User talk:RandomXYZb/Archive 13

Please note that if you are leaving me a message about an article which I have deleted, please leave me a red link to the article to help me easily locate it and reply to your query.

Re: WP:AIV

Whoops! Yeah, you are right. That was done automatically by Huggle. I have no idea why. But thanks. Good luck on your RFA! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like pass to me :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Epic Master

Gee, I don't know, just something a little bird told me, I guess.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello GB

Funny we should run into each other like this with a report to the vandal page. I just wanted to let you know that I had voted for you for your administration request with a vote of support some time ago. I do hope it all works out for you as we do need some helpful administrators. I am currently in coaching. So keep your fingers crossed. Canyouhearmenow 14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and celebrations...<insert suitable Cliff Richard song here> You know what I think of you...! Well done! Rudget. 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes, congrats from me too. Now wipe that silly grin off your face and go delete someone. I mean block something. I mean...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats to you!! I had a feeling you were gonna sail right through this. Just remember us small ones! LOL Canyouhearmenow 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all - I won't be issuing RfA thankspam, but appreciate the support of all who supported, and the comments of all those who took the time to post them - whether they were in the support, oppose or neutral columns. _GB^T/C 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now....deleting the Sandbox is a no-no, right? _GB^T/C 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions! GlassCobra 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gb iz teh bom. :P Rudget. 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just there. You beat me to it! Good call. Rudget. 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For a type of block template (to be left on the talk page, when you've blocked the user) edit this page to see what you need to do. Otherwise see Template:uw-vblock and the other blocks on the actual template page. Rudget. 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Admin Trophy.png

Congratulations on becoming an admin, here's your trophy. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently completed this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for pointing out the error i made :) Elie plus (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reports to WP:UAA

Hiya. I've blocked one of the four names you listed, but have removed the other three. The username policy does state that whilst use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. In this instance, the two of the users have no edits, deleted or otherwise, and the third has one edit unrelated to their username. I think that blocking might be a bit bitey, so would suggest you discuss their names with them in the first instance by using the {{uw-username}} template on their talk page. Any problems or questions, leave me a message. Thanks! _GB^T/C 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this one. WP:UAA is a new section to work in for me, so i have yet to figure out all the guidelines that apply. I will, as you suggested, tag these user names with the TL template when necessarily. I assume that the above named circumstances include edits such as creating CSD G11 (Advertising and perhaps CSD A7 (Non notable companies? Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Empty

the simple answer is that the article was not empty in the terms of the speedy criteria you sought to apply to it - A3 covers articles with no content, which consist primarily of links, etc., but specifically excludes stubs which have valid context, which this did.

It was title, author, and publication date: no context, not the slightest suggestion of import, impact, public notice, fame, or even whether it had been issued by a legitimate publisher. In fact, it's the product of someone whose own biographical article was just nuked, so there's not even the sliver of a suggestion of fame by association. So yeah, it's empty by the obvious, the common-sensical, AND the text of the tag itsownself:

It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3).

Complain about pointless bureaucracy all you like, but the policy is quite clear on this, which is why your tag was rejected. Twice.

Perhaps you missed this, so yes, "pointless bureaucracy" is, in fact, the precise term, whether the tag was rejected once, twice, or three times. If legitimate criticism bothers you, it's not my problem. --Calton | Talk 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I had a problem with legitimate criticism? Yep, certainly by implication. Which you just did. Again.

And what your link about battlegrounds has to do with your reaction to legitimate criticism, I don't know, unless you feel some need to match me in number of policy pages linked to. Perhaps I could now link to WP:ISNOTATENNISMATCH, if it existed, to your latest volley. And if it's a battleground you're worried about; well, you can stop anytime, you know. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You airily proclaim that "Wikipedia is not a battleground", yet you persist, endlessly, in pestering me because you're unable to stand a little legitimate criticism -- something that wielding link after link like some sorts of all-purpose defense (hint: the bit about civility cuts both ways) doesn't obfuscate. Constant pestering might be seen as, I dunno, not very civil. So if you really believed that bit about Wikipedia not being a battleground, you could, you know, stop anytime.

And speaking of obfuscation; yeah, it is about you, and yeah, it is about your unwillingness to entertain the slightest criticism of your actions or consider following the spirit of the rules and not some personal interpretation of its letter. Or should I quote the relevant portions that you don't seem willing to read yourself?

Like I said, if can't or won't understand that, you can stop anytime now with the pestering. --Calton | Talk 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What, in any of the foregoing, has been in any way remotely uncivil?

Pretty much all of it, and the the drip-drip-drip of your constant pestering is itself uncivil, given your apparent attempt to annoy and redirect rather actually addressing actual criticism of or applying common sense to your actions.

Boy, where's that citation of "WP is not a Battlefield"? If you mean it, you can stop anytime, you know. --Calton | Talk 18:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Solution?

