapter "Deletion Discussion", it states

    "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate"

    In the subsequent chapter entitled "Deletion Review", it states

    If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

    It is for this reason I have opened a discussion on this talk page. Bardcom (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi VS, I do not believe a rough consensus was reached, and that your deletion is therefore incorrect. There were two original reasons quoted by Hu12, both of which are not applicable to this article, and both of which were challenged (I thought successfully). Simple "per nom" arguments in this case did nothing to further the debate, especially when they are made when the debate is in progress - the process is to encourage debate and points of view, not simple voting which is what an empty "per nom" comment is. There were a total of 4 empty "per nom" contributions - all of which were made by wikipedia administrators. Disregarding empty "per nom" comments, there were 2 contributers arguing for deletion; Hu12 as the original nominator, and Ronnotel who also contributed to the debate. There were 2 contributers arguing to keep the article; myself (bardcom) and isvana. The original nominator (hu12) appeared to have listened to the arguments and had recommended a way forward to correct the article on the talk page of the article, which included a "Qualifications for Inclusion" section, references, and notable citations. Please reinstate the article and allow the changes to be made. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your request. I appreciate your politeness and fortitude. I do not agree with your review of the per nom !votes as being "empty". I decline on this occasion to reinstate the article because it had in my opinion reached appropriate closure (indeed it had reached that stage some days ago). You have the right to seek deletion review. If you do please inform all parties of your listing. Best wishes--VS talk 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

trying out signature

how is this? (for signature) Ivejustbegun (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Well done! Keep up the learning and keep editing. Cheers--VS talk 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD relisting incomplete for UnSpoken Secrets

Hello, when you relisted this discussion, you left it on the original log. Please comment-out the original transclusion when relisting AfD's. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you Jerry - my apologies for that oversight - see above related thread. Best wishes--VS talk 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayshawn Askew

Normally those type of AFDs with very little discussion should be relisted in AFD. Just a tip of advise. Thanks Secret account 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Secret - I did toss and turn on this one a bit and in the end decided not to relist. Appreciate your comment.--VS talk 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you explain clearer. Thanks Secret account 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes I will next time.--VS talk 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the most profilic vandals in the history of Wikipedia

Requesting a very strong response to [[18]]. Has been blocked repeatedly, but it's had no effect. User continues to return and vandalize. While I've had limited experience, I've never seen a talk page with that many warnings. I bet the warnings only encompass a portion of his vandalism edits, too. Thanks for the assistance, Enigmaman (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your request. Having checked the only problem with your logic is use of the words "one of the most .... vandals..." As a school IP it is probably many vandals - nevertheless continued vandalism with escalating blocks and multiple vandalising edits today alone has led me to the conclusion to block for 6 months. Best wishes--VS talk 01:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, yes it is a school IP, but somehow everyone who uses it uses it to vandalize. I guess I should've used the word IP. Enigmaman (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No harm no foul Enigmaman (just want us all to prove that we are reading, thinking and considering) - trust you are satisfied with the result?--VS talk 01:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. Enigmaman (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of List_of_CEP_vendors

Steve - you didn't explain in your summary to delete page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_CEP_vendors your rationale. Can I ask for the reasons, as many of the policy rationales for delete votes were challenged successfully, and indeed the originator of the delete request went on to make suggestions in the article talk page. This implies that there was some merit in the page. Thanks! PS: This comment is as per the WP:DRV suggestion to contact the admin involved. Isvana (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: ah - I see this topic has already been well discussed above. In this case, Steve, no need to reply! Isvana (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

A new FAC nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/America's Next Top Model. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Glitter1959 (talk · contribs) has nominated another article at FAC that she's never edited, and I'm not sure if a checkuser with Gabriellerosey (talk · contribs) is warranted. I don't know what to do, but this is creating a ton of work for reviewers, archivers, for me, and raising the fail rate at FAC something awful, which stinks. I guess I'll raise a talk page issue as to whether I can just remove them whenever they come up; I don't know what to do next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Post at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a longer block

