User talk:VirtualSteve/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5| 6| 7


Contents

[edit] User:Gaogier

they are editing again using the isp number 12.47.46.98 (talk · contribs)  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming directly to me. I think I have everything covered but if this sort of disruption and sock puppetry rears its ugly head again let me know directly. Best wishes--VS talk 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another IP

Sorry Enigma I missed this one in my travels and being off-line. Just saw it and checked looks like IP is calm at this time. Let me know if you see other activity of a vandalising nature.--VS talk 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review for List of CEP Vendors

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of CEP Vendors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bardcom (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Chicago Landmarks

I am revising List of Chicago Landmarks for new designations since July 2003. You will see many redlinks that need articles if we want to retain WP:FL status. For details of the update that is underway see the talk page. Please help out and create some articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do you know of a template I can post to people's pages when they don't warn vandals? I've been typing up messages manually until now. Enigma msg! 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No I also use a manual message for these. If this helps I suggest that you create a message template at User:Enigmaman/Sandbox (if you click on this link you can open up that page for your own use) which you can then just go to copy and paste?--VS talk 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was planning to create my own if I couldn't find a standard one. Thanks. Enigma msg! 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody Knows (Nik Kershaw song)

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Nobody Knows (Nik Kershaw song). The reason I declined it is because the article is about the song, and not its singer. Please note that CSD A7 only applies to web content, people and groups. Although it does apply to non-notable people, it does not apply to their songs.. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes thank you - wrong tag by me. Will adjust.--VS talk 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Have adjusted to an AfD nomination - thank you for your attention. Best wishes.--VS talk 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal

  • Cheers! Blocked and done....--VS talk 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about it being in the wrong place. Maybe you should add a "Click here to leave a message" box? When you archived everything, it made things a little confusing. Enigma msg! 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No problems about the location - my adjustment was just flagged on the edit summary to provide historical reasoning. Best wishes.--VS talk 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have a question about something. I just got a rather rude message from User:TJ Terry. Since all my recent warnings have been to IP vandals on User:slakr's userpage, I suspect it's a sockpoppet. Enigma msg! 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning left by me - Personal Attacks will not be tolerated. Cheers --VS talk 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. He accused me of "owning" a page that I've never edited. Enigma msg! 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I saw - accept his apology and see if he changes his behaviour is my suggestion.--VS talk 02:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dealt with - thank you.--VS talk 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Right off a block, and made more vandalism edits. Got a 1 month block on 1/25. Enigma msg! 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Another good pick up Enigma - job done. Thank you!--VS talk 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okashina Okashi AFD

Just wondering: you nominated it per procedural requirements, but you're neutral on whether it should be deleted. Are you allowed to close the nomination (since you're neutral) or do you have to defer to another admin? It's been five days since the nomination and there appears to be a very clear consensus to keep. Not sure there's much reason to keep it open longer. Also, could you make a ruling on the Applegeeks AFD? It's been open for 10 days with no new comments for four days; it appears to have fallen through the cracks. Thanks! Buspar (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes there clearly is a consensus to keep and worth the effort as a result because it gives both sides a point of reference in the case of future debates - but I would prefer not to close so that it both looks and feels neutral. I will see if I can get to Applegeeks later today (a bit busy at my real life/work at the moment). Best wishes --VS talk 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that the Strange Candy AfD has closed now as a keep. Congratulations.--VS talk 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep! I was quite pleased with the result, especially given Wiki's negative reputation with keeping good webcomic articles (Wikinews did a story on it just last year). Thanks for the help! Buspar (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And now finally had time to deal with your request on Applegeeks AfD - sorry for the delay - real life and all that.--VS talk 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! That one had been bugging me a little since it was unusual for an AfD to go that long without a close. Buspar (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As to my agreement to SEI

I agreed to use it selectively and rarely and I will stick to my agreement. Igor Berger (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nonsense Igor - read again what was written by you at Durova's page here WP:SEI maybe WP:MFD. We left that discussion as friends Igor and I would prefer to stay that way but as I said - if you use WP:SEI to disrupt wikipedia I will be forced to post it to MFD (if someone doesn't beat me to it first). You could easily have made your point without adding the link to your favourite personally created essay page - especially when many other editors have questioned its meaning and your editing style using this link.--VS talk 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Steve I do not understand why you so against me using the esay to help me make a point. It is just another article same like WP:ABF or any other one. For me there is no necessity to use it, like you said I could have made my point without it. As you can check my edits I do a lot of vandal and Spam potrol and try to add content to areas that I am familiar. You need to give me some elbow room and see what I am about before passing judgement. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As you agree Igor you could make your point without using a SPAM link to this essay - which in fact does not assist because the essay is barely intelligible. I am not against you making your point in any place on wikipedia but as agreed by you and linked above you must stop disrupting wikipedia by introducing a link to the article in the way that you have started to again do. Also as other editors have informed you people will find your essay without the need for you putting a link up everywhere wily-nily. Finally I have long ago worked out what you are about - I do from time to time notice your posts in other places and in some cases they appear to be good edits but your linking SEI to ANI threads in the way that you do is not appropriate and I will be placing those actions and by default this article up at MfD unless you cease as per your agreement. Best wishes --VS talk 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Okay I will not post the SEI link to ANI if it makes you feel uncomfortable. There are other ways to make references to social engineeering situations without linking to the essay. As long as we can deal with situations like homeopathy and waterboarding without having POINT pushers disrupt Wikipedia with their socks. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Steve, I hate to trouble you, but I've never submitted a checkuser, and I'm hoping you'll do it.

Same signature method[1] as Gabriellerosey and Glitter1959 (lacking a space[2][3]), Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk · contribs) has submitted Lisa Gerrard to FAC in the past (similar to Glitter), and uses the same strange method of initiating a FAC without going through the template or talk page, and without adding to the talk page used by Glitter and Gabrielle. An exact match. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another similarity, has never edited Wicca. Four out of four. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Link to earlier discussion to make it easier for you.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, a connection here mentioning an IP and a previous issue with the Xena article, which was another Glitter article.[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Sandy - no problems I will submit for you. My pleasure. I am a little busy at work today but later I will have the time - I hope that works in with your day?--VS talk 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, I'm just gather pieces for you. More connections here, Xena and Gerrard, same issues at FAC in the past. There's so much evidence that I went ahead and removed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicca from WP:FAC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From the comments at Ineversignin's talk page, there also seems to be a connection to 71.192.59.22 (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia alerted me to this, since I have had some interactions with Ineversigninsodonotmessageme. Sockpuppetry is absolutely possible with this user, who has claimed that vandalism from her IP to articles she was interested were not done by her. There's no question that the IP listed above is the one used by Ineversignsodonotmessageme. At the very least, these two pass the quack test in my book. AniMate 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since there seem to be three at least (disrupting FAC), I'm going to query Raul654 (talk · contribs) about the iterative tool I've seen him mention. There may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to mention that while Ineversigninsodonotmessageme has been disruptive, I'm not sure that I see anything here that is going to warrant a checkuser case. So far the only abuse I've seen has come when she was editing from her IP and upset that the "List of contemporary and crossover (insert vocal range)" articles were deleted. I also think that this user, despite claims to the contrary, is fairly young and I'm not sure that pursuing this is the right tactic for dealing with her. Mentorship would probably be for the best, though I really can't do it myself. After 3 very long months I'm finally getting back to work (thank god the strike ended), and just don't have much time for Wikipedia these days. AniMate 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They've been disrupting FAC for a long time, mentorship has been offered and discussed several times, we've given her many chances (she's removed most of that from User talk:Glitter1959). Steve, another piece of evidence, Glitter1959 (talk · contribs) has edited Soprano and contralto, as has Inever. By the way, AniMate, I don't mean to sound hard-hearted, and I've done my share of mentoring someone very similar, but see the discussions at WT:FAC linked above, this has been going on quite a while, and Steve and others bent over backwards offering to help, yet she continues the same behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk · contribs) = Gabriellerosey (talk · contribs) = LucyLawlessXenaFan (talk · contribs) = Glitter1959 (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

+Bigandbeautifulgirl (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, BInguyen (did you check the IP)? And, I'm not sure what's next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And the Wicca FAC needs to be maintenance deleted, I removed it from WP:FAC and the template was never added to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy and thank BInguyen - sorry I am only able to follow this at a distance due to work at the moment. From my perspective that means Sockpuppetry and should be handled accordingly.--VS talk 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Go back to work, Steve ! BInguyen blocked, see my talk page when you're off work and ready to catch up. Thanks so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy - have also added templates to all indefinitely blocked pages. Great work BInguyen!--VS talk 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me ...

... but why did you delete user angelofdeath275 please? I didn' agree with him or her but I was just curious to know why s/he was indefinitely blocked and deleted.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Howdy SmokeyTheCat. I deleted angelofdeath275 because s/he had been indefinitely blocked at 09:53, December 12, 2007 by Bradeos Graphon for (Attempting to harass other users: chronic incivility, personal attacks). My deletion therefore was just part of an admin's task to remove indefinitely deleted users a month or more after they had been indefinitely blocked. Hope that explains?--VS talk 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting AFDs

Hey Steve. I noticed you relisted a bunch of AFDs today. When you do so, can you remove them from the original list they were on? For example, when you relisted AFDs from 19 January, you added them to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_28, but you also need to remove them from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_19. Otherwise the bot still thinks it's open. I've done these ones for you. Cheers and keep up the good work! Neıl ☎ 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Appreciate your kind comment - have never relisted before and started to make a hash of it but I think I have it now.--VS talk 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Main reason is I'm a bloody idiot :) - but going back to fix now (was part of a relist I completely hashed)--VS talk
  • Naw, I'm not gonna say that, just wanted to know... time for me to sleep :D JuJube (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes well I better go sleep too - I could easily (accidentally) delete the main page today way I'm going. That'll learn me to come running too fast to help with backlogs. --VS talk 11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha

Hi, I'm curious about the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Sledziejowski, the latter of which wasn't re-listed. I have serious questions about keeping an article when no notability or in the case of Roman S, verifiability has been proven. Isn't there basic standard that an article needs to meet in order to be kept? Just curious. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your question. In a nutshell those standards are outlines as arguments on a cases by case basis by knowledgeable editors during the AfD. In the case of Hema Sinha the relist occurred early in the situation when only a couple of commentators had put forth their view. My job as an admin is to see if a consensus or lack of consensus forms. In the case of the latter then it defaults to keep. Articles can also be prodded for citation, notability and verification requests by template - if you need help with this let me know.--VS talk 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks the latter has been tagged for citations and the former has been tagged for notability since May 2007. That's how I became aware of it from the backlog. I also thought once it went through AfD it was immune from Prodding? With Hema it's not as much of an issue since what she does is verifiable, whereas no one was able to verify Roman S's alleged position, so I was surprised on that. Oh well, I'll take Hema back to Afd in a month or so if no sources turn up. Thanks for the info TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobody Knows (Nik Kershaw song)

I closed it as "no consensus" because the two opinions of "keep" and "merge" were split about equally by the numbers. (Since it obviously wasn't a delete, I felt okay closing it.) After looking at the notability rules on WP:MUSIC, I would say that the guideline strongly favors a merge rather than a keep given the information currently in the article.