I don't know. Seems to have been fixed though. :) - Just a quick question (as I did it incorrectly when I first used the tools) - do you know how to block at UAA? Rudget. 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds lovely! :P - For usernames that aren't (that) big a deal (i.e. company or promotional names etc.) it's best to uncheck all the boxes in the blocking form, this is called a softblock. However, in circumstances like this for example with Fingermast.... it's obvious there not here for encyclopedic purposes - so in that case leave it as normal (like at AIV) and tick the top two - leaving the email one unchecked, this is called a hardblock. Go on Special:Listusers - type in Rudget - and then see the impersonations, they also qualify for hardblocks. :) Rudget. 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice reference. :) May as well just leave it as it is, any "follow up users" can eaily be traced if the usernames are similar. Rudget. 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregism

Be careful with your use of G4 - it's only for articles which have been previously deleted via an XfD route - I'm not sure that this is the case here (although the same page is on the user's userpage). _GB^T/C 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am fairly certain i saw this page earlier, albeit somewhat different contents. Since that was 10 minutes ago tops i decided for G4, only to see (To my surprise) that this was created by another user. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I only mention it because when we see G4, we're required to check through the various deletion logs to see (a) if the article previously existed, and (b) whether it is a substantial repost of the same material, which takes a little time. Just for future reference, broadly speaking you can't use G4 if its a repost of a speedily deleted article, either.

This one would have worked under G3 as a blatant hoax, by the way! _GB^T/C 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Haha, indeed. Thanks for notifying me about this. I mainly add G4 sometimes since i thought it would be easier on the admins. I expected that all that was needed was checking the delete history, instead of reading the full article. But if this is actually HARDER, then i will just file it under the normal reasons! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

134.173.108.39‎ (talk · contribs)

I blocked this user for 35 days (1 month + 15%) and change before noticing your comment at AIV. The times on the Level 4 warning and the last (racist!) edit seemed to match, so I blocked. I'm happy to look at a valid unblock request, esp. as the IP is shared, but wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't disregarding your intent to monitor the IP - I just missed it altogether. Thanks, and sorry for any confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Geir Smith/Sandbox

A "copy of Battle of Baghdad (1258)"? You must not have looked very closely. Battle of Baghdad (1258) has some 20k. User:Geir Smith/Sandbox has 151k, including fun sections such as "THE REVELATION", Revealing it, is a spiritual Occultation's goal, not for it to remain murkily shadowy and hidden. :) dab (𒁳) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jabada418‎ on AIV

I just noticed your comment on Jabada418‎. The amount of warnings on their page indicated they had been repeatedly told to refrain from creating nonsense pages. Hope you do not mind too much that I issued the block, don't have as much tolerance as you I guess :). Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A polite question

WHY DID U DELETE MY PAGE MOFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mororocks (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How recent is "recent"?

Thank you for the heads-up on my talk page! :] For future reference, how recent does vandalism need to be to be reported to administrators? Rachel Summers (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: VWvortex

Good afternoon, I noticed you just deleted the article about VWVortex without any discussion taking place. The person who posted the spam notice originally was mis-informed as to the subject of the article. Vortex is not a company that sells anything. They are a website which has information and forms regarding various makes of cars. The poster of the spam template may have concerns regarding the notability of the article, but that is something that we have a discussion on in Wikipedia prior to rashly deleting pages. Please un-delete the article immediately so we can have a fair and rational discussion about whether it should be kept. Thank you.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't misinformed. The article was about VWvortex, a fan/community site, and all it did was advertise the site. Roguegeek (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But apparently I was uninformed as to why it should have been deleted. Thanks for the clarification Gb! Roguegeek (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well hold on a hot second there cowboy. If you think it's not notable and it doesn't say why, have you considered asking someone familiar with the subject why they think it is notable? Or how about putting the notability template up on the page? That template allows 7 days or so for people to express their opinions, give some references, and clean up the page.

Although I realize Wiki isn't real life, take this as an example. If you were a prosecutor and you filed charges against a suspect in a crime, but they were the wrong charges, the judge would throw out the indictment faster than a Japanese Bullet train. Even if the suspect were guilty of some other crime, they are still required to have their day in court to confront their accusers and rebut the charges.

There are over 300,000 registered members in the forums, and the site is frequently referenced in enthusiast publications as well as by Volkswagen itself. I'd be happy to add that data to the page and give it some references. It's important to lay the facts out for all to see prior to making a decision on whether to keep or delete.--Analogue Kid (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick question Analogue Kid. Are you in some way related to or associated with the subject of the article? It's also important to keep in mind that speedy delete candidates are, if found to violate the policy, able to be deleted right away. Roguegeek (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, okay, I'll respond to you here, and leave you a message on your talk page to point you back here. Have a read of WP:CSD if you haven't already done so. The spirit (and, indeed, wording) of A7 is An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. The problem with the article in question wasn't that it asserted notability and I had doubts as to whether or not that notability was sufficient to merit inclusion. Had it asserted notability then the correct mechanism would have been to either place a {{prod}} tag, proposing its deletion, or filing it at WP:AFD on the grounds that I had concerns with the notability of the website concerned.

