User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/Apr/May

Liam Gallagher

Flag your minor edits as minor, mate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrhadam (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about either. Enigma^msg 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaaaa!

Replied on my talk page ;) Ariel♥Gold 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		And here it is! Thank you for all your work helping to keep articles in line with the WP:BLP! Ariel♥Gold 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the two current biography-related barnstars to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography page. :) Ariel♥Gold 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with what i added to the Wandy Rodriguez page. Besides, i only added the last paragraph. The other stuff was put there by someone else. The last paragraph is relevant to his current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobizzle (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wandy Rodriguez NEVER had cited info. Maybe you should hammer the other people who edited it before me. Bobizzle (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Travel ping sent

--VS ^talk 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

T-Y

Cheers for the reversion you did on my userpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Au revoir for now. Enigma^msg 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: User talk:BetacommandBot

The information contained in that header is valuable for anybody with questions with regards to copyright information. I find it quite helpful. Users who think it is productive go go around making such edits as tagging pages as "banned" are another issue, but there is nothing I can do to help such users. I don't really think the info is bitey though. Also, looking at the history, I don't think we have to be concerned with many people posting questions there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand and for the most part agree. I just don't think that is bitey. It is clear and concise, to the point, but copyright can be a confusing area and being blunt sometimes is the best way to explain things. Unless I've missed something specific there, I honestly don't see the concern. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't be reverting - I just don't see the need to remove all of the information, and plaster the "BANNED" notice at the top. I missed #11 there when I was reading it. Perhaps the other items can be rewritten a bit. I don't mean to put you off of doing it, as it is certainly not my page. To reiterate, my only concern was the removal of all of the information and the notice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

see User:Lar/Liberal_Semi

...per our discussion. Note, your TPWs are more than welcome to add articles to the list, and/or spread the word. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au Revoir

Instead of using AFD, you could have found consensus to merge at Wikipedia:MRFD to enforce any resulting redirects. Might be something to keep in mind for later. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep that in mind for the future. I do feel that in these cases, deletion is the best way to get it to stick. Otherwise, I have to watch the page closely because someone is bound to restore the information I removed. It's happened too many times to count. I feel the best way would be to delete, create anew as a redirect, and protect the page. Enigma^msg 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Enigmaman - I closed the AfD per your withdrawl and being willing to merge the articles. After closing the AfD itself, I found out that somebody needed to use this computer in a hurry, so I was rushed and only hope that I did the multi-nomination closure formatting correctly. Best, Jamie^☆S93 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I reopened. An admin has to close it because another editor also favors deletion. Enigma^msg 00:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. From my experience at AfD, though, there is nothing wrong with withdrawing even after somebody has !voted for deletion, and I've never heard that it'd require an admin. But if you'd prefer an admin to have the final say in the closure, I'm cool with that, and feel free to do what you want. :) Best, Jamie^☆S93 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that a nominator can only withdraw an AfD if there are no other delete !votes. Once there are, it's out of the nominator's hands. This is similar to how the creator of an article cannot request deletion based on being the creator if others have contributed. Enigma^msg 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_bubba

 Done, speedy closed. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let 'Em Bleed: The Mixxtape series

Each album in the series peaked on the Billboard charts. They are notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Re: Question

Hmm, probably not a SNOW close at the moment. I usually close an AfD early when at least 5 editors (aside from the nominator) unanimously agree. Otherwise, it's usually better to simply let the discussion run its course. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No wonder people leave here all the time, the vandals keep winning.

Well, my concerns have been ignored and the listings removed from AIV with no action. No wonder people leave here all the time, the vandals keep winning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, 65.73.168.122 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person, no matter that it's an IP address, since they have edited nothing but movie articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I was just explaining why the report was declined. Admins at AIV tend to be strict in application of blocks. You can bring your concerns to another administrator if you feel strongly about it. Enigma^msg 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can show me diffs of whatever the problem is then I'll take a look. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to speak for him, Pat, but here are the relevant article histories: [1] [2]. Vandalized both articles multiple times. Very possibly from a static IP, which has hit film articles in the past. Enigma^msg 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it's probably just one person, we can just revert and/or protect once it gets out of control. For example, in the case of GRAWP, we didn't prevent page moves for new accounts until he got real annoying. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RBIs

Actually, it should be RBIs, unless it is a columnar list. See, for example, discussion at [3].