I know admins are hesitant to overrule another admin with regards to a block, but you once said I should go to you if I had any examples that I believed deserved longer blocks. [19] One WEEK? I was thinking more along the lines of one year, given the past history and the many blocks. This is an excellent example of what I believe to be lenient treatment of a vandal. Thanks, Enigma (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

When Edgar added the block notice, he also added the educational institution message. Enigma (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My message to you on that occasion was in relation to future blocks. I am rarely going to adjust another admin's block and would always do that with discussion. Please come to me the next time this IP vandalises and I will consider the length of the block with a view to previous problems.--VS talk 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Will do. What you said was "[I] would be happy to receive requests concerning good faith specific cases also." I guess you meant before submitting them to AIV. I will try to circumvent AIV in the future, because reporting vandals there generally just leads to a short block that won't be overturned. Enigma (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes that's right - but remember I am not always here (and sometimes leave myself listed as available - at the top of my talk page but actually just have forgotten to change to unavailable) - so AIV can be faster if the issue is critical. I will also not give a long block if such a block is not appropriate.--VS talk 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I figured as much. :) Enigma (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct

I am wrong. You did not approach O'Loughlin directly. You suggested another editor might. And the supportive comments to O'Loughlin were from A.B.

Regards'

Adon Emett (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC).


Thank you

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you, Steve, for handling that so diplomatically and for making my "job" easier and my day lighter. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well now wow and thank you. I appreciate the Barnstar very much and your words even more. Anytime :) --VS talk 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal back from a block and at it again

[20] Blocked twice, warned like a dozen times. Enigma (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Enigmaman - I note that you have warned 72.237.218.146 (talk · contribs) following one case of vandalism on February 14 but that on reflection of his activities he has been a very persistent vandal over the past 12 months with nearly all of his 50 or 60 edits being disruptive. On that basis, whilst IP addresses are not usually blocked for more than a few hours or a day or two - I have blocked for a period of 3 months in the hope that the user will either go away or mend his ways. In the future could you please provide a link to the vandalism as that will make my job a fair bit easier. Thank you for your report.--VS talk 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Makes my job quite a bit easier as well. I will try to link the vandalism in the future. Enigma (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, this is the anniversary of the IP's first vandalism edits, as you might've noticed. Happy anniversary! :D Enigma (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I did notice that - in terms of his first warning but he in fact made his first vandalism on February 3, 2007. Cheers again.--VS talk 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that after I posted. Oh well. Should've checked contributions first. Enigma (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked 3 months - persistent vandal continuing - escalating blocks.--VS talk 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked 1 month - persistent vandal, just back from block - not as prevalent as the one above.--VS talk 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the time and effort. Enigma (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One question: Shouldn't the first one get a longer block? This is the 4th block already and you gave the IP a 72 hour block. I count 20 edits, all vandalism, mostly to one page. Enigma (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it's an IP and IP's often get reassigned (and we can't tell exactly who is editing) I looked at the history and noted some months between activity - I also noted the apparent sock and blocked it too - given all of this material my rule of thumb equation on that was a 72 hour block on this occasion for both accounts.--VS talk 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 65.18.10.23 has been blocked three times in one month for edits to one page. I respect your decision, but I just don't completely understand it. I know IP addresses can be reassigned, but this IP continues to be warned and blocked, and then it comes back and resumes the same activity. Enigma (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to use an escalation system. If you look at the IP in question - it had been blocked only twice before (mine is the third) - compare that with the last IP in the list and you will see more blocks and the escalation from hours to days to a month. From my perspective the first IP will get a longer block if it comes back again to vandalise - to say 1 month or 3 months etc.--VS talk 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks for the clarification. I'll keep an eye on the user. Enigma (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Canvassing

I apologize if it was considered "canvassing", the user who "complained" was next on my list to inform of my edit. I will inform no-one else, though I find it intriguing that asking users to look into a situation of WP:BITE violation is considered "canvassing." [22]

  • Your apology is accepted. ANI has a way of attracting its own interested parties and asking other users to look into the situation is not necessary. Could I also ask that you (a) sign off each of your edits by using 4 tildes - ask me if you don't know how, and (b) consider creating an account so that your edits gain more weight as not just a drive-by (especially given that your IP is assigned to a University). Best wishes--VS talk 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you have an actual template ({{ANI-notice}} )for informing users of an ANI discussion related to them then?