I'm not sure what to do from here. I'm willing to reverse my decision and execute a merge, but I want to make sure that's what you think is right. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and reasoned answer. My suggestion is to revert the decision and then return it as consensus to merge with an appropriate edit summary. Once you have done that let me know and I will merge for you unless you feel okay to do so.--VS talk 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful resource

Steve being that you work a lot with AfD take a look at this User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox. I think you will find it useful for your job. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You've lost me Igor - how would that page be useful?--VS talk 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    The user keeps a list and a patern study of socks behaviors at AfD. By knowing who the socks are it can help you when you decide for or against an article on borderline cases. Igor Berger (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay I see your point - although 2 things - one he doesn't keep that list up to date any more by the look of it (his last edit was when AfD's were called VfD's in 2005) and two I check every edit on AfD to see if they are likely socks on a listing by listing basis. The reason I do that is that IP's are often recycled and lists therefore can be a little confusing. Thank you however for your suggestion.--VS talk 08:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice to hear that you are aware of the socks situation. You may want to redirect them to ANI if you suspect of having them disrupt AfD. Keep up the good work. Igor Berger (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of plays

I'm writing with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scare Factor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klondike Kalamity.

The Scare Factor had two delete recommendations and nothing else, and rather than close that AfD you relisted it to allow a consensus to form.

Meanwhile, Klondike Kalamity had two delete recommendations, one keep recommendation, one comment from the co-author of the play (a relatively new Wikipedian) which didn't state an actual recommendation but clearly meant to support keeping the article, and one comment (from User:Dhartung) which took no position. Yet for this one, you said there was a consensus to delete.

I admit that Klondike Kalamity was not in great shape as an article, but as Dhartung pointed out, there may be offline sources because the play was first published before the rise of the Internet (in fact, in 1978). Could you please restore Klondike Kalamity and relist it on AfD, since there was no clear consensus to delete? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Metropolitan - my thinking in brief was similar to what you say above for Klondike (which from my point of view had several comments compared to - as you note - 2 only for The Scare Factor). In addition I actually counted Dhartung's view more as a delete rather than a non-position with his comment "This barely passes the heard-of-it test, though" (in much the same way I thought the author comment was a keep rather than a non- position). That said I have no personal position on the article and will act as per your request and relist and see what the next consensus forms as.--VS talk 06:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy

Hi VirtualSteve, could you describe your thinking behind closing this as a "keep"? Thanks in advance. --Dragonfiend (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • VirtualSteve was the nominator on that AfD, not the closer. The closer was User:Chetblong. (And the recommendations were 8 for keep, 1 for delete; it would have taken a very strong deletion argument to overcome that.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My first question

Can you instruct me how to set up a bot to archive messages? I was reading the Miszabot page and one of the Cluebot pages, but I was a little confused. I guess it's not necessary, really. I'm undecided as to whether I should archive my old messages manually (which I've been doing) or to have a bot do it. Enigma msg! 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes I will send you a set of detailed instructions - it isn't too complex. But if you don't mind I will do it a little later today as I am just moving into work mode.--VS talk 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. There's no hurry at all. Enigma msg! 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please refer to this talk page

Before you sending me that warning message, I already sent my own message to Jimbo Wales. If necessary, please leave your comment over there. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I note your message regarding Jimbo - and concur with Shell Kinney. I am more than happy for you to wait until Jimbo replies to you but in the meantime I have asked you to show the wikipedia community that you are able to apologise directly to Orderinchaos and I will be interested to see if you are able to bring yourself to achieving that request?--VS talk 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I just walked into this, but I have directed coloane to the discussion at WP:ANI so that he could put his case up. Because I think this is an issue that should be resolved between those two, the community and involving Jimbo is just overkill. Rgoodermote  02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I don't think the personal attacks actually occurred at OrderinChaos's userpage or talk page. The warning you left was somewhat misleading. Enigma msg! 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (smile) You are out to catch me today aren't you? Fixed now and thank you.--VS talk 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to comment on what you said because I'm still laughing about the request for an apology template. Enigma msg! 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make an apology on the Jimbo's talk page. Please see and check if I did it correctly. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you be happy with such an apology if I commented on your education and racial background in disparaging terms? Would you be happy if I put that apology on another person's page or would you think me more polite and courageous if I put it on your page? --VS talk 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
well, you are more than welcome to leave your message comment on my education and racial background. For the disparaging terms, it depends, I don't know honestly. Coloane (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes well there you go Coloane. Thank you - discussion closed for now.--VS talk 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, do you consider this latest remark as a personal attack on the Wiki community & especially on the admins as a whole? As such, will u enforce as per your final warning earlier? (User gone into 'retirement' again). I'm just a casual observer who stumbled upon the posting at Jimbo's page earlier & had a good laugh on his 'cat & mouse' antics with the community all these while. -- 165.21.154.110 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your question - to answer - I have no problems on attacks on Admins or the Wiki community in the format that this editor puts it. The attack is not personal in the same way as the first attacks were and at best continues to show the character of the editor so making the comments rather than anything else.--VS talk 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility

The guy now claims he wants to leave Wikipedia, but I don't care. I'm getting sick of personal attacks. I did warn him.

1 2 3

I never deleted any of his redirects, as he claims. I posted a few of them at RfD. I'm not an admin, obviously. Also, I never "threatened" him. I simply asked that he stop making personal attacks on my Talk page. Enigma msg! 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sub-section

You just archived what I left on your page. Was that an accident? Anyway, the guy just left an apology on my talk page. Very strange series of events. Enigma msg! 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • My apologies - yes that was an accident - didn't see it amongst so many messages last night, and was trying to deal with some of the not requested responses from user:Igorberger whilst looking at an MfD on his talk page. Sounds/looks like the edits on your page were by a guy who thought you were someone else?--VS talk 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Doubtful, but it's all water under the bridge now. I see you're dealing with a lot of crap right now. ;) Good luck! Enigma msg! 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the dubious joy of being an admin - where you need a thick skin; the ability to stay calm under all pressure; and a firm understanding that because there are two sides to any position - you are always in the middle and can never be right 100% of the time.--VS talk 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Ralph Sperry, Ph.D

Request for reconsideration of deletion:

Notability was in evidence by the following: Significant newsworthy actions noted in many reliable secondary sources for both hospital closures and for schizophrenia research; In addition there was competition at the highest level of amateur sailboat racing as noted in the NY Times. There were 3 people with arguements to keep plus the author The individuals "voting" for deletion gave no valid or specificly detailed explanations as to why there was not notability; they did not dispute the facts in the article which met notability according biography guidelines: For example one said sailing accomplishments were "grasping at straws" yet it was noteworthy according to guidelines; one person voting for deletion indicated there were no seconday sources which was not correct. You noted that the author "voted" three times, which was correct but done by mistake as acknowledged by the author in the disussion. In any case, notability for inclusion is not based on a vote but rather by the "merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" I don't understand the value of referring to votes when the mert of the arguements are what is determinative. The dimissing of notability out of hand, as some did, without clear arguements that either specifically refute the facts/arguements is not very persuasive especially if there is no reference to specific Wikipedia guidelines for deletion. --Waterwindsail (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Waterwindsail. I respect your request to reconsider and have just spent time looking at the closure again. I do not make my decision by a count of votes - except of course referring in this case to the fact that you had nominated Keep on three occasions. I do not immediately see that that was a mistake on your part - nor do I immediately see that that mistake was acknowledged on your part - indeed the last comment on the page was advice to the Admin closing that you had voted 3 times. I do not agree that the individuals nominating delete gave invalid or unspecific reasons for deletion. I think similarly that the keep comments were valid. There were therefore 6 nominators for delete with what I thought were appropriate arguments and on that basis I formed the view that a consensus had been achieved and I am unable to adjust my decision. That said you may at any time take my decision to WP:DRV - I have no personal relationship with the article and will respect any new decision that is forthcoming.--VS talk 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response RE: Deletion of Article Ralph Sperry, Ph.D.

Thank you so much for you review and I appreciate your perspective. I will request your indulgence to belabor some points as I am new to the process. I am trying to understand the notability guidelines and how one reasonably makes a judgement based on the criteria.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject

The Guidelines indicate the following inclusion criteria 1) that there be multiple independent sources: 2) Received significant honors: 3) Widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

It is my clear feeling that all these criteria were met and I present the following:

First, please see my comments regarding what, I felt, were the not substantiated “votes” to delete in that they did not address specific guideline criteria.

