User talk:Chaser/Archive 22

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I was very impressed by the way you asked for a community review of your block in the situation linked. You could have quite easily gotten away with not doing so, but in asking for the review, you helped make Wikipedia's atmosphere more professional. Keep up the good work! NW (Talk) 12:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--chaser (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to create the AfD or do you want me to do it? I'm easy either way. Regards, GiantSnowman 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that, I can see you've created the AfD now, I guess I was just too quick with the old watchlist! Cheers, GiantSnowman 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled on your reversion at New York Giants (soccer), in trying to deal as best i could with the mess, and would be grateful for further intervention re the disruption of the deletion process -- since action by me as admin would be deemed to be non-neutral. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just reverting vandalism to a long established article. Only way to revert vandalism was to cut and paste Djln--Djln (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jerzy moved the New York Giants article to Relationships among New York Giants soccer teams. That, of course, blanked the original article. Then he added a recommended for deletion tag to it to the article under its new title. That is one of the most amazingly brazen and complex acts of vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I restored the original article under its original name. So I guess I did do a "cut and paste". I would have prefered to do a revert, but Jerzy's activities prevented that. Mohrflies (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Add my support to above comment Djln--Djln (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• _ _ I went out of my way to counsel Djln about incivility where it would not have the effect of employing NPA against them, as it might, if i cited their bad behavior on the AfD discussion as if it were evidence against their position.
  _ _ They repeated the offense with "Above has no idea what he is talking about", and you in turn counseled them.
  _ _ Their next response was in full

The above diatribe is just waffle. In all my time as Wiki editor, I never seen somebody write so much and actually not make any sense. I can't make out what he is trying to say.

I contend that

_ _ attributing either "diatribe" or "waffle" constitutes not just a failure to WP:AGF, but an implicit characterization of my intentions based essentially on reading my mind, and thereby a personal attack, since accusation of intentions that he has to be inferring on grossly inadequate grounds is a term of abuse no less than terms that abuse but are reasonably understood as having no denotation
_ _ negative comparison to all other editors encountered not pertinent to the discussion and thus NPA, and
_ _ "actually not make any sense" is a misstatement (as if lack of sense were an established fact) of their subjective assessment based on what they made sense of, a hyperbole (the literal implication that they were unable to assign meaing to any sentence, any phrase, or any word is not credible) is on each of those accounts a personal attack, and
_ _ by saying "I can't make out what he is trying to say.", not only dismissively in tone but objectively without offering a single example or requesting a single clarification, they are not only uncivil in general terms, but also implicitly make personal attack to the effect of "this colleague is too stupid and worthless to make even a gesture toward understanding".

