User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 21

6390:

a week later and judging the editors who took part has absolutely no relevance to the AFD as a keep. It is obvious to anybody that it is best NOT to engage in nasty disputes but they are often unavoidable. The fact is that Maunus should have had more tact in the first place in approaching these articles and maybe I should have not shown concern about his tagging of articles without doing any research first?. But the fact you felt you had to berate us for civility and shame came across as highly condescending and inappropriate in the context. With the recent Prodego scenario it also seems you showed him the same condescending tone in your message to him. If a nasty comment or negative comment is ever next to my signature its because there are so many warped things about this website that at times it becomes impossible. I respond to others in a fashion that they respond to myself. Had you simply closed the AFD as a "Keep", Further discussion neede don naming convention. This would have been perfect. But you had to go off on one, hence this aggressive response.♦

4712:). This user's edits begin 2 days after M4pnt's left off, and seem to be on the exact same articles or types of articles (European/Swedish death metal musicians/bands/albums, and UFC-related articles, including specific fighters, albeit different fighters per account). Mtlv0's edits on the death metal articles I'm watching/editing are very similar to M4pnt's. I personally don't know how to determine whether two accounts are the same person (using the whois feature, for example), so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I could be completely wrong here, which is why I figured starting a note on your talk page would be better than making wild accusations and starting a sock-puppet review. I'm also not saying that anyone should be blocked (except any puppet accounts if they do in fact exist), but maybe reminded again about the multiple accounts policy (if it 1746:. I have worked hard to add references and validate 3rd party sources. It is part of an initiative I am involved which is to improve the motorsport articles on Knowledge. The article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Knowledge.However particular users seem to be continually adding mischief citation requests and the like when articles of a similar nature and content have few if the bare minimum of references to begin with. Every time I further add references, further citation requests are added. I never imagined this article would take up so much of my time. I need to start working on other articles and contributions. I need help to understand if there is a mischief campaign. Thanks in advance. 853:....quiet there...Perhaps it doesn't need closing, it is a very complicated discussion and issues are being raised and acted on and refined as we can and let it develop naturally as it flows without specific closure, as in. - address and tweak the issues raised like, the what is a reviewers responsibility and what it a reviewer actually supposed to do - and what is a reviewers legal responsibility, and what is the ongoing scope of the tool, clarify those issues and then after third phase feedback then format a final keep or reject with the updated guidelines and scope. The final keep or reject will need closure but will be a simple consensus closure that anyone experienced and uninvolved will be able or willing to close. 5360:

to explain all this to you, the third time I have indicated which policies are being violated, and the third time you have insisted that your personal feeling about this issue somehow overrides all these policy violations. You are dead wrong sir, and reverting it again without even attempting to refute my policy based reasoning would in fact be edit warring. You ask that users be allowed to make a fair judgement. I agree. They can judge the article based on the two sentences that can actually be verified, and not all the made up stuff that was removed. Since I noted my actions at the AFD anyone participating there would know to look in the page history for the old versions that contained the multiple violations of our

2048:

but I could pick up on the bad faith quite easily. As another conscientious editor who merely wants the best out of the proceedings, I can understand why you went flying up the wall with steam coming from every possible crevice of your body (I'm trying to be humorous here, laugh please). However, I think the best thing for you to do is stop trying to direct proceedings. I am getting the vibe that some people are not happy because you seem to start a lot of the different discussions about PC in various places, and they think it's not productive to do that. I respect their opinion, as I do any editor who provides conscientious reasons for their opinion. What I have a hard time respecting is someone just giving up.

3972:, in that it was a recreation of deleted content that did not address the issues that led to the first deletion. Changing the name of the page without changing the content by more than a few words here and there is not a sufficient solution. The problems with the content have been repeatedly explained to you so I'm not going to go down that road yet again. Most speedy deletions are preformed by a single administrator. I have never claimed to be perfect but I am confident that the most recent deletion of this content which you have repeatedly added to Knowledge was done in line with our policies on such matters. You may pursue 6692:. You recently closed out that discussion as moot because I didn't contribute further. Sorry...the government moves at a much slower pace than Knowledge and it took a while to get authorization to set up an account. I just wanted to let you know that I have finally created the account and will begin suggesting edits to some of your content. If you could modify the status of the username discussion from moot to something reflecting the actual consensus of the group, I would appreciate it. Also, if I misinterpretted the consensus and you feel my username is inappropriate, please let me know. Regards, 2350:

conclusion. After stating the dispute, receiving Paralympiakos response and the participation of other editors in the request for comment, what was the next step? I honestly did not know what was supposed to follow. I kind of assumed that an administrator would comment on the situation once the time had run out and he would draw conclusions based on the endorsements and comments in the talk page. What could I have done as the person that opened the request for comment to have reached a conclusion? What was missing? I really want to know because I honestly was lost since there is nothing more in

1984:

more accusations were made about my actions, and this really isn't supposed to be about me. I only hung on these last two weeks because there was no agreement on what to do next, but now everything I do is being hyper-criticized and characterized extremely negatively. So, I'm thinking my continued presence is not helping and I'm hoping someone else who is interested in advancing this process to the next step will step in and find a way to do so. When to walk away from a situation is a difficult skill to master, just ask my ex-wife.

2981: 2375:

voluntary and is not binding. My best guess would be that there are an increasing number of users who are not really familiar with the finer points of the MOS and therefore they did not feel qualified to comment here, and did not feel compelled to do the necessary reading to become familiar with the issues discussed. Looking at Paralympiakos responses it is clear he was completely unreceptive to the concerns addressed in the RFCU. I'm afraid there is but one forum left if these issues persist:

3452: 3154: 2214: 1651: 6728: 31: 2804: 6555: 5223: 4983: 1016: 393:), such as the erroneous labeling of Webcams.com as any other porn site have nothing to do with the AFD's motivation. On what grounds is this theory based? I consider this to be a really superficial argument which only points out the nature of the decision to delete the Webcams_(Website) article. Not to mention that I feel a light discriminating tone is being used when discussing this article, solely because it is part of the adult niche. 6403: 6236: 5444: 5162: 4233: 4169: 3749: 2006: 1172: 2370:

for this one. Only one outside view is posted and it received a mere two endorsements, one being from the user posting it. The subject's response to the RFC received an identical level of support. While it's not solely about counting heads there's just not enough there. It doesn't mean you did anything wrong, in fact the evidence collected seems quite thorough. I really don't know why participation was so light. RFCUs are listed on

5382:

want to edit war, while you have in fact reverted my edits twice without citing any policy, guideline, or anything other than your own feelings. So, do you have a policy, guideline, or other reason to cite above and beyond your own feelings or have you decided that your feelings will now dictate what is and is not allowed in a Knowledge article and we'll just throw the five pillars out the window in favor of your emotions?

2950:

as demonstrating that the information for all the Chinese Martial Arts on that site has been copied from Knowledge, including wiki pages that I did not start. I don't know what else to do, but wait for the investigation to be completed, but their doesn't seem to be any indication when this is going to happen or how long it will take. Is there any proactive things I can do? Thanks! Any help or advice would be appreciated!

3383:

sources, but never responded to the creator's points about the sources already supplied. The one bolded "delete" vote consists of a quote of a single line from the article and nothing else. All we can take from that is that they objected to that one sentence, which was removed. After two weeks that was all I had to go on. I suppose I could have closed it as "no consensus" but the result is the same.

2379:. They usually take even longer to decide anything, but the idea that the subject has to want to resolve the dispute is not in play, they act more as a judges than as mediators and their decisions are binding on all parties. Be aware that opening an ArbCom case will shine the spotlight just as brightly on you as on the Paralympiakos, so don't do it unless you honestly feel you have no other option. 3941:

Unorthodox subjects and I respectfully ask you, administrator, why the Cosmological subject cannot have a page about unorthodox cosmology? I am not obssessed, I understand you are wrong. Are you a perfect human being? Are you the owner of the truth? I am assuming a good faith here. Why none administrator deleted the page since yesterday. It seems it is an unilateral decision from you.