The “votes” to Delete: 1. "Absolutely nothing notable"- hence this individual made this judgement without a reference to criteria 2. "Nothing notable- no strong references": ignors NY Times reference for sailing and schizophrenia research referenced in secondary source book 3. "Accomplished physician but no evidence of real notability": what is “real” notability is that a new Wikipedia standard? 4. "Notability for closing a hospital needs to be proved, external links need to be good": External Links were revised and made good 5. "Non- notability"- again rejected without reference to specifics 6. "Reaching for straws referencing sailing accomplishment": incorrect, the sailing accomplishment meet the notability requirement for highest level of amateur competition

The “votes” to Keep: 1. hospital president was the subject of reliable sources 2. notable positions: numerous hospital president positions 3. seems to have more than enough reliable sources


In sum, There is no debate on the following as the consensus including the delete, seem to indicate that there are reliable sources, good external links, that the individual is an accomplished physician, acknowledged for closing hospitals, schizophrenia research and sailing accomplishments in secondary sources.

The Guidelines were met specifically as follows: 4) that there be multiple independent sources: this seems to be accomplished 5) Received significant honors: for sailing accomplishments in NY Times 6) Widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Schizophrenia research and closing of hospitals


The criteria seem to be met.

Finally to correct the record, the author did acknowledge the comment to make responses into a single vote and wrote in the page: “Will do, good suggestion”. He was in the process of making the changes if y ou look through earlier versions. In fact he made some changes already and was going to return to the article to follow-through with the suggestion. Why are their continuing references to “votes” in the discussion? The guidelines have two contradictory positions on the issue of voting. On the one hand I consensus needs to have some reference to numbers but the guidelines are clear that it is the merit of the arguments that are determinative. I was aware of the number of delete “votes” but felt that their comments were not sufficiently detailed nor with reference to the guidelines so I did not address them.

Thank you for your review and consideration and your indulgence for this rather lengthy response.

--Waterwindsail (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:I recommend to you to get a copy of the article and bring it to your sandbox so you can keep building and improving it and you can try to bring it to main space later on. You can also bring the issue to DRV if you so desire but without seeing the article in the first place I cannot comment on that. I did look at the discussion at AfD and it did seem that there was a consensus for deletion and VirtualSteve acted accordingly with the deletion policy. Igor Berger (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Please allow me the opportunity of answering questions on my talk page in my own words Igor - I do not appreciate this type of edit except where senior editors or other admins and I have an agreement of such support. In the future, perhaps, when you gain a good deal more experience on wikipedia and I have come to an opinion that I can trust you to comment on my behalf I will request you to assist in my absence. I will be removing your future comments.--VS talk 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful suggestions; I appreciate that you took the time to comment.Perhaps I am uneducated in the Wikipedia concensus model; I read the following: "So in summary, Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. " In my opinion there was not a concensus based on what I read about this in the policy. I will await to hear again from VirtualSteve and then do as you suggest and I guess I can request that he send me a copy of the article to work on. Is there a way you can access the article; I would like your opinion. --Waterwindsail (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As indicated on your talk page - I will answer this question and your above request in more detail shortly - but in a nutshell any administrator (including myself can get access to a deleted article).--VS talk 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed I was a confused as to why Igorberger was responding. Thank you for clarifying who has authority to write for you on your talk page! I guess if he wanted to comment he should have written something on my talk page? When you have a chance I look forward to any additional comments you have regarding my arguments in this section. --Waterwindsail (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman

Hi, in this close you seem to have paid a lot of attention to numbers ("27 keeps (inclusive of 3 single issue IP nominators and one person who expressed clear COI) & 8 Merge (inclusive of 1 who later changed his/her mind) versus 19 deletes (inclusive of 1 single issue IP nominator) and 1 absolute Redirect") but not that much to the very strong Biographies of living persons arguments. Would you please reconsider this close? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I was expecting at least one comment from this complex AfD. Whilst I very much respect your continued interest and your right to question my decision I ask that you please read my close again - I did not pay undue attention to the numbers but added them as a part of my closure just to give comparison values. I can assure you - as I stated in my close I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed. Whilst I saw good arguments - I saw them from both sides and that fact and the fact that a consensus to close was not formed forced my action as the closing administrator to a keep.--VS talk 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you did really pay much attention to the views expressed. The very tenuous nature of this person's presence in the public mind is perhaps best gauged by the comments of Clark Hoyt, the New York Times' own "Public Editor", or ombudsman, who criticised the executive editor, Bill Keller, for running the story: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics - sex - it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance...The article was notable for what it did not say. It did not say what convinced the (McCain) advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what Mr McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."[6].
Hoyt was surprised that the story was run at all. We're now in danger of enshrining what Bill Keller's own Public Editor describes as a bad editorial call as an article on Wikipedia about a blameless lobbyist, as a result of innuendo published by an overexcited newspaper editor. Isn't this precisely the kind of situation that WP:ONEEVENT (formerly WP:BLP1E) exists for? Here the consensus of BLP-related view is that the article does not pass WP:ONEEVENT. The arguments against those views are basically "other shit exists" (". Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability." -Therefore), or the bizarre "we can't know anything about the subject's long-term notability" (-BusterD, who was strangely using this as an argument to keep). This is a classic BLP deletion case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position and I can see that you want to keep expressing your position. I wonder if you are actually talking about this article or more specifically about John McCain lobbyist controversy. In any event I do not see your conclusion as being a classic BLP deletion case - and I note that having resided at AfD for such a long time other administrators may have chosen that path to close the AfD and remove the article much earlier if they also saw your point of view. You are of course entitled to bring the situation to WP:DRV and I can assure you from my perspective I have no interest in the actual substance of the article or the result of that DRV and so if the community agrees with you then so be it. I would suggest that you count to 10 (wait a day or two) so as to consider if you wish to run a DRV discussion and then if you are still of the same opinion take the appropriate actions to instigate that process.--VS talk 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I took it to review. [7]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still very green as it regards deletion process (certainly the first time I've gotten so deep into any one such process), and while I've admitted bias in this matter, I'm not exactly an employee of Alcalde and Fay or even "politically motivated" as I've been called (for the first time on Wikipedia!) last week. I was just the editor awake at the time who tried to build a rocky ground for vandals on the page, defending the work. I was wondering why you didn't choose to relist. Is it very unusual for deletion review to start within minutes of AfD closure? BusterD (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good question. I should start by saying you are clearly using a neutral point of view in your debates and that is rare in the area of politics - and I commend you for it. A relist is only used if there is not enough discussion regarding any one debate - in this case there were actually more than enough nominations to close the debate (which normally occurs after 5 days of discussion). It is not that unusual to see a deletion review immediately follow an AfD closure especially when a request to reconsider (as show above) is placed by a very keen protagonist for one or the other side of the debate and that person does not get immediate joy from the closing admin. In all consciousness I could not reconsider this debate when it was clear that a delete was not the consensus. --VS talk 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi VirtualSteve, I just arrived at this party and I see I'm already late. Before I even read anything here, I'd like to thank you for stepping into this thankless mess, which was already 84K long, had the odd issue of the WP:BLP1E shortcut and my own long, involved arguments. Oh, and did I mention it's contentious? ... I'll read what's here, then make a comment. But again, thank you. Noroton (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
When I saw that there was already a DRV (that was fast!) I decided to comment there. I hope to take a look at this page later. Noroton (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
VirtualSteve, if you could offer an explanation why you did not find the arguments for deletion or merge strong enough to overpower the !votes at this AfD, it would help in the DRV discussion. One of the reasons that discussion has been so long (I mean despite my habit of writing long) is that I and others are guessing at your reasons. I appreciate the fact that you posted a note there, but simply asserting that you looked at the arguments is no more helpful than the original note at the top of the AfD closing. It seems to me that the more contentious the AfD debate, the more useful an explanation of the reasoning, since consensus is only one element and the minority's arguments can compete with that. You might also want to review what arguments have been made at the DRV. I'd be interested in your input. I don't want to sound patronizing, but I do appreciate your work here, however much I disagree with the result. And you're right just below: it's imporper to redirect while a DRV is ongoing. Noroton (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grossly inappropriate

Hi, I noticed that you've reverted the redirect and then used your protection powers to protect it. As an experienced admin you must be aware of how grossly inappropriate such an action is, especially when biographies of living persons issues are at stake. Please undo this. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Look again at the AfD closure, my response on your talk page and your own request for DRV. Wikipedia is not yours to manipulate as you see fit. If the DRV returns a secondary review that the article should be deleted or redirected or merged then so be it but please don't ask for a DRV and then go ahead and redirect the article. Stay calm Tony - your point of view is showing.--VS talk 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you to stop making ridiculous accusations, such as your twice repeated claim that I've "kidnapped" an article. I think it's you who needs to calm down a bit. Now consider: you have reverted an edit, in the face of WP:BLP concerns, and then protected the article to "win". That's an abuse of admin power, and a pretty grave one given the BLP concerns. Please consider what you have done, and my reasonable request that you stop abusing your powers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again see my response to you on your talk page - DRV is the process when you do not agree with AfD - you started that process and you should await that result. Good night for now.--VS talk 14:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You really believe a pending deletion review puts a moratorium on redirection? That's a new one on me! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, "your point of view is showing". Perhaps I should take that as a compliment. If I'm being mistaken for any kind of conservative, much less a supporter of John McCain, I must be doing a good job of hiding my very strong and long-held left wing views! You've given me cause to laugh, Steve, and thanks for that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[EC] Yes I do in this circumstance Tony - and I note that Doc (who otherwise agrees with you at the DRV) implicitly agrees by his comments insofar he comments directly that he only made his redirect before he knew there was a DRV. I think if you are honest you will have noted this. Now finally I note - and I mean this sincerely - that you are an otherwise good editor and whilst I appreciate that you think that there are BLP concerns with this article most of your wiki colleagues did not - so revert back to the editor that you normally are and await a result on your own posting at DRV rather than get all hot and bothered about this situation any further at this time. And now my wiki friend I am to bed for it is 1.30am in the morning in my part of the world. Good night. PS Very glad to hear your laughing even if I did not mean your political point of view. Again good night.--VS talk 14:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm honest, Steve, and I don't think I can accept your claim that a pending deletion review can stop normal editing of an article. That's quite a novel idea. Now again I notice that you're accusing me of losing my cool over this. That's not the case, I assure you. I'm simply asking you to stop abusing your admin powers. Since you undeniably have used your admin powers to protect an article in which you're in dispute, my pointing this out and asking you to undo the harm you've done is in no way a sign that I'm not perfectly calm. I recognise that you must not yet have admitted your misjudgement to yourself, so perhaps your judgement isn't so good at present. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm I am not in dispute over the article - as I have said now on numerous occasions I couldn't care one iota about the article but I do care about process. I note that another person has commented on the incorrect attempt to redirect it whilst there is a DRV - and quite simply my job as an admin is to protect wikipedia. Protecting the article until the close of the DRV hurts no-one (you can still write on the talk page) and allows the consensus as to the position of the article to form fairly.--VS talk 01:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I found a typo here. I often find things on Wikipedia that I'm not sure how to edit, because the page/template/whatever is copied from somewhere else and isn't editable there. In this case, there's a note that says "Additionally, if your primary involvement one wikipedia..." Both mistakes. Enigma msg! 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Virtual, I've taken care of the typos as you seem to be offline. Cheers, Sarah 10:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ms Sarah :) - Yes I had a dinner party at home and it kept me offline. I appreciate you helping Mr Enigma (a very promising up and coming editor).--VS talk 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. Enigma msg! 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Social_engineering_Internet

