User talk:Causa sui/Archive 11

Anya Verkhovskaya

Hello,

Do you have any evidence that the user trying to blank this article is actually the subject of the article? Isn't OTRS the proper and well-established procedure for such matters? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than her claims to be, no I don't. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that two users are claiming to be her and/or represent her. Perhaps you, as an administrator, might consider referring those users to WP:OTRS, and withdraw your AfD nom until we hear from OTRS. Just a suggestion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider referring them to OTRS, though one need not be an administrator to do that. I don't intend to withdraw the AFD, though. causa sui (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Lynn

remember Noq tried to delete Connswater, and when you gave me permission he did it again, well now he has nominated another one of my articles for deletion and i think im being victimised. Earlier today he nominated the subject page for speedy deletion that was declined, but now he has nominated it for deletion again and i was wondering if anything could be done EastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jack Mealey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jack Mealey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM

By the way...

Hello, Causa sui. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting saddle, causa. However, as ** I ** was the one requesting protection, the template seemed a bit much. I have initiated discussion on the talk page. I would recommend that you also observe stirrup, where similar issues may be cranking up. So far no revert warring, though. Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While it's good that you requested protection to end the edit war, you also participated in it. Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of whatever other steps you have taken. Follow dispute resolution from square one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, point accepted, but I did ask the other user to take the issue to talk in the edit summaries (I think a couple of times) and did initiate the discussion at talk when I also requested page protection. Do watchlist the talk page if you don't mind. Oh, and add pack saddle to the list because that one's starting there, too. The other use clearly has a POV that is being pushed across multiple articles (judging by the user's talk page) and I have relatively little patience with that ilk. Montanabw^(talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Depth of field

It seems odd to jump in and do a major revert and then protect of an article that has had exactly one reverted edit in over a week. What's up with that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow-moving revert war over images requested on WP:RFPP. causa sui (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, seems odd. And why revert before locking? Not that it matters much in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PREFER: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Hope that helps. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made that revert, personally, if I were the admin doing that, but, causa sui knows more about this dispute than I do and I'm respecting his/her judgement on this. BTW, I'm the one who made the request at RFPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't know much about it, which is why I reverted to the last protected revision (effectively deferring to MuZemike). If either of you have an argument for another revision, have at it. causa sui (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was stable at a consensus version for over a week until the guy came along and inserted the picture of his cat again. That's all. No reason to roll back to an old version. No reason to protect, either, since the guy took me up on my invitation to take it to the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick has it exactly right. After the last similar edit war, this issue was carefully discussed—far more so than is normal for Wikipedia, and a few changes were made reflecting that consensus. Jamesington’s edit clearly ignored that consensus, which was more than simply a matter of which images to use—some images were moved around and captions changed to better illustrate points discussed in the article. It’s a shame to have that undone because of one editor who has contributed absolutely nothing to the article. JeffConrad (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I've reverted to m:The Wrong Version ;) causa sui (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate. A few more days of protection won't bother anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Flylanguage

Hi, I noticed you closed several of the AfD's created by User:Flylanguage. While they were bad faith nominations, some of the discussions were gaining a strong consensus to delete. Perhaps they should be reopened/renominated/speedied? Cheers, —Ruud 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Point them out and I could reopen them with you as the nominator. causa sui (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RPP full protection template

Hey there! Just in case you didn't realise, if you use {{rfpp|p|3 days}} rather than {{rfpp|f|3 days}}, the template will stop showing the redundant 3 days as in this edit. Took me a while to work that one out, don't know why it abbreviates down to p rather than f, but there we go! Thanks for your help at RPP, great to have another RPPing admin around :) GedUK  11:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, and was mystified by it too. Thanks for doing the legwork. Any way the template can be fixed? causa sui (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's technically broken. I think the intention in using the 'f' is to allow comments within the template; I think that was the preferred style in previous years more than it is now. As to fixing it, no idea, templates are a bit beyond me. I guess have a look on that template's discussion page, see if anyone's around? GedUK  18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you already went above and beyond. I'll just use {{RFPP|p}} from now on. Thanks! causa sui (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Harold E. Glass

Hello, I was wondering why the Harold E. Glass was deleted? I was in the process of trying to fix it up to clear all those comments out. Thanks, Mshaub (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) --> —Mshaub

Hi, I deleted the article in accordance with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_E._Glass. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion for an explanation of the deletion process. If you think you can make an article that is consistent with the requirements for inclusion, you can draft it at WP:AFC where experienced editors will help you get the article into acceptable condition before it is reinstated. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite (programming language)

Would you mind closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite (programming language), nominated by the same blocked user as the other two you closed? Thanks. "Pepper" 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit before you, another user is asking me to reopen the debates where there was forming consensus to delete. I'm thinking he's probably right, per WP:SK. What do you think? causa sui (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did see that there was a consensus forming, but it doesn't feel right that an indef-blocked user nominated them... kind of like WP:CSD#G5 maybe...? I think a simple renomination by a user in better standing would be best. "Pepper" 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the user is now community banned due to the uncontroversial indefblock. That was pretty much the rationale in my mind when I closed the ongoing AFDs. It's a funny test case. Maybe I should post the story on WP:AN to get some opinions. causa sui (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I appreciate that you protected this page. However, only 1 minute before you did the offending editor did undid the page that the four other edits reach a consensus on. Would it be possible and appropriate to ask you to undo the last change and return the page to here and then protect the page.

I have no idea if this request is even appropriate, so please tell me. If I am doing something wrong I want to now so I can never do it again.20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs)

See m:The Wrong Version and WP:PROTECTION. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page revision. If another administrator who knows more about the dispute feels that there is a compelling reason to select another revision, that would be up to his or her prerogative to revert through protection. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I will not make a request like this again.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who don't request page protection often, I honestly didn't know how taboo this kind of request was and it came back to bit me almost immediately. I have therefore made a minor request to adjust the page to make it clearer to smucks like me. I would love to have your input here--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		Civility Award
		For reinforcing the assumption of good faith at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 28#Jack Mealey —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on IP complaint at incident

Technically that would be him: spectare Causa Sui in falsificatum speculum. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowhandBlue (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)