Archive
Dates: |
CSD AutoReason Updated
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Odd...
I saw you here today by total coincidence! Weird! I got a chance to have some free time on the computer at school, so I took the oppurtunity to do some vandal-patrol. Talk to you on IRC maybe... *Cremepuff222* 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's strange! It's always good to see a friendly face :-) Can't go on IRC tonight, got drunk last night and dropped my laptop so I'm having to use my dad's which hasn't got IRC installed on. Will certainly catch up soon though. You back for good now? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, probably not. Sorry about your laptop; that really sucks! I might be on wikipedia more often now, though. I may even change my long wikibreak notice to a short one soon! :) Nice to see you too. *Cremepuff222* 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.
Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.
In other news:
- Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.
- The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
- Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.
- Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.
Dr. Cash 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a double mistake between editors. You can't ban someone from using twinkle unless you delete my monobook.css (& all skins) and protect it, delete all pages ever containing the script, and beat me over the head so I forget it. :-P --Bencomplain 07:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you seem to be tagging a lot of pages as well for speedy deletion that simply aren't speedy candidates as well using twinkle. As I said, abuse of automated tools is grounds for being banned from them. And yes, you got it right, I'd probably have to deleted your monobook and skins to stop you using it. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anywho, I apologize, and note none of my edits were done in bad faith. All my thanks go to you for discussing it first before a harsh action! Much more civilized than another sysop (link removed, WP:RPA. don't take pot shots at other users. Daniel 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)) I've dealt with. Cheers --Bencomplain 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So is there something wrong with tagging a sockpuppetter with a template?
[1]--Funnyguy555 08:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Harassment? Well, maybe SV shouldn't have violated Wikipedia Policy.--Funnyguy555 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was in the past, and bringing it up now is harrassment. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So if I sockpuppeted a year ago, would it be harassment for someone to put a tag on my userpage? Or is slimvirgin getting special treatment?--Funnyguy555 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- We don't tag respected users that haven't even been blocked or desysopped for there actions. I'm astounded you know so much about the situation considering your little time here. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So she gets away with it because it took her a while to get caught? And obviously I'm a sockpuppet myself that's why I care so much. I need to know what to do in order to get away with it like Slim did. --Funnyguy555 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your last sentence is a textbook defintion of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Cut it out. Daniel 08:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- (He sort of has had to cut it out, I blocked him) Ryan Postlethwaite 08:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That'd do the trick :) I added the userpage to protected titles anyways, just to make sure reincarnates don't have opportunity to troll about some more. Daniel 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- (He sort of has had to cut it out, I blocked him) Ryan Postlethwaite 08:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Shocking AfD decision
Thanks for ruling keep in the Bayern Munich AfD. I'm glad that contributors felt that the magnitude of the shock result in the match was sufficient to demonstrate notability. I'm also glad a pintful of my editing time didn't go down the sewers... the way (I recently discovered) that 10% of my edits have! (Mind you, that includes a lot of speedy tagging before I was an admin) --Dweller 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete the article, and it looks like there's been some great work done on the article since it was nominated. You're not just a pretty face! I'm planning to pop over and see you and TRM soon - wouldn't mind helping you guys with an FA if you'll have me :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Crikey, we can always do with help. Current project on the go is Donald Bradman, but it's a bit bogged down. I'm supposed to be working on taking Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to GA for Clio's birthday present, but I've been neglecting it. --Dweller 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did you have something in mind Mr P? The Rambling Man 11:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly easy to be honest with you, I'll just tag along with you guys. Might be nice to get a few rugby union articles up a notch with the world cup coming up???? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a jolly good idea. What about pushing the England team article through a bit? Or maybe Joe Rokocoko seeing as he's probably going to single-handedly win the thing... The Rambling Man 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, England national rugby union team is a FAC at the min, and it looks fairly good to be honest. Joe Rokocoko is start class, but would probably be a good one to go for, there's plenty of sources. I say we go for that! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm game. The Rambling Man 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, England national rugby union team is a FAC at the min, and it looks fairly good to be honest. Joe Rokocoko is start class, but would probably be a good one to go for, there's plenty of sources. I say we go for that! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds like a jolly good idea. What about pushing the England team article through a bit? Or maybe Joe Rokocoko seeing as he's probably going to single-handedly win the thing... The Rambling Man 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly easy to be honest with you, I'll just tag along with you guys. Might be nice to get a few rugby union articles up a notch with the world cup coming up???? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did you have something in mind Mr P? The Rambling Man 11:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Crikey, we can always do with help. Current project on the go is Donald Bradman, but it's a bit bogged down. I'm supposed to be working on taking Stay Puft Marshmallow Man to GA for Clio's birthday present, but I've been neglecting it. --Dweller 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
←<groan> My to-do list just gets longer... --Dweller 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AN/I and legal threats
Given your recent deletions regarding legal threats at WP:AN/I, you might want to have a look at this. --Calton | Talk 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...And, speak of the devil... --Calton | Talk 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah cheers for that. I actually read (some of!) the text on the unblock mailing list. It's a very strange situation, I don't think that anyones sure how legitimate all these threats are, or exactly what power these groups hold - they're going to a lot of trouble though it seems. I think the best thing to do is just remove any posts that they make - probably one of the cases where WP:DENY has to come into force. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is mildy strange considering the last IP Ryan blocked was based out of Germany and this one is from The Netherlands. — Moe ε 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, that's very strange indeed. I smell a troll for the second IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The next ones were from the Czech Republic and Malaysia. Checking the origin of the e-pol.org website says it's based from Belgium. I'm thinking an open proxy might be used here. — Moe ε 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, sounds like a proxy to me. Do you know how to tell whats a proxy and what isn't? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it shows the signs of an open proxy. I'm trying to test for it now though, but I haven't been successful because of my computers limitations. User:Zzuuzz knows how to check for them, however. — Moe ε 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just stink at checking for them. I'll have a wander over to zzuuzz and see if he can help. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it shows the signs of an open proxy. I'm trying to test for it now though, but I haven't been successful because of my computers limitations. User:Zzuuzz knows how to check for them, however. — Moe ε 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, sounds like a proxy to me. Do you know how to tell whats a proxy and what isn't? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The next ones were from the Czech Republic and Malaysia. Checking the origin of the e-pol.org website says it's based from Belgium. I'm thinking an open proxy might be used here. — Moe ε 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, that's very strange indeed. I smell a troll for the second IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is mildy strange considering the last IP Ryan blocked was based out of Germany and this one is from The Netherlands. — Moe ε 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah cheers for that. I actually read (some of!) the text on the unblock mailing list. It's a very strange situation, I don't think that anyones sure how legitimate all these threats are, or exactly what power these groups hold - they're going to a lot of trouble though it seems. I think the best thing to do is just remove any posts that they make - probably one of the cases where WP:DENY has to come into force. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
←I have taken up the cause too. It appears he started trying to canvas other administrators. I just reverted all of it and blocked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers Chris, they just aren't the sort of people that are welcomed here, especially when they are linked to epol.org (or whatever it is). It's just annoying that they're so persistent. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It it the kind of stuff on here that makes me sick. What I thought was a but funny was when he said he had lots of IP's and gave us the "option" to talk it out with him instead of him using all his IP's. He most recent post on JZG's page he was then complainig about all the VPN's of his that we blocked. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Your AN/I contribution reverted
Hi, Ryan. An anon-ip has deleted your posting to AN/I. --Rrburke(talk) 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there, yeah I noticed that. I removed it due to the group being linked to a group making legal threats against a contributor. Calton has reverted it though, the best thing to do is just to keep on reverting them - quite frankly, they're not welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again, Ryan. I just wasn't sure you were aware of it.
