ArneBab

Why "Speedy Deletion" of Flipside_(webcomic)?

How did the Flipside webcomic meet the criteria for speedy deletion?

Kial vi rapide malkreis Flipside?

It's one of the best webcomics out there, and it sure is noteable, so why did you speed-delete it?

If there's no really fitting reason, please undelete it, because the Flipside community is already very upset about your vandalism (that's how your deletion got perceived).

Wishes, Draketo 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! The article was tagged for speedy deletion because it failed to assert any notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of links or a web directory, the only web comics and websites here must assert an accurate notability that meets WP:WEB. It's unfortunate that my deletion is being perceived as vandalism, but that may be due to a misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policies regarding websites and webcomics. If you would like the content of the article copied to your userspace, I'd be happy to oblige, but I'd have to insist that the article was modified appropriately to meet WP:WEB (if possible) before it was reposted to the project. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you then please copy it to my userspace, so the flipside community can edit it to meet WP:WEB? Draketo 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have moved it to User:ArneBab/Flipside (webcomic). Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Draketo 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, if the article can be brought up to the standards requested, it'd be good to see it on the project. I've been following the thread on the Flipside forums, but haven't seen any activity in a couple months. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Phex 2.8.8.97 search pane screenshot.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Phex 2.8.8.97 search pane screenshot.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's one of my own screenshots and as such it is released under a free license. Fixed.

Civility and assuming good faith

Please stop stating or implying that other users are too ignorant or incompetent to participate in Wikipedia's deletion process (as you did, for example, to me in this edit, and to other editors generally in this edit). Yes, "How to discuss an AfD" indicates that users not familiar with a topic should not feel obligated to participate in a deletion discussion. However, nothing anyone participating in the discussion has written so far indicates that they are unfamiliar with the topic, so it is quite presumptuous, and even rude, of you to suggest or state outright that they shouldn't be involved. This is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA. In the case of the remarks you made towards me, let me say this: I do not know you, you do not know me, and therefore you have no idea what my knowledge or credentials are when it comes to window managers. I could be a developer of one of your favourite window managers for all you know. But regardless whether I am or am not, this is completely irrelevant to an AfD discussion. You've already been warned by others against this sort of ad-hominem argumentation, but let me repeat: knock it off, or you are liable to be blocked. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• So that's what I get for telling you that your view on “respectable sources” isn't shared by most of the free software users. Thanks for coming here after I left the discussion (out of utter frustration by your way of first pointing to the rules “there have to be print resources” and once print resources appear first ignoring them and then saying “I generally disagree that a single inaccessible source can satisfy WP:N”) to threaten me with blocking. I am not alone in my view that you are not competent to judge free software projects, as can be seen by many comments in the original AfD, and you didn't do much to alleviate my view. I stand for both edits you cited (though I could have written the later one more calmly), because your words clearly indicate to me that you have no experience in free window managers and don't know how much notable influence they had and have - and are not in the position to judge what constitutes an authoritative source in free software (which is why this is relevant). Since I don't know you personally, your actions are all I can judge you by. So I judge you by them where I see them as harmful. Assuming good faith has its limits when someones actions would be massively inconsistent if they had been done in good faith. Besides: IIRC you've been among the ones who repeatedly called others meatpuppets instead of assuming good faith (but my memory might be wrong here). Draketo (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• And the ASIC article is on your userpage since 2006. Draketo (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • pwned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.182.43 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ani notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you for the notice! Draketo (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just noticed that you commented in the already archived section on User:Mclaudt. There is a separate ANI section that discusses your own activities. Please visit WP:ANI#User:ArneBab. — Rankiri (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't see that. I casually worked on Wikipedia for a long time now and corrected errors when I saw them. I learned about the deletion diskussion through another ones off-site information, else the article would have silently gone down because those who put up the deletion diskussion didn't pull in the stakeholders for that article. And reading “made a complete mess” when it comes to people who want to delete maybe not getting their will (because suddenly there were many sources, and tries to discount them became ridiculous) shows me that future edits I might do would stand a far too high chance of being deleted, too.

Well, this will save me time next time I come upon an article with spelling errors. And forbidding people to speak their mind on news in Wikipedia sounds like heavy censorship to me. Also, in Resistors words: Because hiding this discussion from people who are familiar with the topic is OBVIOUSLY a great way to build strong content? You asked for people to find references, this is how you find them. Honestly, I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that demand secret AfD discussions.

Sadly I can fathtom the mindset: You seem to forget, that some people have a life outside wikipedia on which wikipedia still has a big impact, and that these people (like me) feel heavily attacked when others decide to delete articles which are important to them - and the others then decide not to listen to reason but instead to discount anything based on rules they don't cite completely (which leads me to question if they wanted hide the full content of these rules - see my comment on not calling people meatpuppets lightly in opposition to using mass block).