VirtualSteve I really ask you to recluse yourself from WP:SEI discussion because of your personal involvment with me. I would like an uninvolved admin to comment on the article esay to preserve WP:NPOV. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry Igor I can not sit idly by and watch you attempt to disrupt wikipedia - especially it appears that you are attempting, in numerous ways, to promote your own outside business by false comments that your software is supported by the wikipedia org.--VS talk 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry Steve disrupt Wikipedia is your opinion. You are not judged, jurry, and executioner. If you can show me that you are more NPOV I would adhere to your thoughts and guidence, but from day one that we came in contact you have been pusing me. Why is that? Why you do not WP:AGF on my behalf. Is it colture differences? You where brought up to believe certain things and I have been brought up to believe other things? Wikipedia is a medley of different coltures and different opinions. Why are you so intreged with my behaviour and my actions? Please try to be neutral in you judgement. As soon as you do not agree with me you cite CIVIL. Why we cannot agree to disagree? Please teach me, please guide me to NEUTRALITY. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Igor I have tried many times to help you. I would rather not talk about silly things like culture differences etc. because they are just not valid. I have tried many times to guide you to neutrality and I have often said to you that I am not trying to "delete" you or "execute" you or all of these other emotive terms that you use. You have been told in the MfD by a completely new editor when multiple people independently characterize your actions as disruptive, that is prima facie evidence that disruption has occurred. I strongly urge the editor in question to consider what that means. but you still do not adjust you methods. There appears nothing more that can be done to assist you Igor because your continued requests for help are just met with your back turned.--VS talk 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Steve not true. I do listen to your conserns and advice. Wikipedia is just important for me as for you. We are both volunteering our time and energy here. Igor Berger (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I understand whatever I say is not true. Okay got it. Thank you.--VS talk 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, you might want to look over the content of these articles to see if any suggestive wording or linkspamming has occurred. I've skimmed over them quickly but you're more an expert on the current topic than I. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, I have fixed both Websites now not to imply that I work or consult for Wikipedia. As far as the links to PHSDL Websites that Longhair is refering to all edits were done in good faith and relevent to the articles. You are welcome to bring the relevency issue to the articles' tal pages and remove any reference that you feel is not relvent or Spammy. PHSDL is a free service that I provide to forum owners and bloggers to fight Zlob Trojan Malware Spam. There is no monetary benifit for me to promote the Website. Sorry for being hard headed earlier. Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Longhair - was away most of today and about to go out for another couple of hours but wanted to acknowledge your message - with a promise to consider the matter/edits and give my opinion a bit later this evening. Igor I note your comments above and your comments at the ANI thread (and interestingly you returning the PHSDL matter to the MfD matter which I thought you were arguing was not related). However I appreciate that you have made changes and will look closely at them - of course I am not the only voice and others will have alternative or compromised views - but as I promise above I will also return with my thoughts at ANI and to the pages Longhair highlights above for your assistance as well.--VS talk 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, PHSDL is an anti Spam project. There is nothing to Spam there. I even help Google, AboutUs, StopBadware, and SpamAssassin. All for free..:) You can see here Aboutus PHSDL template Igor Berger (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve, I am a software developer who thought it would be fun and interesting to contribute to Wikipedia for a while. I came here because User:Durova invited me. I have no conflict of interest with my Websites, the other SEO people and Wikipedia. I did not come here to promote my Website, the people, or myself. I came to help build Wikipedia as a volunteer. I guess too many years as a programmer burned me out and I figured it is nice to give from one heart to an interesting and good project as Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Look Igor I don't want to upset you but when do you think you will get around to answering a question directly. I don't care what your business interests are - I don't even care if it is free (even if I seriously doubt the veracity of your comments on wikipedia and on your websites when your websites appear very much to be asking for monetary donations - which your comments about wikipedia appear to be written so as to give some grandeur to) - what is important is that you are using Wikipedia to further your private interests. That is not quietly volunteering your time to wikipedia, it is in fact taking from wikipedia by virtue of your association. Now it wouldn't matter if you were Greenpeace, Save the Whales, Amnesty International or the United Nations - you simply can't (a) say that wikipedia is linked to your organisation in the way that you are doing unless you have the foundations permission, and (b) you can't edit articles in the way that you are doing as it is a clear breach of conflict of interest. And so my only questions at the ANI thread is do I/we write a report to the foundation and how do we deal with an editor like you who seems to wish to twist and turn constantly rather than just telling the truth, stopping all conflict of interest and moving on to some "fair dinkum" editing. I also want to take this moment to ask you what you are going to do with the three articles you have written which also have a clear conflict of interest issue because you say they are your friends and they also are linked on your web-site? And I want to remind you that you are not answering my other legitimate question - posed implicitly by your comments at ANI which is - can you show me other editors with business websites that are using the name of wikipedia in the way that you are? So if you can answer these questions then please come and tell me - if not please don't come here to evade the question with more of these guile filled comments.--VS talk 12:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox page for article Ralph Sperry

I did as you suggested; can you check it? Not sure how other editors will check it or have access to it as you indicate. How do they?--Waterwindsail (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • My suggestion is for you to spend a week or so on it - fine tuning and then you can go to other editors whom you have a relationship with (or who commented on the first draft) and ask them for input. I will be happy to do so also at that time.--VS talk 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank your for your help. Could you tell me how this process differs from a formal deletion review? If it is different. it sounds like it is a prior step, at what point should I request that?--Waterwindsail (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No this is not a prior step - it is a way of attempting a re-posting of the article. DRV requires you to convince the community that the deletion was incorrect - you can do that instead but you are bound by the second decision. This process allows you to re-create and providing that it is meets the guidelines it can be posted safely back to mainspace.--VS talk 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP for you to review

Please report vandalism to WP:AIV rather than to one particular person as it will get a much faster response (follow instructions at the top for warning, reporting etc). As well, IPs need to be re-warned when they haven't been warned for days as it's quite likely a different person...especially when it's a known shared IP, as is the case with this one. However, because it's a school IP, I've gone ahead and blocked anonymous editing. Sarah 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I report most cases to AIV, but I sometimes report a specific case to VS per a discussion on AIV's talk page some time ago. In certain cases, it's not prudent to use AIV because most of the admins monitoring AIV handle it a certain way. Enigma msg! 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention for Places: Wollongong

Hi, sorry to bother you directly, but I have exactly the same issue as User:AussieLegend with Wollongong in that it is both a city (which is the subject of the existing article) and the central suburb (an article I would like to create).

I've read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places 3 times but I'm still confused. What should I call the article on the suburb: Wollongong (suburb), New South Wales ??? Grogan deYobbo (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a good question - you could of course create the article using the name you suggest and someone might come with another view to assist. Alternatively you could incorporate the suburb in the city article. Examples of this are Wagga Wagga which is a city and also links as the suburb (see template of suburbs below) and Margaret River which states in the lead sentence that it is both a river and a town. Hope that helps?--VS talk 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK thanks for the input. You have confirmed that the name I proposed is acceptable at least as a starting point, so I think I will go ahead with that. I'd decided against incorporating a suburb discussion into the existing article as it already has to deal with enough flavours of Wollongong as a city: the extended Greater Wollongong area, the Wollongong statistical Subdivision, the Wollongong statistical Urban Centre/Locality, and with links to the Wollongong LGA. Plus I wish to affirm Wollongong's status as I have disputed Shellharbour's claim to being a city, where as part of the Wollongong urban area I believe it should be considered a suburb. Cheers ! Grogan deYobbo (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pleasure was all mine - good luck!--VS talk 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Conflict of Interest Igor - ANI thread

Hey there--not sure what else I can add that's not beating a dead horse; it seems obvious to me as an observer that he is clearly implying a corporate relationship with WP that doesn't exist, and implying that his company provides volunteer services to WP (which would have, among other things, tax implications--he could "write off" the cash amount on his company taxes, e.g.). He should simply remove all the references to WP from his business sites, but he seems to be being obstinate--if I was doing something actionable, I wouldn't wait for an ANI consensus, anymore than I would wait for an ANI consensus to advise me if I can break any law. I'd suggest an official WP request to remove immediately. He's clearly in the wrong. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by my talk page requesting I revisit this thread. I think what I see from here is that Igor denies what you are accusing him of, and as you say, he evades the issues at hand. Just advise the Foundation and be done with it. You've wasted far too much of your valuable time on this unresponsive user already... -- Longhair\talk 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Longhair. Assuming good faith can only go so far. Cheers and good luck, Mattinbgn\talk 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you - yes I have come to the same conclusion already also. Best wishes--VS talk 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP vandal