1831:(take notice of the "Band" capitalized to get around the lockdown). Now that the explanation is down, I can get down to business on asking this of you. Would it maybe be considered notable enough to have its own article at this point? If so, then unsalting the "Broadway (band)" slot and moving the page to that title would be in order otherwise, delete the page right now on sight. -- 2608:

the consensus established at that AFD that we should not be describing Argentines of European descent as "white." That is both why I deleted the redirect and why I restored the create-protection which I'm sure the restoring admin did not intentionally remove, it was merely a side effect of restoring and moving the article. If you feel strongly that it should be re-created I suppose

2420:

musician gets deleted as a copyvio (when it may even be that the WP article was the original) and the albums follow as by "A band so non-notable they don't even have an article". The categories get deleted as empty, the navbox as unused.... All perfectly "sound" steps in themselves, but the net result is a nice collection of pages vanishes like the wyrm Ouroborous.

4874:. I tried to obstruct the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi with making about 20 reverts on that page as banned users have no right to edit Knowledge, but his exertions were eventually successful in launching the process again. Originally, Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi 4362:

user seemed to be a rather constructive editor interested in bettering Knowledge. I understand that Knowledge isn't the same as Kongregate by any means, but from a community management perspective, I can't see any reason for administrators to be anything but civil and helpful to even the worst problem users so they can better themselves. --

5494:(last item), it's just that it's titled as: "Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War"; which is kind of where this all got started. Took me a while to find it, but I thought I had seen someone post something about those "short horizontal lines" on that page a while back. How's it going Beebs? Hope all is well, Cheers. — 2052:

everything again, this time with community input based on the last trial. I'm even volunteering to spearhead that effort as I think I can keep a clear head regarding it. Maybe we can actually do something productive here rather than just repeat viewpoints back and forth over and over. That gets nothing done.

2637: 6123:. He does not deserve to be talked about as he is supporting me in one way or another or prefers me to other users. He is not. He changed my block log, when I asked him to because I have been constantly harassed over the silly bans Gwen added to my block log, with the latest episode of such harassment being 6052:

their address on their website, it only has a P.O. box, and I haven't seen it in any of the other sources used. Looking up the residents address in the phone book and putting it together yourself isn't going to get us past that hurdle. Best to let it go, it's hardly the critical point of the discussion.

3873: 6389:

Maunus and I would rather not have encountered the dispute and ill feeling, which is why we've both refrained from making further remarks for over a week now. You should know that articles can be the subject of intense conflict where personal interest and time is concerned so bringing it back up over

5359:

and the content sourced to a novel. We can't present unverified material as if it were fact. The only source remaining is the much touted guide to every street name in Jerusalem, which says this is the name of a gate and does not mention a street by this name. This is the third time I have endeavored

5100:

as well? He had a spate of edit-warring on the article back in February, followed by this recent disruptive revert while an RfC is actually in progress on the talk page. He already knows about the Arbcom remedies as he has been blocked once already for his behavior there. While prompt edit-warring is

4915:

Wow. We sure do attract some odd people here don't we? I've run into something similar to this before, another banned user who was tagging their own sockpuppet accounts. Why? No idea. I'm sure a research psychologist would have a field day analyzing the behavior of some of the banned trolls and their

4361:

who probably would have responded better to civility and helpful suggestions rather than the administrative actions that were limited to the denied block appeal templates. Aside from the username and some less than ideal responses on his/her talk page to cookie-cutter reasons to deny unblocking, the

3940:

Hence I have no choice to contest your decision? May you teach me how to contest your decision? With respect, the page is not the same, since the content appears under another context, a fringe context, unorthodox one. You said the content was unorthodox before. There are pages within Knowledge about

2949:

but I don't think much as been done with the investigation yet. The contributors and I have put in a good 2 years of solid editing and verifications to try and conform to all the wiki standards. I mentioned to TexasAndroid about looking at the Bird Kung Fu site's source code and path names, as well

2909:

Took a look at it, but I'm sorry to say it is predicated on too many false assumptions and I don't believe you will get meaningful, useful results. While there are undoubtedly some users who make a commitment to themselves to edit a particular number of articles in a particular frame of time, many if

2700:

Nah, I won't undo it, I just don't like to block if there is a discussion of the name already. It makes us look kind of schizophrenic to ask them to discuss something and then block them before they have had a real chance to reply, but undoing it now would only make that worse. FYI the UAA bot adds a

2607:

was that the idea of "whiteness" is not generally used as a determining factor of race in Argentina and we should therefore not have an article on that subject. The article was restored so that it could be re-worked into the "European descent" article we have now. So, my action was intended to uphold

1393:

Redacting a log entry is only done is certain very specific circumstances. It is explicitly not allowed to be used to remove the record of a poorly considered action. The more usual approach is to block the user again for only one minute, and note the retraction or refutation of the previous block in

748:

I actually deleted as a result of another OS report on it. What I was able to glean from a translation of the original text was pretty silly actually, so I didn't feel OS was needed. I'm watching it though. I don't see your message in the OTRS queue so I'm assuming someone else has already replied to

700:

in that we are in fact commenting on an editor and our impression of them as opposed to article content, policy, etc. I perceived the request as arrogant, given that this was their fourth RFA they shouldn't have even run if there was any chance of it becoming a snow close. That's how I feel about it.

620:

keeps a list of sources and explains which ones are reliable, which ones aren't and in which situations. This will help you get started. I'm an inclusionist, so if there's anyway I can help, please let me know. You can ask questions at my talk page. If you have questions regarding which sites are

122:

Not sure yet. As you can see from the talk page, I'm having a bit of difficulty getting answers to pertinent questions, we keep getting derailed by some rather odd objections. My thought was maybe in about a week, and then we keep it open for a month or so in oder to get the broadest possible sample.

6687:

Hello. I just received word from my employer, the US Environmental Protection Agency, that I am authorized to set up a Knowledge account and make suggestions to improve content of yours that's related to our regulatory purview. I believe the username for my account is consistent with the majority of

5516:

I really do think it is the all-time champion of lame disputes. I thought I had seen it all on here, but arguing at such length and with such intensity over something so meaningless is a new low. Doing well generally, kind of dismayed at the direction Knowledge is headed though. Seems like you can't

4468:

Does this mean that you would object to an undelete? I agree that the AfD was borderline, so it kind of falls into the category of admin discretion. Personally, I would have closed the AfD as "no consensus, defaults to Keep", but it's a borderline enough case that I could see that different admins

3726:

I probably won't. When I first nominated this I didn't know anything about the subject, but after reading a bit about her and reviewing some of her columns I have formed an extremely negative opinion of her work, which I find to be pretentious nonsense, so my own POV could cloud my judgement in this

3070:

I'm not sure I understand the result here. How does one implement the remedy of "severely chop"? Is returning it to a redirect or a stub appropriate? On a related note, I'm not sure how you came up with this as consensus. Maybe some explanation of your reasoning here might be helpful, especially

2047:

All right, feeling better? I just want to comment on what happened in the last hour as I type. I noticed you request the mediation withdrawn. I noticed some negative attitude, which could easily be taken not only as exasperation but as attempts of bad faith. I know you didn't mean them that way,

1970:

Hey, I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. I know it's been a long, tough process for everyone. I'm going to try and make sure the current phase gets closed this week, and then we can try to move forward. Until that happens, why don't you take a break and edit something fun for a change? ;-) I'll try

1818:

There is a band named Broadway from Florida. Personally I enjoy the band (not to mention listening to them right now as I write this) and while I would like nothing more at this moment in time to have a Knowledge article for the group, I'm unsure if it still fails Knowledge's instance on notability.