As for signing, I'll give it a try.

As for making an account, I really don't see the point - regardless of my creation of a new account, I suspect (given the vitriolic nature of many wikipedia personalities) that it would quickly become accused of being a "sockpuppet", or "proxy for a banned user", or any of a myriad other reasons by which to attack the messenger. I've learned a great deal from the former admin's livejournal page I referred to when commenting to the Mantanmoreland thing as well as by lurking wikipedia and reading up from the past six months and what I've seen gives me little confidence. But I figured hey, might as well try to see if I can inject some outside perspective and get a couple people to look at the poisoned atmosphere. Worst comes to worst... well, I declare the wikipedia project a failure and move on.

There's also the user accusing me of being a "ripened sock"... sigh.

signing test: 129.7.146.249 (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • To be brief - (1) the ANI Notice is about informing an editor that they are being discussed not for general canvassing, and (2) Cynicism in any aspect of human endeavour in the end does nothing but cause damage to the cynic. There are over 6.5 million wikipedia editors - most of which are keen, supportive and willing to take the risk. If you don't agree then walk away - if you really want to help, really want to add positive to the free world of knowledge that is wikipedia then join up and take the bad with the good. When you look closely you will find that the vast majority of this project is damn good. Oh and your signature worked fine - well done.--VS talk 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"When you look closely you will find that the vast majority of this project is damn good." Please see my response on the WP:ANI page, but I disagree. I really feel that you are teaching the wrong lessons to newcomers in wikipedia ("you" plural as in wikipedia culture, not you singular). The blocking of someone for petty vandalism is one thing; the blocking of people because someone with buttons disagrees with them, or because someone of an opposing POV has insinuated that they "might be" a sockpuppet even before their first article-space edit? I can see no other lesson that this will teach except that those of opposing POV's are not just in charge, but actually out to get them after all.

I am saddened to see it come to this, but after reading parkerpeters.livejournal.com/ and the writings of other former wikipedia administrators and former academic contributors who left wikipedia due to the poisonous culture, I am really not terribly surprised. You seem very optimistic about wikipedia, but I cannot share your optimism as I watch the events on WP:ANI and see situations every day that fail the Smell Test. 129.7.146.249 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay time for me to stop this discussion - we are both preaching to the converted. I respect you have an opinion and I know that you respect that I disagree with you. I still suggest then that you walk away rather than churn yourself up into a knot over something that your words indicate you do not believe in but your actions indicate otherwise. I trust also that you will remember that the "you" plural can also refer to most editors and administrators who actually do use (as far as is humanely possible) a neutral point of view as the basis for their activities.--VS talk 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to close the loop, a checkuser confirmed that No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) and 1948remembered (talk · contribs) are socks, as was suspected - so there is no WP:BITE issue, just the usual wikilawyering on behalf of an obvious disruptive troll. If you'd like details, please email me. It appears clear that these IP's are also socks of the same user and are wasting our time. MastCell Talk 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes well done MastCell - we try to come in assuming good faith until proven otherwise - however as you will note I agreed with this final assumption at his first unblock request. Cheers as always.--VS talk 04:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry to be cranky about it, and keep up the good work. :) MastCell Talk 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note.

Oh, its no problem :) Thanks for understanding.

Glitter1959 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

  • You are clearly a very nice editor Glitter. I wish you all the best. I notice user:Sarah (a very well respected editor around here) has suggested mentorship - I couldn't agree more - and notice how quick you responded in the postive. I think you will enjoy that level of support.--VS talk 04:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I took up on your guys offer, and I couldn't thank you enough :) Hopefully, it will help me to be a better editor. I wish you all the best as well.

Glitter1959 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959