Hamster Sandwich (talk | contribs) Dream Guy |
→:Image:Daredevil46.jpg: Please reconsider blocking for such a reason. |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
*I have just come back from some real life engagements and I have noted your comments on my talk page. My note of caution (which you appear to have deleted to hide the fact) was made against your bad faith returns on speedy delete tags on this image - when at leasts two admins did not like the speedy request that you had put up. I note that you have been blocked and then unblocked for disruptive edits in the past so quite frankly you should know better. In my case the warning was because you had used a less than informative and certainly very uncivil way of asking for a speedy delete request on the image. I note that you have used the edit summary to lambast admins, who like you are volunteers. Put simply you should take a couple of days to realise that where two or three admins all agree that your actions do not assist then most probably you have not quite acted in the way that you should on this occassion. Given that you continue to not take a step back and await [[WP:FUR]] as another editor suggests I am going to block you for 72 hours until you calm down and realise that harassing us is not the way to get this matter solved! --[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
*I have just come back from some real life engagements and I have noted your comments on my talk page. My note of caution (which you appear to have deleted to hide the fact) was made against your bad faith returns on speedy delete tags on this image - when at leasts two admins did not like the speedy request that you had put up. I note that you have been blocked and then unblocked for disruptive edits in the past so quite frankly you should know better. In my case the warning was because you had used a less than informative and certainly very uncivil way of asking for a speedy delete request on the image. I note that you have used the edit summary to lambast admins, who like you are volunteers. Put simply you should take a couple of days to realise that where two or three admins all agree that your actions do not assist then most probably you have not quite acted in the way that you should on this occassion. Given that you continue to not take a step back and await [[WP:FUR]] as another editor suggests I am going to block you for 72 hours until you calm down and realise that harassing us is not the way to get this matter solved! --[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Just a note that I have no objection to this user being unblocked early, if you are so inclined. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> [[User:Bsf|<font color="White">But</font>]]|[[User talk:Bsf|<font color="White">seriously</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Butseriouslyfolks|<font color="White">folks</font>]] </span>''' 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
::Just a note that I have no objection to this user being unblocked early, if you are so inclined. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> [[User:Bsf|<font color="White">But</font>]]|[[User talk:Bsf|<font color="White">seriously</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Butseriouslyfolks|<font color="White">folks</font>]] </span>''' 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
Hi, VirtualSteve. Your above post suggests to me that your main reason for giving DreamGuy such a hefty block is that he speaks rudely of admins. Please reconsider blocking for such a reason. Admins have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. Try to ignore offense against yourself, that's my best advice. After taking a look at DreamGuy's recent edits and your own, it also worries me that you block an editor you have been edit warring with: if he needed blocking (for ''three days'', yet), the appropriate action would IMO have been to post what happened on [[WP:ANI]], and leave it to an uninvolved admin to deal with. But I notice you didn't even post your block on ANI for review, and in fact signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after you blocked.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=VirtualSteve&page=User%3ADreamGuy] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VirtualSteve/Status&diff=prev&oldid=144616862] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with you. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC). |
|||
==re:AN/I Here== |
==re:AN/I Here== |
Revision as of 21:26, 14 July 2007
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Keser
Hi Steve, please get in touch regarding the Keser page if you have any questions!
I'll be happy to answer/verify anything you require, is there a problem with the page?
Thanks
whodis7 Kevan Whitley www.keser.co.uk www.alextronicrecords.co.ukWhodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Kevan - thank you for your question. No nothing is wrong. As you know the article Keser was tagged with a speedy delete request. Because that speedy delete request was contested - As an administrator I moved the article (as I felt I should in this case) to articles for deletion so that others in the community could decide whether it meets WP:Band and other criteria such as Notability and Verifiability. I understand that as a new editor all of these guidelines, links and rules will be a bit daunting but you should not take offense - it's just wiki's way of keeping the level of quality up. If you follow the articles for deletion page closely and note the comments made by other editors, stay civil, and try and improve the content of the article it should be fine. Take care. --VS talk 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, article now updated, content of article has now improved considerably! Thanks for your advice. KevanWhodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
vandals
Thanks VS, but by the time I let you know about it I might as well have reverted it myself :) besides despite my frustration at having to do it I think defending good articles is part of the duties of anyone who gives a damn about wikipedia. Cheers, Alec -(answering machine) 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I found from deletion log that you had removed article of Shiv Nadar for copyright infringement. I was not involved in putting together the article in either attempts but started from ground zero. FYI. --Kalyan 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Warning, eh?