340:

The Webcams_Website article was deleted and its AFD discussion terminated. Usually AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached, I understand, but shouldn't there be a voting process instead of using various weak arguments to reach this sort of radical decision? For instance, the initial cause which

192:

in its place. The revisions Pablozeta and I worked on are thoroughly referenced, with no one having the color of his skin assigned to him/her, and with nothing but the history of how these people got there, from where, in what numbers, and with what other influences, including an overview of some of

149:

Good advice, it seems clear it is only a tiny minority that object to the current phase since dozens of users have participated without objection. I would like to make as big of a deal as possible about phase three since I think it will be the phase most likely to give us an indication of what to do

6129:

Anyway to make a long story short, I would not like AGK to suffer because he did a fair adjustment to my block log. He is guilty in nothing. He is not my friend, and he is not my supporter. He is just a fair person, and this offense:-) is not punishable even on wikipedia :-) So, to stop this unfair

6051:

personal attacks, and the "Principality" does not publish its address, so we shouldn't either. Suppression is not an action that is undertaken lightly and I have no intention of reversing it. I happen to agree that the whole thing is a bit silly, but the fact is that they have chosen not to publish

4053:

expected of an encyclopedia article. We also do not use ™ or other copyright, trademark, or registration symbols within the text of articles. Those are both easy problems to fix however, the sourcing issue is much more important if this is ever to be a proper encyclopedia article. I will put a copy

3382:

there are for each position there is most certainly not a consensus to delete the article. One user struck out their "weak keep" but did not make it clear what was intended by that action, their comments still indicate they were leaning towards a keep. You stated you were willing to be convinced by

2419:

undoubtedly the Supporto should have an article as a design classic, or at least a section in Scott's article. Taking this lack to imply lack of notability of the designer is of course an easy thing to do. I have noticed that assumption being used somewhat worryingly on albums and musicians. The

2369:

I wish I had some sort of an easy answer for you, but I'm afraid I don't. The purpose of an RFCU is to arrive at some sort of mutually agreeable solution to the perceived problem. This usually involves a lot of discussion between a lot of users. For whatever reason it seems hardly anybody showed up

1495:

I understand why eliminating an entry from a block log - is usually forbidden: WP must maintain transparency, and the community must review all block log - fully, including improper blocks. However, this only explains why admins are not allowed to eliminate (nor to strike out) a block entry - added

1306:

Heya :o) You seem like an intelligent, resourceful and insightful kind of person. At the minute we seem to have quite a few self-nominated little working parties, many of whom are focussing on different aspects of the whole RfA and Adminship process-wossname, and each of which seems to be working

5381:

In this discussion, and at the AFD I have outlined clearly and specifically what the problems are with this content, and cited several policies that are relevant to the situation. You have said nothing beyond "I don't think we should do that while the AFD is underway" and you have stated you don't

4130:

I would just open that RFC and let it run. He seems to be taking this personally and making it into an issue between the users involved instead of a discussion of the content. While personal attacks and thinly veiled threats are never acceptable, sometimes the best way to deal with them is to just

3710:

I closed this as "keep" as it had been listed for 21 days with only 2 editors commenting, both "keep". However, this is a BLP and the !voters seem to be commenting on coverage of her work more so then on her personally. I don't think this could have been closed any other way but if coverage on her

2169:

I found that one of the main objections was that it was perceived as "change for the sake of change." This was a small part of my reasoning, I wanted to prove a small change was possible in the hope that bigger changes would follow. Unfortunately that small part of my rationale became the focus of

1983:

It was actually my plan to stop active participation two weeks ago when I attempted to get the questionnaire up and running. I figured it would be good if I wasn't trying to be at the helm of this thing the whole time. I tried to just steer things in a forward direction but the more bold I was the

1900:

Also, I chose to add myself to the mediation. If you feel my reasons are unsound, please go ahead and remove me from the list, I just want to participate myself as I have been more involved than you give me credit for (in October particularly). I also chuckled slightly at the comment on the list

676:

but the RfA had closed. I can not see how, "placing the request", compelled you to such a strong conclusion. There are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary. Personally, I would check your candor, against your own POV, and reconcile differences which bring you to state such a

137:

I wouldn't worry too much about answering every objection. It's good for people to voice their opinions about it, but it doesn't mean you should stall the process moving forward. It went the same with the reworking of the RFC into specific questions. If you would like some help promoting the final

6707:

I think the name you are using now should be ok, but the previous one which implied a group account would not be. In almost every case the community has upheld the longstanding policy that each account represents a single person, even if they are acting on behalf of an organization. It seems like

5124:

Yes it was. However my primary goal is to calm everyone down, blocking MONGO for that would probably not have helped with that goal. Since it was me he was attacking I couldn't really issue the block anyway. Despite what MONGO thinks I don't like blocking good faith users unless there is no other

3849:

This page was not created before. There are several pagen within Knowledge about Unorthodox subjects. The Cold Big bang page did not reach a consensus. This page, Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology, is about Unorthodox Cosmological model. An user may insert examples. Why did you delete the page

1315:

group is doing, with a view to putting the whole lot together, at the end, and integrating all the good ideas into a really good total-overhaul package. This would enable each group to stay focussed on its own chosen aspect, which would very probably be more productive, but still be working in a

3265:

Pedro, where have you got the idea from that ArbCom are looking to desysop you? That's certainly not my impression at all, and I believe that they've got far bigger fish to fry right now anyway. The view from the gutter is that some administrators abuse revdel to cover their tracks, and we plebs

6342:

and thus I felt obligated to make one more remark at ANI. So, the wiki-boomerang has come back and conked you right in the logic center of your brain. I can only hope this will be the end of this silly little incident and that you will be far more careful when dispensing civility blocks in the

4916:

bizarre activities. Anyway, if it's a continuing problem there may be a case for semi protecting the page, but the level of disruption would have to be pretty bad since those accused of socking are often unconfirmed users and they need the opportunity to defend themselves from the accusations.

4307: 4115:" . What if anything should I do? All I have been trying to do today is see if this person will engage in the forthcoming RFC brought about by the lock down of the article. Once I got that last reply I decided it wasn't worth persisting in trying to get a sensible reply so I have backed off. -- 2374:

and other places for the entire time they are open, usually more uninvolved users wander in over the course of the process, sometimes pages swell to absurd lengths. However, even in a case with heavy participation failure is still a very real possibility as any agreement at an RFCU is entirely

2153:

Hi Beeb. I've just been reading over the RfC you started a while back on moving the questions to the talk page. I see it was never summarised and closed, but it looks as if there was either no consensus or a slight lean towards opposition. It was nevertheless a worthwhile exercise, and my

724:

Regarding that recent hoax, which I won't name and draw any attention to - do you think any further action might be necessary...if you know what I mean? I emailed OS about it...I was slightly concerned. Sorry to be cryptic, but I think you'll know what I mean - and I use your talk for probably

5766:

I noticed that you pulled the plug on both of these pages, despite some rather intense efforts to save them and an outcry from many readers. I have to ask: did you consider the sources included in these articles, including publications like the Oregonian and Cinematical, before deleting them?

5331:

I would prefer not to edit-war, so I am bringing this up here. I think that for the good of the outcome of this Afd that the info you tried to remove should remain there so a fair judgment can be made. If the Afd is closed as a keep, feel free to remove it afterwards, and I will not revert it

3401:

respond the creator's points about the sources already supplied; his later statement was just (paraphrased) "I disagree with your assessment" and I didn't really see the need to answer back with "I disagree with your disagreement". He also said he would make an effort to find the sources he

2529:

I have learned that when one is contemplating blocking an administrator it is best to issue a clear warning first because some users wrongly believe such shameful actions are somehow more excusable when committed by an experienced administrator such as yourself. Is that clear enough for you?

2349:

Sorry to bother you about this, but I am curious to know what was lacking for an actual conclusion to be achieved in this RfC. Since I did not have prior experience in this process, I want lo learn what I could have done in order to reach a satisfactory consensus instead of a closure with no

2051:

I'm going to suggest take a break from the PC debate for a day or two. Let Phase 3 close. Then we'll figure out what to do next. I'm going to check out the talk page and see what's going on, what people seem to think we need to do next. I've made my suggestion to Chzz again about writing

4453:

As I was only the closer for the AFD it is less about my objections than the those who actually participated in the AFD. However, I don't see any significant coverage of the comic itself in those sources, which is exactly why it was deleted to begin with. If it actually wins it may get more

2934:

Hi Beeblebrox, I don't know if you remember me, but you once thought I was a sockpuppet. I was exonerated and I am glad for that, but now I need your help. I've sent this exact following message to another admin named Janggeom to see if that person could help too. I'm not sure if this is

2114:

recent edit that was made to it. I remember very vaguely (It was over two years ago) that there was a persistent sockpuppeteer who would use a load of accounts to vandalize article's related to special education. I just came across the above edit on a similar page, which you protected from

2944:

copied the wiki text into their website. I was wondering if you can please help us by being an external investigator and help us unblock the Cai Li Fo and Jeong Yim wiki's? I presented some evidence to help show that it was a reverse copyright and discussed it with him on his talk page

4058:, but the protection on the title in article space will remain because this has been deleted several times before. When you believe it is ready to be re-posted you will need an administrator to assist in moving the article through the protection. You can either ask me directly or file at 6114:

Hi Beeblebrox, as you know AKG looked into my latest block and the bans associated with it, and came to conclusion neither were warranted. Later after my email exchange with you, and by my request AGK modified my block log, and now he's getting reminded about this all the time with

4031:

was to delete the article, you can see the specific arguments for deletion there. Unfortunately participation was low, but the debate was open for three weeks without anyone arguing to keep the article. The main problem, as is usual when an article arrives at AFD, was a scarcity of

1246:) (or usify it, though I've never worked with a usified article). I think this group has an important place in the history of newgrass, and establishes connections among several important musicians. I'll work on making the article worth having in Knowledge before I reinsert it. 1504:" who has added the block entry to the block log - is not allowed to eliminate (or strike out) this entry - nor can they ask a oversighter to do that, when this admin themself (who has added the block entry to the block log) thinks - that the elimination (or the strike-out) is 6157:

Log redaction (outside of the very limited scope of criterion RD2 for the move and deletion logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs, whether or not

6153:

Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or

2310:

Thanks for closing the RfC/U; you are correct that it wasn't going anywhere. I didn't want to suggest closure myself, especially since Tenmei seemed to be regularly re-editing xyr section. It's a shame that no one ever tried to respond to xyr points, but, such is life.