  • Done - and happy to help but bear in mind Sarah's comments earlier about speed etc and posting to AIV (as you will have seen I also watch the AIV page also).--VS talk 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Check out how many reports I've made to AIV today. It may blow your mind. :) Yes, I've seen now and in the past that you and Luna are among the admins who monitor AIV. Enigma msg! 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I have noticed how many you are making. I think that this is great work - but (as an editor interested in your growing future with Wikipedia) you should also concentrate on article creation and editing - especially because I see you as a future administrator (6 months or so from now) and you need to get some DYK's and GA's under your belt. Cheers--VS talk 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. As you've seen, most of my work here has been reverting vandalism. I often update articles and make minor corrections. However, I'd need some help before I started with DYK's and GA's. I've heard that one of things looked for in RfAs is article creation, and also bringing articles up to GA and FA standards. I have zero to very little experience in those areas. Enigma msg! 21:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Jump in with both feet is my advice - start with a DYK (I can help you and we can even co-work on one) from DYK GA becomes a possibility and then eventually FA. But as Aristotle said - practice is the best form of instruction. Let me know when you are ready to start.--VS talk 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm in Eastern timezone, USA. I have to leave shortly, but I'll be back tonight (about three hours from now). I'll be available on Wikipedia for the next 5 hours after that. If not, maybe tomorrow, when I have more availability. I'd like to get started as soon as possible, but I want to be able to set aside a block of time. Cheers, Enigma msg! 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay well like I said - pick a topic and come to my email address to tell me what it is. We'll discuss a time frame and process and then start a sandbox.--VS talk 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sent you an e-mail yesterday, by the way. Enigma msg! 17:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you receive my last e-mail? Enigma msg! 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I received one that was just question marks ??? --VS talk 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, that must've been mine. Enigma msg! 07:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I took it you had no idea as yet (or you were writing to me in a strange language :) )--VS talk 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It didn't have text in it? The last one I sent had a message. The ?s is the name associated with the account. I have to change that. Speaking of which, I think your Last Name should be Steve. Enigma msg! 07:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, you're right. Not sure what happened there. Enigma msg! 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No text at all just ???? - not sure what you mean by the last name bit?--VS talk 07:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re-sent. Enigma msg! 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers - will get back to you soon.--VS talk 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You have mail.--VS talk 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, it's me again! Long time, no speak. In the past month, I think I've become significantly more familiar with the various relevant policies, and I am now working on articles. Making major overhauls to an article doesn't come easily to me, but I did a lot of work on United States-Australia relations tonight with the help of User:Scarian. Per MBisanz's recommendation, I will begin to look at WP:Requested Articles. Finally, if you have any suggestions, or if you have time to try and work with me/help me with things, please let me know. All advice/criticism/help is appreciated. I decided to undergo Editor Review. Thanks a lot, Enigma msg Review 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment left for you my friend - at edit review.--VS talk 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. One part I didn't understand was what you said about edit summaries. You mean I shouldn't use smilies? Enigma message Review 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No not the smilies - I was referring to edits like when you reached 7000, 6000 and 3000 as your edit count. Given that your main work is vandal fighting (all good) there is a danger that people will consider that your comments at those edit counts are too exuberant etc. Hope that helps?--VS talk 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I see what you mean. I'll avoid exuberant edit summaries in the future. Enigma message Review 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers my friend - let me know by email when you believe you're more ready.--VS talk 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speak of the devil! I passed 8,000 edits somewhere earlier today and I didn't even notice. :) You mean notify you about a possible nomination? Or notify you about working on an article. I'd still like to improve the Sid Luckman article, but I don't know where to start. Enigma message Review 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Both - but probably the last first. And learning where to start is just about starting, committing and researching (and very important to do first before you seek nomination IMHO)--VS talk 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman music

The ANI thread was archive: [8] To me, it's as clear-cut as the Igor case. The only difference is that the guy was adding stuff to an existing article. I maintain that his purpose in doing so was solely (or 95%) to plug his CD set. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cheers BB - appreciate your assistance.--VS talk 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry...

Apologies for the delay in emailing, Steve. You should have an email in your inbox now. :) Cheers, Sarah 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sarah - no problems about the delay.--VS talk 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • & Pinged back Sarah :) --VS talk 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/Statoids

There was a second article hiding in that nomination: List of statoid name changes. Not sure if the !voters noticed it either, but it looks like an uncontroversial delete to me. Jfire (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks - You know I did see it and was about to delete and then raced off to put some spuds in the oven and well got more involved in the lamb roast accompanying. You're invited to dinner as reward for the reminder. :) Now done. Cheers.--VS talk 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Igor

The fellow seems wound up, but I don't think he aspires to be a troll. I've asked him to stop talking about you. Could you try to ignore him completely if I keep watch and try to steer him away from trouble? Jehochman Talk 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Jehochman - I have some time ago tried to leave Igor alone - I do not care about his edits in general and do not as he puts it follow him around (quite frankly he isn't making many edits of any real substance for my interest), indeed when he comes here I remove his edits. However as an administrator I see the nonsense he places at ANI elsewhere and I chip in where necessary (in all but one case to support other editors who are complaining about him). On that basis, whilst it is always unpalatable to us who try and try again honestly to assume good faith - Igor is gaming the system and a detailed walk through his history will reveal that, and he is very, very untruthful (I could put that much stronger). For example the rubbish that he just put up at his talk page about my sending sarcastic emails is an absolute and complete lie - indeed I almost reported that to AN/I. Towards a firm answer to your fair question then, my intention is to continue to stay away however if or when he crosses the line anywhere that it becomes necessary I will either report him, warn him or block him as necessary.--VS talk 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh and I should add Jehochman that if Igor was even one iota honestly serious about his willingness to stay away for 30 days as he requested on your talk page he would have added the script that two editors now have advised him will stop him "getting into trouble". Could you - considering you are happy to brokerage this - ask him directly if he would be kind enough to add that script - or perhaps because he may not understand how to set up such a page - offer to do that for him?--VS talk 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The current noticeboard behaviour is just unacceptable in my view. I think he is acting without malice and is not deliberately trying to cause trouble but the reality is he turns threads into a garbled mess that nearly always get sidetracked into some obscure and unnecessary tangent. I have really had enough of it. It wouldn't be nearly so bad if he only made a few posts but he seems to be all over the place and increasingly so as time progresses making it entirely impossible to ignore him. Sarah 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi, Sarah! I think our best bet is to block him whenever he becomes disruptive, regardless of motives. I've asked him to stay out of project space. If he ignores my advice, escalating blocks will resolve the problem. Jehochman Talk 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed. But your thoughts on helping him by his placing script into his user page?--VS talk 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Steve, which script are you talking about? The Wikibreak enforcer or something else? Sarah 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes Sarah - the Wikibreak enforcer script - two editors came to Igor's talk page to give him links and assistance after he was turned down by Jehochman for a 30 day block but he has just ignored their offers.--VS talk 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Hmm, yes, I really don't think he will use it because he really likes editing here. Still, it's up to him whether or not he uses it, I don't think we should press him to use it. The other thing is that the break enforcer doesn't address the problem here. He would return from the break and begin doing the exact same things again. I'd prefer to find a remedy to the problem rather than delay it. Sarah 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Fair enough - all right well it looks J's suggestion of escalating blocks whenever he becomes disruptive, regardless of motives it is then. Thanks for coming into the thread - I'm off to do other work. Best wishes as always.--VS talk 05:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Hi Jeh. Talking about unnecessary and obscure tangents, I have one of my own: you and Steve are both my admin nominees. :) I agree re using blocks for disruption regardless of the motives. I actually think that a couple of short blocks might start to get the message across as he seems to really like editing here and in this case not being able to might make more of an impression than anything we can say to him. Thanks Jeh. Cheers to both of you. Sarah 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gundagai is new ACOTF

You voted for Gundagai, New South Wales for Australian collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so you might like to help to improve the article. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 09:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cool - I'll be coming in to help.--VS talk 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shortland Street episodes

ArbCom says you can't delete, but you can close as keep if you want. You may be hesitant, just a heads up :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks - am being generous I know but decided to give one more relist for now seeing as how it is (on count only - not reason) 5 to 4 keep.--VS talk 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klondike Kalamity AfD

[edit] Deletion Review for Klondike Kalamity

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Klondike Kalamity. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the notification - I have responded.--VS talk 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klondike Kalamity

Could you put a copy of this in my userspace? Thanks.Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No problems - done here. Best wishes.--VS talk 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Green

Where should I make my complaint? 81.152.148.200 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • First read Wikipedia:Edit war for tips - if necessary then complain at 3RR or ANI. Thanks for your question. Keep editing - consider signing up to an account name.--VS talk 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like a second report got Tom Green the block>--VS talk 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Darling on hold

Hi, thank you for your help with this article. I have now completed the GA review and placed it on hold. I have a couple of minor concerns, as I don't have much knowledge of cricket. In the second paragraph of the "Return to cricket" section, I don't understand what "Noble taking 5/51" means. Similar phrasing is used twice more in the article, so I was thinking that it would solve everything if someone could just add an explanation to that sentence while leaving in the 5/51 part. For example, "Noble taking 5/51, or..." If you have a chance, I would really appreciate it if you could help. Even if you could just tell me what 5/51 means on my talk page, I would be willing to fix it up in the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Gary - Thanks for your message. My involvement with the article is only so much as helping my friend Mattinbgn (I deserve no recognition with regards the GA). In answer to your question 5/51 or similar derivatives is the mathematical nomenclature used in cricket to display either that the score at a particular time was 5 men out for 51 runs (in test cricket you must get 10 men out) or in the case of referring to a bowler (a person who sends the ball down to the batsmen) it may refer to the amount of wickets (men out) that he has achieved for a certain amount of runs. That is Bowler A has taken 5 men out for 51 runs (5/51). In the current article it is referring to the later in the sentence Noble taking 5/51 but to former in the case of the sentence England were 5/48. Hope that makes sense and assists?--VS talk 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help. The article was well written and well referenced, so there wasn't a lot left to do. I appreciate your willingness to help with my concerns. I find that it really speeds up the GA review process when more than just the nominator is willing to address the issues. I learned a lot about cricket while doing the review, and your explanations were very helpful. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise to see the article pass GA without further work from me. Thanks very much for taking care of that for me. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • My absolute pleasure Matt. Glad to see you getting the cricket articles up with your fellow enthusiasts. Glad that I could help in a small way.--VS talk 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Jacobson issue