See also the following analysis by KingTurtle: "The pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an s. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006)." RBI and HR will appear without the s in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia-style charts. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences. This is not some outlandish, obtuse style. It is quite mainstream, and not just for RBIs, but for all acronyms. Kingturtle (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)"Ethelh (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle is incorrect. It is debatable, at best. Enigma^msg 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant Karma (record label)

Hi Enigmaman. Just to let you know, I've added multiple sources for this article, which might address your concerns at its AfD. Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ok. Enigma^msg 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Let's let the Arbitration Committee decide this, rather than use the lower levels. I won't waste my valuable time dealing with you. If necessary, we can handle this outside Wikipedia by outside arbitration, just like Major League Baseball uses outside arbitration. I am convinced of the rightness of my actions and won't be persuaded otherwise. User:AdirondackMan I know on solid authority, is not coming back to Wikipedia. End of story. 68.236.155.108 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AdirondackMan, please stop socking. Using an IP to edit is not convincing anyone. We're not taking it to ArbCom because you want to be listed on a list you do not qualify for. If you persist in your disruption, you will be blocked. Enigma^msg 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

COI Jake Zhang

Hi, you posted this case on the conflict of interest noticeboard. We are now marking it as resolved as the user seems contrite and has promised not to repeat the behavior. I assume that you have watchlisted the article on the middle school. If there is a repeat of the behavior please repost. If you do not believe that the case should closed please don't hesitate to reopen it immediately. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Enigma^msg 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Did "BLP Watch" ever come to fruition?

See this and its respective history. I'll stick it in my watchlist. Almost sure there could be more like that out there. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate your own efforts with NBA bios. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You may delete this too since your own talk page

Your own talk page and my final answer, I still believe your edits and actions which only against me, but not against Israeli POV users, were biased, and since your deletion actions came after my insist on Irgun's actions, they contain reprisal character. You may delete these comments on your reputation or keep your choice, and I won't reply any more possibly. Yet, I do stress suffering may only contain in terms of my complaint on your POV actions in relevant authorities, therefore are civil and of course not involving any further threats in real terms, in any way. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete what? I didn't delete anything. I removed threats from my talk page. I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never edited an Irgun article in my life. I saw your POV additions to an article on my watchlist and removed them. You proceeded to edit war repeatedly, and then threaten me. I don't appreciate that. Enigma^msg 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit wars you referring were mostly about, Irgun, List of Irgun attacks, Sir Gerald Kaufman's Gaza speech on Eitan Livni and their implementation on relevant articles. No threat involved, as I explained above, complaining about a users' actions is no threat suffering consequences was what I meant by that, also you warned me for edit wars, but not other users that started it, so you acting not neutral at all. Kasaalan (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Telling me to do as you say or I will "suffer the consequences" is a threat. I warned you because you were the most blatant violator, edit-warring across multiple articles. Find me someone else who has 4+ reverts on at least three articles in the past few days and maybe I'll report them as well. I warned you for violating 3RR, because you did. Enigma^msg 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How "suffering consequences" in means of getting warned by admins is any threat. POV users try to delete even simplest main link articles to hide them from public. If you read the articles you can easily see all relevant to the same subject. They even try to claim a senior officer of an armed gang, is not responsible for his gang's actions and public bombings. The edit number is not relevant, but the intention matters. Kasaalan (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. Please see here for more information. You have no excuse for it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

POV users try to delete crucial info with no good faith even my simplest and most neutral edits, trying to keep page as it is and on their terms categorically, disruptively undoing, yet only I got warned, not fair or neutral at all, let me just say that. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you to go to WP:ANI please if you have a problem with other people. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Still in the process of discussion page talks, but next step may be there, but is there also a page that I can seek 3rd party editors' opinions for the edits to solve issue without going that far, or is that the only way to go, thanks. My standpoint is still the same, but the discussion is closed for me, because discussing further on this issue won't help anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(Indent) - You can go to WP:THIRD and/or WP:DISPUTE to get other contributors to join in and attempt a fix for the dispute. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was asking, thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith Edits

Hi Enigmaman,

I was just wondering why the edits referring to Chandana Paul's references, and postdoctoral affiliation were removed. I am unclear about good faith edits.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.44.43 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits removed the AfD tag, which must not be removed while the AfD is ongoing. Enigma^msg 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfDs

 Done most of 'em, but there are a couple that should run for a few more days, IMO. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up to discussion at MBisanz's talk page

Following up to this discussion, I wanted to inform you that instead of a second DRV (which would be a review of an article that wasn't deleted, which is weird), I've simply listed the article for deletion again. Now, I'm not that familiar with the canvassing rules so if you feel that violates that, please indicate so at this noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the reversion. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlsie Cantey

Did you even watch the Triple Crown races over the past thirty years? And she's done much more than that, obviously.

It's funny it took me three years to realize she was missing from those broadcasts, but I wanted to find out what was going on.

Wikipedia was no help. Once I found details, I figured the woman deserved an article. I know it could stand improving, but I believe it's beyond the point of deletion.

I want to know more about Mike Battaglia and Donna Brothers too, so you can probably expect to see those next. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't watch horses, so no. Good on you for improving the article, but I'm not sure what it has to do with me. BLPunsourced. What more is there to say? Enigma^msg 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It obviously was unacceptable back then. It concerns me when people who don't know the subject decide who is and isn't notable. I just thought you might be one of the interested parties.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fravia

Could you please check the talk page of the Fravia article? Zorbid (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

umm what?

what were you referring to with that nasty comment left on my page. a little explanation would be nice.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.86.82 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warning for continued edit-warring and removal of sourced content on José Canseco. Enigma^msg 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Emperordarius

