User talk:RL0919/Archive 2011

Ariel Toaff

I see that you restored the section on Passovers of Blood. Please note that this is by no means a NPOV piece. If you read the second reference you'll see that the criticism came first from rabbis that had not read the book, secondly from non-Jewish historians that did not understand Hebrew. The reference (written 3 weeks after the books publication) also asserts that "Toaff believes, Jews did not murder Simonino, just as they did not murder any other child." As such the statement later in the wikipedia article that "Toaff now "concedes" that the accusations of ritual murder, as a common Jewish practice, were entirely Christian fabrications" is misleading.

The third reference in the article are plain weird.

The correct course is for this section to be put in the talk page until it can be cleaned up. --John lilburne (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article content is typically cleaned up within the article itself, or in a sandbox page if major rewrites are needed, not shunted off to the talk page. I'm not particularly committed to the exact content that I rescued from the mass deletion of the prior edit, but a preliminary review suggests that the sources are legit and have not been grossly misrepresented. The "concedes" part does seem inaccurate relative to the cited source (or perhaps was sourced from a reference that I did not re-incorporate), so that should be changed. The third reference is an academic book published by a university press, so I'm not sure what makes you describe it as "weird", but it should qualify as a reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for courtesy

I saw this and thought it was probably a bad call at least in so far as one argument you presented went. In principle negative comments about edits or decisions made on WP are not PAs. PAs have to be generalisations about their editing pattern or include inference about the editor. I have made 10,000 edits and some of them are bound to be rubbish. I do not think a list of diffs of "bad edits" is therefore disallowed as a PA. Personally had I voted I might have voted delete because of the edit summaries of "twat" etc. But I have copied the bare list in my user space away from its edit history (ie I did not recreate and move) and it is unsurprisingly up for deletion here. I thought I should let you know. --BozMo talk 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is unsurprising to see a recreation of material that was just deleted being put up for deletion itself. As for the appropriateness of compiling a diff list of "bad edits", that is already addressed in an established guideline, so I was following an established consensus in evaluating the MFD. If we test enough corner cases, I imagine we can find the limits of that consensus, although establishing the page as a violation of a commonly used speedy deletion criterion probably gets it off on the wrong foot. --RL0919 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit thick but exactly which bit of the established guideline refers to a list of bad edits? Specifically and very clearly recording a "flaw" is not the same as recording a bad edit. A flaw is to do with a person not an action. There has to be an implication of pattern or nature for that to stick. BTW if you are up for irony you might look at the four edits of mine which WMC listed (which might be interpreted as expressing exasperation with people testing corner cases...). --BozMo talk 16:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason the term 'wikilawyer' has negative connotations. You can try to parse "bad diffs" as being different from "perceived flaws" by claiming that you personally didn't collect them as a list of flaws (even though the originator of the list did), but when it says, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc.", I have little doubt that a list of "bad diffs" is at least an "etc." The underlying issue is that most people don't care for having dossiers of just their mistakes collected and displayed to the world. The guidelines reflect that sentiment, and no amount of wikilawyering or attempting to skirt the limits will change the sentiment. It will just create more drama, for no good end that I can discern. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one do not need to have wikilawyers or censors protect me from my own diffs. I do not deny them. But I think you have failed to grasp a serious point of PA policy. As part of the project negative judgements on other people's specific edits is allowed. Those are not personal attacks. --BozMo talk 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think anyone believes that a negative judgment of a specific edit is a personal attack, assuming the disapproval is expressed within certain boundaries. But when people find that someone is accumulating negative material about them, especially when it can be very selective and misleading to accumulate isolated items, they often react badly to that. Perhaps you do not care, but experience shows that many people do. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I think if it was approaching harrassment or all one editor I would take your view, and also I think if it was all about a newer or more marginal editor I would be fairly aggressive in saying "take it to RFC or delete it". But admins for example have to expect some scrutiny. I was told when I got the mop "if you don't get called Hitler once a year you are not doing your job properly". On the list I had the largest number of diffs and it was only four, not forty. Listing enough edits by someone to be attempting to create a pattern would be troublesome, so would skewed statistical analysis of their edits. However I think for example a list of "bad edits by Arbcom members" etc would be allowable. Anyway this is more approaching opinions which should be expressed in the MfD, rather than grounds for closing it in a particular way. Policy is a bit grey. And there is probably a better venue for the policy question. --BozMo talk 08:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I have just been astonished to see the above conversation describing as "taunting". I hope you did not take it thus? --BozMo talk 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines, and I would not have pursued the approach you have used in recreating the list even if I agreed with your interpretation. But no, I do not consider your actions or any of your comments here to be "taunting". As a postscript, I see that while I was typing my replies you have accepted a third-party request to delete your own page, which was a gracious and sensible way to handle things, and I think that helps demonstrate that you had no "taunting" intentions. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to make a comment refuting the "taunting" claim in the MFD itself, just for the record, but it was already closed. So feel free to save a link to the diff of my comments in case it should come up in the future. I promise I will not consider it a personal attack, no matter how flawed my remarks may have been. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem thanks. As for what approach to pursue perhaps I was unwise. In my defense was/am pushed for time and thought deletion of the edit history because of the PAs was at least justified, so a deletion review isn't straightforward because I do not want a straight undelete. No one has appetite for a request for the same outcome but different reasoning. OTOH I am have explained the difference between disagreeing with the edit and attacking the editor to dozens of editors including plenty I have blocked for PA and I am reluctant to see the difference dismissed as wikilawyering. See you around. --BozMo talk 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing of template:sciuridae-stub with Template:squirrel-stub

I see that when you closed my nomination for moving {{Sciuridae-stub}} to {{squirrel-stub}}, you replaced all instances of the former with the latter. I have 2 comments about this:

1. With templates (including stub templates), no need to update the redirects when moving, unless the redirect is going to be either deleted, or used for something else - neither was the case here. This would be a case of WP:R2D, which says that bypassing redirects generally shouldn't be done.
2. Please note that stub tags are typicly lower case (such as {{squirrel-stub}}, not {{Squirrel-stub}}. (Not that this should be corrected now, as it would be an edit with no visible difference.) The only exception is when the first word of the tag name is a word which is always capitalized (such as {{California-poli-stub}}), or an abbreviation of such a word (such as {{US-poli-stub}}).

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

time to sort out the icesave / debt repayment / loan agreement dispute finally

hey there, this is just a bulk message inviting you to re-think the topic as was discussed more than 6 months ago and is still unresolved. feel free to jump here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Time_to_settle_the_title_dispute.3F and help figure out how we can end this conclusively this time. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cookies are always good after tedious work

Thanks for going through that Objectivism list of names. I've been meaning to find time to do it myself. BigK HeX (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

De nada. The sourcing still needs to be reviewed, because some of the cited sources are whole books without page numbers, and some instances may be original research (citing works that demonstrate Rand's influence on the listed person, rather than discussing that influence). But it isn't quite as pressing because I'm comfortable that the names remaining on the list can be cited properly, even if they aren't at this moment. --RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecturing

Would you kindly stop filling my user page with lectures and empty threats, it also took three separate attempts to even reply on the admin notice board, I thank you.Twobells (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should consider listening to the advice of uninvolved parties when it is offered in good faith. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When the advice is to ignore best practice....I think not.Twobells (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is not "best practice". Seeking outside input when the local consensus is against you is. I don't care about your content views and I'm not going to argue with you about them. Further edit warring will get you blocked. If you get that, then we need not have any further interaction. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gäp

Hi! As I've noticed, the article was removed when I've already removed any "wrong" statements and added all sources that provided my opinion (and some voters explained that they object only for this statements, not for whole articles). However the haven't canceled their vote and I was to late to ask them to do this, so, could you restore this article and add it to deletion vote again? As i 've understand, the nominator has no objections to the last version of the article. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the nominator's final comment was that final revision of the article was "fine" (which in context I believe meant that it was not an "attack page" as had been suggested earlier), but they left to others the determination of whether there were sufficient sources. As several others noted, there were no WP:RS-compliant sources in the article. Just putting the page straight back to AFD now, without adding any new sources, would be unlikely to change the result. Since the "attack page" concerns were addressed, I would be happy to userfy the deleted content for you to add reliable sources. Then you can move it back to article space once that is done. Let me know if you are OK with that plan. --RL0919 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is the only way, I'm agree. Could you add the redirect from the original page to my space page< or such redirects are prohibited? Also, may some sources I've added be verified? What i need to do this? Can I invite to discussion some Tatar speaking editors from Russian wikipedia, for instance? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 09:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the page to User:Untifler/Gäp. Redirects from the article pages to user pages are not allowed. You are welcome to invite editors from other wikis to help you improve the page or translate source material, but if there is another deletion discussion you should be careful to follow the rules about canvassing. Verifying sources can be tricky, especially if they are in a language that most en-wiki editors can't read. You could try running specific sources by the reliable sources noticeboard to see what folks there think about them. --RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

VINF

Hello,

You deleted in November the article "Virtual Institute of Nano Films". I updated and improved the french version, I intend to do the same in English.