4529:

I can't really say if I would object to it or not without seeing the new version, I'm not opposed to it in principle and if you have more significant sources than were in use before then it shouldn't be subject to CSD under G4 either. I would say either userfy it or slap

2393:

Thanks for your prompt response. Your comment in the talk page closure pretty much summed up the situation. While I'm disappointed that the RfC garnered very little participation, at least I'm glad to know that I did not omit something. Once again, thank for your answer.

3925:

You obviously don't need it as it was pretty much a word-for-word copy of the previously deleted article. I have no intention of encouraging or assisting this crusade to force this material onto Knowledge while ignoring our established editorial practices and policies.

1587:

that support your claim? As far as I understand - and I could be wrong - merely observing differences between what 2 sources (the show, historical) relate, without passing judgement on which of those sources is 'best' - counts as neither OR nor synthesis. All the best.

3685:

Yes, but I personally feel that closures in policy discussions should be done by admins, people who have been entrusted by the community through RfA to close XfDs and other community discussions. I've posted requests at WP:AN and WP:VPP. Thank you for the suggestions.

4044:

of the subject. The only sources attached were from the company's own website. There was also some concern that the tone of the article was overly promotional, which upon reviewing it I must say I agree with, however that can be fixed through editing. Phrasing like:

5745:

That user was on a bit of a tag-bombing spree, but he seems to have gotten the message to slow it down and be more accurate. I don't think there was ever any danger of the article actually being deleted since the nom was so obviously wrong, but thanks for noticing!

444:

The RabbitReviews.com reference was completely omitted during this shallow evaluation as well. Not only that I find the deletion of the Webcams_Website unfair, but I also consider this decision was taken expeditiously and frivolously. And here's another example:

3649: 3530: 3497: 6708:

you've put a lot of thought into this and you are endeavoring to balance your office's policies and ours. I am relatively confident that if you continue to act as carefully and transparently as you have thus far you should be able to maintain that balance.

2775: 6360: 3095:

I'm not sure how else to explain myself. I did not see a clear consensus to delete the article altogether or to keep it in it's current form, so I did as several participants suggested, keep the article but remove almost all of it due to the problems.

2733:

I just hate to see someone getting away with something sneaky like that. It's not fair to the participants at the AFD or the persons who were editing the article while unaware it was up for deletion. I've made sure the user knows not to do that again.

1546:

Since this other admin you speak of is apparently unaware of some important policies and in need of some guidance, I think we should drop the hypothetical pretext of this conversation and you should tell me who they are so I can assist them directly.

331: 4102:

You are an admin I have dealt with before, and I appreciate your level-headed approach to things so I would appreciate some advice. I'm not reporting this at AIV but I'm concerned to see such a vitriolic personal attack as the last reply posted at

6581:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

4473:

magazine, but sadly it is print only and not online. I do feel that the Eisner award nomination, and the new press, do mean that the article should be restored. Or, what else would you like to see, in order to justify undeleting the article?

1310:

This being the case, and bearing in mind that quite a few people obviously feel that the RfA/Admin thing needs a really thorough overhaul, it seems to me to be an intelligent thing to do for someone (I'm suggesting you!) to keep an eye on what

4011:

Any chance you can give me more information on why Ride Snowboards was deleted? Also, is it possible for me to get the last revision of the article before it was deleted? I want to edit it some more to make it suitable for another time. Thank

5667:

Hadn't thought about it, wasn't really planning on closing it. Even though I didn't participate I am trying to keep this debate at arm's length as much as possible so if another admin is willing to do it that would be my preferred option.

3586:

You must have read mu mind. Before I turned over and went to sleep last night at around midnight my time, I had an idea to send a similar questionnaire to all NOTNOW on the sortable table. You posted your message to Ant 35 minutes later.

6578: 4596:

should probably be done, or you could restore the deleted version and then indicate by edit summary that you are merging in content from this draft. Somehow the attribution for the original work needs to be attached to this new version.

4436:

I was going to add the nomination to the article, but see it was deleted (barely) in February. Would you have any objection to me restoring the article, and adding the Eisner nomination? I believe it meets the standard for notability.

4277: 3278:

Well, my tracks weren't on this, and there was actually a formal request at OTRS for the edits to be suppressed, so I feel pretty solid about it. And really Pedro, you are certainly not on my short list of abusive above the law admins.

3606:

The IP belongs to the sock of an indef'd user named Editor XXV. The IP's block is theoretically expired, but it's staying blocked due to autoblock. Will the autoblock last indefinitely, or will it go away after some fixed time period?

4556:, since the interviews tend to be with her rather than specifically about the webcomic itself, and then there could be a section on Lackadaisy in her article, which we could redirect the Lackadaisy link to. Any thoughts on that? -- 6642:

We're short handed at my job, been working all day, every day and haven't had the time or energy to do much here. Should be resolved soon, I'm training some new people this week. And on that note I'm actually running late already.

3637: 6119:. I would not like an absolutely innocent person to suffer because of me. AGK is a fair, thoughtful and honest administrator. He declined my ban appeal, when he felt I did not deserve to get my ban lifted, just a few days ago he 2274:

Hi Beeb. Have you any idea why for admins the Twinkle CSD dropdown is set at 'delete' by default? It's still causing me problems, I've had to undelete several pages I just wanted to tag. I suppose I'll get used to it.

4853: 6585:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

1454:. Basically there has to be something extremely improper in the log entry. I don't believe there is any technical means of striking out a log entry, which is why brief re-blocks are usually used to correct the log. 5101:

an obvious threat, slow motion and tag-team edit-warring by experienced editors should also be regarded as sanctionable, in my opinion. See what you think, and thanks again for taking on this task. Wow! I just saw

4280:. I've been around (seasonally) for a few years and you always struck me as one of the calmest, most reasonable admins; that comment strikes me as discordant with your body of work. In any event, left reply there. 2085:

Well, I beg to differ. Still offer your opinion, just don't run the show. It'll be less of an exasperation for you, then you can ask other people why progress is so slow. =) I'm saying that in jest, of course.

2850:

Beeblebrox, I just wanted to thank-you for leaving such a detailed review on my user review page, your time is much appreciated, and I have already started addressing the issues highlighted. Thank-you once again,

1219:

idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank

495:

information in the article but did not actually mention the subject of the article and are therefore not relevant as far as notability is concerned. Therefore I do not see any compelling reason to overturn this

2043:

with that. Sit and relax for a few minutes. Then come back and read what I have to say. Unless you disappeared for the nite after the message at 6:10 (UTC), stop reading and come back after taking a moment.

2070:

Hey. I edit conflicted with you while writing my reply to Steven up above but it could serve just as well for a reply to this. I'm fine, not going anywhere, just not participating in this process any further.

4716:

the same user, Knowledge policy doesn't seem to stick, he needs reminders every so often). Lastly, if this entire post is out-of-bounds, then please accept my apologies and feel free to delete and ignore it.

296:

It's a lot of work, and I cannot do it on my own. I would love any extra help I could get. If you have any questions on anything I mentioned, or are in a state of utter confusion, just ask me. All the best,

4885:

And because the most active participant of this checkuser request page was Iaaasi, yet when he was allowed to edit the English Knowledge under his original account and he is still a recurring host there....