You may remember seancarlin, who repeatedly edit-warred the Dana Jacobson article to represent his POV. The article lay dormant for a while after that, but now two inactive editors have appeared out of nowhere to start edit-warring the article and accuse me of "vandalism". I'm not really sure what to do. User:Rothamell and User:Sukiari are the two editors in question. Please advise. Enigma msg! 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Enigmaman - sorry I am in Amsterdam at the moment and generally across Europe for a few days - a little difficult to help. Report as necessary to AIV would be my advice at this time. I will come back to assist as soon as I can.--VS talk 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. I'll await your return. Enjoy the trip. Enigma msg! 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyway, any thoughts on this? I thought the issue was done with after the seancarlin incident, but apparently not. Enigma message Review 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are battling against a couple of editors who have a bent - but the comments related in the article do appear to be cited now and have been reviewed by other editors. The article is relatively stable (other than the edit you recently and correctly reverted). I would walk away from the two editors accusing you at this time - being called a vandal is never pleasant but the unpleasantness soon departs when you walk away.--VS talk 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the sources meet WP:V. The best there is alludes to "Internet reports", which is referring to a single unsubstantiated report from Deadspin. I'm concerned that it violates WP:BLP. Like I stated in the dispute with Seancarlin, the only thing we have reliable sources for is that she cursed the University of Notre Dame. Enigma message Review 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • When I go to the article's talk page, I see the box staring at me accusingly. ;) "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." To me, the fact that there are no reliable sources for some of the accusations indicates to me that the information should not be there. Enigma message Review 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay that's a pretty good argument - I will go back and see what I think of the source, and come back here again.--VS talk 08:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing I mentioned above is I would be more inclined to trust the judgment of the users in question if they were active contributors. Rothamell is almost an SPA, and I'm not exactly impressed with Sukiari's contributions, either. Enigma message Review 15:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention one more thing that irked me, even though I know barnstars are basically meaningless and can be given by anyone. Rothamell awarded a barnstar to the other account for edit-warring and incivility, basically. Always good to see that. Enigma message Review 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi - I've been away for a day or so. I have looked at all of the references relating to the controversy. Whilst the four citations are not the greatest, the wording that Dana Jacobson "reportedly" stated .... can probably be lived with because from my perspective the references do add something that seems to assist the claim and that is Jacobson's apology which importantly includes a clear reference to 'religion'. I have also looked at the two editors you mention above. In a nutshell I do not think that Rothamell is an SPA and I do agree that Sukiari was particularly uncivil in his aggressive defence of the article. Indeed I have commented on his talk page and on the article talk page also.--VS talk 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glitter again

Left a notice for Binguyen, here. Exhausting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • sigh*. What a time-waster that woman is. She wrote to the unblock list and complained about the blocks on the original accounts. I replied to her and I got the impression that she wasn't done. By the way, Sandy, Steve's away traveling at the the moment but if you spot any more accounts and need more blocks or anything done, I'm happy to help. :) Sarah 07:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just checking in from Amsterdam. Thanks Sarah. Sandy - I will be back to scrutinize and assist in a more diligent way when I return. --VS talk 07:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tlogmer/Klondike Kalamity

When this article was userfied, shouldn't the edit history have been preserved? It doesn't seem to have been. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely, the history needs to be maintained intact for the sake of the GFDL. Steve's away at the moment, though, so I've repaired it for him. It should be right now. Cheers, Sarah 11:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you Sarah - and thanks for picking up my oversight Metropolitan90. Cheers from Europe.--VS talk 07:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NX Zero

Hello there,

I'm just popping by to ask for some advice. A while ago I created NX Zero, an article about a little known Brazilian rock band (well, they're little known to us - in Brazil they're actually massive). Quite rightly in my opinion, you deleted the article on the basis that I had failed to provide any actual sources when creating the article, and I then left it for ages. This fact is obviously fine (as if it needs me saying so!) but the reason I'm messaging you is that I would now like to recreate the article (this time sourcing it properly) and I'd like to start with what information was previously on the page. Is it possible to recover the deleted information somehow? Or do you by any chance keep backups of deleted articles? I know it's a bit of a long shot, but I thought I'd just message you on the off chance that you can help.

Thanks, -GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers from Amsterdam Matt. Appreciate your support.--VS talk 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TJ TERRY

dude dont talk to me! i am obviously not listening to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Terry (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I should block this "dude". ScarianCall me Pat 19:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzo Malfatti

I see you deleted this page in February but it's reappeared. is it OK now or should be be deleted again? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the question. It was deleted as a speedy for at the time being a blatant copyright vio of this page [[9]]. Article appears to be okay on this occasion by my reckoning. Cheers.--VS talk 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage protection

Hey, I noticed you protected my userpage located here: User:Chicken7. I had a retired tag on it because I was retired. But now I'm back so can youn please unprotect it. Thankyou. Chicken7 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey Chicken7 - yes I protected it because someone had attempted to take your identity. I have now unprotected. Best wishes.--VS talk 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterwindsail

Can you please review this sandbox article and let me know your thoughts on notability at this time ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waterwindsail/Sandbox thank you --Waterwindsail (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I will be looking at this article in the next day or two Waterwindsail and giving you my opinion. Hope that suits your timeline.--VS talk 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Waterwindsail - I have since commented on this article on the sandbox talk page. Come back to me when you have considered that comment. Cheers.--VS talk 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Mumm

Stop being better than me at article writing! -.- ScarianCall me Pat! 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! The only other editors editing that article are Casliber and VirtualSteve, both of whom left me reviews! *looks around suspiciously and notes that roughly no one else has seen the article from a different location* Enigma message Review 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I can only smile.--VS talk 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Chicken7

I noticed that you were the one that blocked Gaogier. You might be interested to know that User:Chicken7/User page also redirects to his userpage, which leaves me with a suspicion that Chicken7 is likely to be him too. Was a checkuser done when the block was? Have a nice day! asenine t/c 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the report - since fixed. Was redirected by a bot after Gaogier first usurped Chicken7's account.--VS talk 22:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Im not him. But block me anyway. I'll be happy. Why would I edit so long to be a sock puppet. And thankyou for your message but I do quit. I don't understand how you can cope with it here. there's probably more rules than articles. Chicken-7 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Understood - and have blocked you for 3 hours - not because you requested but because you attacked. If you want to retire or quit leave that as a message on your talk and user page. Cheers and best wishes.--VS talk 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I should probably have picked that up - I did look at the history (missed the robot note somehow). asenine t/c 10:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey no problems Asenine - I'd leave him for a bit - he may come back but it is unlikely. Cheers! --VS talk 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unlikely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.126.111 (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bump an old subject, Steve. I know who Chicken and Gaogier are and they're not the same person. Sarah 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Sarah - Yes I didn't think they were the same person either. Also Chicken a couple of weeks ago retired again and I protected his page again because Gaogier had pinched it before and he indicated that he could do so again. Does that make any sense?--VS talk 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Igorberger

Hi Steve. I have been watching with interest your good work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and elsewhere regarding the above user and I must say I have been impressed with your patience and diligence. I dare say I would have lost patience a long time ago with the entire process. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Matt - appreciate your interest (and expected you would be watching). It is hard (make that very hard) to maintain patience with this editor - he tends to attack from a variety of levels both on and off wiki. That said Igor is on his last chance and from that perspective it will be very difficult for him to convince his mentor (another good operator) Barneca that he has changed and then to convince the community through another ANI thread. We will wait and see.--VS talk 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Astral dreadnought

Hello! :) In March 2008, Astral dreadnought was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi it is not appropriate to restore the article in that way as the consensus is not my immediate right to overturn - however you can attempt (using Wiki's guidelines) to re-add the material to your new page. Let me know if you need help with this. --VS talk 08:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - A number of other article edit histories have been restored by the originally deleting admins, while turned into redirects in the manner I'm suggesting. Are you sure this process is inappropriate? The article would remain soft-deleted, upholding the consensus, but the edit history would be available for anyone seeking to use the text therein. BOZ (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • HI Boz - sorry I missed your first return on this - thanks for redirecting my attention to it. My difficulty with your request is nothing more than I do not quite see the facts of your suggestion that At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, (I) deleted the article. Rather it was deleted because the consensus indicated notability issues. On that basis I can not quite see how your creation of the list of advanced dungeons and dragons etc provides that notability. I do note that a commentator or two indicated that (the name) Astral dreadnought should simply be put in a list - and I wonder why you don't just do that?--VS talk 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that, and I will put it in the list eventually (God, it is a massive project). Yes, you are correct that consensus determined it should be deleted due to lack of notability, but you are also correct in that there were comments that it could be redirected to a list, which did not exist at the time. My assertion that the consensus went to a delete because no list existed is a bit of a leap of judgement on my part, but I do feel it's largely true; if a list had existed at the time, I think the result of the AFD would have been redirect rather than delete. I agree that creating a list has nothing to do with granting notability which is why I'm not asking to have the article fully restored (and as you note you would not do that anyway), but that I was just asking for a history restore and a redirect to the List article so that any information from the currently-deleted article could be placed into the list as needed. In fact, I created those lists in reaction to all the similar deletions going on, in order to have a place to merge non-notable monster articles to. I have asked other deleting admins to have the edit histories restored on several other monster articles and the process has been uncontroversial so far; but if you're concerned that there is a consensus issue I could bring it to del-rev instead to find a new consensus? Thanks for listening! :) BOZ (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - well enough put. And now done. Cheers!--VS talk 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - it really is much appreciated.  :) BOZ (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrool,_New_South_Wales

Hi

Steve Barnett here. Hope it's OK to check something with you Talk rather than Question Page...

I'm working on a book about aspects of life in Aust, and in one of the sections looking at unusual festivals/events, we discuss the silo kicking at Mirrool. I've seen he photos on the Wkip page and would v. much lke to be able to reporduce one or two of them in our book.

I've read the Wikip copyright guidelines as to text repro but not sure about the protocol re images, and I gather that these pix are ours, yes?

My book comes out end of the year and of course we'd acknowledge copyright etc.

