 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
accounts-en-l
Hey, can you confirm that you requested a subscription at accounts-en-l please? SQLQuery me! 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Signature
Now yes???
MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
--MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:RFA proposal
Prodego, I've altered the proposal to make it read < 90% to reflect my original intent. If this changes your opinion on the proposal, can you edit your response when you have a moment? Thanks, Avruch T 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
VandalProof
Hi there,
Would it be possible to poke Daniel (hard) with regards to 1.38 (bugfix) release of VP? FYI (and his):
- Fixed an issue that caused minor edits to break the moderator list.
- Fixed a bug that meant that bot edits could not be displayed when clicking on them from the RC list.
- Fixed a bug that meant that, when viewing a diff where the penultimate editor had used the rollback tool, the wrong user was detected and subsequently warned if a rollback button was pressed.
- Fixed detection of user warnings to support WP:HUGGLE, User:ClueBot and the most recent block messages.
- Fixed the retrieval of the username for users who had no edits to their talk/user pages.
Your reversion of my edit at Main Page
As far as I know, the MainPageBG class attribute isn't used in any skin, and so is just taking up database space. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Hey, was I any trouble, if I was, I apologize. I have looked through the installation and it looks easier than I expected. Though I think I am not going to try to create my own wiki. Thank you for guiding me through that, and if I ever decide to, I will know what to do. Your guidance was not wasted. Thank you for your help. I apologize. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Maximillion Pegasus (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Huggle User Category
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
"My 'expertise' is to deal with anon. IP edits so there's no point of placing a warning" As you can see from my contribution, I primarily aim at IP vandals and revert them ASAP. In terms of placing warnings, I don't see a need to do it if it's a IP (as many people can share the same IP and the vandal message might get to the wrong person instead of the target) --Cahk (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
86.46.78.29
Hello Prodego a quick question can somebody else use your IP address i got a message saying that my ip vandalised the De La Salle College Waterford that wasn't me thanks i am usually logged on as burgoyne172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgoyne172 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Prodego, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars survey
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
your unprotection of my talkpage
re [1]: I don't see you have any business changing protection levels in my user space making reference to some policy proposal. If you really, really feel you need to become involved with the question of semi-protection in my user space, you might drop me a note, explaining what it is you want and why you think I am out of line. Or just try some kind of wikilike approach. As you may imagine, there are historical reasons for the semi-protection. I might add that I do not find this edit of yours particularly helpful. It is beyond me how you can argue anyone would have "certainly been justified" in blocking me. This is outrageous. Are you a proponent of some sort of bad-ass approach to Wikipedia? Resolve disputes by blocking anyone involved on general principle? Wikipedia does not work that way. Please do not bother to comment on a dispute unless you have familiarized with the background first. Which means you have to actually look at content. I see a frightening tendency among admins to think that Wikipedia can be "administered" without ever looking into questions of encyclopedic content. This is wrong. Wikipedia admins are editors trusted with a few additional buttons. If you cannot be bothered to look into the actual editing, you have no business intervening in disputes short of some very simple tasks such as blocking vandals and enforcing 3RR. thanks. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This section was deleted and then restored. For details, see WP:AN#User:John Reaves. Relata refero (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure...