1394:

the log at that time. This makes it clear that the block was an error while maintaining transparency. Unless there is also a privacy issue involved as well this is what should probably happen in this case.

513:

Not was any consensus on AFD page, and nobody do not want to analyze all my sources and to look at my entire article, to read my explanation where I describe the structure of my Webcams_(Website) article.

3215:

Seems like the draconian warnings over revdel are overly inflated then. Not questioning your use of the tool, only noting that for some of us liberal use would be an "easy win" in the eyes of our masters.

2675:

as a clear role account before seeing your message at UAA. If you want to unblock him to discuss a name change feel free, but my guess is that he's gone for good after his promotional article was deleted.

1340:

right now that is taking up most of the time and patience I have for trying to run a complicated policy discussion. However this seems like something that would fall under the umbrella of the semi-dormant

464:

I strongly believe you should take a second look at the debate page after examining the issues discussed here. I consider that the page should be undeleted, so that we don't have to reach deletion review.

2776: 3402:"originally" read but never followed up. If the other commentators left weak rationales, that's hardly an endorsement of the article's continued existence. How would you suggest we proceed from here? 6361: 3621:

It's my understanding that autoblocks expire after 24 hours. It is possible there is a rangeblock or something in place as well, that's a kind of obscure area and I'm afraid I don't know much about it.

2118:

I really have no clue if this editor is related to the above blocked (banned?) editor, or even to the sockpuppetry that caused the protection. Any chance you could have a look at it? Thanks in advance!

6396: 4805: 3976:

if you wish to contest any of the deletions of this content. Please be sure to notify all involved parties if you do take such action. You may need help from an administrator as the pages have been

1134: 347: 6381: 5521:

fiasco being a perfect example, the main question it was meant to resolve was pushed to the back and remains unaddressed. Been doing some more article work lately to remind myself of what actually

2886:

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Knowledge. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Knowledge contributors." I would like to invite you to

2020:

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.

181:. It's the only way forward from here, because this new article can't be there without the previous one's edit history. Let me assure you I made no such move (nor did I think it was quite ready to 6094:

Another oversighter got there first. Now that there are three oversighters/admins advising Crusoe8181 to stop posting that information lest he blocked I should hope he will finally get the point.

2795: 474: 403:

I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focusing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not

5074: 2220: 5981:

Sorry about that, I just was troubled by the fact that user was driven away by block and wanted to know whether a name like that would be allowed according to policy. Sorry for not checking. –

4907: 1843:

Since there is an AFD already underway the community will decide if it is notable enough for an article. If the decision is to keep it a move to the proper title would certainly be appropriate.

4055: 3661: 568:

You're not making a lot of sense right now, and you are making some rather unpleasant accusations. The answer is still no as you have not presented any cogent reason to overturn the decision.

316:

I might be able to pitch in in a while. At the moment babysitting the pending changes RFC is taking a lot of my wiki-time. I may feel more energetic about it next week after we enter phase 3.

2341: 1130: 3806:

There are two types of calories. 1 Calorie = 1000 calories = 1 kcal. Capitalization identifies the large-C calorie from the small-c calorie. Eventually joules (abbr. J) will supplant both.

625:

However, if you post any links to porn sites to my talk page or at the Reliable sources noticeboard, please do everyone the courtesy of including a "NSFW" warning in your post. Good luck!

178: 4145:

Thanks. I will do just that. I really do want him to participate in the RFC though because if he doesn't he will just try to derail all our good work afterwards (if he is allowed to). --

1657: 1650: 1948: 1481:

point of view (rather than from a legal point of view), why is there any difference - between striking out an enrty in a history page - and striking out an enrty in other revision logs?

518:

If you think this is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Knowledge does and does not consider a reliable source

189: 2910:

not most of us just take it as it comes. Also, you should have somebody with a better grasp of sentence structures in the English language construct the assumptions and the questions.

3297:

because there is a certain admin I've been dealing with who has decided they no longer will deign to discuss any edit, page move, revert, etc they make because they are always right.

6167:

As you can see from that, the main thing that would be accomplished by taking such an action would be me losing my oversight and possibly administrative rights. You could try asking

3557: 3524: 2290:

I'm not sure there's any way to set it to tag only by default. I so rarely do new page patrol anymore I've never looked into it, I usually browse already nominated articles instead.

2444:

Thanks for noticing that it actually was sourced and only the reflist template was missing. Was much too hasty (and probably irritable), should leave patrolling be for the evening.

5608:

Both the suppression and deletion logs come up blank, despite the fact that the page was obviously deleted. Never seen anything like that before, must be some kind of weird bug.

692:

I'm sorry, but I can't parse any meaning out of "check your candor, against your own POV" or "there are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary." From what I

5776: 4758:. Can you check this out? It's starting to become disruptive, and going back to revert all these edits is quite time-consuming. If I can do anything, please let me know. Thanks! 3645: 3638: 2363: 3064: 480:

My closing statement is a reflection of the fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient

6130:

treatment of AGK, may I please ask you to oversite the change he made to my block log? If somebody should suffer because of my unfair block log, it should be me and me alone.

4552:

Thanks, and would you like to undelete it, or shall I, with a note that I discussed it with you? Also, as another option, I'm wondering if the whole thing should be moved to

696:

gather from your remarks you believe I over reacted by characterizing the request not to be subject to a snow close as arrogant. RFA is by definition a bit of an exception to

5053:

3,200 views in six hours! I'd like to thank my mom, the academy, and Jesus. Wait, scratch that, I'd like to thank Ann Rule and the reporters at The Seattle Times circa 1992.

5208: 4836: 5883: 2748:

Yeah, I do sympathize. I'll see if there's some meat hiding in that sourcing slush pile that's been added, probably later tonight, it should be interesting. Take care, --

3365: 1337: 4704:) back in October. He had been using multiple accounts, but it seemed like a fair case of a lack of understanding the rules. Anyway, I've recently noticed a new user, 3861: 5695: 5677: 3720: 2603:

Yes, I am well aware of that article. The genesis of its creation is that after I deleted "White Argentine" I protected it from re-creation as we had a consensus at

653: 637: 5874: 4890:

Would it be in order to request Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to be semi-protected so that the page to be possible to edit only by established users?

2672: 1872: 1627: 1367:

An administrator blocked a user, and the block has already expired. However, the administrator thinks now this block should be eliminated from the user's block log.

1288: 5850:

Looks like I missed all the excitement, been out all day. In the nearly inevitable case that this should come up again, I would direct any interested parties to my

5806: 5259: 3667:

Really any user who did not participate can make the closes, there is not actually a requirement that they be an admin. I would say re-post at AN and cross post at

491:. Internet porn reviewing sites are not professional journalistic entities with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Many of the other sources were used to 457: 381: 6015: 6003: 5761: 4732:

This was a while ago so I'm still looking at the details, but I did warn them quite clearly about using multiple accounts when they were unblocked. There may be a

4655:

As a followup, I have located a number of additional sources and added them to the article, so I think it's doing pretty well now. Thanks again for your help! --

4572: 3469: 3167: 2227: 1664: 5315: 4750:

Alright, I'm now convinced it's the same editor, under a new name (obviously so he could go back to his poor editing style and pretend like he didn't know that).

2523: 2199: 1354: 5298: 4816: 3919: 3318: 3288: 6339:

Well, that got me to thinking and now I've noticed you have provided three different explanations for the block that, while similar, have important differences

4212:

I thought you might hassle me for reverting your disruptive comment on the MOS talk page as vandalism, but some other dude is hassling me instead. Go figure.

3865: 3111: 3087: 3050: 1103: 524:

You told me i'm in a misunderstood? But you, who come like a judge of a Inquisition and take a decision only from a point of view, more than that, you consider

5631: 4089: 4075: 3899: 3573: 2903: 1868: 1852: 1331: 1276: 1257: 511:

fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient notability for the subject.