Have a good day,

Jeylab (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Objectivist Periodicals

Branden does not say that Rand ever "threatened" to refuse him any copyrights, and cannot quote Rand about this, nor was he in direct communication with Rand at all when the negotiations with Holzer were taking place. Please see James Valliant's 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics', pp.121-127, for this highly charged set of allegations an claims. Branden had himself previously offered to sign over his interest in the magazine, without compensation, even before Rand learned of his numerous deceptions.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Branden's various deceptions of Rand and his readers cannot be properly covered in the article on Objectivist periodicals, but the previously material required extensive explanation if it was to be fair. Mr. Branden's various claims have been directly challenged by multiple sources which must be included if his disputed charges are to be.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the list of contributors to the periodicals, the factually important material, should be included as to both incarnations.Pelagius2 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I didn't change anything about the list of contributors, so I'm not sure why you mention that. (My guess would be that you assumed I simply reverted your changes, which isn't the case.) Second, multiple biographies support the article's descriptions of events regarding the handover of Branden's half of The Objectivst and the status of his article copyrights. I have added more source citations in my latest edit restoring this material. If there are other reliable sources that directly challenge the facts claimed in this version of events, then bring them forth. (As you are well aware, the use of PARC as a source is going to be dicey.) As for Branden's "numerous deceptions", these largely related to other matters besides The Objectivist, so I find it hard to see how it would be justified to discuss them at any length in this particular article. Some brief reference to the reasons for Rand's break with him might be worked in -- with special care as to wording and sources, since he is still a living person. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I note that the word "threatened" is gone. Your sources do not support the use of that word, as I indicated, and you ignored. Second, the list of contributors added was missing when I changed it back, for whatever reason. No matter. The main point is that Nathaniel Branden, before Rand had learned of his deceptions, had offered to simply ~ give ~ Rand his entire interest in the magazine, an offer she took as offensive (at that point). She then ~accepted ~ his later offer to do the same. It was not a matter of Rand "insisting." This is from Rand's own notes in Valliant's 'Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics', and it is not contradicted by Burns who had access to the same material -- and does not contradict Valliant. Also, Branden does not ever say that Rand told him that she refused to sign over his copyrights. He could not have since he was not speaking with Rand at that point. When he did hear anything official it was from her attorney Holzer who, he writes, says Rand had not refused. Where he got the idea that Rand had ever done so is not clear. All of this is discussed in Valliant's PARC. Just leave out this highly controversial and highly biased material, please, unless the entire context, including Branden's previous offer to simply give it to Rand, is included.72.199.110.160 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, NB's signing ownership over to Rand came on the heels of his public apology to the rest of the NBI staff. To exclude this aspect is to make a highly one-sided tale, in any case. Nor is the use of PARC "dicey" per the last discussions of it. As I recall, it is only the use of PARC from this IP address that was any problem. Professor Burns herself not only cites PARC but engaged with Valliant in a Symposium on her biography, and was highly complimentary toward Valliant in the process.Indeed, it is no more or less "dicey" than Burns or Heller from what I can see.72.199.110.160 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How is Pelagius2 related to James S. Valliant, the author of the book whose employment is deemed "dicey" in this context?-RLCampbell (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I see that this discussion has been linked from an external site, let me caution that my user talk page is not the place to promulgate off-wiki disputes, and accounts or IP addresses that violate Wikipedia policies against personal attacks or outing of anonymous editors may be blocked. While no one has done anything disruptive yet, please consider this advance warning. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I will have to leave the interpretation of Wikipedia's labyrinthine and apparently internally contradictory policies, including conflict of interest, to the insiders who may actually understand them, and for whose benefit they appear to have been designed. I shall refrain in the future from commenting about any other Wikipedian on your user talk page.

In return, however, I hope I am correct in assuming that comments made about Wikipedia editors in venues other than Wikipedia are, in the normal run of things, not Wikipedia's business. The reference to "an external site"--to which you refer as though you are acting in an official capacity, to monitor it for violations--invites the inference that you may seek to block Wikipedia editors whose comments away from Wikipedia do not meet standards of conduct internal to Wikipedia.

I hope there is no such official policy at Wikipedia, but if there is, I would prefer to see the policy announced. I have been editing under my own name at Wikipedia, and have made formal "declarations of interest" here, but I also post under my own name elsewhere. If I am required to choose between editing at Wikipedia and speaking my mind at other sites, I will opt for the latter and make do without the former.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not typically address off-wiki behavior, nor was that the focus of my comments. Rather, links from external sites may attract people into a discussion here when they are not familiar with the standards of behavior on Wikipedia, and they will then act on-wiki in ways that go against our norms, with bad results. My comments are an alert to any such parties: if they come to my user talk page on Wikipedia and start (or continue from elsewhere) conflicts that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, or if they behave against Wikipedia policies (and I provided links to two policies that seem especially likely to be breached), then they should know what the consequences may be. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one person active on the "external site" in question has participated in this discussion. The thread on which I linked to this discussion, when taken as a whole, hardly encourages anyone not presently active at Wikipedia to become so. So your "alert to any such parties" appears to be directed at that one person.

If you seek to have my account blocked, your stated rationale will make for interesting reading.

Until I am blocked, you are welcome to post on my user talk page. I will not be posting again here.-RLCampbell (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If I wished to warn you personally, I could and would have done so much more directly. However, if you are only coming to my talk page to stir up conflict and vent paranoid speculations, your withdrawal from it is probably for the best. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard, I frankly don’t know what’s the matter with you.

But since I’ve decided to quit editing at Wikipedia, I’ll put my statement right here. I no longer care how you might react to it.

It’s obvious from your exchanges, up-thread, with 72.199.110.160 and Pelagius2, that you think they are the same people.

You presume that Pelagius2 will know why citations to James Valliant’s book The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics are “dicey.” If Pelagius2 were some unfamiliar newbie, your presumption would be completely nutty. A newbie would have no reason to know that Valliant’s book was ruled a non-reliable source, or that members of the Valliant household were prohibited from citing it in future edits. When IP160 (falsely) claimed that only “the use of PARC from this address” was ruled out, you didn’t act surprised that IP160 had taken up right where Pelagius2 had left off.

If any further evidence were required, note that when 72.199.110.160 was hit with multiple sanctions in May 2009, Pelagius1 sprang up to plead IP160’s case—and ended up admitting to being a member of James Valliant’s household. Pelagius2 opened for business on February 15 of this year, just as IP160 emerged from a 15-day topic ban. Look at Pelagius2’s excuse for a user page. The only difference: Pelagius 1 and IP160 were not active on the same days, whereas Pelagius2 and IP160 often are.

Let’s put it in words that everyone will understand.

IP160 and Pelagius2 both emanate from the household of James S. and Holly W. Valliant.

Both accounts are almost certainly used by more than one person.

Whether the actual user on a particular occasion is James Valliant, Holly Valliant, or Marcus Antonius Valliant, the employment of AnonIP160 and Pelagius2, including but not limited to their tag-teaming in the recent exchanges on this page, looks to be a violation of Wikipedia’s rule against sock puppetry.

So, what happened when I found out that AnonIP160 and Pelagius2 were defending questionable edits and referring to Valliant’s book in their defense? I came on this page and asked whether Pelagius2 had any connection with James S. Valliant.

For, if there is one, Pelagius2 has a conflict of interest and is acting deceptively in an effort to conceal it.

And how did you react?

First, you pretended I’d just parachuted in from Mars. I’ve been editing at Wikipedia since August 2009, and joined WP:OBJECTIVISM shortly thereafter. Subsequently, you and I had some differences, but we were able to work together productively. Apparently you’d forgotten all of that in the interim.

Next, you issued a loud, blustery warning at a horde of unnamed persons who, you professed to imagine, were about to invade Wikipedia, descend on your own talk page, and commit wholesale violations of Wikipedian norms. Sounds pretty paranoid, if you want to know the truth.

When I asked whether you were aiming this hot blast at me, you gave a loud, unconvincing denial. I was the one who linked to this page from the ObjectivistLiving site; I’m the only one from that site who has said a word over here; and you didn’t mind declaring that I was better advised to stay off your page, being paranoid and purely minded toward disruption.

So, cut to the chase:

Members of the James S. Valliant household are engaging in sock puppetry. You appear to know that they are and have done nothing about it. Instead, you threaten anyone else who might raise the issue with sanctions for violating the rules against outing and personal attacks.

Never mind that Jim and Holly Valliant were “outed” away from Wikipedia two years ago and that the information as to AnonIP160’s identity is widely available.

Never mind that Pelagius1 admitted here at Wikipedia to being a member of the Valliant household, while making misleading statements such as “I am new here.”

Never mind that Jim, Holly, and Marcus Antonius Valliant in their various incarnations have gotten into a slew of trouble at Wikipedia.

Never mind that during my time here I have avoided conflict with Jim, Holly, and Marcus Antonius Valliant in their editorial capacities. I haven’t been very active editing Rand-related articles since IP160 returned to activity in 2010, in part because I did not want to get into edit-wars with any of the Valliants.

Meanwhile, the Valliants do not reside in Pinsk, Pyongyang, or Benghazi. Nor, so far as I know, have they been in the habit of putting language critical of their employers in Wikipedia articles. So the standard rationale for the policy against outing scarcely applies to them.

I leave the interpretation of Wikipedia’s byzantine rules to those who claim to understand them. What Wikipedia gives with one hand, it often takes away with the other.

But I can’t imagine how you could think you are safeguarding the Wikipedia environment by protecting editors who engage in deceptive practices, including sock puppetry.

Maybe it is because you regard discussion fora outside of Wikipedia with such disdain that you feel called on to line up with anyone who’s been criticized on ObjectivistLiving, and consider it obligatory to punish any intruder hailing from such a place.

Be all of that as it may, you’re looking at my very last edit at Wikipedia, so you can block and ban to your heart’s content and it will make absolutely no difference to me.

Meanwhile, IP160 and Pelagius2 are showing no signs of having made their last edits. I predict that protecting them will bring you many headaches in the future.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have not taken any action to address "deceptive practices, including sock puppetry" is that I am not aware of any attempt to deceive. As you note, IP160 and the Pelagius2 account freely follow up for one another, with no indication at all of an attempt to make these appear to be different editors, no votestacking, no use of one to circumvent sanctions against the other, etc. As far as I can see, this is simply an editor who sometimes logs in and sometimes doesn't. It would be more within Wikipedia norms for her to log in more consistently, but that warrants nothing more than a friendly note to let her know how their inconsistent login behavior might be perceived, not a sockpuppet investigation. Moreover, if there were a need for such an investigation, it should be conducted by a third party, not by me, because Pelagius2 and I are clearly involved in editorial disputes with one another.

Regarding outing, I see no issue with pointing out that IP160 and Pelagius2 appear to be the same editor. That is a reasonable conclusion from observation of on-wiki behavior, not a revelation of anyone's personal details. The relationship between IP160 and the Pelagius1 account was similarly obvious. Moreover, based on a simple application of the "duck test", I believe that Pelagius1 and Pelagius2 are the same editor. The Pelagius1 account made an open, on-wiki claim to be the wife of the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, so by transitive logic, my presumption is that this also is the identity of IP160 and Pelagius2. Barring some unpublicized breakup, the wife of the author is presumably the same person named as the author's wife on the book jacket. Although I would hesitate to announce someone's name on-wiki when they have not done so, the previous public distribution of that information means it is not against policy to do so. If you thought that mentioning any of this was against Wikipedia policy, then I attribute that to your own self-proclaimed deficiency in understanding of those policies.