- On a totally unrelated matter, may I pose the eternal question:
- Can I Get a Witness? --Rrburke(talk) 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for the link, I've left a warning for Sesmith about putting anything unsourced in articles on living people - hope that sorts it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Man..........
that was fast!!!!! I tried my best to approach the guy but it looked bad from the start. Cheers Ryan. Pedro | Chat 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- No probs, I blocked account creation as well due to the vandalism coming from him - I'm on form today :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Request
Hi Ryan, and thanks for your very kind and supportive request. Per this my 1st RfA was at the end of June so I think maybe a couple more weeks to alow three months to go past. I genuinely now feel that I can contribute more with the admin buttons, and believe that I have sufficent knowledge and a clam enough manner to be wise in their use. However I see too many candidates opposed purely on the basis of a lack of time between RfA's, rather than based on their intervening edits.Pedro | Chat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
ANI
User:Blaxthos has opened a complaint against you at ANI, accusing you of WP:ANI#Dishonest behavior during RFC, but didn't think to tell you about it. -- Zsero 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for the heads up there, that's one of my pet hates when users go behind your back and try and get you a shady block before you've even had chance to explain. At least this was a complaint with no substance. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Espousing sensationalism"
Perhaps you already know, and are playing dumb, but I believe Italiavivi keeps on thinking that this exchange was you because of this exchange. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, maybe he does. Hmmmmm, I actually couldn't remember that. I can't believe how much some people hold grudges. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- To add to that, it wasn't even me that said any of it! :-O Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't really care one way or another, but wanted to know what the remark was all about, so off I went begoogling. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that. A hui hou. --Ali'i 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, cheers for that, good work finding it! I'm just a little shocked that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't really care one way or another, but wanted to know what the remark was all about, so off I went begoogling. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that. A hui hou. --Ali'i 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - much appreciated. :-) --Bencomplain 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, good to see you back. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
71.107.163.19
You recently blocked this user for 31 hours. A look at his Contributions indicates some pretty wanton vandalism. This edit pretty much is a personal attack, as is this one. Add to that the user is blanking user pages who revert his changes.
I am thinking that the account was created for some Friday Nite Fun for those a tad too young to drive. Maybe he needs to find another venue to occupy his weekend, as Wikipedia doesn't need any more fools this evening?
Sorry for all the prosifying. Can we ban this ass-hat, rather than just blocking him? I'd point out that this user's first instinct after getting reverted was to blank the pages of every user who reverted him, replacing the pages with the word, 'Britfag'. I know you blocked him for 31 hours, but I am thinking that our charming little scamp's issues aren't going to be resolved all that quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry but this is an anon IP vandalism, so tomorrow, the IP may be given to someone else, someone more responsible. The 31 hour block will give the user time to think about his actions - if the IP isn't reassigned and he continues to vandalise, he will be blocked for longer next time, but at present, 31 hours is quite fair. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
6/4 chord mediation
Dear Ryan
Do we have a solution at hand? It would be nice to close the mediation, since it's gone on for a long time and the article remains locked. Just need formal agreement from the others, I guess. Tony 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PhpWebGallery deletion on English part
You said in Deletion log that we did not meet the requirements for "significance". Can you expose your arguments and defend them against these pages: - Zenphoto : Notability is almost equal to us and description is minimalist - Gallery_Project (also better known than us, their page was less iformative than the one we provided. If you thought we put too much information, just let us know. - 4images
Please note also we are referred to in Photo_gallery_comparison
Please be kind enough to give feedback -- 82.226.255.74 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [Mathias]
Request for Pedro
Per this - You might want to scroll down a bit further to this message ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey DM, loving the new name ;-) I've added a co-nom, just a strong support wasn't enough! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support is never enough. We seriously need to think of a new category. *gives Pedro a whopper support* Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because
|
Ryan - I have e-mailed you. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll check it now then, I hate hotmail! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Removal of comments
Please don't remove other peoples comments like you did here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not see that happen. There must have been an edit conflict. Italiavivi 19:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Easily done, I appologise for the tone then in that case. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA
What a weekend for my ISP to decide to have problems! Finally got on.....! Thank you Ryan - copying this to others and then I guess we go !...... Pedro | Chat 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleion
First, I would like to thank you for all your head work here on Wikipedia. While I !voted to keep my Senator page, you did it because you feel it was right. In light of that, just to inform you, I am pretty sure I will leave Wikipedia. I will wait out the discussion. Thanks. PatPolitics rule! 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's ok. It is not your fault. I am too conterversial, and that is why I may leave. PatPolitics rule! 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have decided to stay. I believe you and I can become friends! PatPolitics rule! 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's very good to hear, as I said, I believe wikipedia will be at a loss without you. Continue your good work. I don't even think you're that outspoken. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well thanks. I am made at you again. My girlfriend was here, and she "liked" that picture of you! Peace, PatPolitics rule! 01:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's very good to hear, as I said, I believe wikipedia will be at a loss without you. Continue your good work. I don't even think you're that outspoken. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have decided to stay. I believe you and I can become friends! PatPolitics rule! 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not trolling
I am a long time-contributor and am disappointed in Wikipedia and hence do not want to be thanked by Wikipedia. Andries 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are trolling, you're upset with ArbCom and tried to kick up a fuss. Respectfully, please cut it out. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not want the be thanked by Wikipedia and I think the statement should disappear from the main page. That is not trolling but expressing a sincere wish. Andries 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Lizzie_Grubman
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Talk:Lizzie_Grubman -- AnonMoos 11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. AnonMoos 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman
Despite one of the clearest possible consensuses that the article is notable, the AfD was closed by you as a deletion due to alleged WP:BLP issues. While there may be a word or two that could be misinterpreted by the paranoid, the article as it stands is encyclopedic, accurate and properly sourced to support all claims made in the article. If there are any genuine WP:BLP issues -- and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of editors would agree there are none -- imposing your personal opinion in this manner, without any effort to seek consensus or even a second opinion on the matter, without any explanation of what the supposed issues are or providing any opportunity other than destroying the article to address them, is improper. Before starting what seems to be a very much needed WP:DRV, I am approaching you to ask you to reconsider your actions in deleting the article, by undeleting the article and providing the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors who feel that this article is encyclopedic the opportunity to address detailed, specific examples of the portions of the article that you feel violate the WP:BLP policy. Alansohn 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review. AnonMoos 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not going to undelete the article, I don't care whether or not it was encyclopedic or not, the fact is, it was completely unsourced - not one single one in there and is was mostly about a felony that Lizzie Grubman had commited. Biographical articles must be sourced, there's no room for error in these articles. Whilst she may have been notable as the AfD showed, BLP trumps notablility every time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's nice. Too bad that you acted in an aritrary and high-handed manner which will make it very difficult to produce a better article, and will actively discourage people who worked on the article in the past from working on the article in future... AnonMoos 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- BLP goes above anything that you can say to me. I'm not disputing the notability, consensus was clear in the AfD for that, it was just completely unsourced, and as it was about a living person, it got deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The unfortunate fact is that you still have never disclosed what the supposed WP:BLP issues are with the article in question; all you've done is shouted to the high heavens that they exist and that your judgment on this subject trumps that of any and all other Wikipedia editors. Thanks to the power of cold hard cache, the article was recreated, sources were added, and extremely minor changes were made to the article to prevent possible misreadings by the uber-paranoid. Alansohn 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- BLP goes above anything that you can say to me. I'm not disputing the notability, consensus was clear in the AfD for that, it was just completely unsourced, and as it was about a living person, it got deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The matter seems to be at least temporarily resolved -- no thanks to your heavy-handed blundering unconstructive actions. Who nominated you to be an admin anyway? AnonMoos 12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, sorting out BLP violations is a thankless job, especially when some users don't understand it. Majorly nominated me. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Tsk, tsk, that wasn't very nice, dear AnonMoos. Remember, comments on the edits and actions, not on the person. Ryan is by far one of our best admins, as many can tell you; and even if you disagree with his judgement on one particular issue, remember we're all human, and therefore fallible. Questioning his capacity of wielding the mop altogether is not a nice thing, when you may find he's a very reasonable and nice person - but nobody reacts well to assumptions of bad faith beforehand. Phaedriel - 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Boink!