4799: 4785: 4767: 4745: 3993: 3961: 3935: 3631: 3411:

Oops, you're right that was you that responded. However I still don't see any consensus to delete the article. If you feel my close was flawed you can pursue

2940:

As one of the primary editors of the Cai Li Fo wiki, we ran into a problem. TexasAndroid has put in a copyright block on our wiki page because a site called

5912: 3703: 2509: 2351: 1993: 1858: 1777: 1162: 325: 223: 159: 144: 132: 6717: 6701: 5118: 4278:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Can.27t_believe_anyone_actually_cares_enough_to_debate_it_at_all_and_don.27t_even_want_to_know_what_the_result_of_this_RFC_is

4154: 4140: 3736: 3273: 2875: 1731: 6352: 6061: 5534: 5487: 5391: 3368:

as "keep". The only person who argued for keeping the article was the creator. How could you possibly find that as a consensus for keeping the article?

3306: 3014: 2765: 2754: 2743: 1883: 1743: 1613: 595: 5863: 3671:. It has been hard to get people to do this sort of work recently, a few weeks ago I closed a user RFC that hadn't even been edited in about three weeks. 2919: 2095: 2080: 1939: 1925: 1118: 710: 628:

Beeblebrox: I sassed that that you were a hoopy frood? Deleting our porn articles? If you it again, I shall read you Vogon poetry. See if I don't! :)

234:

Hi Beeblebrox, since it seems you have expressed a small interest in Alaska Airports -- I hope you don't mind if I ask for your help. Since the merger of

5845: 5783: 5755: 5559: 4630: 4357:

Hopefully I can use it to encourage administrators to make more effort to reform blocked users rather than just shut them out from editing. There's one

3650:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Knowledge:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Knowledge:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts

3433: 3424: 3406: 3397:

I reject your implication that I was only "going by how many bolded votes there are". Please assume a little good faith. Contrary to your assertion, I

3392: 2335: 2263: 2142: 441:. This proves the low level of attention paid when reading and evaluating the article and its sources/references. Objectivity clearly missing once again. 193:

the changes and contributions to the nation's culture. The compilation of Argentina's communities is complete but for one entry, and this would be it.

6674: 6652: 6599: 6334: 6224: 5970: 5373: 4413: 3028: 2996: 2961:

Work on the wiki page goes all the way back to 2001. I don't understand why the Cai Li Fo wiki only gets blocked when it is blatantly obvious that the

2539: 2299: 2179: 1827:

has been officially salted for almost two years now. However, at this moment in time I have found the article become created once more in this location

6103: 5888: 5617: 5091: 4894:(I know well that it may seem strange that if a checkuser request page is semi-protected , but his IP range is too wide to a perennial Ip range-block.) 4621: 4606: 4566: 4547: 4484: 4463: 4371: 4352: 4325:

has been one of my major influences for years, both on and off Knowledge. Don't let a blocked sock let you think any differently, your essay matters.

4021: 3695: 3680: 3491: 3122: 3105: 2837: 2819: 2471: 2403: 2388: 577: 487:

is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Knowledge does and does not consider a

438: 5927: 5602: 5129:

more seriously than many other admins. Hopefully this latest RFC will resolve this issue for a while, although I'm sure it will come back eventually.

4961: 4947: 4925: 3250: 3232: 3210: 2710: 2621: 1742:

Hi, you helped me once before by challenging content and I benefited from double referencing the subject material. Could you help me with the article

1556: 1525: 1463: 1437: 1403: 6198: 6180: 6148:

That's very generous of you, but I'm afraid I can't do that. When one is preparing to delete a revision or log entry you see the following warnings:

5436: 5152: 5138: 4334: 4005: 3838: 2585: 1864: 1828: 1004: 946: 932: 918: 900: 820: 798: 780: 758: 333: 5570:, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. -- 3080: 2974: 520:

That article are only a part, from a section of my article, and again you don't want to look at entire project, it's only a one part of an entire.

6368: 6076: 4751: 4665: 4650: 4585: 4524: 2881: 559: 533: 4221: 5341: 4754:

he says that someone already told him about a page, that this user hasn't ever edited. However, he was told (by myself and another editor) here:

4028: 3372: 2604: 2501: 583: 420:

category, which happens to be totally relevant regarding the profile of the website and its importance in this adult videochat niche. Here comes

6662: 6624: 4726: 2483: 2184:

I'm personally happy to support anything sensible. It's bloody annoying when people focus on the wrong thing and then get all snitty about it!

1910: 116: 6544: 4868:

in a surreptitious manner, whilst he is a twofold indef-blocked and community banned user. The last time that happened was 3 days ago via a Ip

3905: 3354: 3002: 384:. I can't see impartiality being used in deciding to delete the Webcams_(Website) article, or any strong, irrefutable arguments above all else. 5661: 5143:

Yeah, and I shouldn't have posted here without properly researching your involvement. Sorry about that. Please keep up the good work there. --

5102: 5097: 3378:

Well, this is a perfect example of the concept that AFD is a discussion not a vote. If you read the conversation instead of going by how many

1960: 1895: 1690: 1146: 6340: 6124: 6032:

directed at me but all in good humour, hope I didn't offend anyone unnecessarily, so I would ask that the deleted bits be put babck. Regards

3704: 3687: 3653: 4848: 1755: 5988: 4865: 3844: 2342: 2111: 725:

fastest way to mention it. You can email me, or whatever (especially if you haven't the faintest idea what I am blathering about). Cheers,

6041: 5942:- so true. That's why it's almost impossible to get anything done. I just hope RFA2011 doesn't get snarled up the same way. -- 5062: 6682: 6609:

Hi Beeb. I see you've not been editing a lot for the last few days. Are you very busy in RL? Did you get my mail? Regards, --

6459: 6120: 5894: 5851: 4611:

Yeah, I was thinking about that too, and agree that undeleting and merging is the way to go. We'd hate to lose all the edit history! --

3615: 3179:

That was brave rev del'ing on that. ARBCOM would have used that as the "final straw" excuse to desysop me, which is why I only reverted.

3142: 1794:

That's not really how we do things around here. If you find your edits being reverted and you feel the reversion is incorrect you should

1230: 843: 358:- this article, only those against it. Not to mention that personal opinions were used regarding various subjects/authorities or awards: 310: 4952:

FYI he also emailed me and apparently several other other users with oversight permission about this, so there are more eyes on it now.

2860: 1263:

Actually, it has not been deleted. It was nominated but the nomination was actually declined. I've just undone the redirect and added a

885: 862: 6325:

What a completely absurd statement. Enjoy your moment of drama, I've left a remark there and that is all I have to say on the subject.

5584: 5213: 3429:

Although I'm curious which side others would come down on, at this point I suppose there's little harm in letting the article remain.

2495: 2453: 2127: 6447: 6088: 5939: 4124: 3539: 3531: 3506: 3498: 6567: 6496:, I was wondering if you could look into a few possible policy violations happening there. I did set up a request for move/merger at 5563: 4469:

would have closed it differently, so it's not really worth taking it to DRV. I do see that there was more press about Lackadaisy in

4294: 3596: 1901:

page: "Comment: Yes, the Mediation Cabal is mediating an entire site-controversial RFC, for the very first time in its history." =)

5590: 3135:

I read you advice and I think it's to the point. By the way, IAR is one of the five pillars (WP's rules aren't etched in stone). –

2320: 1837: 1679: 673: 582:

Haven't looked at the XBIZ page yet, but you are right that the Rabbit Reviews page suffers from the same problem. I have therefore

343:

Non notable website, most of the various references are for the facts throughout the article and not actually related to the subject

208: 3062: 2555: 1639: 2597: 2431: 686: 6794: 6786: 6781: 6769: 6764: 6756: 6319: 5716: 3465: 3113:. I did not see the other edits and changes you made. Thank you for clarifying and I apologize for not seeing the other edits. 2925: 2567: 2055:

Take a Wikibreak if you need to. We'll still be here when you return. I hope I can make you feel better with this message. =)

1704: 1597: 964: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5951: 5323: 2727: 2326:

I had actually unwatchlisted it some time ago and was surprised when browsing ANI today to see it still on the list at the top.

2170:

many of the negative comments. Maybe just re-presenting the idea to the task force to see if there is any support there for it?

5579: 5510: 2213: 2163: 1977: 1083: 6189:

Yes, I see now. Sorry I asked you. Thank you for taking the time to respond and to explain the situation to me. Best wishes.--

4626:

I have gone ahead and undeleted and expanded the article, per our discussions. I wasn't quite sure how to notate this in the

4447: 4289: 1807: 5739: 5280:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

5086: 5032:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3796: 2694: 2491: 999: 5355:

that discuss the subject and say it is a street name. None. Not even one. I therefore removed the content that seemed to be

3984:

and make more of an effort to understand the various content policies that others have been repeatedly pointing out to you.