What would be outing would be revelations of non-public information about this editor (or her spouse), such as employment, residence, hobbies, medical conditions, names of other family members, etc. This is the sort of thing that someone coming into a discussion from the outside might know and blurt out in a posting, which is why I mentioned outing in my "Since I see ..." notice. Perhaps mentioning the policy without detailed explanation of all the above was too oblique, but I generally try not to give specific negative suggestions when alerting people not to violate policy. Fortunately, my concern about outside parties seems to have been unwarranted (which you apparently take to mean it was pretended, as if it were implausible to have a concern about a problem that doesn't pan out), and no one thus far has done anything to violate policy. The complete lack of policy violations by anyone, explicitly including you, is why I've never sought (and am not seeking now) to "block or ban" you, although you apparently consider my statements about this to be "unconvincing" (and also "loud", although I have no idea how plain text has a volume; I didn't even use caps lock).

Regardless of any other details, given the presumptive status of IP160/Pelagius2 as the wife of James Valliant, author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, it would indeed be against the conflict of interest guideline for her to promote PARC on Wikipedia. However, beyond the brief mention of it above, I'm not aware of any PARC-promoting edits by her since mid-2009, just after IP 160 was topic-banned from editing articles related to Ayn Rand for six months. Having a potential conflict that is not acted upon doesn't violate any guidelines, and occasionally mentioning a conflict-related item in user talk page discussion is not the sort of editing that the COI guideline was intended to discourage.

After all the above, only two items remaining from your comments potentially deserve further consideration: 1) that the Pelagius1 account may have acted deceptively by claiming to be "new here" (when IP160 had been editing for months before), and 2) that these accounts "are almost certainly used by more than one person." Regarding (1), the Pelagius1 account was only used in May and June 2009. It's not clear to me that there was any attempt at deception back then. The account did post to one editor's talk page that they were "new", but immediately qualified that as "newly logged in" and admitted to making IP edits in the past (see here). More problematic is that the account made a handful of minor edits that were in violation of the topic-ban mentioned above. However, these edits were made over a year ago, and even if the topic ban start time had been reset to when the edits were made (part of the typical first-order response to such violations), IP160/Pelagius subsequently took a break from editing that exceeded the length of the ban. If these old violations were taken to a third-party admin, they would almost certainly dismiss them as too stale for even a warning, much less a block (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals).

Regarding (2), this is a serious and presumably current allegation. However, it is offered with no support. If you think your claim is demonstrable, then you are welcome to ask for a sockpuppet investigation about it. But an investigator is going to want some clear evidence for multiple users, not just a hunch. (This is where you might need to be careful about the outing policy, if you have evidence that relies on private information about the individuals you suspect of sharing the account. You should submit your request via email if that is the case.) Given your announced intention to leave Wikipedia, it would be up to you to decide if you wanted to pursue that. I can't make the case for that because I don't have any evidence that it is true.

In conclusion: I'm not "protecting" anyone, because I don't know of anything from which to protect them. I'm not threatening to block you (or to ask anyone to block you), because although IMO you are acting foolishly, that is not in itself a violation of any WP rules. Your ability to spin out speculations about my motives and thought processes is impressive in its creativity, but utterly wrong in almost every particular. If you wish to cease editing, that is your call. I have done nothing to intentionally encourage such a departure. The one thing I did discourage, which was you coming to my user talk page stirring up trouble, is the one thing you apparently decided you should do before leaving. That's unfortunate. I wish you good premises. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for ending this debacle of a discussion with more than just a "the result was keep" or "the result was no consensus." For some reason that was a particularly violent discussion about a pretty meaningless topic, and I think your explanation of your closure probably prevented endless continuation of the discussion. So thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, good close. Spoken eloquently. -- œ^™ 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Darn it, I was hoping to be the first one to congratulate you. I would like to see the whole thing flushed down the drain, but I think you did a great job of closing it, calmly and lucidly. Well done, and thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed MfD

I wish I'd seen this before today. I'm definitely not looking to beat a dead horse, just to get a reality-check. Do you think knowledge of this direction, at the top of a mainspace talk page would have been important, if provided in a more timely manner?

I reiterate, the case, from my point of view, is closed. I do not look to re-open it. I'm just looking for guidance for future dialogues about different pages.

If you feel comfortable answering, swell. If not, I totally understand. I'll not raise the point again. David in DC (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you mean, would just that fact alone being noted in the discussion have changed the outcome, then no. If it swayed other editors' perspective on the page to lead them to change to a "delete" position, then perhaps.

For what it is worth, I don't think having note of this type on the article's talk page is appropriate. It appears to promote the page as a source of information for the general reader, when in theory the page is retained as a source of working material for members of the WikiProject, at least according to the keep arguments in the MFD. The most direct remedy, however, would be to remove the note from the talk page, not to delete the project page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and your perspective. I appreciate it. Best, David in DC (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CoM

Hi, is this a checkuser block or is there a case page somewhere? Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, where is the evidence for this post of yours? Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here,[1] the now-blocked Daleks claims to be an alternate account for CoM. That's one reason I suspect something fishy is going on. In the past, I don't think CoM was so blatantly drawing attention to himself when he was socking. But again, I could be wrong; my memory could be fading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, I had seen that but as you say its not really evidential. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, when someone is eager to be "caught" socking, they may well be an impostor - though not always, as I can think of some that really were who they said they were. But I don't think that approach is really CoM's style. I wonder if there's a realistic possibility of an SPI here, or if too much time has passed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed the possibility that this could be a joe job, although I don't have any clear evidence one way or the other. Either way, the "alternate account" was removing notices and making inappropriate accusations of libel when other editors restored them, so I blocked it. I did not, however, make any further extension of the block on CoM, nor do I think an extension would be warranted without further investigation and discussion. To avoid any possibly mistaken impressions, I just clarified my log of the block. --RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification RL0919 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think RL has done it the right way. Obviously, Daleks had to be indef'd. And since we don't yet know if he really is a sock, keeping the current expiration date intact is fair. I asked a checkuser whether an SPI is possible or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add that it's a virtual certainty that Daleks is not a newbie, and hence is a sock of somebody; we just don't know "of who/whom". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - hi, regarding this update, do you think its correct to even have a comment about this in the log of action section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions on CoM arbitration page? Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the checkuser results, I have removed the log entry, since it appears that the blocked account was an impersonator. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks much, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Enemy of the Daleks"

Although my interaction ban with ChildofMidnight remains in place, I've been told I can comment in purely administrative situations. An SPI may prove otherwise, but I'm inclined to doubt that Daleks is really a sock of CoM, but more likely someone who's trying to get him into further trouble, i.e. by triggering another extension of CoM's 1-year ban from wikipedia. I may be forgetting things, but I don't recall CoM ever calling administrative tags "libelous". Anyway, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. Since Daleks appears to have first edited under an IP today, that might help any investigating - although it could be a red herring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See above. --RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Turns out the impostor was a sock of the multi-socking Editor XXV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing AfD

Can you point me to the steps for closing an AfD? You'd think after all these years I'd know how to do one... Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions has the standard steps, although in this case I don't intend to reward the vandal's efforts with an oldafd tag on the talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Featured Articles

This looks pretty strange, but there seems to be some pages still left to be cleaned up after you deleted the Book:Featured_Articles subpages, which can all be found at Special:PrefixIndex/Book:Featured_Articles and Special:PrefixIndex/Book_talk:Featured_Articles. Could you also consider deleting pages located there as well? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just found out that the latter was a mistake resulting from a bot called NoomBot. Might be a good idea to block it or contact its owner before proceeding, I guess. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the two Book pages and filed a bug for NoomBot. Before I re-delete the talk pages, I'll wait to make sure it isn't going to just keep recreating them. Thanks for letting me know about the leftovers. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NoomBot is fixed and the pages deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ben Affleck

Since you closed a prior TFD, I am informing you of Template:Ben Affleck.--76.192.189.116 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This one has significantly more links than the ones deleted previously, so I've taken it to TFD rather than speedy deleting. Feel free to add your input there if you wish. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage

Hi there, I saw you were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage, which I nominated. That was a pretty tough debate, certainly "inflammatory", and "divisive", but as as you noted in your closure, not this is not necessarily reflective on the userbox itself. Still, such a sharply divided discussion may have at least a little to do with the properties of the box itself. Some comments seemed to bear this out, for example, Graeme Bartlett's keep rationale. Personally, I don't really see how the box can be used in line with Wikipedia:Userboxes — saying it's just humor, or just a bumper sticker, certainly doesn't mean it's not flammatory or divisive — indeed, in politics, it would tend to imply the opposite.

The userbox's creator broke off direct discussion, so I was just wondering if you had any final thoughts on the matter. Feezo (Talk) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that a significant segment within the community is opposed in general to deleting political userboxes that are in user space, and therefore they tend to interpret the "inflammatory or divisive" criteria in a way the gives considerable latitude to the user. That makes consensus on deletion of boxes that aren't explicitly offensive difficult to obtain. You could try again and attempt to publicize the discussion to gain wider input, but it's difficult to do that within the restrictions of WP:CANVASS, because there is a lack of obvious natural places to advertise discussions about a userbox. Or you could let it rest and figure that in the big scheme of things, one userbox isn't very important. Beyond those options, I don't have any particular ideas for you. Ultimately, in a project with a wide diversity of viewpoints, different discussions don't always produce consistent results, and sometimes we have to live with that. --RL0919 (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response; I'll let the matter rest for now. What do you think of modifying Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions to reflect the increased latitude? It's not clear at all from #Which namespace that such boxes have much looser content restrictions. Feezo (Talk) 05:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Why was my page deleted? User:DanielOates

It was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielOates, because it violated Wikipedia policy against using our servers to host your personal material that has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. Please read the policy at WP:NOTWEBHOST, and don't upload your schoolwork to Wikipedia again. --RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, i was unaware of that, is there anyway of allowing me to take the work off that page? Because i do not have a copy of it and it will affect my module grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielOates (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I can email the wiki-text of the page to you. You can either enable email on your account under "My preferences" and notify me here, or you can email me the address you want it sent to using the "Email this user" feature. See Wikipedia:E-mailing users for more info if you need. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i have enabled my account email, i would appreciate it if you could send me the text. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielOates (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. --RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the "Kira Peikoff" citation.