You've got mail, wikilover! :) Love, Phaedriel - 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah thank you, I'm reading it now - it's a breath of fresh air :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
You may wish to get someone to sort out the copyright mess that you've just created by doing a cut and paste restore of the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm being serious, you have to get someone to sort out the GFDL issues with the article now, all the edits are missing their attribution in the history. For some reason I can't restore on the laptop I'm on. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a sad, pathetic joke. You delete an article, overriding clear consensus for retention, due to unstated WP:BLP issues that you still refuse to disclose. Your excuse for deletion states that the article should be recreated with sources. Now the GFDL nonsense? You created this problem by deleting the article in the first place. Whose copyright is being violated here? Alansohn 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've posted for someone else to sort the GFDL issues out, you obviously don't understand the problem, but you cut and paste created the artlce, meaning there was no article history so no attribution of edits (quite a serious problem) hence the coyright problem, someone needs to restore the rest of the article, but I can't on the laptop I'm on. Don't do that again. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that you obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works: There is a clear consensus to keep an article that you have summarily overridden. All we have as an excuse to justify your actions is a claim that WP:BLP is involved. Whatever problems you have with your laptop, there is nothing stopping you from disclosing what these alleged issues are. By continuing to refuse to disclose your issues, by deleting the article without allowing these supposed problems to be addressed, you are perpetuating and exacerbating the problems that you claim to be solving. The latest appeal to conjured-up GFDL violations were created precisely because you deleted the article improperly. If you can't fix this mess you created, why not find someone who can. In the meantime, justifying your actions with clear, concise and specific examples of the WP:BLP issues that you feel were so egregious that the article had to be deleted. Without this explanation, your actions are not only unjustified, but you are creating a scenario where the good faith efforts to recreate an article for an individual that even you acknowledge is notable, will be deleted again by you or some other admin for further imagined WP:BLP violations. Alansohn 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've got someone to restore the article, but you should have done that before you cut and pasted the recreation. The problem was that the article was not sourced, so was removed as quick as possible as unsourced material leaves a potential legal threat. As I said after deleting, it was without prejustice on a recreation, just at the point in time when I deleted it, it contained unsourced claims of a conviction that is against BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- At what point did you disclose that the nature of your WP:BLP issue was related to "unsourced claims of a conviction"/ It certainly was not in the AfD, and the first recreated version of the article (the second version deleted), provided an explicit source for the claim. The far easier means to have dealt with your concerns would have been to respect consensus and keep the article, removing the statement that bothered you from the article and noting that there was an unsourced statement with what you thought were WP:BLP issues that had been removed. Following this approach would have respected clear and overwhelming consensus AND would have provided an opportunity to address your concerns. Deleting the article AND not disclosing the specifics of your issue, was not only counterproductive and destructive, but created the trap that the same BLP concerns would exist in future recreations of the article. I strongly encourage you to consider this approach in any future such situation by disclosing your concerns immediately and allowing other interested editors to address the concerns you have. Alansohn 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The Politics rule MfD
As you are aware, the MfD you nominated on User:Politics rule's user subpage has (along with other factors, admittedly) made him consider leaving Wikipedia. By coincidence, this all happened just as I was writing Wikipedia:Editors matter, which is trying to address exactly these kind of issues. Don't take my comments the wrong way; you're an admin who I respect, and I know you didn't intend to hurt him or incite him to leave Wikipedia. So I'm not trying to blame you personally for this situation. But I think that, as a community, we need to stop inflexibly applying the userpage guidelines, and instead allow contributors some leeway in their userspace if it makes them happy. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we need to put their feelings before arbitrary rules, otherwise we'll basically lose more and more editors. As such, I think you should withdraw the MfD nomination; I can't see that anything good will come of it. WaltonOne 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some of my comments above are a bit unfair, as he's told me that your MfD wasn't the main reason he almost left. However, my opinion about userpage deletions still stands; the community as a whole needs to change the way we approach these issues. WaltonOne 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit war
Thanks for the info but I cant understand have I rights to revert the unrelated information from the arrticle or no? For example my reverts for today. A user added previously discussed source related to Albania and Arcakh to prove something related to ...Arran and Karabakh. What must I do for a better way? PS - I didnt remember if even I deleted any relevant reliable information from an article. Is there such a fact?...Andranikpasha 10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you just deleted the info that Karabakh was part of the region called Arran. This info is sourced, but despite that you keep on removing it form the article. Grandmaster 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
see our discussion at the articles talk page! And pls dont start to Wikistalking me!Andranikpasha 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)