I won't come to appeal for an unblock in a few months, though. If dwm gets deleted, it's clear that my work would be wasted here. If on the other hand it stays in Wikipedia, my actions were necessary, and I will treat them like my other actions of Civil_disobedience (though not in the sense of mahatma ghandi, but in the sense of doing nonviolent demonstrations to show the wrong done). If the laws are harmful, then you can only do wrong by following them. If it comes thit I'll get unblocked, because the block was wrong, I won't mutter, but I also won't appeal if that would mean that I'd have to say that my actions were wrong (I tried to find a way beforehand to notify admins that wrong was done in the deletion attempt, but being only a casual editor I didn't know where to find the right page - and after 15 minutes I gave up on the try).

I am against censorship, regardless of by a state or by a community (when the actions of the community have a big impact on others), and when users on wikipedia try to keep knowledgeable people out of the discussion on deleting an article which is important to them using the threat of indefinite blocks, then this is censorship of information. It's like having to sign a Non-disclosure_agreement when one enters the discussion in the public wiki.

It might be useful to do that for a topic where knowledgeable people from all sides of the topic discuss the matter to avoid drowning their debate in “noise”, but when there are almost only stakeholders of one side in the discussion it is simply a way to keep the other side from voicing arguments. When you're 3to1 for deletion it is very easy to frustrate the single one to the point where he'll give up (without using real arguments, though), so you can get your will. And that's exactly what happened from my perspective - in both discussions; first to Mclaudt, then to me. But instead of giving up and letting the article be deleted silently, the frustrated one told others about the wrong which was happening and got blocked for that. Draketo (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS: Would have been nice to use my nickname in the block discussion, because that's what I searched for to see if someone had really gone to request a block once Psychonaut had threatened me with that. Draketo (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• PPS: I didn't tell anyone “please come here and say keep”. I told them that a deletion attempt was going on (see [1] ). Draketo (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for votestacking on AfDs. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been unblocked, and I'd like to extend my apologies for the poor conduct we showed in this case. The block was partly an individual misjudgment, but also a result of the systemic culture and some poorly thought out policies. If you're interested, I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail. I hope you will consider contributing to Wikipedia again, you would be most welcome. Again, apologies. henrik•talk 13:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This one goes to community - many thanks for your words! I had given up hope to frustration, but it seems I overestimated the community support-by-inaction for the ones who went against free software (and abused policy when they got opposition). It’s always easy for individuals to destroy what others built, and I understand that it sometimes takes a bit of time until the information about problems spreads in a communtiy of people who all have other things to do than hunting for potential problems all the time.

I just read into the Incidents board to get a look on the backgrounds (it’s hard to overstate how valuable it is that the discussions there are public), and I am still a bit worried that there is still a discussion on the blocks — but it’s also understandable. Sadly Blueboy didn’t yet say anything about his actions against those who weren’t big in the russian wikipedia and also weren’t the primary developer.

But that’s a clear minority of the admins, and though it would be easy to just be angry at everyone, that wouldn’t do anything to preserve and improve the great resource Wikipedia offers — and I feel that it would do wrong on you. Wikipedia is the largest free licensed source of information, and it’s a huge achievement by everyone who ever contributed to it — and by admins and mods who work hard to keep it useful, though people from all sides try to influence it to move into their direction. And that policy rots from time to time is normal, just like getting a cold from time to time is normal. If we’re healthy, we can recover from both.

So thank you again for your words and your work!

I’ll keep doing what I did before the block: Contribute in my own small ways when I read an article where I think that I am knowledgeable enough to provide enhancements, and be it only spelling or grammar. Draketo (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary Content Rating

I found a law review reference, and added it as footnote to your userfied article. This should go a long way toward justifying moving it back to article space. Racepacket (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I still don’t see any reason for not just undoing the deletion, though, because the claim „non notable“ didn’t even get support in the deletion review. Draketo (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply regarding Voluntary Content Rating

• User:ArneBab/Voluntary Content Rating

See above, I have made the page available to you as a subpage within your userspace, so you may work on it as a proposed draft version. Please, work on improving the article, at that location. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? Draketo (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Freenet, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Python (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (to your programmer?) Fixed. -- Draketo (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

re Voluntary Content Rating, how to move forward?

So how should I go forward with Voluntary Content Rating? File a deletion review? Draketo (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure, and I'll respectfully defer to community consensus there. — Cirt (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ArneBab. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ArneBab. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ArneBab. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ArneBab. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ArneBab. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please verify https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_Guile&diff=1037938354&oldid=1034851837

Hi. I fixed an apparent typo of yours. Could you verify that I did as you intended? I know little about Guile. Regards -- Jorge (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s how it should have looked.