I should be editing this more often. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not help me
Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings Caltrop (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
City Union Mission
Just wondering, it says you deleted a page called City Union Mission. What are the reasons for deleting it? I was thinking of making it. Please answer at my talk page. Thanks! --Writergirlrocks (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
unblock-l
I wrote this up, see: here. Thoughts? :)
Breslow
Pls help at Craig Breslow. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt
Having read and considered your closing statement, I must confess that I remain altogether unsatisfied with your close. Most significantly, you observed that "[you] agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD" (correctly, IMHO, appreciating that, at the very least, there did not exist a consensus in the DRV discussion for the proposition that summary deletion was appropriate here, unless, I suppose, it should be clear that any listing would plainly result in deletion), but I don't see that you ought really to have gone any further than to determine for what procedural posture a consensus exists; an administrator, after all, acts only ministerially and non-discretionarily, viz., to carry out those actions for which a consensus exists, and I can't help but find that you went a bit afield in proceeding beyond the threshold question at which the community seems to think the inquiry (at least at DRV) ought to have stopped. Because our presumption with respect to articles and redirects, even those about living persons, is against deletion, "no consensus" closes at DRV ought to be understood as failing to sustain summary deletion. Although many construe the Bdj RfAr and BLP to the contrary, even the more restrictive theory does not control here, since a community discussion had already produced a consensus for the preservation of a redirect (that discussion did contemplate, at least a bit, whether a redirect was appropriate as an aid to readers); to find otherwise is to reverse our presumption relative to deletion, and if one apprehends a consensus for such a reversal in the DRV discussion, he/she must have powers of perception far beyond those of a mere mortal. I expect that many (most?) will commend you for being clueful and putting to rest an issue that is largely perceived as being more trouble than its worth, but I don't see that the community has ever once conclusively adopted the view that there exist some pages the preservation of which is a net negative on the project (that is, that whatever might be their value to readers, their impact on the project is so disruptive as to impede other work that is of greater value on the whole), and I honestly don't see how your close might be reconciled with the discussion, and how the ultimate result might be understood as anything other than the substitution by WJB of his (often very sound) judgment for an apparent judgment of the community, and a substitution of yours, your evident good faith notwithstanding, similarly. Joe 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what Joe has to say above. Additionally, I would add four points: first, presumably the community is able to decide what constitutes a useful redirect. DRV3 and the compromise in the first place established that this was a useful redirect. Second, the claim that this is not a useful redirect is at best inaccurate compared to what we normally consider to be a useful redirect. If someone is looking for information about Brandt's activities the PIR page is the most logical page to go just as we redirect the names of band members to the bands they are in even if the articles contain little or no personal information. Third, I'm concerned by your closing which given the highly controversial of this DRV occurred at the absolute minimum amount of time afterwords where it is more reasonable to give more rathe than less time. Fourth, and frankly most seriously, in the earlier DRV which overturned precisely this action by Doc, you strongly endorsed Doc's deletion. You are therefore an involved editor and should not have made the close. For these reasons, and Joe's reasons I strongly urge to withdraw your close. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Joe, I understand what you are saying, but I think you may be misinterpreting my statement. I said that it was not a deletion I would have made personally, but it is one that I can accept as justified under a WP:IAR argument. Many of the other users who commented also felt that this was an improvement (and that it was enough of one to made out of process, and still agreed with to that extent is remarkable). I certainly believe some pages can have a negative effect on readers, an encyclopedia with confusing articles would certainly not be a place I would return to for research. Your point about the community being somewhat fractionalized in this matter is also quite true, most controversies cause this. But much of that anger causes !votes to keep the page just to spite Brandt, which is once again a detriment to the integrity of this encyclopedia.
