Revolving Bugbear (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
||
Following a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins|community discussion]] in June 2011, consensus was reached to [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators|provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year]] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]] and the userright will be restored per the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping|re-sysopping process]] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at [[WP:RFA]]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->[[User:MadmanBot|MadmanBot]] ([[User talk:MadmanBot|talk]]) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
Following a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins|community discussion]] in June 2011, consensus was reached to [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators|provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year]] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]] and the userright will be restored per the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping|re-sysopping process]] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at [[WP:RFA]]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->[[User:MadmanBot|MadmanBot]] ([[User talk:MadmanBot|talk]]) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Guess I should probably edit then, huh? [[User:Revolving Bugbear|<font color="006666">Revolving Bugbear</font>]] 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:45, 14 November 2014
Just Say No to "checkers".
Feel free to leave your questions, comments, or anything else below. You can do so by clicking ! Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
This talk page is intended to be a safe, constructive space. Anyone is welcome to share his or her thoughts or opinions here. Personal attacks and incivility are unwelcome here.
So please, leave a message or anything else here. I will always try to respond to your messages (excepting brief acknowledgments and the like which are simply responses to mine), and I will answer on your talk page, unless the thread on my page contains more than one user. In the case that I respond on your page, I will usually copy over your comment to preserve cohesion.
Note that this talk page is bilingual. I will be happy to take questions and comments and German, and will respond in German, if you are more comfortable communicating that way. I reserve the right, however, to translate the message for others' convenience.
You may also want to read my note on pronouns.
Template:Archive box collapsible
Dear Bugbear,
I have a problem with a couple of editors. It's the same old thing, except with new players. An article I edited was severely cut up, then eliminated entirely. I've been trying to reinstate some of the data with 3rd party citations, but I am being personally attacked with accusations of COI, in this case because the subject of the article appeared at the event I work on, the Starwood Festival, over ten years ago. I did include citations for four lecture venues this professional speaker appeared at, and one was for this festival, but ALL edits I have made including bibliography, filmography, and a lot of other data is being deleted simply because I am the person posting it. On top of this, I am being warned that ALL edits to other articles like Starwood Festival are COI, something that was settled long ago (as I'm sure you recall), and they have threatened to delete the entire articles. Qworty has already begun chopping up both this article and the [[Association for Consciousness Exploration] article. These are very aggressive edits, and they are accompanied by a suggestion to merge them. The articles are absolutely being gutted. I don't know what to do, and I'm asking for your help.Rosencomet (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- This editor Qworty is now systematically gutting every article I have edited, including ones that are in no way connected to Starwood. He/she is deleting entire article text without tagging anything, even deleting bibliographies with books by major publishers and proper ISBN numbers as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since when do bibliographies and discographies need "sources"? How does Qworty get to set these bars? This is a wholesale deletion of virtually all of the work done by many many editors on articles, evidently chosen simply because I have worked on them. It's a vendetta!Rosencomet (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this exchange says it all. I don't know what's going on here, but this is someone who is dredging up 6 year old accusations and ignoring the results of the arbitration and the fact that it's ben years since I have engaged in aggressive editing or controversy of any kind.Rosencomet (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Articles gutted by Qworty include: Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, David Jay Brown, Michael T. Gilbert, Muruga Booker, Nicki Scully, Anodea Judith, Trance Mission, Louis Martinie, Amampondo, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Stephen Kent (musician), and Harvey Wasserman. Luisah Teish and Jay Stevens have been nominated for deletion. I'm sure more are on the way. I do not want to engage in conflict with this editor, nor do I want to see articles destroyed this way. I ask that this be looked into; I don't see what I can do without being accused of one or another improper activities. Please help.Rosencomet (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this exchange says it all. I don't know what's going on here, but this is someone who is dredging up 6 year old accusations and ignoring the results of the arbitration and the fact that it's ben years since I have engaged in aggressive editing or controversy of any kind.Rosencomet (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since when do bibliographies and discographies need "sources"? How does Qworty get to set these bars? This is a wholesale deletion of virtually all of the work done by many many editors on articles, evidently chosen simply because I have worked on them. It's a vendetta!Rosencomet (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- This editor Qworty is now systematically gutting every article I have edited, including ones that are in no way connected to Starwood. He/she is deleting entire article text without tagging anything, even deleting bibliographies with books by major publishers and proper ISBN numbers as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Qworty just merged Starwood Festival and [[Association for Consciousness Exploration] after posting the proposal for about 20 minutes, acting on a consensus of one person. This was an article about an organization that has operated over 30 years with 26 newspaper articles and book write-ups supporting its notability. I am reserving my comments to talk pages. At what point do you consider Qworty to cross a line? Can I expect no response from you? Is there another administrator I should approach, or am I just going to be ignored?Rosencomet (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Will you help?
I am asking once more, as I am supposed to. Qworty is tagging, merging, deleting or otherwise reversing six years of work, including work that has no connection to Starwood or ACE. I have tried to get a response, a conversation, some guidance from you and Fred Bauder all through this process, to no avail. WHY? Are you in favor of this destruction of articles? Over thirty have been affected, and more keep piling up by the minute. Why won't you talk to me, or direct me to somewhere I can get help?Rosencomet (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus. Since you had some involvement with the Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Todo-buffy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Guess I should probably edit then, huh? Revolving Bugbear 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)