Hi RL0919!

Thanks again for adding the Kira Peikoff citation, and for your general work about improving the coverage of Objectivism on the Wikipedia (which is already pretty good). You seem like a very good guy, and I hope we can stay in touch. (Here are my comprehensive manners of contact information (including E-mail and IM) if you're interested in contacting me off wikipedia). I've been much less active on wikipedia than you have, and mostly did stuff related to various Solitaire games I'm interested in (having written several computerised solvers for them and other computer work), a lot on other open-source projects, and some mostly janitorial work. I've also worked on the Hebrew Wikipedia, the English wikiquote, the English wiktionary, and on some Wikia wikis. There are links to my user pages there on my wikipedia user-page.

I consider myself a mostly-Objectivist too, though I deviate with many things that Ayn Rand or even Neo-Tech (which despite its many style, presentation and sometimes opinion faults, was my portal into the world of Objectivism.), and have drawn inspiration from many other sources, including some that Neo-Tech may dismiss as being "mystical", and so may be considered more of a Neo-Objectivist or even a "post-Objectivist" by now. Objectivism has provided a lot of fodder for the various cultural works I did (such stories, essays, blog posts or aphorisms) I've written on my home-site and blogs, so I'm happy that I got introduced to it.

Anyway, stay cool, hope you'll get in touch, and hope we can work on more stuff on the Wikipedia in the future. I've been rambling too long here, and may have said some stuff here that does not really match the wikipedia spirit, so I apologise if I did. :-( .

Cheers, and happy hacking (see the Jargon file - I don't mean "cracking" of course, but I guess you know that), and like a Christian friend of mine says "may God's hacking spirit be with you", -- Shlomi Fish

Shlomif (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Siju100/Femous

I have undone your deletion of this - I first deleted it as an article, the author presented sources on my talk page which suggest that at least it can pass A7, I userfied it for her but then was called away before I had time to remove the A7 tag. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone gets distracted from time to time. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Conceptual jungle

Hi RL0919, I'd like to have all contents of the project please. I find it strange that there was no further discussion on the comments I made - there were not many (new) participants/arguments in the discussion - and therefore find the decision to delete premature. I'm considering to propose a relaunch of the project under the new name I mentioned. Best regards, Brz7 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the following sub-pages and moved them to your user space at the locations indicated:

• User:Brz7/Geographical adjectives
• User:Brz7/Temporal adjectives
• User:Brz7/Scientific adjectives
• User:Brz7/Political adjectives
• User:Brz7/Formats for articles on geographical entities
• User:Brz7/Core, vital and key concepts

Those are the sub-pages I could easily find. If there are others, please give me the names of the pages; it can be difficult to find a deleted page if you don't know what it was called.

I did not restore the main page of the project because the sentiment in the discussion was against this being WikiProject, and the main page is all about the project, who its members are, etc. I would encourage you to use this material in your user space or perhaps write an essay about your goals to gain some consensus for what you are trying to do, prior to any attempt to create another WikiProject, regardless of the name used for it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for quickly restoring/userfying the articles! I'll link to them in my profile. But I'd also like to have the data of the project page in order to elaborate on it in an eventual essay as it contains goals, strategies and definitions. I found [2] the cached data of the project discussion page, not sure if the sub pages contained discussion pages? Brz7 (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Scientific adjectives" page had a talk page, so I have userfied that to User talk:Brz7/Scientific adjectives. None of the other sub-pages had any talk page discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, good to have that discussion page back. Could you somehow give me the data (in a non-wikiproject format) on the project page's main page as well? Thanks. Brz7 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I sent you an email with the plain text of the page. --RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Brz7 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Polyester coord-bandage Tape

This article is a complete mess. It refers to the topic as a tape and a strap. These are mutually exclusive, because one has an adhesive and the other doesn't. Moreover, what the heck is "coord" and "nagart"?! I design strapping equipment for a living, so I know the industry in and out, and this is just a hoax of an article. On top of it all, it also doesn't assert notability. Wizard191 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted the article as a hoax. Feezo (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No skin off any part of me. I suspect the only difference is that it was deleted today vs. next week. Seven months is a long shelf life for a hoax article, by the way, so whoever created this got a lot of mileage out of their single edit. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about the deletion of Portal:Cartoon Network the speedy delete was declined (due to others protesting its speedy delete) but yet its was still deleted due to this excuse. Could you elaborate y this was done is this manner?Moxy (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I declined the G7 (author requesting deletion of their own work) speedy deletion tag placed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) on 28 March, because of the "keep" comments from some editors in the MFD. On 31 March Jj98 (talk · contribs) blanked the page and placed a G7 speedy deletion tag on it, including an edit summary asking that this not be reverted. (For whatever it is worth, I note that Jj98 is the actual primary author of the page. TenPoundHammer is not, but was acting based on Jj98's nomination of the page at MFD.) Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) then deleted it, and I closed the MFD to match the fait accompli. So really you would need to ask Elen of the Roads why they thought speedy deletion was appropriate in the circumstances. If you aren't satisfied with the reply, Deletion Review is the appropriate next stop. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok that sounds reasonable - thanks for responding so well.Moxy (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed humourous MfD

Just to let you know, the user who owned the page wanted it put on MfD as a joke, having requested so on IRC. --123Hedgefool456 : Create an account! 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, /TROUT <everyone involved>. :-p --RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks!

heh, didn't realize I messed that up; thanks for fixing it! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:Log. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page deletion: Smart & Biggar

Hi RL0919, I was wondering why the Smart & Biggar page was deleted? There are 3 references to Smart & Biggar on three different Wikipedia entries, yet there was no page for Smart & Biggar. You had stated it was “ambiguous advertising” however there is no difference in content from that which appears on other Wikipedia entries for various Canadian law firms, such as Bereskin & Parr, Gowlings, Ogilvy Renault, etc. The references that I provided were also more substantial than the references provided by the firms listed above. Please let me know why you feel this entry should be deleted, but the other entries for similar Canadian firms are acceptable. Many thanks. Kristen7 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted a fair number of pages, so I will need to review the details on this one to give you a proper reply. I should be able to get back to you by this evening (US Pacific Time). --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I reviewed the article. It had been tagged for speedy deletion as "unambiguous advertising" by another editor, and at the time I deleted it I guess I agreed with that assessment. (For what it is worth, it was one of my last edits before bed that evening, so perhaps I was tired.) On reviewing it again, I would say that it isn't quite that bad, although I am doubtful about whether the firm qualifies as "notable" under Wikipedia's guidelines. Still, notability is not a matter of unilateral decision; if the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion then it gets its shot at further discussion.

Based on the above, I'm going to undelete the article and give it a bit of cleanup to conform better to Wikipedia's style guidelines. I would strongly recommend that you work on bolstering the article with citations from independent reliable sources that discuss the firm and its history. Non-independent sources, such as the firm's own website, press releases, or a history from a trade association that has the firm as a member, may contain interesting material for the article, but they do nothing to bolster its status as a notable subject. You may want to refer to the guidance at WP:CORP and perhaps look at the Gowlings article that you mention above as an example, since it seems to have a variety of independent citations. In a week or two I will circle back to the article, and if it still doesn't seem to show good evidence of notability, I will submit it for a deletion discussion so that others can weigh in on its suitability as a Wikipedia article. I may do the same for the articles on some of the other firms you mention, as they don't seem to be in much better shape.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will work on improving the article, as you have suggested. Kristen7 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject 4400

I noticed you closed out the deletion of WikiProject 4400 as no consensus. IN case you are unaware the history is not lost on these projects when they are deleted. The WikiProject Council backs them up so if we need to see one they have a backup copy. I don't honestly know if the keep every subpage but from what I know they at least keep the Main page and the talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. Where are these archives kept? As far as that particular MFD goes, I don't think this information should change the outcome, because it wasn't raised during the discussion and there could be counterarguments to any claim that this invalidates the "keep for history" position (which I assume is the gist of your comment). But it does seem like a relevant point to bring up in the ongoing discussions of other WikiProjects at MFD. --RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to change your mind just thought I would mention it. I am not sure where the info is kept but if you ask Moxy he can tell you. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Mrchris/WikiProject Kilkenny

Thanks, that was careless of me - I saw the "move sub-pages" box, started to check if there were any, got distracted and then forgot. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I was going to leave a note on your talk page later, so I'm glad you noticed and spared me the trouble.

Another thing I was going to mention in relation to deletions of WikiProjects: A lot of these have associated templates and categories that should be G8 deleted when the project is. It can actually be a fair amount of work if the project template is still transcluded on a bunch of talk pages. The userfication case is a little odd since it is hard to userfy the template and basically impossible to userfy a category, so I just left them in place. --RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll bear that in mind. I don't plan to close any more of the current batch of WikiProject MfDs, as I don't know enough about WikiProjects and how they work to balance the "it's dead" versus "it might be useful some day" arguments. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I accidentally clicked the "Rollback - Vandal" button on your last edit to Ayn Rand. I self-reverted naturally, but I figured I should give you a heads up just in case the system somehow flagged you as a vandal. My apologies. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but worst case is my edits get more scrutiny from Huggle users. There's something that triggers that, but I've never been especially clear on what. But if it makes you feel better, I could delete the wrong page and bring down the entire wiki (it's happened to others; there's a page somewhere for documenting the most epic admin cock-ups), which is slightly worse than a rollback error. :-0 --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's at Wikipedia:Village stocks. A comforting read after one has made a small blooper. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I did

At Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Image_consensus_statement. Why do we restrict the use of these helpful tags to only articles? Policy pages should also be referenced. How are we to know when reading them what is longstanding versus recent additions? To know this would require plumbing the history and be pretty complex. Datedness is better established with references pertaining to the time when it was enacted. Would you participate? DB (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your talk page comments after my edit, and I have now responded there. The idea of dating particular points is interesting but probably would just be switching the difficulty of reviewing history with a new set of problems (for example, if someone makes what they consider a minor wording change, does that require re-dating the "reference"?). Regardless, it isn't the standard practice now. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for directions.