That simply wasn't the case with this article. It simply did not assert any notability. You're now asserting that it had some - 300,000 registered members, etc., but at the time that it was flagged and deleted, the article didn't assert that, or any, notability. I can't be expected to judge its inclusion on anything other than what is contained in the article, no? On top of that, you're also saying "It's been de facto accepted because it hasn't been deleted". To be honest, given the content of the article when I deleted it, my view is more "How did it last so long, without asserting notability, and not be flagged earlier?".

Wiki isn't real life, and I could take issue with some of your points (UK magistrates, can, for example, substitute the charge as I did for a more appropriate one). Any editor, not just an admin or a non-admin, may propose an article for any kind of deletion, speedy or otherwise, and in this instance I effectively declined to speedy it on the grounds of spam, but proposed and deleted it under A7. There is, however, a right of appeal, to continue your metaphor, if you think that my deletion was inappropriate - point your browser at deletion review and you'll find a mechanism to have my deletion reviewed by another administrator. Alternatively, and I'll propose this as a solution, I can move the article into a sandbox for you - you can work on it for a bit, find reliable independent sources which assert and prove the notability of the website, then when it's ready, move it back into the main space. How does that sound? _GB^T/C 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed the article be undeleted as you mentioned. I'll make clear that if it doesn't hold up to notability test, then I have no problem if it gets deleted. However, I feel that due process was violated in this case and would like for the page to have its "Day in court" if you will. As to my association with VWvortex, I visit the site regularly, but I don't work for them or anything like that.

And BTW Rougegeek, I notice you're checking other pages I've worked on ;-) --Analogue Kid (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, due process wasn't violated, and the deletion has been reviewed here and found to be compliant with the policy on speedy deletions. I don't think that at any stage I implied you had a conflict of interest in your editing - if you still think the site is notable then we can look into how you can ascertain, state and prove that and see if we can't bring the article back in a suitable format. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL!

Actually, I haven't given the Lotto much thought, but I might!  :) Anyway, I figured anyone who starts his "career" here by vandalizing the article about feces probably wasn't going to be adding anything of intellectual import. Hey, if I hit the Lotto, I'll let you know! Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chelseaadmin

Sorry, Huggle came across it, and I chose to RV, but it added an AIV report too. Will ^(talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Go on :P Will ^(talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User appears to have been reported to AIV. Will ^(talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I do make some questionable reverts (no service is 100% perfect). It's mostly to do with the fact it's a school IP - they tend to appear at about warning level 3 or 4 most of the time, and I sometimes rv if the editor is at level 2-4, and so was an editor who was reverted. As for how automated: it automatically rv's and warns. If it passes warning 4, it adds to AIV. That's pretty much all I know. Will ^(talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chelseaadmin was a technical mistake. 163 and Jbi were AIVed because they were at a level 4 warning and my internet was lagging behind. Will ^(talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Imansid

Just wanted to give you a heads up, it seems User:Imansid has moved it to her userpage now. -WarthogDemon 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem but it seems he/she is now operating under a different username: User:Saphiragold. -WarthogDemon 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Miamiboyzinhere

can you please put indef protection on his userpage as now he is vandalising it. Momusufan (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

nvm, he's requesting an unblock. But if he vandalises after that, then I would put up protection. Momusufan (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the edits conflicted and I didn't see the unblock request, my apologies Momusufan (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with this user has been his disagreement with consensus. He has an opinion about how the articles should read, specifically regarding what city/region the attraction is listed in. Nobody has ever challenged that his edits are wrong; in fact, they are, factually, correct. However, consensus has already established the facts elsewhere within the group of articles affected (refer to Walt Disney World Resort and its child articles, its attractions and parks). When confronted with that, the user resorts to name calling and revert wars. We have asked time and again for him to come to the talk pages and discuss his point of view. When he doesn't get his way, he returns to the same behavior.

More recently, he has resorted to sock puppetry to get past his initial one-week block. I started a sock-puppet case here where other users and I found over a dozen different IPs used, each one cropping up after the previous one gets blocked. Each time, we attempted to get him into discussion, but he won't hear it. It really came to a head last night, with the admins resorting to semi-protecting all the affected articles to prevent anonymous IPs from editing.

The one-week block expired today, and he initially did come to the talk page for Walt Disney World and brought up his points. The discussion apparently didn't go his way, so he was at it again. Then he started going after another user's talk page, which caused even more headaches. Any assistance you, or the other admins, can provide would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)