- Now, in response to JoshuaZ. The community is certainly able to decide what a useful redirect is, but despite the 'merge' if it ever really took place as was intended, PIR, while the most relevant article on Brandt in Wikipedia, still contains almost no information about him, unlike that of a band page, which will at least describe its members. It may be relatively the best place to learn about him, but you still won't learn anything there. Therefore, I would say the result of that compromise was never really taken to heart. As to closing the DRV at that time, there have been repeated DRVs, with virtually every possible argument possible brought up. At this point there is nothing to add. Yes, I commented several months ago in a DRV about Brandt. I believe I also commented in an AfD. Frankly, currently my personal view (which has changed from the past) is that we should have an article on Brandt. I don't think that having my position be unknown, or perhaps stated somewhere such as WP:AN in an informal manner, and then closing a DRV with an agenda, could possibly be better then having an opinion expressed and known, and closing a DRV. Simply put, I did not, and never will, allow my own opinion to affect XfDs (or DRVs). I considered and read every comment (though I can't recite them to you) and found that the people with the arguments were those supporting deletion. Regardless of if one expresses it or not, everyone has their own opinion, simply because mine was expressed in a manner that certainly doesn't involve me with the article or the person beyond passing interest in whether it is suitable for the encyclopedia, does not mean I can not or will not fairly judge consensus. So therefore I will not withdraw the decision, and of course, if it were to be made against consensus, it would be easily overturned, as I didn't decide what consensus is, I simply interpreted. If my decision were to be appealed, I would not be bothered in the slightest. Prodego talk 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good close - and I'm one of those who couldn't care less whether we have an article on Brandt or not. I don't think I would've had the courage to try to close that discussion, which is why I decided to give an argument instead. Nice explanation, to boot. --Coredesat 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment to Joe repeats this claim that there is a substantial set of "!votes to keep the page just to spite Brandt" - I'd be curious if you could point out where these votes are. Because at least in this last DRV I don't see them. This is a classic strawman constructed by those favoring deletion. As to you comment to me, you are simply put wrong. You will learn about Brandt there. You will learn that he runs PIR and through that a number of other organizations, including Namebase, Google-watch and Wikipedia-watch. This is similar to how for many people in bands, you will only learn that they are members of the band (indeed since Brandt founded and runs PIR this is if anything more informative than the band example). This argument is we accepted it would justify the removal of thousands of redirects where we only learn that someone is connected to some topic whether they are a band member, a head of a notable company or anything similar. This is not a reason we'd justify deletion for a redirect for anyone else and it is yet another unique interpretation of Wikipedia goals, policies and guidelines to attempt to get a deletion. As to your comment that you were reasonably uninvolved, your entire comment in the previous DRV was "endorse deletion lets think here" this isn't the opinion of a someone with a moderate view on these matters or anything approaching one. Your claim that the compromise "was never really taken to heart" further shows your severe lack of neutrality in this matter by simply ignoring that this redirect was a major part of that compromise. Furthermore, especially in controversial cases it is important that an appearance of neutrality, and not just personal judgement of neutrality matters, so I again urge you to withdraw your close. As to your claim that this can be appealed- DRVs closes are essentially unappealable. I'd be strongly inclined to appeal if there were some option for that. But there really isn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify on my "lets just think here" at that point I held the opinion that we should simply allow him to have us remove the page on him if he wished, something that I did not think was unreasonable at the time. However, as I mentioned above, that is a view that, due to events since then, I no longer espouse. And I don't want to go into peoples comments and pick out ones that I might suspect are anti-Brandt don't negotiate with terrorists type responses, to do so would not be assuming good faith. But there certainly is a negative attitude towards Daniel Brandt on Wikipedia, and that bias will be represented in anything dealing with him. DRV does not create a precedent, so there is no need to worry about how this might apply to a different situation. I do not consider myself involved, I may have participated, but I am not involved with Brandt, and have made no significant edits to any of the pages about him or anything related to him. And I would like to reiterate that this is Wikipedia, anything can be appealed, and anything that goes against consensus will be undone. Appearance of neutrality is completely worthless, one doesn't have to look neutral, one must instead be neutral. I can tell you definitively that I was completely neutral. What is better, someone who appears neutral but isn't, or one that has once said his view, but is? Perhaps you could explain how you would have closed this DRV, preferably in summary form, so that I could understand your specific concerns better? Prodego talk 00:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, how do you recommend this be appealed? Claiming that everything is appealable doesn't make it so (seriously there's no reasonable venue to