Dear RL0919,

Let me begin by apologizing for the test article that I wrote that you deleted. I did it to try editing in Wikipedia, under the assumption that I can delete my own articles.

As you probably know by now, I am new to editing, although I have been using Wikipedia for years now. I feel a compulsion to contribute to this great wiki.

Short of writing articles, is there anything I can do for Wikipedia? I am fumbling around at the Village Pump but I can't find a newbies section.

Hope I'm signing off correctly, Shon Lee (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Shon Lee

Hi, Shon Lee, and welcome. There is plenty you can do other than writing articles. I put a standard welcome message on your user talk page that has some links that may help you. Not exactly personal advice, I know. I'm really busy this weekend, so I can't respond at length beyond that right now, but when I get the chance I will drop you a note. --RL0919 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

hi RL0919, I found this article "traumatic amputation" that I think should be merged with "amputation".

I placed a tag asking for a merger a few days ago. I did not get a reply, so I decided to be bold and merged it myself following the guidelines at help:merging. The article was so highly redundant, it was more of a deletion than a merger. But if you have the time, it would be nice if you can go through what I have done and see if there is anything I can do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shon Lee (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much content transferred over, but if the articles were redundant that's not surprising. From the history, the Traumatic amputation article was a redirect for many years until a few months ago, so you're just restoring its previous condition. If someone objects they can bring it up on one the article talk pages.

I would offer a couple of general tips around using the talk pages. When you add a new discussion, be sure to give it a section header and add it at the bottom of the discussion page (not the top). And when you add comments to an existing discussion, you can indent them (to show that you are responding to earlier comments) by putting one or more colons (:) at the beginning of the paragraph. One colon for a single indent, two for a double-indent, etc. Finally, it helps to sign you comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shon Lee (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Help on Two Counts

Hi RL0919

Can you undelete Earthsea Revisioned? It was marked for deletion, but it does meet one notable criterion. I just didn't have time to note the significance before it was deleted.

Also, can you mark the article True names in popular culture for combination with true name? It is mostly junk and certainly doesn't deserve to be a page of its own. Since you are a philosophy person, you might even give true name a little editorial polish? It was a mess and I cleaned it up some already.

Regards--Npd2983 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthsea Revisioned is not deleted. It was redirected. When you follow the link for it and get redirected to the target page, you can scroll to the top and see where it says "Redirected from Earthsea Revisioned". If you click on the link shown there (or this link, which is the same), it will take you to the page without redirecting you, which will then allow you to undo the redirect or otherwise edit the page. The appropriate next steps after undoing the redirect would be to remove the prod tag and add evidence of notability to the article.

The "true names" business is a whole other matter which I will need to look at during a less busy time. If you want to tag it yourself, there are detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Merging. Or you could boldy merge it without a prior proposal, with the understanding that if someone disagrees then they could undo it just as I presume you will be doing with the Earthsea Revisioned article, at which point you could pursue a more formal merger discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganerer screamer deletion?

Why was Ganerer screamer list deleted????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.108.67 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ganerer/List of computer pranks. I assume that's the page you are asking about, since to my knowledge it is the only "Ganerer" page I have been involved in deleting. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders"

Hi Richard. I was impressed by your closure of Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 2#RfC: Should Unite Against Fascism (UAF) be described in the lead as "left-wing"? earlier this year. At WP:AN, an editor has asked that Talk:Political activities of the Koch family#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders" be summarized. This request was archived after no admin had addressed the request. Would you consider closing the discussion? Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? as well? If you could close either discussion, I would be grateful. (Please note that I am uninvolved in the two discussions so I do not believe there is any impropriety in my asking you close them.) Cunard (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I closed the Koch one, but I have a strong opinion about the bus route articles, so I commented instead. Sorry. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the Koch one. A concise, well-written summation that will, I hope, put that issue to rest. No need to apologize for the second one. The time you spent reviewing both discussions is deeply appreciated. Another admin can close the bus route discussion. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too for closing the Koch RfC. It's not fun work, but at least you can't say it's thankless. ;)   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this RfC closure here I would like to know by where you determined this statement. "and her quote summarizes a relatively common perspective about the Koch brothers' activity in this area." Is this your opinion, or do you have so evidence to back up this claim? Arzel (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a summary of one of the arguments provided by participants in the discussion, such as the list supplied by User:NickCT. (Note that this sentence of my closing statement begins, "Supporters of using it argued that...".) I personally do not know much about the Kochs beyond what I read pursuant to the RfC, and I don't care what sorts of climate research they might fund. Which is why I was the one who closed the RfC, as opposed to a partisan of one side or the other. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not what NickCT stated, which is why I asked if it was your opinion. He even stated in that list that they were mostly liberal points of view, and there were not much in the way of reliable sources for that statement, thus there is no basis for it bein a relatively common perspective about the Koch brothers. To be sure it has been a liberal talking point, but not common. If it were common there would be a multitude of RS's to pull from. Arzel (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to argue with you about your interpretation of the discussion, which I would naturally expect to favor your own preferred result. The preference of a substantial majority in the RfC was different from yours, and it was supported with reasonable arguments. I make no claim that the result is definitively correct or unassailable, just that it was the outcome of that particular discussion. If you believe the RfC reached an inappropriate conclusion, you are welcome to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution in the hope of achieving a more favorable result. --RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing the article creation RFC

Would you consider reviewing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC needs summary. It's a doozy...? I asked Newyorkbrad to close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles but he was unable to do so. The discussion is very lengthy and contentious, so if you don't have the time and the inclination to read and summarize it, please don't worry about it. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are supposed to close this type of request with a "Mwahahahaha" or something similar. Seriously, that thing is monstrous, and despite the stereotypes, some of us admins actually work for a living. I will promise to attempt to read it, and if I have time to finish it and if it is amenable to summary, I'll give it a go. But don't turn away any other offers on my account. --RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But I thought you worked for a living on Wikipedia and get paid big bucks adminning for it. :) But seriously, if you don't have the time or don't have the inclination, don't close it. Your hard work in closing long and contentious AfDs, MfDs, DRVs, and RfCs have not gone unnoticed and it would be a shame if you burned out. Cunard (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Jimbo commented on the proposal here; the WMF recently passed a resolution on openness asking us to pay special attention to the issue. In my view this implies that we should be particularly sensitive in not rushing to take such measures, but comprehensively discuss the issue and consider a clear proposal on which consensus can develop, which I don't think occurred in this RFC yet. I've commented here on why I think further discussion on a clear proposal is needed, which as suggested by many users could be for a trial, and indeed a trial would provide for the kind of data requested by Jimbo, allowing us to make an informed decision on the issue. Cenarium (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and the resolution you mention, and will endeavor to address both in my close of the RfC (with the caveat that a thoughtful summary cannot include up-to-the-minute reaction to all the latest commentaries). --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Thank you for undertaking to close the RFC. It's not an easy task. In the interest of helping to find a consensus, I took the liberty of assembling a summary table.

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Summary table

While it's an accurate starting point, it's just an organized table of raw data. Interpreting it will obviously depend on your analysis.

Fair disclosure: I should tell you that I support this proposal. That doesn't color the data. But it might affect my belief that there is a consensus to be found here, if only in principle. Obviously there is a small but significant opposition that could be treated as either breaking consensus, or merely adding a small voice of caution to overall community support. Deciding that will depend on how you interpret numbers and the quality of the arguments for/against, which only a neutral outsider can deterime with any legitimacy.

Let me know if you have any questions. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I had actually completed a similar analysis of my own. At a quick glance it is probably similar in most cases to what you have created, although as your notes reflect, some of the comments are difficult to parse due to ambiguities or seemingly contradictory positions taken by individuals. So perhaps there are differences of interpretation here or there. Par for the course in such a large discussion. But thank your for your effort to aid in the process. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Most of the community took a pretty clear stance, with a small but significant part preferring to comment exclusively in the middle. I can't imagine there are enough to totally reshape consensus one way or another, considering there are 500 participants overall. But it goes without saying: take extra care looking at those nuanced views. I'll be around if you need a second opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's closed. Praise, complaints, clarification and desysop requests may be placed below. --RL0919 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a personal address where people can send intimidating pizzas and taxicabs? ... in all seriousness, thanks for taking on this thankless task, and completing it thoroughly in a reasonable time frame. It takes a combination of courage, intelligence, and work ethic. Few people possess all three of these qualities. Cheers. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you for closing the discussion. Yoenit (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RL0919, thank you very much for your detailed closure of the RfC. Despite no admin being willing to close the RfC for a month, you were willing to take the difficult challenge of closing a contentious RfC that spanned multiple lengthy pages. I read every word of your closure and the sole part I disagree with is where you said your closure was TLDR. Every word was worth reading, for both proponents and opposers of the proposal. I am curious; how long did it take you to read all the discussions and how long did it take you to write such a beautifully crafted summary? Cunard (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A few days ago, I thought no one would touch this RfC with a ten-foot pole, and now here's one of the best closes I've ever read. How you assimilated all those comments so rapidly and summarized them so accurately, I can't imagine. Thanks for proving me wrong! Rivertorch (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

+1 for all the points above. Given the strength of feeling on both sides and the myriad different views in both camps, it looked like it was going to be a nightmare to close. You did a great job and managed to do it with thoroughness, fairness and eloquence. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 10:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Trial RfC

First I want to thank you for a conscientious and difficult close on the articles RfC. There is a draft in userspace of an RfC to determine the trial format/length/etc. I plan to move it into the project space over the next week but before I do so I would love to hear your comments on the idea, the options as they exist now and the format (or anything else you can think of). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Slammiversary IX

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27 Slammiversary IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It's a tough job, to mop up. Actually, you might've just done something remarkable, 'coz if that AfD had failed I'd...well, IDK if I would have quit, but it'd be touch-and-go [3].