Would appreciate your soonest reply.

thanks, Steve Steve barnett (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Steve - more than happy for you to use these photos - would appreciate appropriate acknowledgement. --VS talk 08:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] serboalt

Hi Steve,

I only recently discovered that you deleted the Coalition for Diversity entry based on consensus. However, I did not have the opportunity or notice to object. I believe that it is a notable group and that it is an interesting entry. Many student groups are of interest, and they should not be deleted solely because they may be a student group. For example, the student group SNCC is famous. The coalition has been in newspaper articles, as well as been a group actively involved in a legal matter of national significance. How may I and others appeal your judgment in this matter so that you can republish the Coalition for Diversity Page? serboalt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serboalt@aol.com (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Serboalt - I note that in fact your talk page did provide you with notice of the pending deletion. That said my deletion of the article only occurred as a part of my duties as an administrator. Appealing of deletion can normally be undertaken at this page. Best wishes. --VS talk 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mirrool photos

Hi Steve just picked up your post on my Talk Page and wanted to thank you for permission. Will arrange acknowledgement as requested. best wishes, Steve Steve barnett (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Greetings good Sir. Just to let you know, I have forwarded to you an email we received. It said in the subject line, "Virtual Steve please read", so I'm just playing the resident postie. :) Trust all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sarah - all is well. That's an interesting message - I note that Gaogier has not apologised for his sock-puppetry nor apologised for his usurpation of Chicken7's account (indeed he as much as says he would do it again if needs be). I would be very interested in your opinion? :) --VS talk 06:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I tried to give him some advice on a couple of basic things he needed to do in order to be unblocked but he wasn't very receptive. Then he wrote back and told me he was going to be unblocked (all in caps) so I suggested if that was the case he needn't be writing to me for assistance in being unblocked. I didn't hear anything else after that. I think it's worth keep an eye on his friends page, though, as he seems to always gravitate back to that guy. Hope everything is good with you, Steve and that you're not working too hard. :) Cheers, Sarah 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry what?

What was that all about, on my talk page? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 12:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ahmm - am I mistaken - has someone usurped your signature in the edit diff that I provided? If so I apologise and let me know so I can get to the bottom of it? --VS talk 12:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol, oh no that was me. I was just saying something that most people know, I mean, really I wasnt saying ALL admins are but...cant you take a little criticism? Even in the form of a passing elbow nudge comment? Really? It was like something a ten year old would have shrugged off, Im not a terrorist or anything, lol. Anyway point taken, "Dont even THINK about even thinking about criticizing admins evar!" Np...ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's really not it young man - it is more that for you to come to a general discussion page in such a cowardly drive by manner and write something rude and out of context when other more sensible editors are attempting to solve a problem - well that's the issue. On the other hand if you want to criticise then try and have the intestinal fortitude to do so directly with an Admin - BUT do not make the mistake of making a personal attack. Do it properly and you will find that most Admins (including myself) will take in on the chin no problem.--VS talk 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Man, really, first it was not a personal attack on anyone, its was literally just a passing comment, I had been surfing around and happened across it and was struck with the innocent feeling to leave a brief comment on my general thoughts on alot of admins, your an admin yourself you must know a few bad apples surely. All that aside, it was an innocent comment and not directed and any one or two people but a whole range of abstract people some of whom arent on here for the advancement of fairness, unbaisedness and equalibrium in the articles herein. I meant nothing by it and to have a warning for something so, admitedly, childish is quite frankly beyond me. Please accept my, heart-felt, thousand apologies for offending all the delicate sensibilties that my comment obviously damaged, I never knew I could cause so much hurt with one comment...I could on but I would be making a mountain out of a molehole hill, I think is the expression... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE; italicised denotes a joke, everything else is sincere.

  • As I said - your criticisms are fine - but comments like why does Wikipedia continually pick complete assholes to become admins? placed on a public page and for that matter others on sincere talk pages such as this one do not do you the justice that you so sincerely appear to be expressing with user boxes on your page about your IQ level and your philosophy interests. That said I accept that you realise that you passed on a childish comment - no real harm done. A warning is just that a warning - not the end of the world. Take care. --VS talk 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

If you don't mind, I'd like to know why, first. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I am concerned by your use of the right but want to discuss it with that administrator rather than just remove the right myself at this stage. If you could please return with that information that would be a better approach at this stage in my view. Cheers.--VS talk 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Give me an example. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My rollback is gone anyway. If there are edits that are questionable, you should take it up with me. Your talk page is now off my watchlist, so you can talk on mine. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a complete misunderstanding of what I said. First of all, I explained how the edit was a mistake (I had actually meant to undue the edit) on his talk page. And when I said I can use it any way I wish I meant either for vandalism or unproductive edits. The distinction was made on his talk page. I think next time, you had better talk this over more before making a decision that is obviously wrong. And your back on my watchlist. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your response. If it was a mistake you could have reverted your edit before taking the argument to a long established editor that was justifiably upset by your acting off the cuff, after "a long day at work". You also did not explain to that editor or to the community at large why you think it is your right to use rollback in anyway you wish. As I said I would rather have discussed the removal with the administrator who gave you the rights first so that I could get a second opinion about you as an editor - but you dragging out the appropriate response until you feel it becomes necessary to criticize me because my action is forced to be taken against you, does not help the process. Let me know when you are ready to have me reconsider a return of those rights - perhaps after you realize that not everything you do with rollback is correct. Until then, my best wishes. 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Responded on mine. :)
You assume too much. I never intended to criticize you. But something like this needs to be talked about before you go and remove rollback. You also, still, are misunderstanding. I've already explained and my usage of words was, sadly, ambiguous. That is my fault entirely. But that still is no reason to remove it. The edit I made, was meant to be an undue edit, which was explained as well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what an undue edit is (huh?)? However - perhaps if you just walk away for now and read the rollback information as I suggest and not spend time running to Keeper76 (response also there) or stating that your words I think next time, you had better talk this over more before making a decision that is obviously wrong are not criticism (huh?) then we could all get back on track to making good edits and good faith decisions.--VS talk 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep this off keepers talk, and stick to one location. You fail to see how criticism is placed after you removed rollback, not before. It lacked discussion, as you fail to see. And all because of a simple misunderstanding of words. Oh and I never implied, nor said, that you didn't know what an undue edit was. Its right next to the rollback button, you know, the one I meant to hit? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a question to you - I guess you are meaning Undo?--VS talk 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC) In
Oops. Yes. ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool - now we are both on same wavelength. I appreciate you have a different opinion about this - and that you feel that I didn't discuss it enough with you. All I can say is (again) that I tried - have a look at the top of this thread. Also you should assume good faith - of course I could check to see who gave you the right in the first place (a) I didn't because I wasn't interested in immediately reverting that right, and (b) as I said on Keepers page, by asking you in the manner I did - if you would simply have answered - you would have seen my thread of communication with Nixeagle and been able to chime in. I understand you have other ways of rolling back and I will give you old your rights back once you can establish evidence as per my request above.--VS talk 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think we are on the same wavelength. But just to get this right, you removed rollback because of a comment that I made? I've already acknowledged that my statement wasn't clear (i.e. ambiguous), but I'm wondering how this is justified. It's not based on an edit I made, just a poorly constructed comment due to lack of sleep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  •  :) Not I guess where not. The edit and comments are related - they are related to your actual use of the rollback function; what you use the rollback function for; your failure to actually fix the mistake even though you clearly understood that it was your error and how you could have rectified it; and finally (probably most importantly) what you clearly state was to be your continued paradigm as to the use of the rollback function. Enjoy your beer - have a rest for a couple of hours.--VS talk 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of the mistake until it was reverted, which leaves absolutely no room for correction. The edit is unrelated to the comment. The comment was made because there was a disagreement on rollbacks usage. He thought it was for vandalism only, while I disagree. Its for unproductive edits also, which is what I meant by I'll use it any way I wish (i.e. for unproductive edits as well as vandalism). So to make this even more clear, the comment "using it any way I wish" only means I will use it for both (vandalism and unproductive edits). And I'm not drinking beer. That was only if keeper was coming over for dinner. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you did, thanks. I got a little heated here and there, and I formally apologize. Personal things that happen off-wiki should not be affecting my on-wiki performance. My editing will be back in focus once I fix my off-wiki non wiki related issues. Thanks again. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I note with much relief the above comment (and have copied this to your talk page). Welcome back - I expected that your history as a great editor would not let you down and it clearly has not. My personal thanks in return. Good luck with your off-wiki also.--VS talk 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draegloth

Hello! :) Hope I haven't been too much trouble for you. I'm wondering if you'd be amenable to restoring the edit history of Draegloth which was also nominated for deletion, and redirecting it to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, thus preserving the edit history? BOZ (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Done on the same provisions as Astral. Cheers!--VS talk 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again!  :) BOZ (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dude

i think you will find this is a shared ip, so blocking me would be unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.125.76 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well now I wouldn't be blocking you would I - I'd be blocking the anonymous IP that you are using - and you can overcome this problem by setting up an account, cause if you are serious editor we'd welcome you, dude.--VS talk 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

no, ill stick to encylopedia dramatica thanks mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.125.76 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • As you like - as long as you heed the warning. Cheers!--VS talk 06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaogier

Hello, VirtualSteve. I'd like to talk to you about the indefinite block to Gaogier. I've been working with Gaogier since January of this year and I've been reading all the stuff about the blocks that he's had and the infractions he's committed. After seeing that you were the blocking administrator, I thought I'd bring this discussion to you. If you are no longer handling this block, could you please direct me to the admin who currently is? I'll continue my discussion, assuming you are handling it.

I'm not here to contest the block. I read what was originally the reasons for the block, and I can agree with all of them, though I am not an administrator. I also happen to know that Gaogier has appealed his block a couple of times (and he's sent me the transcripts of the discussion, which is currently here in my talk page archive). I've spoken with him about it a few times and tried to help him because I think he does feel that what he did was wrong and he wants to continue editing in good faith. He talked to me about his actions here through the use of the account TemporaryGaogier, which he says he created against what he wanted to do because he thought it would be a good idea, according to this account's talk page. He's since gone inactive, only posting using an IP occasionally at WT:SEGA.