appeal DRVs. This has been a longstanding issue). Anyways, as to how I would have closed it, obviously I have strong opinions on this but I would have at minimum given it a few more days to see how it would go. But if I had to close it I would have closed it as overturn. Simply put there's no consensus there that this was acceptable and it is an extremely bad idea to let DRVs simply be ignored by an admin waiting a few weeks and then trying the same out of process action. That's the key issue here. Regardless of one's opinion on the redirect. The message that sends is that admins can get away with almost any deletion if they wait long enough and then get the right closer for the next DRV. That's not ok. Claims that the redirect is not useful are uncovincing since the proper place to decide that is an RfD and furthermore the community already decided it was useful. Also, we had a complicated compromise here, and this breaks it. In order to justify such a break one needs a strong showing of consensus supporting it and we don't see that here. Those would be my main points. Incidentally, as to your last point, appearances of neutrality are almost as important as actual neutrality; this is a long-standing notion in jurisprudence, and frankly although you are an editor I strongly respect I have a bit of trouble believing that your close was completely neutral given that you closed it at the earliest possible time and given your earlier comment in the other DRV and given that you don't often close DRVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I could perhaps shed some light on the timing thing. I was in IRC and some admins were talking about who was going to have to close it, and I offered to. I often drop by XfD or DRV for something controversial, because I am quite uninvolved there, and thus pretty neutral. So I read through the comments and typed up my rationale, only to find that in fact the DRV was not yet at the time to be closed. Since it was only 20 minutes away, I opted to stick around and close it when the time came. I didn't seek out this DRV to close, and honestly I completely forgot I had even made that comment on that other DRV (though I did remember the AfD comment, but I couldn't tell you what Brandt related article that was). There has been so much said on this issue that there really is nothing else to say. The compromise was already broken, the fact that there was a DRV, and the comments on it, show that quite well. It is true that I did want this redirect deleted personally (though my reasoning is not the same as that which the DRV supported, I would much more have focused on that last part of my summary, where I said that my view is that there should be an article. Now, as far as how I would go about appealing this, I would probably start by asking some other editors who I respect (both those who agree and don't) what they think about the redirect, and the decision (especially since the weakest part of my closure was that, as you said, content issues are usually delt with in XfD). Now, from there would depend, but I will give you this easy way. At this point I have not heard much about this closure, I have gotten both positive and negative comments, but that represents a very small sample. If there is a popular request from those editors that I respect greatly (such as yourself) I will withdraw my closure. I would also pay great attention to someone completely uninvolved, and an explanation of their thoughts on my action here. Now, if I were you, and you didn't find me reasonable, I would not bother trying to convince me, instead I would likely go to WP:ANI and get popular support that the decision was wrong. I don't think that it would be necessary to do that in this case, I would certainly at least take another look it under popular request. Prodego talk 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to need some time to think about this in detail; FYI, I normally have your talk page on my watchlist anyways, so no strong need to let me know every time you reply here. Also, I'm sending you an email shortly about a related detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I !voted to restore (and stand by my reasoning), but I think Prodego's close was as fair as any. Prodego's was at least premised on a substantive and defensible rationale, a nice contrast to all the WP:NOTAGAIN type comments. The deletion procedure was very much questionable, certainly, but after a DRV accumulates so much input it's not really worth starting over. Every closer has some opinion upon closing; what's important IMO is that the closing admin not have any prior history with the subject. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I could perhaps shed some light on the timing thing. I was in IRC and some admins were talking about who was going to have to close it, and I offered to. I often drop by XfD or DRV for something controversial, because I am quite uninvolved there, and thus pretty neutral. So I read through the comments and typed up my rationale, only to find that in fact the DRV was not yet at the time to be closed. Since it was only 20 minutes away, I opted to stick around and close it when the time came. I didn't seek out this DRV to close, and honestly I completely forgot I had even made that comment on that other DRV (though I did remember the AfD comment, but I couldn't tell you what Brandt related article that was). There has been so much said on this issue that there really is nothing else to say. The compromise was already broken, the fact that there was a DRV, and the comments on it, show that quite well. It is true that I did want this redirect deleted personally (though my reasoning is not the same as that which the DRV supported, I would much more have focused on that last part of my summary, where I said that my view is that there should be an article. Now, as far as how I would go about appealing this, I would probably start by asking some other editors who I respect (both those who agree and don't) what they think