Redirect does seem reasonable, and I agree that the original closer made a logical decision, too.

I merely ask that, please, keep an eye on it; experience tells me, this isn't quite the end of the matter; here are some links for you;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOK Europe GP 2011 in Lublin
• User_talk:King_of_Hearts#WWE_Capitol_Punishment User_talk:Deryck_Chan#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSlammiversary_IX User_talk:Diannaa#Future_wrestling Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27
• User_talk:Unscintillating#Slammiversary_IX
• Destination X (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#.22Future_wrestling.22
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)
• Money in the Bank (2011) redirected 4/6/11 [4] Reverted as vandalism [5] -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money in the Bank (2011)
• User_talk:Nascarking#Money_in_the_Bank_.282011.29
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DGUSA United We Stand

 Chzz  ►  00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern and have the redirect on my watchlist to watch for any inappropriate restoration of the text. --RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  01:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to protect the redirect until 13 June 00:00 (UTC), since there is little point changing the article into a redirect unless we're sure no one can restore the article until the actual event. Deryck C. 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, Slammiversary IX was recreated, with just one reference - which is to TNA itself.

You might also be interested in the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination).

Personally, I've kinda given up.  Chzz  ►  19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you offer your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination) - please see User_talk:Chzz#WWE_Capitol Punishment. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Hello!

Regarding your comment here, I felt I should follow up and tell you that I've blocked Phdoc0 for socking. While I agree that one edit isn't enough for a vandalism block, the blatantly-obvious socking is blockable. Hope this is OK! Cheers, m.o.p 06:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Del Rev

What do I do now? Since you are the one who closed the discussion, you tell me. Do leave a talkback. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Took me a bit to realize which DRV you mean, since I closed a few yesterday and it appears that you may have had an account name change recently. But I believe I figured out that you mean one about BLP signatures here. I can't say that I have any super-strong advice to give, but here are some thoughts:

• For the one that was for a person already deceased, I think recreation would be fine, and I just said so at the new DRV you opened for it. You might want to contact Fastily and see if he would just restore it for you on the grounds that it should have been removed from the original nomination along with Elvis, etc.
• For the ones that are still living, my best suggestion would be to see what you can do to meet the criteria discussed at Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. I realize that it is not an official guideline, but if you address the concerns it raises, I expect you would get a lot more support for restoring/keeping these files. In particular, if any of these signatures have appeared in reliable secondary sources (leaving aside the website you got them from, which might or might not be considered a reliable source), then evidence of that should go a long way.

That's the best I can tell you for now. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Entertainmentnow

Errr, isn't a 12 hour block too little, given that this user has recreated the page, has removed speedy templates 7 times and may have a connection with http://www.entertainmentnow.com.au? —  Abhishek  ^Talk 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My only goal was to stop the bot-reported removal of the speedy deletion template, and 12 hours should be ample to accomplish that since most A7 speedies are processed in less time than that. If the account is promotional for the website, then that's another matter entirely, but there was no mention of that in the bot report (obviously) or on the user's talk page. I'll take a look at the site and if there appears to be a connection, I'll adjust the block accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I actually repoted the user at WP:UAA. But I guess you must have seen his report at WP:AIV and blocked him 12 hours. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there isn't a connection between the username and the site you linked. The site covers Australian entertainers, but this account's contributions have been exclusively related to an entertainer in Florida. Their accidentally-revealed IP also geolocates to Florida. That person's site and company don't use the name Entertainment Now. So while I wouldn't be surprised to discover this is a WP:COI account (probably the fellow promoting himself), a username block is not justified. That said, if the account resumes the same behavior after the current block ends, a longer block would be appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:PEREN

Notice you removed the "demote inactive admins" bit from Perennial Proposals. When was this implemented? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Very recently. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins was closed as successful on July 2, and implementation began the next day. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins has ongoing discussion of the implementation details. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Guess I should pay attention to the Pump again. Thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox fictional battle

Would you be so kind as to un-close and un-delete the infobox to allow for additional discussion and input? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

By "additional discussion and input", I assume you mean that you wish to register an objection to its deletion? May I ask why you bring this up at this somewhat inopportune moment after the TFD was listed for over a week? (I suspect I know the answers, but just for the record.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem: I had no notification it was going on. TfD notifications don't trigger on watchlists, and the TfD wasn't DELSORT'ed into any category. As is, I think the arguments, while unanimous, were one-sided and don't reflect anything other than a local consensus. Had appropriate notifications been made, the outcome would have been different. Since no policy unequivocally applies, the TfD amounted to an IDONTLIKEIT-fest. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have undeleted the template and relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, RL0919. I have a special request which I believe you help me. I would like to view the "Edit history" of the deleted article "Tony Santiago". That article was depleted by the deletion nomimator before he (the nominator) placed it in AfD, which I think was unethical. I have no interest in having the article posted once more, but I would like to view it's edit history prior to deletion. Thank You. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Tony Santiago

I took a look at the history. While I understand your concern about the person who nominated the article doing heavy editing of it, it appears that almost all of his editing took place after the nomination was already underway. Before the nomination he placed some tags and trimmed one sentence, which is nothing unusual for someone to do when they first encounter an article. It appears that this comment during the deletion discussion, saying that the article should be kept but "could be edited and perhaps, shortened somewhat", prompted him to start cutting material out that he thought wasn't properly sourced. And although he cut out a significant percentage of the article, looking at the individual edits and the reasons he gave in his edit summary, I can't say that his cuts were wrong. We don't accept Wikipedia itself as a source, or private letters, or most Facebook postings. If he hadn't cut that material, eventually someone else would have.

Anyhow, that's my perspective. If you want to view the full history for yourself, it is readily available because it followed the page when I moved it to your userspace. You can view it anytime by choosing the history tab from User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago or you can use this link. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. It was very helpful. My real concern about the person who nominated the article is that (I may be wrong, mind you) I believe that there is a tag-teaming trend against me, by that editor and another editor; for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination) Revision history of User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago Talk:William Walter Kouts Talk: List of Puerto Ricans and [Talk: Irish immigration to Puerto Rico. I am hoping that this trend will stop. I don't mean to bother you, thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Without trying to untangle the entire history, it is obvious from the pages you link and from the current WP:AN discussions that you and User:ScottyBerg have some disagreements. Not sure who the other user might be that you think is tag teaming, and I'm not in a position to say if any of this is intentionally aggressive or just a case of people who edit in the same areas clashing over their different opinions. There are plenty of others who are more apt to get involved in wiki-drama, so I'll leave sorting that to them. What I can say is that when things get to you to the point that you start posting to multiple people about being "sick an tired of the BS that goes on", it is time to step back and remember that it's just Wikipedia. I don't know if that's helpful advice or if it just sounds condescending, but I always try to keep a healthy perspective on what's important enough in life to be upset over, and pictures in an infobox are way down the list. --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the advice. It is well taken. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reopening Of The template:infobox battle TFD

Thanks for the message letting me know about this.Curb Chain (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with the RFCs. Let's hope they will lead to a fruitful discussion. SoWhy 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, my first WikiLove. OK, that just sounds weird. If I test the functionality on my own user page, would that be wiki-masturbation? Anyway, thanks. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have giving it to you anyway but this way I could also test the new WikiLove feature ;-) Wiki-Masturbate all you want but let me get away first :-P Regards SoWhy 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack!

Whack!

You have been whacked with a wet minnow for trying to gain more consensus in the bureaucrat desysop RFC by !voting twice, but being smart enough to use my signature to do it. (Next time, try somebody in the oppose section! ;D [And note that this is in jest!]) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. I had multiple edit conflicts and must have accidentally copied your bullet along with my own. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of Admin Rights Notification

Hi there,

I've noticed that you're working on this list using AWB, but my bot, User:Thehelpfulbot could help to speed it up also using AWB but under "bot mode" - so you don't have to keep pressing save every time. Would you like me to finish them off for you?

Also, I'd like to remove any templates on the user pages which state that the user is an admin, so could you provide me with the page where you have got your list of admin user talk page from so that I can do a find/replace to remove the administrator template?

Thanks,

The Helpful One 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a suggestion for another message bot also. I'm more than halfway done at this point, so I might as well finish out. But if you want to remove admin templates, have at it. The list of affected users is here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the list, I've ran my bot through the standard templates, and removed them on the following pages:

Successfully Saved pages

• User:Acetic Acid
• User:Admiral Norton
• User:Akradecki
• User:Alai
• User:Anas Salloum
• User:AnonEMouse
• User:Catbar
• User:CattleGirl
• User:Dan100
• User:Dfrg.msc
• User:Dijxtra
• User:Dina
• User:DoomsDay349
• User:Duja
• User:Evil Monkey
• User:GregRobson
• User:InShaneee
• User:Jedi6
• User:Jogers
• User:Joshbuddy
• User:Lradrama
• User:Mallanox
• User:Martyman
• User:MatthewUND
• User:Myleslong
• User:Okiefromokla
• User:Plange
• User:Recurring dreams
• User:Reflex Reaction
• User:Sean William
• User:Sephiroth BCR
• User:TKD
• User:Wafulz
• User:Xiner
• User:Y0u

There was a larger list of pages where saving was unsuccessful, so this is if the user page redirects to the user talk page, or if they don't have any of the standard templates transcluded on their main page. However, this does not mean that they don't have the template on the page - as it could be under a subpage of the user - I'm not sure how to fix this - do you have any suggestions?