2284: 1225: 742: 4207: 3857: 3549: 3516: 2658: 2248: 2115:

sockpuppeteering, and where a relatively new editor made a similar style edit to what i remember from that previous case.

2064: 1785: 976: 6636: 6618: 6539: 6522:(which is a false assumption anyways), and canvassing votes from like-minded editors on the talk page of another article. 5364:. You do understand that we don't generally allow people to just make stuff up and post it as if it were fact, don't you? 3876:

I find it hard to believe you were unaware of this, you are obviously one of several IP addresses working in concert with

3815: 6689: 6287: 6206: 6142: 4003: 3957: 3887: 3611: 3542:. still exists? (There is a point . at the final of the URL, instead of the previous one)- Carol had created this page. 3359: 3195: 987: 701:

Would you have me lie? What good would that do Dusti? Doesn't he, and every RFA candidate, deserve our honest criticism?

6526: 6517: 5421: 4397: 1300: 6482: 2154:

question is: do we need to thrash this out again by the task force, or shall we rule it out as a possibility? --

1451: 391:

There are literally hundreds of thousands of porn websites out there, very, very few of them can be considered notable.

6528: 6523: 5405: 5096:

Thank you for intervening to keep the editorial process going at our article on 9/11. Can I ask you to keep an eye on

2460: 5822: 1387: 1336:

I don't know if I could take on organizing such a thing right at the moment. We are approaching a critical moment at

617: 285:

Many of the Airports in Era Alaska's destination list are not in the proper table format, that all needs to be fixed.

6469:

Hi Beeblebrox, because you were involved with the issue concerning my block log I'd like to notify you please about

4062:

in the "unprotection" section. If the problems that led to the deletion have been fixed and it does meet any of the

3540:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63

3532:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63

3507:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63

3499:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63

3090: 1291:. If you think it's crap, don't hesitate to say so on its talk page. There are also some links to some others. -- 6520: 6515: 6509: 6072: 6068: 5994:

These things happen. I would say the name is borderline promotional, maybe Mike could have tried discussing first.

5229: 4989: 4830: 3294: 6125:

here (and it is 2 months after my bans were lifted and without me posting anything to any of these boards at all!)

6413: 6246: 5840: 5801: 5691: 5657: 5454: 5255: 5204: 5172: 4243: 4179: 3759: 1877: 1216: 1182: 1087: 633: 453: 366: 6497: 2953:

I found another reverse copyright on there site beside the praying mantis pages. Look at their Wing Chun page:

1766: 6220: 5772: 3350: 3093: 2581: 1576: 105: 789:

you. Sorry, after a while they all look the same, and it was already out of my queue when I wrote that reply.

5379: 4691: 4358: 616:

and the coverage has to be in-depth. Now, I'm not sure what qualifies as reliable for this topic space, but

6744: 6441: 6012: 5985: 5106: 4662: 4647: 4618: 4582: 4563: 4521: 4481: 4444: 3139: 2887: 1124: 555: 47: 17: 2514:

Kindly refrain from the patronising remarks. I do not need others to tell me when I need to be ashamed.

1693:

template was removed without an edit summary or talk page note by a new user. Can i replace the template?

1133:, seeing that it's what you modeled the phase 3 process on. You might also be interested in commenting on 6275: 6116: 5893:

After the deletion of the individual character article for Captain Teague and its subsequent redirect to

5294: 4709: 4701: 4388:? Maybe it should be obvious, but at least I can't find a user that would fit your description. Regards, 3033:

It has been a long time, but I wanted to add my two cents of appreciation for your help with this matter.

2687: 2439: 2193: 1722:

is still a viable option but ti might be a better idea to discuss this on the article's talk page first.

1675: 1325: 1075: 1027: 1005: 867: 6217: 2777:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_dealing_with_User:Landalva_without_being_bite-y

6735: 6023: 5687: 5653: 5409: 5281: 5267: 5250: 5241: 5200: 5105:

which I see you reverted so you are already aware of this. I see you warned him back then and received

5033: 5019: 4973: 3315: 3270: 3266:

can't see what they've done, but that's just one aspect of the larger issue of admin unaccountability.

1971:

and do my part to get the data I promised, and dive in to look at the options for a final stage again.

1079: 629: 449: 408:. I believe you have not treated Webcams_(Website) AFD as serious as you yourself claim to usually do. 362: 243: 38: 6362:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Badger Drink, civility block and unblock by Beeblebrox

2031:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 906: 873: 214:

Looks like this moved ahead without me, my watchlist is lit up with related page moves and deletions.

6571: 6421: 6254: 5768: 5462: 5180: 4251: 4187: 3767: 3346: 3160: 3153: 3147: 3046: 3038: 2551: 2487: 2425: 2103: 1718:

template may be removed from an article at any time by any user and cannot be re-added once removed.

1371:

Does the administaror have any technical legal way to eliminiate the block from the user's block log?

1190: 1062: 2305: 360:

XBIZ is a component of a public relationa/promotion business; its awards are not subject-independent

6411:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

6244:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5782:

There have already been many deletion discussions regarding these people and their show, including

5627: 5452:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5170:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

4241:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

4177:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

4085: 4017: 3757:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

3711:

specifically isn't found I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to renominate this in a month or so. --

3579: 3553: 3520: 1781: 1751: 1737: 1253: 1180:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

848: 536:? All my sources used in my article are structured by sections, every section with his own sources. 5109:

in reply. I believe civility was one of the recommendations of the 2008 Arbcom case, wasn't it? --

4592:

I only see one problem: some text in the new draft is partially based on the deleted version so a

3652:

was archived and no admin addressed it. Is there a better venue for requesting RfCs to be closed?

3342: 2505:

Update; seems it exists as a redirect too, just with lowercase instead. 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

6493: 6009: 5982: 4812: 4795: 4763: 4722: 3953: 3915: 3881: 3136: 2845: 2572: 1239: 832: 235: 229: 3415:. If it's more a problem with the article itself you could always re-nominate it in the future. 1819:

Numerous attempts have been made for the article to be created by several different users (even

1658:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now

1129:

I'll see if I can whip up some phase 2 eye candy. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your response

447:

And that is a truly spectacular WP:RS failure (as are most online posts bylined "Mephistopheles.

6713: 6648: 6512: 6348: 6330: 6176: 6099: 6057: 5999: 5966: 5923: 5859: 5751: 5673: 5613: 5555: 5530: 5432: 5387: 5369: 5311: 5290: 5134: 5058: 5042: 4957: 4921: 4781: 4741: 4602: 4543: 4459: 4409: 4348: 4136: 4071: 3989: 3931: 3895: 3834: 3732: 3676: 3627: 3601: 3569: 3420: 3388: 3302: 3284: 3246: 3206: 3101: 3010: 2992: 2915: 2871: 2815: 2801:

Ha. Many of those little talk templates insert a period at the end, I guess that one does not.

2739: 2706: 2617: 2535: 2467: 2384: 2331: 2295: 2259: 2185: 2175: 2138: 2076: 1989: 1921: 1916:

Please do participate. Anyone who is actually interested in moving forward can only be a help.

1848: 1803: 1727: 1671: 1621: 1609: 1552: 1459: 1399: 1350: 1317: 1272: 1158: 1142: 1114: 794: 754: 706: 649: 591: 573: 321: 219: 204: 155: 128: 6511:, when almost all my edits were accompanied by a rational/policy citation in the edit summary 5222: 5014:

was convicted of faking a boating accident in order to cover up the murder of his fourth wife?

4982: 4432: 2550:

Hi Just Step Sideways/Archive 21. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to

1242:. It was speedily deleted. I would appreciate it if you could email me a copy of the article ( 528:

some personal opinions, you...YOU in what king of misunderstood you are? Why don't delete the

6697: 6508:, by making sweeping blind reverts of 23 of my edits there with an inflammatory edit-summary 6391: 6029: 5816: 5234: 4994: 4504: 4150: 4120: 4097: 3874:

Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63.

3792: 3716: 3334: 3312: 3267: 2856: 2133:

I definitely hear quacking. This appears to have been a "sleeper" sock account, now blocked.