about the redirect, and the decision (especially since the weakest part of my closure was that, as you said, content issues are usually delt with in XfD). Now, from there would depend, but I will give you this easy way. At this point I have not heard much about this closure, I have gotten both positive and negative comments, but that represents a very small sample. If there is a popular request from those editors that I respect greatly (such as yourself) I will withdraw my closure. I would also pay great attention to someone completely uninvolved, and an explanation of their thoughts on my action here. Now, if I were you, and you didn't find me reasonable, I would not bother trying to convince me, instead I would likely go to WP:ANI and get popular support that the decision was wrong. I don't think that it would be necessary to do that in this case, I would certainly at least take another look it under popular request. Prodego talk 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, how do you recommend this be appealed? Claiming that everything is appealable doesn't make it so (seriously there's no reasonable venue to appeal DRVs. This has been a longstanding issue). Anyways, as to how I would have closed it, obviously I have strong opinions on this but I would have at minimum given it a few more days to see how it would go. But if I had to close it I would have closed it as overturn. Simply put there's no consensus there that this was acceptable and it is an extremely bad idea to let DRVs simply be ignored by an admin waiting a few weeks and then trying the same out of process action. That's the key issue here. Regardless of one's opinion on the redirect. The message that sends is that admins can get away with almost any deletion if they wait long enough and then get the right closer for the next DRV. That's not ok. Claims that the redirect is not useful are uncovincing since the proper place to decide that is an RfD and furthermore the community already decided it was useful. Also, we had a complicated compromise here, and this breaks it. In order to justify such a break one needs a strong showing of consensus supporting it and we don't see that here. Those would be my main points. Incidentally, as to your last point, appearances of neutrality are almost as important as actual neutrality; this is a long-standing notion in jurisprudence, and frankly although you are an editor I strongly respect I have a bit of trouble believing that your close was completely neutral given that you closed it at the earliest possible time and given your earlier comment in the other DRV and given that you don't often close DRVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify on my "lets just think here" at that point I held the opinion that we should simply allow him to have us remove the page on him if he wished, something that I did not think was unreasonable at the time. However, as I mentioned above, that is a view that, due to events since then, I no longer espouse. And I don't want to go into peoples comments and pick out ones that I might suspect are anti-Brandt don't negotiate with terrorists type responses, to do so would not be assuming good faith. But there certainly is a negative attitude towards Daniel Brandt on Wikipedia, and that bias will be represented in anything dealing with him. DRV does not create a precedent, so there is no need to worry about how this might apply to a different situation. I do not consider myself involved, I may have participated, but I am not involved with Brandt, and have made no significant edits to any of the pages about him or anything related to him. And I would like to reiterate that this is Wikipedia, anything can be appealed, and anything that goes against consensus will be undone. Appearance of neutrality is completely worthless, one doesn't have to look neutral, one must instead be neutral. I can tell you definitively that I was completely neutral. What is better, someone who appears neutral but isn't, or one that has once said his view, but is? Perhaps you could explain how you would have closed this DRV, preferably in summary form, so that I could understand your specific concerns better? Prodego talk 00:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this was addressed above, but again this comes down to a non consensus interpretation on the value of the redirect. Not only that, but according to the deletion policy and the norms of DRV, we've established far more than enough to warrant an RfD on this matter. Your role in closing DRVs is not to be a "tie breaker". The "value" of a redirect is decided in RfD, and we have no real policy or guideline regarding how to judge value, or how much value is required, for a redirect. Not only that, but one of the biggest issues that no one seemed to being up is off-wiki links. I have no doubt that thousands of them have been broken because of this situation. We can only track whatlinkshere internally, not externally, which is a something noted for RfD discussions.
If we were not considering Brandt's actions in this DRV, then why would you be endorsing a deletion based on his request, citing a disputed and confusing portion of BLP (and where BLP arguments are weak at best)?
I'd really rather not take this to ArbCom, but seeing so many Wikipedians that the community puts great trust in blatantly gaming the system, is far more concerning that the redirect itself. This deletion was done in spite of at least 18 other discussions regarding the matter. WJB and others didn't like the result, so they deleted it anyways. No matter how well intended the act is, it's wrong, and was well established in the DRV. This is why we have DRV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: California Dreaming
I was not re-adding a contested prod, I was reverting vandalism. An IP had removed all tags and info and replaced it with "this is a great book". That was not contesting the prod, but I will respect your removal of it. Reywas92Talk 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)