My edit was in good faith you know. I don't take any comment with the word "warning" in it lightly. Thank you very much. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your return comment. Whilst perhaps a little misplaced your umbrage is noted. Cheers! --VS talk 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keser, article complete
Hi Steve, please can you review the article now and remove the note at the top of the page if it's ok now? If not, let me know any changes that have to be made. Thanks! Kevan, whodis7Whodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Kevan, article does appear to meet WP:Band now and I have added a little bit of editing myself. The article could still do with some good neutral copy-editing to give it some overall improvement. A favour from you now if I may ? Please sign of your messages by adding these four squiggly tildes (should be on the far left of your keyboard) ~~~~ after every message. Please keep editing on Keser and other articles of interest to you. Good luck! --VS talk 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Steve, thanks very much for your help! Take care. Kevan Whodis7 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I just removed a red link (which was a spam article) from this disambiguation page. As a result, the grand total of links is: 1. Should it be deleted? -WarthogDemon 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I'd say it is a non-required redirect. I have deleted as a test page not required. Thank you for your prompt. Best wishes. --VS talk 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Here. Nothing to worry about, and BTW, if you click the small delete next to the prod reason, or the delete in an CSD notice, it pre-loads the deletion reason with appropriate text for you, and makes it easier for folks to see why it was deleted in the logs. --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Steve - Yes most of the time I use the pre-loaded delete tab but sometimes I cut and paste part of the reason into the edit summary (especially where the pre-load is not particularly civil or NPOV) - as you picked up at the ANI comments they were all expired prods. I appreciate your comments in support at that page - thanks for your advice also. Best wishes. --VS talk 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:Image:Daredevil46.jpg
Please do not put fake and ridiculous warnings on my talk page. Putting a template to assume good faith and written as if I were a new editor in this instance is absolutely ridiculous. This image has already been deleted probably about 30 different times (I am not kidding, it's been a LOT) under the current name and others, each time being seen as a copyright violation. The person who uploaded it reuploaded despite knowing this. Redeleting an uploading of a previously deleted image is something speedy deletes are for. Your warning was nonsense because you didn't take the time to research the issue at all. DreamGuy 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have just come back from some real life engagements and I have noted your comments on my talk page. My note of caution (which you appear to have deleted to hide the fact) was made against your bad faith returns on speedy delete tags on this image - when at leasts two admins did not like the speedy request that you had put up. I note that you have been blocked and then unblocked for disruptive edits in the past so quite frankly you should know better. In my case the warning was because you had used a less than informative and certainly very uncivil way of asking for a speedy delete request on the image. I note that you have used the edit summary to lambast admins, who like you are volunteers. Put simply you should take a couple of days to realise that where two or three admins all agree that your actions do not assist then most probably you have not quite acted in the way that you should on this occassion. Given that you continue to not take a step back and await WP:FUR as another editor suggests I am going to block you for 72 hours until you calm down and realise that harassing us is not the way to get this matter solved! --VS talk 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, VirtualSteve. Your above post suggests to me that your main reason for giving DreamGuy such a hefty block is that he speaks rudely of admins. Please reconsider blocking for such a reason. Admins have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. Try to ignore offense against yourself, that's my best advice. After taking a look at DreamGuy's recent edits and your own, it also worries me that you block an editor you have been edit warring with: if he needed blocking (for three days, yet), the appropriate action would IMO have been to post what happened on WP:ANI, and leave it to an uninvolved admin to deal with. But I notice you didn't even post your block on ANI for review, and in fact signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after you blocked.[1] [2] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with you. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
re:AN/I Here
Theres always reason I do things a certain way, and going to WP:AN/I was just another example of how I do it. I know I didn't notify you, and theres a reason for that (had this been a deletion review or some other process for undeleting the page, I would have notified you). But this wasn't an attempt to undelete it, this was an attempt to see what was on the page before you deleted it, which really didn't involve you besides the fact you deleted it (mentioned above, I think the automatic edit summary would fair much better in the situation of PROD's). Reason I did that thread anyways was because I looked at the Chris Kindred what seemed like only a couple of days ago and didn't see a PROD, but I guess it was a couple of more days than I thought; had PROD been the edit summary of your deletion, I wouldn't have questioned it anyways. I didn't even realize it was PROD'ed until an admin confirmed this on AN/I. And I know you don't bite, it's just somethings are better left in the hands of an uninvolved party than others, and involving someone when you don't have to, is better off avoided than creating a conflict questioning them. It really had nothing to do with fact you deleted it so much as I wanted to know what was the notification was that alerted you to the page (here it was PROD). As to your suggestion of watchlisting the articles, due to the sheer amount of articles I edit, even daily, it would be impossible for me to fully pay attention to the watchlist to make sure everything is running smoothly, so I have to rely on other editors to at least notify me of an article being proposed for deletion if I created it.
And trust me, if I really had a problem with you, you would be the first to hear about it. :) — Moe ε 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Dream Guy
The 72 hour block seems a bit excessive. Would you be amienable to moderating that time period somewhat? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)