NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) →Page Deletion: reply |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
==Deletion review for [[:SBA 504 Loan]]== |
==Deletion review for [[:SBA 504 Loan]]== |
||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#SBA 504 Loan|deletion review]] of [[:SBA 504 Loan]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#SBA 504 Loan|deletion review]] of [[:SBA 504 Loan]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erikson (music style)]] == |
|||
As I ran across this the first time, it was still open (later closed by [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]]) but the logs showed that it was deleted by you as an "expired prod". My guess was that it was first prodded and then sent to AFD but the prod tag wasn't replaced with the AFD one. There were 3 delete !votes in the AFD but the deletion log needs to show the correct rationale. This may be an issue if someone tries to get it restored. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:45, 20 October 2009
|
Not ANI but close
I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#whatever_happened_to_warning_vandals.3F as one of your blocks is being discussed there. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Todd. I'll be sure to follow the discussion. NW (Talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Indef. ban
Hi. Regarding User:Nurbandma and this sockpuppet investigation: shouldn't User:Hazaraboys be banned indef. as well? Regards. Tajik (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't have too much time to look through the case, so I decided to leave that decision to another sysop. NW (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Its been about a month.
I am not logged in (on ACC) and this is the response I get I'm sorry, but that username is in use. Please choose another. I am very confused Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC). I would appreciate it if you either made it so I could request an account or gave me account permissions Dr. Szląchski (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Access to ACC granted. NW (Talk) 00:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can't login in into ACC even though you have just given the rights I don't know if I lost the password but when I use the forgot your password? I get a Missing or incorrect Username supplied. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Denny Chin
I saw that you have semi-protected the Denny Chin article. I was thinking along the same lines. I have also looked at the history and the editor appears to be switching between a limited number of IPs
- 24.189.94.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 2 sessions
- 173.3.176.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 4 sessions
- 98.113.180.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 4 sessions
- 74.72.51.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 2 sessions
- 24.228.215.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 sessions
I would appreciate your opinion as to whether it would be advisable to apply a block to these IPs as an alternative. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those IPs don't seem to fall into a particular range (if they did, the earlier numbers would be more similar; see CIDR), so it is likely that this vandalism is being coordinated offsite somewhere and that these are multiple people vandalizing the page. I figured that it would be better to semi-protect the article than to block the IPs one by one. NW (Talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem; glad to help. I see from your talk page that you are one of our newer administrators, like myself. Congrats on your successful, nearly unanimous RfA. If you ever need anything in the future, feel free to contact me, and we can bumble through it together. :) Cheers, NW (Talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
note
That IP you just blocked (79.75.94.139 ) looks to have several socks, as you can see in [1]. I don't know if they're all blocked. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing me. I have protected the page, as a range block of a /17 (which it would have to be at a minimum), would be undesireable. NW (Talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Huzzah!
Congratulations, encyclopaedian! May it be the first of many. Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It feels good to have taken an article from nothing to FA. Perhaps I'll pick a more...noteworthy topic next time; rather not get into that discussion about not-enough-information again. Thanks for all of your help with copyediting and structuring the article. NW (Talk) 01:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Way to go man. Might I suggest a more noteworthy topic? :-))) <evil laugh> —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:FOUR award
Thanks for your nomination at WP:FOUR. In an effort to keep our queue manageable, we ask that each nominator review one of the nominations on the list. If you have a chance please review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Better explanation.
When I try to use the forgot the password this is the problem that I get
even though I use the information you gave me on your email this is very confusing. Regards, Dr. Szląchski (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea why this would be. I would advise you to contact Stwalkerster, as he probably knows how to solve this. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know.
I had my username changed to Dr.Szląchedzki and did a new request (because the other one wouldn't work).
Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: 0408136145
I'm pretty familiar with CSD criteria, having speedy-tagged somewhere around a thousand articles or so now, but I am curious what you think the better criteria was in this case. Sometimes articles can fall in between two or more criteria, making it tough to pick just the right one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in this case, it was more of an advertisement for a non-notable youtube channel, which isn't really vandalism, though it does fit {{db-web}}. Thanks for all your hard work though, 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and if I had taken a little closer look at my watchlist, the reason would have been right there in the edit summary i plain view. Duh. But thanks for dumping the article again - it's the second speedy. Maybe this time they'll get the message. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Page Deletion
Hi NW,
One of my clients asked me to reach out to you about their page deletion. Looking at the deletion log, it looks like it falls under the "copyright infringement" category. I'd like to work with you to better understand the reason for deletion, and how we can improve it to prevent it from happening again.
Your help is appreciated...and bear with me, my Wikipedia user knowledge is pretty limited!
Thanks, RedConSF
RedConSF (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. Could you please link me to the page of theirs that I deleted? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomy_Interwoven&action=edit&redlink=1
RedConSF (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. The article was largely copied from this link, which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, any such article on the topic must meet the notability guideline, be neutral, and be verifiable with reliable, secondary sources. If you believe you article can meet all four of those policies - no copyright violation, is neutral, notable, and verifiable, you are free to recreate the article. If you are unsure, feel free to respond; I'll see what I can do to help explain things better. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for SBA 504 Loan
An editor has asked for a deletion review of SBA 504 Loan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
As I ran across this the first time, it was still open (later closed by Tim Song) but the logs showed that it was deleted by you as an "expired prod". My guess was that it was first prodded and then sent to AFD but the prod tag wasn't replaced with the AFD one. There were 3 delete !votes in the AFD but the deletion log needs to show the correct rationale. This may be an issue if someone tries to get it restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)