Non-edited pages

• User talk:Bluemoose
• User talk:Duk
• User talk:Dysprosia
• User talk:Francs2000
• User talk:Gladys j cortez
• User talk:Interiot
• User talk:J Di
• User talk:Ligulem
• User talk:Redvers
• User talk:SQL
• User talk:Thunderbrand
• User:-- April
• User:17Drew
• User:Aarktica
• User:AdjustShift
• User:Aecis
• User:Alex S
• User:Alex756
• User:Alteripse
• User:Ams80
• User:Andrew Norman
• User:Andris
• User:Android79
• User:Anonymous editor
• User:Appraiser
• User:Aranel
• User:Backslash Forwardslash
• User:Benc
• User:Bookofjude
• User:Bratsche
• User:C12H22O11
• User:CanadianCaesar
• User:Canderson7
• User:Cantthinkofagoodname
• User:Cgs
• User:Chadloder
• User:Chancemill
• User:Chmod007
• User:Chris Roy
• User:Clifford Adams
• User:Coelacan
• User:Coralmizu
• User:CryptoDerk
• User:Curps
• User:CyborgTosser
• User:Daniel Olsen
• User:DanMS
• User:Darthgriz98
• User:DeadEyeArrow
• User:Denni
• User:DESiegel
• User:DF08
• User:DJ Clayworth
• User:Dori
• User:DrBob
• User:DropDeadGorgias
• User:Duncharris
• User:Dvyost
• User:Efghij
• User:El C
• User:Elf-friend
• User:Enochlau
• User:Fantasy
• User:FCYTravis
• User:Feco
• User:Femto
• User:Fir0002
• User:Flcelloguy
• User:Flowerparty
• User:Freakofnurture
• User:FreplySpang
• User:Fropuff
• User:Func
• User:Galwhaa
• User:Gaz
• User:Gazimoff
• User:G-Man
• User:Greeves
• User:GregAsche
• User:Grm wnr
• User:Hajor
• User:Hcheney
• User:Hephaestos
• User:Hermione1980
• User:Humus sapiens
• User:Ikiroid
• User:Improv
• User:Imran
• User:Irishguy
• User:Isotope23
• User:Jallan
• User:James086
• User:Jaxl
• User:Jeronimo
• User:Jersyko
• User:JHK
• User:Jimregan
• User:Jkelly
• User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
• User:JonMoore
• User:Josh Grosse
• User:Jreferee
• User:J-stan
• User:JYolkowski
• User:Karen Johnson
• User:Katefan0
• User:Kcordina
• User:Keilana
• User:Knowledge Seeker
• User:Kukini
• User:Kungfuadam
• User:LC
• User:Leebo
• User:LiquidGhoul
• User:Lord Emsworth
• User:Lord Voldemort
• User:LouI
• User:Luna Santin
• User:Lupin
• User:Madman
• User:Mark Christensen
• User:Mark Richards
• User:MarkSweep
• User:Marshman
• User:Masamage
• User:Matt Britt
• User:Maximus Rex
• User:Mbecker
• User:MC MasterChef
• User:Mdd4696
• User:Mel Etitis
• User:Miborovsky
• User:Mic
• User:Mintguy
• User:MPF
• User:Musical Linguist
• User:Mustafaa
• User:Nae'blis
• User:Niteowlneils
• User:Nixeagle
• User:Notheruser
• User:Oberiko
• User:Olessi
• User:Opabinia regalis
• User:Optim
• User:PeaceNT
• User:Pepsidrinka
• User:Persian Poet Gal
• User:Peter Winnberg
• User:Pfortuny
• User:Pgk
• User:Phaedriel
• User:Picaroon
• User:Pilotguy
• User:PinchasC
• User:Poor Yorick
• User:Psy guy
• User:Quercusrobur
• User:RadicalBender
• User:Ram-Man
• User:Redux
• User:Remember the dot
• User:RexNL
• User:Rholton
• User:Rlquall
• User:Rockero
• User:RoseParks
• User:Royboycrashfan
• User:Rune.welsh
• User:Salsa Shark
• User:Sam Korn
• User:Samuel Blanning
• User:Sango123
• User:Scimitar
• User:Scm83x
• User:SD6-Agent
• User:Seglea
• User:Shauri
• User:Shirahadasha
• User:Singularity
• User:Sjorford
• User:Slowking Man
• User:Someone else
• User:Sortior
• User:Steinsky
• User:Talrias
• User:Tangotango
• User:Tarquin
• User:Texture
• User:The Singing Badger
• User:The-G-Unit-Boss
• User:Tijuana Brass
• User:Tillwe
• User:TimShell
• User:Trilobite
• User:TSO1D
• User:TUF-KAT
• User:Violetriga
• User:Wapcaplet
• User:Water Bottle
• User:Wernher
• User:Wiki alf
• User:WODUP
• User:WojPob
• User:Yacht
• User:Zedla
• User:ZimZalaBim

Thanks, The Helpful One 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you plan on programming a bot to do it, then what I would suggest is cross-checking the user pages against Category:Wikipedia administrators. If they have an "I'm an admin" type template on their page (via sub-page or not), they should show up in the category since these templates include the category placement. (If they've made up some custom userbox that doesn't do this, good luck. You'd probably have to check those manually.) Then you would have to look for the sub-page (which should also be in the category) and remove the template from there. --RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A spot-check of a few of these suggests that quite a few are blanked, redirected, or have no admin-related info on them. Other cases vary, including some that simply tagged the page directly to the category without using a template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the early warnings to the inactive admins?

Hello, RL0919. I happened to see your notification on El C's page, stating that "your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return". Per the posts above, I presume the same note appears on many other inactive admin pages. However, as far as I can see, what you say is inconsistent with the addition to WP:ADMIN (a policy) which NP made in consequence of the Village Pump RFC on inactive admins. The policy goes like this: Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped. This desysopping is not to be considered permanent, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect.
A month, and then again several days before the desysopping would go into effect.. ? And yet El C has already been desysopped. What happened to the prior contacts, which must be made, according to the policy? I don't see anything like that on his talkpage. E-mails are also mentioned in the policy; have those been sent? Bishonen | talk 22:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC).

There is discussion about this at WP:BN#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins. The short version is that ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) jumped the gun and made a request for the desysoppings on Meta, which the stewards fulfilled without checking to confirm that the process had been followed or even if the list he provided met the inactivity standards. ResidentAnthropologist has been duly trouted and a couple of prematurely desysopped admins have had their bit restored. So far no one has asked to have the entire desysopping reversed and re-done according to the correct process, but notifying the affected users was seen as necessary, so I volunteered for that task. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, though it would have been nice if your notes had contained a reference to the policy and an acknowledgement that it hadn't been followed. Full disclosure, you know. For my own part, I favour backing up and doing the procedure all over again, correctly, and I see on BN that I'm not entirely alone in that view. Regards, Bishonen | talk 07:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

RE: Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Cheers mate, thanks for the heads up! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 02:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin inactivity note

Thanks for the note, much appreciated. I'm not sure if I'll return to editing/admining, so I'll leave things as-is for now. Gazimoff 08:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bureaucrat (biwrocrat) on Welsh wikipedia and was asked to do this for a number of our admins, but as far as I could see it required a steward (of which we have none). I wasn't too keen on doing it anyway, but can you advise on how to proceed? Deb (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the workings of Welsh Wikipedia, but if your local bureaucrats don't have this permission, then you would need to request any desysoppings at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration

Would you add a postscript to your closure at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles, with a link to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration? Thank you again for your RfC closures. Best, Cunard (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied to your comment at AN. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Kennedy

Can I please have the Ellen Kennedy article from this discussion moved to my userspace? Thank you. Silverseren^C 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Moved to User:Silver seren/Ellen Kennedy. --RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

T:Misspelling

So T:Misspelling is redirected (OK with me). But when I want to get to the TfD-page of T:Misspelling, I cannot click to it. History lost. Unusual to me, can you explain? -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me. You might want to try purging your browser cache. --RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not

Hi. While the page nominated in the MFD was indeed speedy deleted, there was an active discussion about whether leaving the userfied page (which is a copy-paste of the original page) is an acceptable outcome of the deletion debate. Your closing note does not address this portion of the discussion, so I ask you to a) determine whether there is consensus to retain or remove the page in the User namespace, b) reopen the MFD to gather additional input about that question, or c) indicate what steps should be taken from this point on to delete the page. Having an entire new MFD for an identical page, when basically everybody who commented on the MFD is opposed to the page's existence seems to be process for process's sake, if you ask me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. I knew userfication was being discussed, but I missed the brief statement where Bowser423 said it actually had been userfied. It must have been a copy/paste, since there was no move log. I've left the user a note discouraging userfication of under-discussion items in the future. And in the meantime, as I was writing this note, I see another editor has started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not. So I will leave the previous discussion closed (which I was inclined to do anyway), and the userspace version can be addressed in the new discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India)

The proposal for deletion tag is still on the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India). Would you remove it? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done My bad for leaving it behind. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Drnhawkins

What about all the other crap in his userspace, including "archives" of junk we've long since rejected? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not something for me to unilaterally decide, and I have no authorization to go on a deletion spree through his user space. You can nominate one or more of the pages for deletion at WP:MFD, and if the consensus favors deletion (which has been the case for his pages recently), I'm happy to help with closing the discussions and deleting the pages. I was also going to refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins, but I see you already know about that. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template draft

Hi, RL0919. Re this, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to take a look at this page, where I drafted a version with less haranguing. Rivertorch (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I still like the welcome-anon template better, but thanks for the effort to forge a consensus for how to handle this. --RL0919 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply a friendly greeting

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello, I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of CarsOnTheWeb page

Hello. The first page I have created on Wikipedia "CarsOnTheWeb" has been deleted a day after posting. I have read the reasons but I'm still not quite sure what the problem was exactly. CarsOnTheWeb is an online auction company, and in the page I gave a short history + the branches in all countries + the types of auctions + the car brands offered on the site. I felt this was all neutral information. Why did you disagree? Was there any specific part of the page that was unsuited? I also find it strange that the page of a similar company/ competitor, British car auctions, is still online. So there must be some value in the subject, else that page wouldn't have been there. I would really appreciate you answering my questions here or on my talk page, so next time I can create the page according to wikipedia standards. Thank you (Jeans be (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

Another editor (not me) had tagged the article for deletion due to two concerns. The first was that the article said nothing to indicate why the company was significant enough to justify an encyclopedia article (see the explanation at WP:CSD#A7). The second concern was that the article simply promoted the company rather than giving information appropriate to an encyclopedia article (see the explanation at WP:CSD#G11). These criteria and the others at WP:CSD provide the minimum thresholds for keeping an article about any company. When I reviewed article for deletion, it was marginal for the second (G11) criterion, but seemed to clearly not meet the first (A7) criterion. Note that I said these are minimum criteria. An article might meet these but still be deleted for other reasons, but it can at least get discussion at WP:Articles for deletion before being deleted. So I'm not saying that British Car Auctions is an article that we ought to have. It seems rather short on third-party sources that would establish the company's notability. But it meets the minimum criteria to not be quickly deleted.