_ _ I petition you -- in your status as an admin who has already counseled the offender but is not the directly affronted party, and so far agrees re deletion with the offender -- to make clear that any repetition in this so far continuous stream of abuse would be worthy of blocking. (I'm inclined to think a short block at this point would be in order, but i respect the appearance and perhaps fact of subjectivity, and will only ask you to weigh whether to ask yet another admin to actually use the permissions thus.) It would be interfering with the discussion in question even if only the (checking) hour and a half i've spent wording this were involved, and i had not cut short proofreading of an edit to the AfD page. Please find some way of improving the situation, since it is not credible that i can do so alone, nor recruit someone else with as little effort as you presumably can.
--Jerzy•t 07:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on using my tools, either. You can file (perhaps a condensed version of) your complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and see what another sysop says. As to the AFD, I think the best thing anyone could do at this point is close it, since no one (you included) actually wants the content deleted, but just moved to separate articles. If you withdraw the nomination, anyone can close it and we can get on to figuring out how to distribute the content.--chaser (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You split WP:Deletion review/Human disguise from its daily log. Did you have a particular reason? A subpage was made recently for WP:Deletion review/David Shankbone due to its transclusion breaking all of DRV. Flatscan (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just it's length. When I split it it was most of the log subpage for that day.--chaser (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure how to check, but my experience is that DRV splits are rarely done. Flatscan (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I checked Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Deletion review/ and found a number of them around the same size when created, including one by you from 2007. Apologies for the trouble. Flatscan (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note informing me of this discussion. It had escaped my notice. I must say, though, that when I read it, I couldn't help but think "here we go again!" especially given the heated and lengthy debate that ensued last time and probably will do again this time! Anyway, thanks again, HJMitchell You rang? 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Cumberland-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Chaser. You have new messages at Dalejenkins's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've kicked this to ANI. I edit in this area (not much, but some), so I'm not keen on blocking myself when it is so much easier to get another sysop to decide what is appropriate. Thanks.--chaser (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you had suspicions, I'm not User:User Team, nor do I know him in real life. I have no idea how he ended up at the article. I'd be happy for someone to run a checkuser on me to verify that UserTeam is not a sock. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you. I'm not concerned about the possibility now that I have protected the article, but keep in mind that checkuser request to prove one's innocence are typically declined.--chaser (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Singularity42 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was not intended to be rude, just to show that sources are not always needed to know that something exists. Pankration is obviously real and many people take part in it, why not just let the page stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half man half rancor (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a whiff of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry with the AfD discussion. The editors in question are starting to tag-team with each other on various threads, etc, in a very close time-frame with each other. I wouldn't mind a second opinion before I go to WP:SPI though, as I don't want to needlessly make an already volatile situation worse. Any advice? Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. Closing administrators regulary discount meatpuppets votes in AFD. And it so clearly fails the notability guideline that there is only one way to close this one.--chaser (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. I also think it is about time I walk away from that discussion. You're right - it can only play out one way, so why bother responding anymore? Singularity42 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have been having trouble for about 3 weeks now with vandalism to Warped Tour 2009. Several IPs, most pointing to the same geographical location have been removing a band from the list for absolutely no reason other than what I can only assume is a bias against them. One taking over the vandalism after the prior IP gets banned for a small amount of time. They have also begun to vandalize my talk page repeatedly, which seems to be some sort of retaliation against me. I requested protection on the article and got it for 3 days. I set up a sockpuppet investigation and was told it was unnecessary since the page was protected, even though it was continuing. I'm just getting a little tired of constantly having to revert not only this but my own talk page. So I'm seeing if an admin has some sort of advice or can at least be another set of eyes on the page. Thank you in advance. DX927 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected your talk page for a month. You can create a subpage for IPs to post to (just watchlist it) if you ever get legitimate messages from them, but I didn't see any in the recent history. For the article, do you have any source indicating the band participated? I see them listed on the website, but not at the dates link. Confusing.--chaser (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They're listed on the band list at www.warpedtour.com, they're listed on the specific date's page as well http://www.vanswarpedtour.com/warpedtour/concerts.asp?id=37817&tour=66. They're also listed at http://warpedreporter.com/stories.php?id=850, www.kevinsaysstage.com and there's an article mentioning it at http://sykeenergy.com/botm.php?pid=NDA=, Actual visual proof of them performing that show is on their Myspace page even though that's not considered reliable for some reason. DX927 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I semi-protected the article for a month as well. In the future you might try slow reversions. Let the vandalism or disruptive edit sit for a few hours or days and revert it after whoever it was has forgotten about it. Cheers.--chaser (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the note you've left on this user's talk page. Surely, if a user wants a personal copy of an article then, if this is to be allowed within Wikipedia at all, then it should be in a subpage of the user page, not on the main user talk page. The way it's been left, how is this personal copy meant to be kept separate from actual communication with the user?

While on one hand you've done well to find an additional area of this user's wrongdoing, part of what I had got at him/her/it for is not only having a personal copy on his/her/its talk page, but also deleting received messages without having heeded them. This is why I think you should've included the user's own talk page in the block.... -- Smjg (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to reason with him and compromise by just removing the fair use image. It didn't work out.--chaser (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will try to do that in the future when it is appropriate. However, I would like to note that, with the exception of the Hero article, his claims about me making multiple reverts across many pages is inaccurate. As well for the Hero edit, it was early in the morning when I got blocked, so I completely forgot to mention it, but after my second block I went straight to the image and proposed deletion, in case Colleen16 were to revert again. If the admin had looked closely, he could have seen that and known that I wasn't trying to have an edit war. For the other page, if he had looked at the actual edits, he would have seen that I wasn't merely reverting content. I first thought on the Demon (Supernatural) article that the user was vandalizing it, as he removed pertinent info without giving an explanation. When he did explain in his next edit, I reverted and asked him to discuss it. When the admin listed this as a reason for blocking me, he listed it backwards, making it appear that I called the editor a vandal after he had explained his reasoning. With the iCarly article, he grouped me into an ongoing edit war between other users, whose edits were unrelated to mine. I made two reverts on the article, with each edit being unrelated to one another (meaning not a content dispute). I don't know how the block review process works, but when I first requested one, I noticed that he did mention me in a block review section. However, instead of creating an entirely new section to get attention, he added me to an already completed discussion, once again grouping me in with an edit war on iCarly. I just feel that the admin overreacted and then just kept backtracking in his reasons for blocking. If you look at my user talk page, you can see that his claim for blocking me changes throughout the discussion, and he didn't block the other user he claimed I was edit warring with on Hero until his excuse became my edits on Hero. Anyways, thanks for the advice. I'll try to be nicer to good-faith editors. Ωphois 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Warren Court 1953.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Warren Court 1953.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Warren Court 1953.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Saw this and just wanted to remind that we can't post them even if the author does license them under GFDL, unless he also licenses them under CC-By-SA per our current ToU. Pesky license migration. :D I'm sure you know this and it was a slip of the tongue (or typing fingers, as it were), but I thought I'd point it out just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that (although I probably should have thought of it). I haven't been as up on the license migration as I should be, so thank you for pointing that out.--chaser (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy if I could help, then. There's a lot to keep up with around here. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

do you need cookies to log in to Wikipedia?

98.177.155.42 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaser, you warned for civility in an exchange between User:Dream Focus and User:Abductive here. Abductive has now attacked Dream Focus in another discussion by referring to him as a radical revolutionary responsible for the deaths of thousands. To make matters worse, User:Pablomismo followed up Abductive by calling Dream Focus a "stooge". Please help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented to Abductive. As to Pablo, there's no beating this horse any deader. If you want something from an admin, then don't go trying to do it first. A comment from a neutral administrator will go a lot further.--chaser (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And my comment in that AFD was not directed at Abductive.--chaser (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be more careful when editing the main page. Thousands of people see those edits and it doesn't look very good when we introduce problems, dead links, etc. to the Main Page. gren グレン 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was unacceptably sloppy this morning.--chaser (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Your help is always appreciated though. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --chaser (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reading my watchlist this morning, from newest to oldest, and saw that the RFB was gone from the RFA page. I thought "cool, I wonder if he got the bit." Only later did I see it's still pending. I should whip you with a wet noodle for playing mind games like that. Just kidding, good call pulling it off, it was just cluttering up RFA.

As a general rule, we should probably do something "special" with RFA/RFBs that are put on hold for more than half a day or so. My personal favorite would be putting the transclusion in a hide/show collapsable box, so it's not seen by default. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to suggestions. I will try the collapsible box next time.--chaser (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, you should know better than to add libelous information to an article. You stated that "charges are pending" against Woods. The source says that "charges may be filed", which is a far cry from "charges are pending". Could you tone it down a little? 71.77.19.7 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The source itself has changed. The early AP reports (that NY Times piece was four paragraphs when I added it to the article) said charges were pending. Some sources still have quotes from the Florida Highway Patrol that "charges are pending": [1]--Chaser (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)