Having spoken with Gaogier a couple of times, he says he feels like "some sort of bandit" (see here). To me, I think this says he is truly sorry about his actions and he wants to come back, but he knows his slate will never be perfectly clean again. Unfortunately, having read the transcript that I mentioned above, I think Gaogier has a difficult time conveying his thoughts through text.

I'd really like to help Gaogier out as much as I can, seeing as how he created the place that really kickstarted my many contributions to Wikipedia, and I believe it is partially because of him that I am as good of an editor as I am today. I don't think I would have ever become quite as active as I am without him, especially not to the point to heavily contribute to two GA's like I have.

I'm sorry about linking so much text for you to read alongside this discussion, but I thought it might help. In the second link, Gaogier explains his actions some, and I'm sure if you can still contact him, he may tell you more. I'm just trying to help him out as much as I can, and I would appreciate your comments or anything else you have for me.

Also, can you do me a favor and notify me on my talk page when you've replied to this? I have a bad habit of not checking my watchlist, so I might miss a reply otherwise. Thanks. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi there - I appreciate the well put appeal and for the record I have noted the content of discussions between the two of you previously. (Whilst I am very busy at the moment and thus a little less active than normal I do read through most of my watchlist daily). I have a couple of comments which I'd be interested in gaining further understanding on. (1) Gaogier usurped another user's account - I have never seen anything that indicates his apology for doing so - indeed I recall him saying that he could do it anytime because Chicken7 was a friend and would give him the details (difficult now because I have protected that page), (2) Whilst I can understand that a user has difficulty in conveying thoughts through text - Gaogier did appear to show a total ambivalent and somewhat taunting use of text quite adequately to his initial blocking and also used sock-puppetry to express his thoughts quite adequately in other ways at that time, and (3) I (and other admins) have noted his TemporaryGaogier account - and we have allowed that to occur even though technically it is just a means of evading a sock-puppet block - but that said I can't see one iota of evidence directly to the community (or to me) that he is sorry for his breaches against the community (including those above and his attack on other editors) even though with his "temporary" account he could easily have used the system to express his changing attitude (read - growing maturity) to "us". Your thoughts - but more importantly his (because it is contrition or changing attitude that is most important) - would be appreciated. Please reply below to maintain the thread. --VS talk 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, the best way to answer your comments would be for Gaogier to say so himself. Unfortunately, he only pops on Wikipedia every so often, usually leaving a message at WT:SEGA under an IP address. I can understand how you feel about what Gaogier said at that time, I saw part of it myself before it was removed from his talk page. To me, however, it seems his feelings have changed since then; as I said, he says he feels like a bandit and an "evil spirit" (that's somewhere in my archive, I'm not sure where I saw that but I know I did). Also, in my archive I do have an apology for the vandalism to User:Doktor Wilhelm's page, at the first linked discussion I put up, third message from the bottom. (It may also be worthy of note that I do have a good working relationship with Doktor Wilhelm, as well, and I have seen the discussions about what happened there, too). The one thing I'm not sure about is the sockpuppetry: I've seen the four IP's listed as his suspected sockpuppets but I'm not exactly sure what he did with each of them. I know Gaogier told me that 81.102.229.103 was someone else in his house, not him (read the second link for that statement). I've also seen the work of the IP that starts with 12 (there's only one that starts with 12, I believe), or at least its changes to WP:SEGA (where I'm an active member and the project's senior member) and I guess that's part of the angry backlash simply because it was the aforementioned Doktor Wilhelm who changed the layout from a set of templates Gaogier had worked hard on setting up because it didn't look great (the templates were purple and red, it wasn't exactly visually impressive). Once again, if Gaogier comes back on, I'm sure he can address this if you can reach him. As for Chicken7, though Gaogier hasn't directly apologized for that, he has acknowledged that what he did there was wrong, as he said in my talk page archive. If it helps with how Gaogier feels, I would also like to show you this edit. In the previous edit, well, I'll let it speak for itself. I think he changed it because he reconsidered trying to come back, not because he doesn't feel bad about what happened. Of course, Gaogier himself would be best suited to answer this. Thanks, and I'm sorry I can't provide more info; I don't know Gaogier in real life (I think he's British and I'm American, so we don't even live in the same continent) and I can't contact him myself. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think we both agree that Gaogier should address this himself and I invite you to ask him to come here directly rather than elsewhere when he next speaks to you. I also invite you to look further up the page to where myself and another admin talked about his wanting to return and his way of reacting to that - which confused us both.--VS talk 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll leave a message for Gaogier in three places: at his "temporary" account, at the talk for his most recent IP, and at WT:SEGA, since he stops by there often. If he contacts me on my talk page, I will let you know. This ought to make contacting him easier. As for looking up the page where you and another admin and him wanting to return, I'm a little confused about what you are talking about. I can't find anything about his first appeal, was his talk page deleted or something? I know it's locked now. The thread I have on my talk page that he sent me (first of the three links in my first post) is a thread of emails he used in another appeal to the administrator Yamla and their responses. This thread also talks about how Gaogier was frustrated after the block. Speaking of which, here's a little note: in the emails, he refers to me sometimes as Redphoenix526, which was my old username until I had it changed by a successful usurpation request. I do know that he had told me (in posts I've since deleted from my talk page after he was blocked, before I had my archive set up) that he and Doktor Wilhelm were not working well together at the time, which could explain the odd appeal. He wasn't happy with Wilhelm's changes to the project page, but I believe it has grown on him a bit to see change, though you'll have to ask him yourself about it. In fact, a week ago he showed up to complement the updated logo for WP:SEGA, which I had asked to be made by the Graphics Lab. Doktor Wilhelm has since gone inactive, but Wilhelm doesn't appear to be very upset with Gaogier (third topic, my talk page archive), and should they go . Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly you need me to find. I'm not able to access deleted pages, if that's where the info you need is, since I'm not an administrator, unfortunately. (I've thought about filling out an RfA, but I'm a little spineless about nominating myself to be a sysop). Anyway, feel free to continue commenting or contact me if you need more info or my help with something. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Cheers for all of this. My reference to further up the page (my page) is here.--VS talk 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmmm... I can't say that type of behavior is really typical of Gaogier, though I have known him to be a little defensive at times. That just seems odd to me given what I've read. I'm not sure he meant that in a forceful manner, since there would be no way he could get back without admin support, and I'm sure he is well aware of it. I think he is a bit more receptive to me since I've worked with him and a bit upset with administrators (maybe because he feels that admins haven't been fair to him? I really don't know, and he hasn't dropped me any hints about it in any messages. IMO the admins, including yourself, have been completely fair with him). I'm not sure what to make of it, perhaps you can ask him if he responds. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, I had some contact with Gaogier today. I'm not sure if it changes much, but you may be interested in reading this (below the award he presented me at the same time. This was in response to the letter I left him at all three places I said I would. I'm not sure what to make of Gaogier from this; it seems like he wants to apologize but he is just too upset to do so. I'll leave it up to you to interpret it in any way you want. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks RP - read those posts. He needs to make up his own mind and let us see him with out any of the hyperbole - but only when he is ready to get to that point. However him adjusting his actual signature to show a blocked editor's signature is not the correct way to start the process.--VS talk 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, he's done that with his sig every time he's showed up. Probably just trying not to lose his identity. But I don't think he realizes that it's not good for him to do that. It's up to him what to do next, and as much as I can try to help (like I have with this appeal to you), it's not my choice to make. Anyway, let me take this opportunity to say thank you, VirtualSteve, for your help and your consideration in this matter. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It has been my pleasure RP. Actually nice to see an editor with some genuine compassion. Best regards --VS talk 07:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's been a pleasure to work with you too, Steve. Something has come up, though. Gaogier left me a message asking me to write the message for him, let him edit it to convey his thoughts better, and send it to you, apologizing for his actions. Now, I offered to do this for him previously, since I know that he does have a problem expressing himself through text and, as you have probably seen on my talk page, he is a little upset. I don't know if this would be okay with you or not for me to do this for him, so I'll leave the subject here for your consideration first. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • My thoughts are that he should write it himself without any fear that I will be concerned by his level of expression. At this time he seems to think that he will definitely regain our confidence and so I will be interested in his feelings not in the exactitude of his words - but I am likely to want to ask him some other questions. I will also be discussing this with another senior admin as necessary. He should come to this page now and bite the bullet - courage is the first act of contrition and movement towards a changed future in such circumstances. --VS talk 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi VirtualSteve. Gaogier put this on my talk page today:

“ Okay then, i cannot do it sorry, thank you for trying :(, the proud ana happy Gaogier i once was would of been so proud of you, since then i lost alot of family members and had a brain zap to check my nerves that changed the way i act and decide things... guess i'm just not the same person now as i was when i was contributing, but i am sure i would of been very proud... bye „

—Gaogier

I guess that's the end of that. Anyway, thanks for your help in the matter, and should I ever build the self-confidence to put my name on an RfA, perhaps we will end up working together again. Later. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Response

You made this recent edit to my Rollback template page. I'm guessing it was intended for Red Phoenix? Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Clearly I must have not been paying attention (must have gone one link further I guess) - I will go in and adjust - thanks and sorry for my idiocy.--VS talk 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually looking at my actions again I can see that if I hit the edit on Red Phoenix's page regarding your rollback edit it does only take me directly your rollback page rather than in this case to Red Phoenix - I think this must be part of your template creation. Still it's my error because I should have noted it before I saved but perhaps you should adjust your template slightly so that an edit on a user's page where you post the rollback comment does not automatically return the user to your page?--VS talk 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Pardon me, is there something here involving me that I should be aware about? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No nothing really for you here - but to explain what happened I went to your page in the first instance with my response message and clicked on the edit tag of your last message (the one left by Malinaccier Public related to rollback). This is the standard way to leave a new message at the bottom of anyone's page. Please check by clicking on that edit tag and you will see that rather than bringing me to the bottom of your page it instead takes me to Malinaccier's Rollback page - which seems to be an error in his template. My message above was to inform him of that error but I am not sure if he has seen my reply as yet. With thanks --VS talk 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail

+1 for your inbox Enigma message 03:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)