All that said, sometimes an initial version of an article is deleted, but later someone writes a new article on the same subject that is kept. So if you think CarsOnTheWeb can meet the criteria for inclusion, you could try again. If you do, I'd strongly suggest a few things: First and foremost, try to support the article with independent reliable sources, such as news coverage about the company (not press releases). Second, focus as much as possible on "encyclopedic" information, such as the history of the company and its significance, rather than talking about its current offerings, so that no one could interpret the material as an attempt to promote the company's services. Finally, I would recommend creating the page as a draft in your own userspace (such as User:Jeans be/CarsOnTheWeb) rather than immediately putting it in the article space. Userspace drafts are given more leeway, so you would have a bit of time to work on improving the material. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I will take your advice and rework the article accordingly. After I will post it as a draft on my user first. (Jeans be (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks to RL0919

Thanks for explaining how to use Template:Facebook when the link includes an "=" sign. ProResearcher (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Article drafts

In fact, these pages do not represent my own preferred versions of any Wikipedia page - they were meant to preview a proposed change in a discussion a very long time ago, as such they are obsolete. I was not aware of the mentioned regulations, but I would be happy if these three subpages were deleted. sephia karta | dimmi 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

incomplete consensus process in deleting non-sovereign territories templates

I was disappointed to see the discussion closed on non-sovereign territories templates with little substantial discussion. As all of the delete votes were made on the first day, mostly echoing the original proposal, and there was no time allowed to reply to the one response to my keep rational, nor time for other voices to be heard.

I feel that the discussion should have been extended, and an attempt made to build consensus before deleting. I hope that you will revert the deletion and repost (or reopen) the delete request discussion. Bcharles (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I believed there was a consensus in that discussion, else I would not have deleted the templates. Those favoring deletion had cogent reasons for their position and responded to the keep arguments, including yours. The discussion was closed after it had been open for over eight days. If there were just two or three contributors (as happens all too often at TFD, including one I reopened last month after a similar request) and you had missed your chance to contribute, I would be more sympathetic to your request. But there were eight participants, including yourself. I realize that more time might have allowed you to change the previous consensus. That's always a possibility anytime a new comment comes late in the discussion, but I see no reason to think it is any more likely than in dozens of other discussions. So overall I'm inclined to leave this particular discussion closed. --RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was very limited, and did not reach what i would call consensus, which involves dialogue that attempts to meet concerns and tests alternative resolutions. Two of the eight posters supported keeping (reverting and/or revising the europe template). Others were not yet convinced of the importance or usefulness of the templates. There was only one day between when i saw the deletion proposal to respond and when the ongoing discussion was closed. Bcharles (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thought about it, slept on it, and I still think the discussion close should stick. You can ask for a deletion review if you wish. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Non-sovereign territories of Asia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Non-sovereign territories of Asia. 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. Bcharles (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics RfC

Thanks for closing the RfC. Seems to be a fair summary of the situation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, nice close, thanks. --Elonka 03:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RL0919. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seems our policy of fair discussion, consensus, and expert independent summary is being put to the test. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Crat bar

As you were involved in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to comment on this discussion also. Cheers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Sharpton

Am I supposed to put in my proposed additions to the Al Sharpton Howard Beach and Bensonhurst sections, or is this supposed to be done by an editor. So far there has been very little reaction or discussion. Apologies if a little more reading of Wikipedia rules would help me figure out what the next step is! But since you took interest in commenting, I thought I would ask you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.58.249 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2011

The article is semi-protected, so as an unregistered user, you cannot simply make the change yourself. You must request on the talk page for a registered, autoconfirmed editor to make the change. If the request seems controversial, it won't be made unless other editors on the talk page agree with it. Alternatively, you can register an account and make a few other edits, and once your account is autoconfirmed, you could make the change yourself. But be careful; the reason the page is protected is because Sharpton is controversial and a living person, so it may be wiser to discuss the edits on the talk page even if you do have an account. --RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a person "guarding" the Al Sharpton page from any legitimate edits (see the talk page for the history of my attempts to clean up the Howard Beach and Bensonhurst sections), and a lack of interest on the part of editors. So it looks like the only way to try and get this done is to become a registered user, I guess. Though I am not sure that even that would help. Thanks for your suggestions. 96.224.54.150 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Threshold question

Thanks very much for the update. I think that makes things more clear. I have a somewhat related question. I thought that most RfAs above 75% pass for admins and that most RfBs below 90% fail for bureaucrats. I'm sure it's not policy, but I thought those were sort of unwritten rules. Well, maybe not unwritten rules, but that's how things worked in practice. I looked all over but couldn't find anything confirming that. Maybe it was just my impression. Does the 75% and 90% stuff ring a bell? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The usual discretionary range for RFA is described explicitly at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process: "As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail; this is subject to bureaucrat discretion (and if needed, discussion) on a case by case basis." The crat discretionary range is not as clearly documented, but past discussions have set it at 85-90%. The most recent RFA (Hersfold) passed right at 85%, but no RFB has passed under 85% in at least the last couple of years. I'll put together some stats that can be posted on the talk page for reference.

Since I didn't get back around to the draft RFC today, I might as well note a couple of thoughts: First, I think the RFC should have a bit more preamble. I agree with keeping the proposal statement itself simple, but a paragraph to explain stuff that non RFX regulars might not realize -- like discretionary ranges, and that the numbers are advisory rather than absolutes -- would help. And like I mention above, I'd suggest putting some stats on the talk page, such as percentages for the last several RFBs, the number of active crats, etc., because people are sure to ask. Happy to help with those items, just didn't get to any of it today. --RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help and input. I'll add some stuff to the beginning although I'm not very good at wordsmithing, so any copyediting, etc. is appreciated. I don't believe anybody is in a hurry, so we can probably take our time to do this as best we can. I'll add a talk page so we can move the discussion there for future work. Thanks again. I appreciate the help. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Rjanag's talk page.

Your DYK nom

Hi, I saw your exchange with User:Rjanag. The legitimacy of your nomination is likely to be challenged unless the bulleted list of aspects the community has decided must be explicitly ticked off (see the Checklist RfC) is reinstated. I have left a warning template on Rjanag's talk page, and there is another warning thread at DYK talk. Thank you. Tony (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sean Stephenson

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jespah

Hi RL. As an uninvolved party, I'm currently writing a report to determine whether or not I should request sanctions which may include a topic ban for a user named Jespah (talk · contribs) due to POV pushing. After a good amount of digging around, it looks like you had the first discussion with Jespah regarding encyclopedic tone and what type of content is generally included in articles versus what kind is not. I found it in your 2009 archive, here. It looks like the conversation dropped off quickly and your interaction eventually ended after you reviewed an article she was working on. I'm not asking for any sort of an official response at this time; I'd ask you to comment on the topic ban discussion if we get that far. What I'd like to know is, how was that experience? Did you feel like you were able to accomplish anything as far as informing a new user or improving the article or did it seem like a lost cause? To be clear, it seems like interaction quickly dropped off and I'm wondering if you lost interest or if the article was in fact POV-free at that time. OlYeller^Talktome 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted, this was a couple of years ago, so I don't recall all of the specifics with perfect clarity. But my last comment to her suggests that at the time I did not see the article we were discussing (John Prendergast) as being obviously biased. I'm no expert on that subject -- I believe I found the article because it was tagged for cleanup of excessive external links -- so if there was more subtle bias or inaccuracy, I probably would not recognize that. I don't recall having any interactions with Jespah outside of the 2009 discussions you found. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've proposed a topic ban at WP:AN here. You're mentioned as you had the first encounter with her as far as bringing up POV issues but it's more of a point in a timeline than really having to do with you specifically. Obviously, you're welcome to participate however you want though. OlYeller^Talktome 18:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam

This user: User talk:Thaaeric88 keeps adding a spam link to the God Forgives, I Don't page. For the confirmed tracks like "You The Boss" he'll put a link to his hiphop website. See the edit Can you please do something? thanks --RickyRozay (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists of Russians

Per your comments here, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Help_removing_a_template? Thank you. 198.175.175.57 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Link addition to Sex Positions article

Hey,

I was wondering if you would be able to make an edit to the sex positions page: adding http://www.sexinfo101.com/sexualpositions.shtml to the external references. I believe it to be the most complete sex positions listing on the internet, and it deserves mention over the men's health position master.

Please let me know your thoughts,

Tom

Tomkz (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This type of edit request should be made on the talk page of the article, where interested parties can raise objections and discuss the pros/cons of the change. I see this has already been done, and an objection already made. If further discussion there produces a consensus to add this link, I would be willing to make the change, but unless/until that happens, I will have to decline. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How would I go about getting that going? I have posted a comment in the talk page for that article... I saw that you approved the men's health link edit not to long ago, so thought that you may be able to assist us in getting listed the right way.

There was some confusion in the past. Other people were removing everybody who was linked there and adding themselves. Not knowing better, and not wanting to get involved in the drama, I just kept putting the link back to sexinfo101 when the external links section was changed.

It truly is a great resource for the page. The website doesn't even have a pop up... which even men's health has.

Your guidance / assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkz (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The request I fulfilled previously was to correct an existing link that was dead with an updated URL, and there were no objections on the talk page. I wasn't adding a new link. The thing to do is to make your case on the talk page for why your link should be included. Others can also voice their opinions for or against. External links are subject to the rules at WP:EL, so you should make sure your link meets the those requirements. It is possible that some of the existing links don't and should be removed, so I would caution against just assuming that your link is OK because it is similar to some other link that is already there. And with that advice, I would ask that you take any further inquiries to the article talk page, because that is where you will find the people who are interested in what goes into that article. Just because I incidentally fulfilled a single edit request there in the past does not mean that I want to be involved in editing it going forward. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)