User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Thank you

Backslash Forwardslash, T'Shael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For blocking the user who created an attack page on a 7-year old. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You edits on my page

Thanks, a little mistake that happens sometimes? Gsmgm (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to forget to remove the tag when restoring. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Update

Done.--Giants27 (t|c) 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitelines

\/, I think you've got a good argument for the early close because 3 people mentioned spam or advertisement. However, if the discussion were allowed to go on for just 2 more days, then we'd have G4 available in the future if the article reappeared in a not-so-spammy form but without addressing the notability concerns, so on balance, it would be kind of nice if you'd reopen it for a couple of days. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - MadDogX

Hi, You have deleted my Article of the band MadDogX, because i didnt had the Discograhy. Could you please move it back, that i could repair it? thx - Patricck20 {talk} 10:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patricck20. The article was speedy deleted because it failed to assert why the band was notable, or worthy of inclusion. Since you have indicated an interest in improving it (which is great!), I have moved a copy of the deleted article to a page in your userspace, here. You are welcome to continue work on the article there without it being deleted, but keep in mind you shouldn't move the article back to the mainspace until it meets our notability criteria. Happy editing! \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

About The Userpage Editing...

I understand what you did to me. I chose not to let my picture anywhere near my userpage. Oh, well. At least I still have more info you can look at. Check out all the stops on my user page and beyond, like my science fiction novel. Don't think it stops there, because I also added info about a nuclear volcanic meltdown. Don't forget to go to my talk page to give me your ratings on all of them. Also, don't think it stops here. Soon, I will take pictures again, but this time they will be about the city of Porterville, California. I may be a newbie, but I learn fast. Typingwestern015 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I just wanted to make you aware of those issues, but it appears that you have learnt well. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hi slash, thanks for doing that batch of image speedies. Don't know if you were just going by the tagged ones or if you saw my post at WP:ANI: this turns out to be a serial case, almost all images by uploader Ukulelea (talk · contribs) seem to be ultimately from the same website. Somebody needs to go through his log and nuke them all. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Matteous

Hi Backslash Forwardslash. I saw you deleted the above page under A7. Did you realise it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matteous? You may want to close that AfD since you have now deleted the page. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert Rule

Oh so sorry completely slipped my mind. Just doing a bit of patrolling and saw vandalism on the page and have been reverting it. Didn't seem to notice it was the same IP each time. Yeah I know your just doing your job! ;) Sorry again, didn't even think about about what I was doing. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief. User:Bwistle seems to be the same IP, I reverted him because I can't be sure. I'll just put a warning on his talkpage. If User:Bwistle edits again I'll notify you and you may have to dish out a block.. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have already worked that out for yourself, bit quicker than me! :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say I was testing you! (wasn't really my intention but shhhh...) Your Obviously doing a good job as admin so far. If he/she rocks up again can you probably consider a block as he only seems to want to vandalise. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Captcha Breaker / Captcha Solver

This may seem like a silly question, but can the creator of an article remove a PROD tag? This particular article concerns me, as it seems to fall under WP:NOTHOWTO and the user to remove the tag has done nothing to fix this. Thanks a lot, -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 10:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi T'Shael. Any user can contest a PROD nomination, see WP:CONTESTED. Since PROD nominations are for uncontroversial cases, any disagreement towards deletion requires it to be dealt in another manner (AfD). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks :) -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

• Based on your reasoning in the close ofArticles for deletion/Nicholas Beale, I don't see how it wasn't closed as no consensus. It sounds as if you are making the case for closing it as no consensus. Was that your intention? --Firefly322 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the last sentence? Just because I acknowledged there were keep votes does not mean there wasn't consensus. The delete votes were strong, had good arguments behind them whereas the keeps didn't really base themselves on policy or give reasoning behind them. When taking the deletes that wanted a small stub into consideration I also looked at how most said 'maybe' keep if it was a stub - and there were numerous comments on how useless the article would've been if it was stripped down to the bones. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Backslash Forwardslash. You have new messages at G.phanisrinivas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Backslash Forwardslash. You have new messages at G.phanisrinivas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brad Sugars

I wonder what the client will say YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No refunds? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Information on Userpage

Hello, \ /, I sent you a wiki-mail regarding your comment on my talk page, and am posting this just in case you don't check it regularly =) Thanks again! -- Dfrtbx (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpages

Hey \ /, nice work with the admin tools lately; I've been seeing you all over the place. I just wanted to let you know that I noticed a couple of your userpage deletions seemed like they may have been in error; it looks like you're doing a lot en masse so they might have gotten mixed up by accident.

Specifically, this userpage was an attack page about someone, not just a guy's page his personal information...so deleting it was correct (although I guess it could have been for G10 rather than personal information) but the user shouldn't have gotten a friendly message, he probably should have gotten a block, or at least a stern-er message. It probably won't make a difference, it looks like he's done editing anyway. The other one I noticed was the userpage for the user above me, this, which is probably debatable...it doesn't have identifying information, just age and [probably] high school. I guess that one's borderline, but I might not have deleted it right off the bat.

Anyway, I don't mean to seem like I'm nitpicking or anything, I just noticed those and thought I should let you know. Otherwise, it seems like you're doing great work with the tools! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that first one, but I'm of the opinion that it is better to notify earlier rather than after more details have been posted. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks spam

I just wanted to stop by and say thank you \/. I appreciate your support at my RfA, and the help you've given me since I joined WP. Thank you! — Ched :  ?  01:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne Airport

Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the same content from Melbourne Airport (with no edit summary and classed it as a minor edit) after you blocked M i k e y 86. I've reverted but that will be my last revert however the content that keeps getting removed should stay until there is some form of talk page consensus so maybe some temp page protection is needed?. Bidgee (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it, although be aware the three revert rule applies to yourself as well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Reason why I stated my last revert (not just for today but for the dispute) in the edit summary and here on your talkpage. Bidgee (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though I haven't had much to do with the article, would you mind me nominating it for Peer Review? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You can do what you like with it, although I'd recommend this dispute get settled on the talk page before any formal review is conducted. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll nominate it now, as nothing will happen for a while. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What should it be nominated as; Everyday Life, Geography, General Topic? having a blank moment. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Engineering and technology \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few dead links Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See if you can find replacements for those links - I'm not going to make any edits on the page at the moment, so collect the links and wait for a day or two. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I will sometime tomorrow. I was just letting you know. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandal

Thanks! Oh ...and look who's back :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User page

hi. Well I guess you do have a point, it's probably better to be safe than sorry (come to think about it, I really wouldn't like anyone harassing me or stuff). Keep it like it is. thx --Rodelero147 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What action to take?

Excuse me, but I am new to editing Wikipedia, am currently in some sort of "revision war," and am not at all sure how to end it. I feel as if you have some considerable power and experience on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you can give me some advice. I keep on getting my changes to the Arcee wiki page changed and it has been going in complete circles for some time now. Every single time I make my change, I explain myself and point to the main Revenge of the Fallen page, but it would seem as if this person I am contending with is misreading the Revenge of the Fallen page, is citing another "Chromia" page which also badly misreads the Revenge of the Fallen page, and is ignoring my reasons for the changes I have made. This person (or people) will even undo my spelling changes, often introducing more misspelled words with each change they make. Normally, when two people disagree so badly, I would just ask for a third opinion, but if the loser of the argument is just able to ignore everyone and continue to make his or her own changes regardless, I'm really at a loss as to what to do from there? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. PegasusHoplite28 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Pegasus, welcome to Wikipedia. I've read through the exchanges you have had with Aces and a few of your edits, and I think I've worked out what is going on. In an ideal scenario, editors would of course, agree, but in this case you do seem to be deadlocked. When we have an editing dispute, the first option of dispute resolution is normally a third opinion. When more editors weigh in, the more chance consensus will be formed. Since all pages are dictated by consensus, if other editors agree with you it is likely that your edit will be kept. I have listed your dispute on that page, given Aces a not about the discussion and tried to begin some centralised discussion on Talk:Arcee. You can discuss the changes there from now on. In the mean time, don't continue reverting. Continual reverters will often find themselves blocked for violating the three-revert rule, so in the meantime I'd recommend hanging tight and waiting for another editor to weigh in. (I would, but I have absolutely no knowledge about Transformers, so I doubt I'd be useful.) If you have any more concerns, don't hesitate to ask. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:CFM-Churches

I think Special:Nuke would have been useful for that task. Cheers, Triplestop x3 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was using Twinkle because I feel more comfortable using that. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I respectfully disagree with you on the Kevin Guilfoile article on the issue of notability. Although, I will not challenge you on it. He has some minor publication in England and one other minor publication. Some of the places to which he's contributed seem to be blogs of some sort. I would just like to know your criteria. I've seen some writers with upwards of thirty publications deemed not notable, so please explain. Kindest regards. Botendaddy (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Botendaddy. The WP:A7 criteria only covers that make no claim to notability, regardless of their validity. Any article that makes a reasonable claim to fame, such as this one, can only be deleted through other avenues, such as WP:AFD or WP:PROD. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

Please allow me to have some grace period with my pages. Deletion without warning seems very unfair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_user_pages_and_subpages

I know you are new to this job (23 days in) so maybe another's motto might help:

"Any time. I should remember the motto "Improve, don't delete!" WikiDan61 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

Please give me a chance to fix or move my content. I spent many genuine hours on it.

Wes of CFM-Churches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.235.107 (talk • contribs)

The issue appears to have been dealt with on User Talk:CFM-Churches by another administrator(s). I have also responded to your email. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, apologies for the late response. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, surpisingly. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Camp one Guantanamo under WP:CSD#G8. Would you mind telling me where it originally pointed? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geo, the redirected pointed to Camp 1, Guantanamo, which I see you have recently created as a redirect. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and Help.

thanks for the information you sent me earlier, but I have a few other things I want to ask you.

My article Fairfield Area School District is not original research, but I am having trouble citing my resources. I have used a few websites (my external links) as well as a few newspaper Articles I read in the Gettysburg Times. I am having trouble getting my internet resources cited, and I don't know if I can find the Articles I read on the Internet. Are You Able to help me in any way at all with my problem?

--Evilmaster23 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Evilmaster23

Hey Evilmaster. Based on the information you are trying to add, I'd say you might be able to use the schools website as a source for basic facts. I would, however, be very cautious about using such sources due to the likelihood of the sources being bias. In the meantime, I would continue looking into local papers and some of the schools publications. If information cannot be cited, it may be best to omit it until such citation is found. Hope this answers your question, let me know if you don't understand. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by omitting my information?.

another thing. I'm new to Wikipedia, how exactly do I cite my resources. --Evilmaster23 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Evilmaster23

By omit, I simply meant keeping the information out of the page until you can cite it. Wikipedia:Citing_sources is a great manual detailing how and what to cite. It's very lengthly, but try to read through some of it, and feel free to ask me a question once you have read that page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

M i k e y 86

M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting again on the Melbourne Airport article but also doing some edit warring/disruption on List of tallest buildings in Brisbane. It seems to me that the editor hasn't taken heed of the advice you gave him on his talk page. Bidgee (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave him another warning, and I'll keep a lookout. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi \ /! Congratulations on your adminship! I wasn't aware of your candidacy, otherwise I would have been there! As I'm sure you are aware, Mikey86 has been adding French Quarter Tower 1 to List of tallest buildings in Brisbane. This is in contradiction to the consensus not to include approved or proposed buildings. I have posted a note on the talk page of the article however I don't expect the editor in question to heed by it at all. I seek your intervention. Thanks! MvjsTalking 13:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

!!!

[1] why u revert my edit???!!!!!! this is censorship! i'ma report u to Wiki admins!!! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

Accidental rollback click. Also, WP:NPA plz. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[2]

your mean for deleting my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpossible666 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 3

When you added John Long to the log, you deleted almost all of the existing ones, I just undid your edit and added back John Long to the log. Not vandalism, just wanted to let you know. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... odd. I was using a closing/relisting script for the first time (User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js), so I'll notify Mr.Z-man about it in case it is a problem in the script. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MoeColemanFan

Hello,

As you'd know I was the one who reported MoeColemanFan (though I think a bot got him too) for his little spree. It was the first time I'd really done something like that so I hope I got it right. There are so many buttons. :) I wasn't sure if he should be reported for personal attacks or vandalism or just plain aggravated douche-baggery. Also was I right to use the only warning option?

Many thanks in anticipation of your reply, Teh Crafty One (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any user whose first edit is this doesn't require too much warning. Final warnings are only used if it is particularly disruptive, and I'd say you were spot on there. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's what I thought. :) Teh Crafty One (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LYNX Photonic Networks

Would you mind expanding a little on your close here? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If we look at the raw numbers, obviously you were outnumbered, but you don't need me to tell you that. :)

Basically, your keep vote displayed reasons why you believed the article met the notability criteria, and there was substantial objection to whether that was enough. You commented late in the AfD about improvement, yet three days had passed and none of the delete voters had changed their opinion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your close

[3] - :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Me and the script above haven't forged a working relationship yet. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Z-Man's script? Yeah, this has happened to me before! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've only just started using it. It looks terrific, if used correctly. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The script's been acting up a bit as a result of the server issues, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible. It's just lucky that our closing results aligned for the most part I guess. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD being ignored

You closed the AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Art of Dying (Cashis album) as a snowball delete for both albums. A COI editor (the artists manager) has re-created both articles without any changes. I tagged them for speedy under G4, but I suspect he will contest it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's going to have a hard time contesting the AfD result, considering the AfD went for all of 10 days. I'll keep an eye on him, thanks for the note. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I salted the LP article when I deleted it (just for 3 days, hopefully that will be long enough to get him to move on). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy is the artists manager. He's asking for help to find RS's. I told him he should know better than anyone where his client has been covered, then offered to look at the links he has and, if they are RS's, help to see if they can be used in the article. Not sure what more I can do for him. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're doing the right thing talking to him and working together, but perhaps bring this up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK Image Note

Hey there Backslash :). I remember on IRC a while back you said that we did not need to protect DYK image once we locally uploaded them because of the Main Pages cascade protection. Well, I just found some disturbing data, bugzilla:18483 (I found a link about it at WP:CASCADING under the section on cascading protection), this is describing an older issue with cascade protection and images where images added to a cascade protected page might not be protected for a couple of hours which can leave DYK images vulnerable to vandalism. Just thought you should know, so in the future you can protect images that you have locally uploaded for DYK :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mifter, I am aware of that bug - I always thought of it as a form of lagging but I guess the real reason is irrelevant to non-devs. I only manually protect the images in the queue if I expect cascading won't kick in, which isn't often given our queues can cover as far back as 36 hours. In any event, it's nothing that interferes with our normal system, it's only a factor when we begin to swap the images while it is on the Main Page, or even when it is the next batch in the queue. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cascading protection is not instantaneous. That's why we have the queues cascade-protected now, so by the time the images hit the Main Page they're covered. The root of the problem is updating the link tables (the data that appears in "What links here" essentially). I've noticed that link tables are automatically updated after a null edit (click edit, click save...edit doesn't show up in the edit history) on the page that's cascade protected (the Main Page in this case). A purge is not the same. Shubinator (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hi I need help IP user User talk:120.28.148.83 has kept being disruptive to the articles Arcee and Chromia he has kept adding false info that was long decided (by several users) shouldn't be there as it has no proper source (Arcee is one bike that seperates into 3 with one mind-hive mind) he has kept adding names for the seperate bikes (based on the toyline, that differs from the film as she is ONE mind not 3 bikes with a name each) and most recently to Ironhide stating false info putting he dies in several places where he doesn't. Despite my warnings he wont listen and I need some one with Authority to help me out as he isn't listening to me. Please and thankyou. The Movie Master 1 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Movie Master 1 (talk • contribs) at 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he hasn't edited since his final warning, so there's nothing to do now. In the future, if people vandalize after their final warning, you can report them at WP:AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism), which is usually the fastest way to get them blocked. In this case, though, it looks to me like his edits are not blatant vandalism (unless this stuff is obvious factual errors, but personally I can't tell); if someone is editing like this but doesn't meet the criteria in What is vandalism?, then you would be better off reporting them for edit warring by going to WP:AN3 and filing a report there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the advice Rjanag gave you is the best way of dealing with vandals, but I am not totally convinced that this was blatant vandalism. Just because an editor is an IP, does not mean that they cannot engage in consensus making. Also, isn't this almost identical to the dispute between User:AcesUpMaSleeve and User:PegasusHoplite28 on Talk:Arcee? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it almost is, I warned him 4 times and he's made more priveiously they just got reverted by a different user. As you saw the first warning was an explanation and then the rest was just him adding false info and the last was him putting completely false info, but since he hasn't done anything since then we cant do anything. Thanks for your help. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in any event, the editor has stopped editing, so the point is moot. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Shaking my head

I didn't even realize that his block has already expired! I set it for 72 hours because he edits infrequently and I wanted to be sure that he got the message, since he had ignored all warnings previously without response. Even though he returned after the 72 hours, he does seem to have noticed the sanction, so at least we haven't wasted our time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

lol

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

AFD on Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (2nd nomination)

Hi, you concluded the T-shirt-IDF-AFD (into deletion). I have some questions left, maybe you could expand on them (here=OK for now).
- 2nd AFD in 3 months: as was noted, the 1st AFD was concluded just 3 months earlier. The motives for re-posting an AFD were very thin, and maybe not even usable ("some editors innocently fell victim to recentism" - sure)). How did you conclude this was not forum shopping as in WP:PARENT?
- Counting votes? You wrote "The delete votes were strong, numerous", but I expected it not to be a "vote". We need Argumenting here, as I see well-written in WP:PRACTICAL, e.g. "Polls are structured discussions, not votes." Anyway, a quick count says some 30% of the Delete-"votes" are non-argumental posts, like "Delete per nom - signeduser", (and so to be left out of the closing overview, as if not present). Also, editors who write "delete or merge" are not to be seen as deletes, since merging does meen keep content (somewhere).
-To me the outcome looks like a 'non-decisive', and non-consensus outcome, so keep. Would you reach the same outcome if you

+ do not count "votes",

+ Include the recent 1st AFD (itself unconclusive so keep),

+ Use the keep/merge-arguments in the 2nd AFD (don't we both think strong enough to stand, and all breaking the "it is just an isolated incident"-stance) without weighing?

-DePiep (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• That AfD was closed properly. You can't use the keep/merge arguments from a prior AfD because opinions change. What might appear relevant and notable today because of a media glut may not seem quite so important a little later when it starts to slip into the proper persepctive of history. I'm not saying notability is temporary, but it's easy to be fooled into thinking something is notable because it is the "flavor of the month" and getting a lot of coverage. This article was really a case of WP:RECENTISM. Counting their opinion as keep without having them come say so wouldn't be right. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hi DePiep. Firstly, while I did take the first AfD into account, consensus does change over time and to say that a no consensus three months ago is equivalent to a no consensus now is incorrect, particularly when dealing with topics where the lasting notability is being questioned. I use the word 'vote' as a matter of convenience, as it distinguishes initial comments from the comments in reply. I don't count votes, but you have to understand that the amount of votes does play a factor, just not necessarily the sole one. If I look at the arguments, I do see a lot more support for the closure per WP:NOTNEWS, including an examination as to why this is not notable. On the other side, there were great arguments for keeping, but too many were dependent on describing the acts themselves, whether or not it was a 'human rights abuse', not why the article should be kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you \/. Please allow me some time to make reaction. Takes some time (also: not confident yet). We'll be OK. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hafrada

Hi,

Saw you deleted Hafrada. Could you please delete the now useless redirects Separation program (Israel), Hafrada (Separation), Separation policy (Israel)?

Thanks, okedem (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Hafrada (old version). okedem (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. okedem (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit Management

Your close of this discussion seems premature as I had started to rescue the article. As there are numerous good sources for this topic, I am confident that it will be kept. I had not yet commented in the discussion as I had expected the normal 7 day period for this. In any case, the opinions already expressed were not unanimous. Please restore the article and reopen the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw it as a fairly uncontroversial SNOW closure, but since you volunteered I'm happy to restore it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your prompt action. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• To prevent recurrence of this misunderstanding, I have found some time to comment in the AFD in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks for taking the time to improve the article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of East County Blackshirts

I was a little surprised at your decision to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East County Blackshirts. With one comment, one keep (yes, mine, but several reliable sources listed), one suggest to redirect, and no deletion votes--I could understand a redirect, but a delete??? That comes out of nowhere. It seems to me with so little discussion, the default case should be to keep. I think restoring the article makes the most sense at this point. --Esprqii (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh pfft. Sorry, I clicked the wrong button, I had meant to close it as no consensus. I'm restoring it now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Andonee

Hmm, I'd be more inclined to AGF if, looking at their contributions, this was not an obvious alternate account. However, although I'd have advised against it if you'd asked me beforehand, I'll respect your decision. Hopefully this editor will respond in kind to your generosity. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. My word is good.Andonee (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gem paul

Hi. You deleted the redirect, Gem paul, but not the article, Gem Paul. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry - someone else just deleted it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye Zoey?

Hi, I nominated the article Goodbye Zoey? for speedy deletion as there was an article that had already existed for the subject (Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?). You suggested to merge the two articles together. The thing is, the latter article contains the information of the former, and more. So shouldn't Goodbye Zoey? be deleted? --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I hadn't checked how much merging was necessary, but merging is the answer to most content forks. If the merging is done then maybe a redirect is the best option, considering it is a likely search option. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK typo

In the second hook from the bottom on the live set, there should be a "the" before "ecosystem". From WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Marilyn Vance hook in queue 6 doesn't seem correct (grammatically). Also, there were a few issues about the article itself that didn't get resolved before it was promoted on the fly: [4]. Since I brought up the issues, I'll leave it to the uninvolved editor (you) to decide. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, it took me a while to parse that. I've replaced the hook, there isn't any harm in waiting longer, especially when there are valid concerned \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Shubinator (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Adminship

Hi \ / - Thanks for your kind comments on my talk; they were much appreciated! In answer to your question, applying for adminship has crossed my mind a couple of times recently when I've encountered situations where the tools would be useful. One of my main concerns is the gap in my editing last year, caused by a few job moves. I noticed that lapses in editing were noted at several previous RFAs, although I'm not sure what weight that sort of thing is given overall? (I've changed back to my previous job recently, so lots more Wikipedia time - yay!)--Kateshortforbob 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi \ /. Thank you very much; I'll give it a shot, if you don't mind nominating me. "Week of torture" makes it sound so appealing - I'm sure it will be an informative experience either way :-/ --Kateshortforbob 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complimentary nomination statement! I have added my acceptance and answers to the initial questions. I haven't transcluded it yet - I wasn't sure if it is generally the nominator or the candidate who transcludes (or doesn't it matter?), and didn't want to make a terrible error at this early stage! --Kateshortforbob 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

inre this diff

Had to work all day. Only got home a few hours ago and read the comments/suggestions to my question I posted on Shubinator's talk page about the Vance article DYK and hook Alt 5. When I properly understood his concerns, I made the neccessary corrections to the Vance article inre the proper sourcing about the relationship between Vance and Mruvka and posted my result on his talk page. If its not too late, might you revisit the situation to see that his concerns for Alt hook 5 have now been fully addressed? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was sifting through the history of the page. It appears that the hook was indeed moved to the prep area again by Wizardman, before being removed completely. If Shubinator states that his concerns are adequately met I wouldn't object - but I'm not going to disregard the concerns of another editor. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I wrote Shubinator last night before writing you and have as yet received no response. I also just wrote Wizardman. I know you guys check DYKs as best you can, but I'd hate to see this one lost to oblivion for lack of follow-up. Thank you for your courtesy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Shubinator justrestored it. Apologies again for the delay. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just happy that I was finally able to properly address his concerns. Sometimes real-world does not allow the time I'd like to donate to these pages. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I know the feeling. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Republic of Mountainous Armenia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Republic of Mountainous Armenia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Air55 page

Hi it's Air55, I have sent you 2 emails, can you email me back? Air55 (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Air55, I've replied now. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens!

Remember our favourite newbie in the #-en-help channel who struggled with the RfA? After he left, I spoke to the lovely Versageek who ran a CheckUser.. and guess who seems to be sockpuppeting? [5], [6]. — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC

I've restored your deletion of this redirect, which you believed was "implausible." The difference between this and the actual case article is the "LLC" included in Chrysler's party name. Unless the case law article redirect really does reflect an implausible typo, it is never good practice to delete it, because there are often many different ways to abbreviate party names. We accomplish nothing by removing those, except to make it harder for readers to find an article by entering the right combination of abbreviations, and more likely that duplicates may inadvertently be created.

In this particular case, the redirect was far from implausible, it was actually more formally proper than the title of the actual Wikipedia article. The inclusion of that corporate form in the case name is actually proper Bluebook form for case citations, and more importantly, it's how the U.S. Supreme Court itself identified the case in its own opinion[7] and on its website listing of opinions.[8] Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, must of got caught up in the rest. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)