Hi, I saw you revert my speedy tag. Did you check out the page history? The page was created by User:Iggy pop goes the weasel, and if there is a User:Emperordarius, s/he's not the one who created the page. See also the note I left on User_talk:Iggy pop goes the weasel. NorwegianBlue ^talk 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check the history before tagging for speedy deletion. Emperordarius is an infinitely blocked sockmaster. The userpage should have been created long ago. You cannot tag for speedy as requested by the page creator, because the page creator certainly did not request deletion. It is Wikipedia policy to have userpages for socks and sockmasters. Enigma^msg 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DRV listing

As idiotic and attacking as the DRV was, I think you should reconsider and replace it, per my comment here. Frankly, I'd rather have it settled for the fourth and final time than letting them keep claiming some moral victory over it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Although we usually BRI in these cases. I would've seen your message at AN/I. ;) Enigma^msg 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If I were a real policy nut, I would say that DRV allows for temporary undeletion to discuss articles and I don't believe there's an actual requirement that featured articles (or lists) actually cannot be already deleted. WP:IAR though. I do wanted to see how people would react to the actual article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of something that's deleted being featured. Besides, there are other issues which preclude such status. Enigma^msg 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

I have it, actually, but I tend to prefer using undo. I like being able to explain my actions in an edit summary, unless it's a very straight forward case of vandalism. I appreciate the thought, however. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I don't have Twinkle, as I use Internet Explorer. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest proposal

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We need to know how this contest should be run, and what problems to look out for. And we're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

(And we have some really cool awards for the contest).

The Transhumanist 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cities

What do you mean by removing these cities and calling them towns? State law provides only for cities, not for any other class of municipality. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia definition, those are not cities. Are they even incorporated? Enigma^msg 01:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Username redaction (or Google blocking) from cleared/closed case pages, appearing in Google search-results

Hi:

So- last year- there was a frustrating/heated drama of sorts, where a woman who has an article about them here on Wikipedia decided I was personally responsible for "stalking" her; both on Wikipedia and in person; and that I was responsible for most of the sock-puppet editing/vandalism to the page about her, here. Yes- there was an IRL falling-out between myself and the woman with the article about her- and unfortunately for the entire Wikipedia community, that falling-out crash-landed here (among other places).

Her boyfriend at the time opened an investigative page on me here, accusing me of sockpuppetry. At the same time, the woman had me filed with a restraining order in San Francisco Superior Court (along with Ben Burch, in Illinois). Both the case here on Wikipedia, and in the County of San Francisco, were dropped, for lack of evidence. In both cases *no* forensics were presented, and in the restraining order case, no threats from me to her, no documented ill-will, and no any evidence that I'd been following her were ever presented by her attorney.

Later in 2008 it was confirmed in discussion on the "discuss" page about the woman, that what few edits I did make (plain and brief) were in fact not inaccurate vandalisms (as the boyfriend had claimed)- but true statements around one event on a specific date that both the woman and her boyfriend did not want publicly documented. I could not at the time make citations substantiating that those facts were true, because my affirmation of the statements as fact were from my personal involvement with the situation, and I was not at liberty to publicly "cite" conversations or individuals. This may be moot- but I do think that in hindsight, it clears me from wrongdoing, and as solid documented-data, I did want to point it out. IMHO, the whole thing was also just kind of dumb to have ballooned into such a big deal- she used to be a member of a club, she went from "is a member" to "was a member," and that's all I changed- nothing more, and it was later revealed to have been both a true fact, and to have been true at the time I made the edit.

I don't believe in revisionist history, as I likely don't believe in suppressing First Amendment rights or the restriction of access to documentation of past events. I think Wikipedia's policy of full transparency is awesome- and I don't want it to change. My sole concern, is that my online handle *everywhere,* is ninavizz. I'm queried as "ninavizz" a lot, by prospective clients and employers, as well as current and past colleagues and employers- and my association to the drama around this woman, is continuing to cost my professional reputation.

I'm fine with the article remaining live, but I would like my username in the page header (and ideally throughout the article) to be redacted- or, for the page to be blocked by being scraped by Google. All of the drama- IRL, the restraining order, the Wikipedia stuff- was an incredible emotional burden for me, and I so want it all to live in the past- to not continue to dog me, and to not continue to dog me in areas of my life wholly un-related to my participation on Wikipedia, etc. Within the web of Wikipedia- great, let it be, no problem there- but to those not looking for information on my participation on Wikipedia, I'm tired of this surfacing.

I'm still continuing to suffer financially and through lost career opportunities from this, and simply want to break myself from continuing via. Google and other "outside world" entry paths, to be re-associated with this. Sorry to be redundant.

Please help? I didn't want to mention the two individuals here, because I don't want them to track their usernames mentioned here- which would re-stoke their interests in continuing to harp on me and drag me down. Documentation of the situation can be found by clicking on my username and looking at my userpage- sorry to ask you to do that work.

Thanks in advance, and for having read through all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninavizz (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance needed with a dispute

Hi Enigmaman, if your not to busy could you please give us your two cents at the Horn of Africa talkpage[4], where a member by the name of Liban08 keeps deleting sourced material and is promoting a fringe theory which has been refuted by both me and another wiki-editor --Scoobycentric (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)