1699: 6211:

I am right now considering a self block request. If I want it, I will let you know shortly.

5271: 3910:

May you send me a copy of the deleted page Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology. Thank You.

1767:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Netherlands_national_football_team&oldid=421809548

6292: 6212: 6037: 5503: 4755: 4733: 4494: 3945: 3853: 3545: 3512: 3042: 3034: 3005:

you're in the clear and the page has been acknowledged as a "reverse" copyright violation.

2763: 2752: 2725: 2545: 2422: 1773: 1593: 1477:

point of view, striking out an enrty in a history page - is possible, isn't it? So, from a

1023: 1009: 995: 972: 858: 543: 377: 6470: 4538:

on it after restoring while you add new content and sources and you should be good to go.

8: 5976: 5933: 5878: 5834: 5795: 5639: 5623: 4593: 4104: 4081: 4013: 3458: 3451: 2899: 2828:. Can you please take care of that? I have a delicate soul. I'll give you a barnstar.... 2091: 2060: 1956: 1935: 1906: 1891: 1832: 1747: 1630:. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space.-- 1249: 1099: 1091: 682: 667: 6450:. I can think of a few other places where such a comment would be highly pertinent. 6367:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

6535: 5735: 5712: 5540: 5277: 5126: 5029: 4808: 4791: 4759: 4718: 4420: 4217: 3949: 3911: 3877: 3608: 3445: 2666: 2316: 2244: 2148: 2017: 1210: 716: 436: 345: 292:. Many are very outdated, still displaying information from before the airlines merged. 169: 2962: 2941: 289: 6670: 6661:

OK, not much you can do when RL gets in the way. Do check your mail, and chime in on

6632: 6614: 6455: 6379: 6317: 5947: 5575: 5551: 5541: 5337: 5082: 4393: 4285: 4271: 3592: 3489: 3130: 3024: 2970: 2563: 2519: 2280: 2159: 2104: 1973: 1863:

I apologize for the incomplete explanation. I added more details to the explanation.

1711: 1635: 1570: 1296: 1138: 1058: 942: 928: 914: 896: 881: 839: 609: 298: 200: 140: 112: 5593:

and confirm whether the log was oversighted? It is either that or some kind of bug.

4489:

BTW, here's the cite on the 14-page article (which I'd like to add if we undelete):

4047:" This great selection combats other snowboarding giants, such as Burton Snowboards" 3538:

This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why

3505:

This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why

1045: 539:

At the final, I ask you again to take a look at Webcams_(Website) and to undelete.

6693: 6501: 6168: 6084: 5897:, I have edited this image into the latter article and it is no longer orphaned. -- 5812: 5598: 5068: 4844: 4659: 4644: 4615: 4579: 4560: 4518: 4478: 4441: 4367: 4343:

Well thank you very much, it's always gratifying to know your work is appreciated.

4330: 4146: 4116: 3801: 3788: 3712: 3691: 3657: 3580: 3478: 3118: 3076: 2852: 2833: 2791: 2759:

And thanks for catching the error on the talk page info there on the renom. :) --

2716: 2627: 2558:. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, 2449: 2399: 2376: 2359: 1820: 1813: 1694: 1684: 1342: 1036: 551: 485: 470: 5726:

Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re

5703:

Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re

3237:

It's even worse than that, I actually suppressed it entirely so if that was wrong

6709: 6644: 6344: 6326: 6229: 6172: 6109: 6095: 6053: 6033: 5995: 5962: 5958: 5919: 5907: 5855: 5747: 5721: 5669: 5609: 5567: 5526: 5518: 5498: 5482: 5428: 5383: 5365: 5307: 5130: 5054: 4953: 4943: 4917: 4903: 4777: 4737: 4637: 4598: 4539: 4455: 4434: 4405: 4344: 4132: 4067: 3985: 3981: 3927: 3891: 3830: 3728: 3672: 3623: 3565: 3564:

I don't see any evidence that such a page exists now or has existed in the past.

3416: 3384: 3298: 3280: 3242: 3225: 3202: 3188: 3097: 3006: 2988: 2911: 2867: 2811: 2760: 2749: 2735: 2722: 2702: 2683: 2613: 2593: 2531: 2463: 2380: 2327: 2291: 2269: 2255: 2171: 2134: 2072: 2028: 1985: 1917: 1844: 1824: 1799: 1723: 1605: 1589: 1580: 1548: 1521: 1455: 1433: 1395: 1383: 1346: 1316:'kinda-together' way for the greater good of the whole thing. What do you think? 1268: 1154: 1110: 1044:

While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

991: 968: 854: 790: 750: 702: 645: 587: 569: 405: 398: 373: 317: 215: 151: 124: 6743:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5648:

runs its course, are you planning on closing it? Or should we seek an admin at

4497:(Spring 2011). "Cats, Gats, and all that Jazz: an interview with Tracy Butler". 3969: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6593: 6478: 6283: 6194: 6138: 5827: 5788: 5517:

get anything done without having a 2-6 month long debate about it anymore. The

5417: 5399: 5264:

You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page

5148: 5114: 5016:

You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page

4854:

There is a problem that you may be able to resolve with an unusual intervention

4533: 4499: 4322: 4296: 4059: 4050: 3977: 3811: 3238: 3174: 2895: 2087: 2056: 2032: 1952: 1931: 1902: 1887: 1760: 1715: 1221: 1095: 813: 773: 735: 678: 260: 6133:

Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your time and your understanding.--

4869: 4113:

And NEXT TIME, reserve your threats for some one else. Payback can be a bitch.

2954: 2701:

note to each report if there is a template notice already on the user's page.

6604: 6531: 6505: 6464: 6306: 5731: 5708: 5683: 5649: 4773: 4213: 4063: 3973: 3668: 3646:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Series of RFC's need closing

3639:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Series of RFC's need closing

3430: 3412: 3403: 3369: 3335: 3110:

I appreciate your response. I was responding only to notice on the AfD page

2980: 2609: 2462:

at all. Looking onto it this guy does seem to be quite notorious in Ireland.

2411: 2371: 2312: 2240: 2234: 2120: 2040: 1965: 1795: 1719: 1644: 1068:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

981: 697: 622: 428: 421: 5023: 1765:

Hi, someone is fucking up the Dutch football squad page. Last good edit was

288:

All of Era Alaska's routes need to be updated using current schedules found

6666: 6628: 6610: 6487: 6451: 6431: 6372: 6310: 6264: 5943: 5645: 5571: 5472: 5356: 5352: 5333: 5190: 5078: 4872: 4553: 4428: 4389: 4281: 4261: 4197: 4033: 3980:

to prevent them being re-created yet again. My advice to you however is to

3777: 3742: 3588: 3482: 3201:

Looked pretty cut-and-dried to me, I certainly didn't feel brave doing it.

3020: 2966: 2559: 2515: 2276: 2155: 1999: 1631: 1584: 1292: 1264: 1200: 938: 924: 910: 892: 877: 613: 488: 239: 6562: 6546: 6080: 5361: 5348: 4878: 4861: 4840: 4656: 4641: 4612: 4576: 4557: 4515: 4475: 4438: 4379: 4363: 4326: 4041: 4037: 3114: 3072: 2829: 2787: 2477: 2445: 2395: 2355: 1282: 958: 547: 492: 481: 466: 6371:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

6117:

the latest reminder made in the thread that in no way is connected to me

4875: 2803: 2636: 763:*shrug* - Zoetermeermoord (POSSIBLY URGENT)‏ - only response was you. 401:

discussing in another AFD (Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD):

5900: 5073:

Hi Beeb. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on

5010: 5001: 4939: 4899: 4705: 4697: 4421: 3219: 3182: 2824:

Well done. Now, on ANI I read that there's pictures of naked people on

2679: 2655: 2589: 1517: 1429: 1379: 1362: 1345:. Maybe it could be used as a central location for this sort of thing. 1267:, but it will probably need more if it is to be kept in the long term. 529: 354:

In the AFD there is no sign whatsoever about the arguments discussed –

279: 256: 247: 2987:

this sounds a bit complicated, it may take some time to unravel it...

2554:. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a 2254:

Just read it, checking that out now, expect an email from me shortly.

266:

Updating every airport in that list and making sure that if they have

6588: 6504:

refuses to go along with the due process, and is displaying signs of

6474: 6408: