User talk:Indubitably/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Simple

Hello, I suggest you read your simple.wikipedia talk page as I have left a message there. Thanks. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Small error

Marvin Harrison. I think you meant semi. ;) Enigma^msg 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, eep. Yea. لennavecia 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

hlp plz

Hi Lara, litle project under discussion here that you might like to pickup. ϢereSpielChequers

I don't create awards. I just earn them. ;) لennavecia 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Princess I should have realised that by now. :) ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, there's only so much one can do in MSPaint. لennavecia 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your removal of GAR

The editor has just admitted that they cannot put the required material in Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology because they do not have it. A "Critical reception" section is required to pass for a GA on such a subject. Please revert your removal of the GAR from the article page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is appropriate. I view you opening of the GAR as a POINTy action, and I think the comments currently placed on the page are sufficient in explaining the situation quite well. A section cannot be required for an article when there is no content to fill it. There are no critical reviews of the book available in reliable sources. Therefore, the article is comprehensive. It covers everything available. Let the PR ride out, then go from there. لennavecia 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. There is no need as it is being debated on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 by all the editors that have been alerted by your side of the issue. I guess I should alert some editors also, since your removal the GAR may result in others not learning of it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, are you aware that the editor said at the peer review that she could not include the needed material, and she repeated that at the GAR. The only remaining issue is if GA on a literary work requires covering critical reaction as part of "covers all aspects broadly". However, you are effectively preventing a fair discussion of the issue at GA by your unilateral action. I think I am beginning to see what Malleus means about admins. You are effectively interfering in a content dispute. And this is a content dispute regarding Scientology, a subject which is currently being arbitrated. And one of the editors, User:Cirt, that you are protecting, is currently being mentioned as having a known POV against Scientology. [1] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alerted by my side? I'm not sure what you mean. But yes, go on with your typical behavior. For the record, last I was aware, I'm one of the few admins Malleus has respect for, but thanks your overview of my administrative standing. لennavecia 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean I can put the GAR notice back up on the article talk page so that more editors than just you, Malleus, and whoever your crowd is including Cirt and the others who are all on the same side can comment? Do you agree that, since the one side is commenting profusely, that it is only fair to allow others to at least know about it? I alerted one editor and was accused of WP:CANVASS. Therefore, I am at a loss as to how to invite the comments of other editors besides this one group, almost none of which are very familiar with GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want, Mattisse. But keep your assumptions of bad faith off my talk page. لennavecia 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight here, it's quite true that I think too many administrators would have problems counting to six without having to use both hands, but Jennaveccia certainly isn't one of those. She acts honestly and with integrity, even when she has the complete and utter gall to disagree with me. I know she thinks I'm a dick, but I've been called far worse and survived. And so will you Mattisse, if you'll just chill out a little. Some things are worth fighting over, but most things aren't. And in my opinion this isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Malleus. And for anyone who isn't aware, although I do think Malleus is a dick, I am also quite fond of him and have a great deal of respect for his content work. So don't be confused. لennavecia 01:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, then would you ask her to return the {{GAR}} to the article talk page so that more editors than just those that page watch the special few editors/admins can participate in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1? Most commentors seem unaware that the page has been removed. I invited one editor to comment and was accused of WP:CANVASSING so I have no way of getting uninvolved editors to comment. In fact, when I suggested that we seek uninvolved editors to comment, I was accused of violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like I was accused of making a unilateral admin action in an abusive manner when I have not acted as an admin? لennavecia 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How did I get dragged into this? For what it's worth I think you're way off base Mattisse, and you need to take some time to get things into perspective. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, you dragged yourself into this by commenting on this page about me and commenting on my page. You interjected yourself. But apparently, you have no power. So I will ask Jennavecia: are you willing, Jennavecia, to fix the problem you created? I am too intimidated to replace it myself, as you might block me for reverting you. An administrator enters a content dispute, but editors like me are vulnerable to your whims. It has never been understandable why admins chooses to block under certain conditions. I know they can block without warning for even joking comments on talk pages that the other editor acknowledges is a joke at the time. Therefore, I believe you could ban me or block me for whatever length of time you want. Can I risk that? No. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You really need to take a step back and discontinue commenting until you are again grounded in reality. لennavecia 02:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)r

Return the {{GAR}} to the article talk page, stop interfering with content disputes as an admin. The discussion is going on anyway at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1. However, only those that page watch you and the involved FAC editors are participating. How can you think that is right? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The GAR was premature. But like I said there, I'm not acting as an admin. Your comments are really over the top, and I honestly think you should take a break from the whole thing for a few hours. لennavecia 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

← Let me be perfectly clear. Mattisse has accused me of being gutless and powerless, but I'm not the one afraid of the big bad administrators. If I thought there was any point in restoring the tag that Jennaveccia removed then I would have restored it and bugger the consequences. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be living in a cave. My position is quite simply that we're here to improve articles; whether by peer review or by GAR makes no difference to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The crux being, what consequences? Not once have I ever had one of my administrative actions called into serious question, but suddenly I'm one to block someone I'm in an apparent content dispute with over a single revert? Absurd. لennavecia 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Words can be so clumsy. I didn't mean to imply that you would have blocked an editor restoring the tag, and I'm quite certain that you wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, no. I wasn't referring to your comments at all. Mattisse said she was afraid to revert me because she thinks I'll block her, which is absurd. I was merely going from your use of "consequences" to point out that there are none. لennavecia 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As an editor, I can never be sure that through the whimsy of an admin I will not be blocked. Never have I felt at the mercy of an admin so strongly as I do at this moment. Jennavecia still has not clarified anything. It is unknown if I would be blocked for reverting the removal of the {{GAR}} template, a clear undermining of any expertise I may have at GA. The {{GAR}} template has not been restored. I have formally withdrawn from all GA reviews, as Jennavecia has implied that her judgment is superior to mine, although she has not reviewed any articles since 2007, by her own statement. That is like saying that the FAC criteria have not changed since 2007! Jennavecia is saying she has no respect at all for my judgment by humiliating me in my attempts to keep up the standards of GA. Under these conditions, I will not review any more articles for GA. I do not want to be blocked for having good judgment that is not politically correct in the eyes of an admin who clearly thinks she is the superior in a content dispute. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious when you write these things? I mean, really, I honestly can't tell. It seems like a joke, or some sort of game. I don't even feel it worth clarifying further if you are apparently selectively reading my comments with the worst assumptions of bad faith possible. Completely fabricating and misrepresenting my comments. Regardless, your comment here and wherever else you make it is much less powerful than you probably intend for it to be, as you have proven time and again that you do not hold true to your word with these types of promises. لennavecia 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that you really cannot stand in my shoes. Because you carelessly hold the power, you cannot know how it feels to be undermined in the way you did to me, when I had though I had credibility as a GA reviewer. You have no idea how much standards have changed for both GA and FAC since 2007. Whatever. You and those like you have the power, and I am not willing to fight it. You have your way and I will not review GA anymore. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pausing the dramatics for a moment: Despite having stepped away from the GA project in mid-2007, I have kept up with the criteria and have had articles promoted since then. Me listing my GA credentials was pretty clearly to give reason for my actions as an editor in the situation, and not as an administrator, but you're apparently unable to grasp the obvious. Despite having it explained to you that no one in this situation is acting with their administrative hats on, you chose to play victim in a situation of unnecessary drama that you have perpetuated with this over-the-top behavior that you have become known for. Personally, I don't care for it. You can drop your dramatics on my page, but I neither buy it nor care one way or the other. This is about one incident. One that you should have walked away from a long time ago, because you are not able to view any aspect of it objectively. You walking away from GA or anything else is of no concern to me, but you surely need to walk away from this one. And let me add, because it's apparently required with you, that the previous sentence is not a threat of administrative action. لennavecia 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Plague

Which one are you? Is it all one big plague or stages like in the bible? Weren't there 12? Frogs, loss of first born sons, and such? Anyway, I just wanted to troll a bit. When people say trolling is it more like hanging under a bridge or trying to catch a big fish? A combination? I struggle a lot with this type of ambiguity. I see you've returned to your original photo. Interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gulp. I didn't even notice let alone read (still haven't, doesn't seem interesting enough) the thread above this comment. Please remember to ummmm AGF and all that as far as my "contributions" to the encyclopedia go! THANKS!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. What kind of plague am I? I have no idea. Hopefully a good one. The only trolls I care for are the ones with the bright-colored, fluffy hair. Okay, actually, I don't care for those, but I do like the humorous trolls. Probably shouldn't say that as an admin, but I am a rogue one, so I guess it's cool. As for my picture, my adoring fans did not appreciate the facial expression I had in the new one, so I reverted back to the current. Also, having done some hefty work on my pet article, I contacted MJK and figured that in the slight chance he should read it and click any links, it would be most awesome to have on display my rocker pic with my Chet Zar tee, as they're buds.

Recommended reading is the section above, by the way. It's a good one. لennavecia 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

o noez rouge admin!!1 jv blox everyone GlassCobra 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I had some free time so I was catching up on the latest gossip. Interesting times. And how fun to see some real world looking out for one another. Who would've thought! Aim high. Cheerios. And watch for locusts. They're good fried. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The mature thing

After hearing about Chet getting his life into order, I remembered the good old days of the BRC. It's such a shame that all that crap regarding me and the_undertow, seperately, screwed things up majorly (pun not intended). That, and I was a bit of a douche to everyone back then. So, because I feel that I let you (and by extension, half the BRC) down, I'm doing the mature thing and making my peace with you. Honestly. You know, and I know, that we're really not bad people. (By the way, it may be because it's 11:55pm, but this was actually quite hard to write. And it reads really awkwardly) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Sceptre. It reads fine. Thanks for posting this. No hard feelings. لennavecia 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I couldn't really stay really mad at anyone from the BRC :) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. It's hard to hold a grudge against someone you know edits in terrycloth. ;) لennavecia 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the bathrobe was just for keeping up appearences. I edit in my birthday suit myself... ;) OK, that was my weekly lurking comment. Back to your regularly scheduled conversation Seriously tho, its good to hear that Chet is getting his shit together. I hope that military thing works out for him. Kinda a rough time to be joining up, but I wish him the best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nekkid Cabal is that way. لennavecia 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lets just call it my invisible bathrobe then... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

When you draft your RfC, you might want to look into why he stepped down in August as well. Did he lose his cool then as well? Did he step down to avoid some conflict and got reinstated because nobody knew about it? Just some thoughts (again, I am not opposed to an RfC if there is a pattern of behavior, which there might be, I just don't think ANI is the right place for it.) (I have so little respect for the drama-mongering at ANI taht it isn't even funny.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: He just announced that he will step down. No need to do the research---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll see if he actually does it. There's also the desysop by Jimbo in November. No matter what, we've got a pattern, and we've got admittance of a terrible temper and an obvious inability to control it. He's attacked an editor who has been blocked multiple times for much less hateful incivility, yet he believes his actions are justifiable. It's a shameful hypocrisy with a side of irony and a complete lack of self-awareness. If he does resign his adminship, I know I've got grounds for an RFC, if not an RFAR. And I don't think I'll lack for help. (Arg. I never saved this.) But just as I expected, he's not stepping down. RFC it is. لennavecia 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the one from Jimbo... that reason behind that one was clear. It would be a true pattern if you found something in August indicating that an issue was about to come to a head. As for starting the RfC, I would wait at least 24 hours (not that you can't prepare it in the meantime) but give him the benefit of the doubt. He might have emailed a Steward or IRC'd one. Just because we don't see the request doesn't necessarily mean he has reniged on the promise.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I found him a steward in IRC and he backed out and told me to do the RFC. It will be more than 24 hours, however, because I work tonight and tomorrow night and have plans after work both nights, then Sunday is Mother's Day and I am a mother, so it will be drafted periodically over the next few days with anyone interested in helping welcome to do so. لennavecia 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You can now go back to the Steward and point the Steward to his talk page. Since leaving a note at ANI that he told you he wants to go through with the RfC, he has retired with a note stating that he wants somebody to desysop him.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Colour me cynical, but I'm deeply unimpressed by administrators who resign the bit only to quietly ask for it back once the spotlight moves away from them. It's no secret that I firmly believe Scarian to be a disgrace, well-established as one of the worst of the current crop of administrators, but I also know that an RfC will lead to nothing. I'm not bothered what Scarian thinks about me, or what he thinks about anything else for that matter, and so far as I'm concerned no harm done. Incidents like this are inevitable until a proper system of accountability is put in place. So don't go to any trouble on my account Jenna, just enjoy your weekend. The bits of it when you're not at work anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mal. I'm equally as cynical, but RFCs are required before one may go to ArbCom, and this isn't just about this one incident. It's about a pattern of inappropriate behavior that, frankly, I'm tired of watching in admins. Too many admins get away with these gross personal attacks while editors like you, who actually contribute content, get blocked for incivility that's not even half as bad as this type of attack. Yet, they are left to go on about their business. Or run away for a while and let the dust settle just to come back and eventually repeat the process. Anyone who knows me well knows that I hate hypocrisy, as well. So this is for a fair bit more than this one incident. He has, however, been desysopped, however, I'm not sure on the details as of yet as to how easily he could regain it. If he is not required to go through RFA to get it back, the RFC will go on. لennavecia 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed up at Meta, I agree. If this isn't under a cloud, then I don't know what is. I don't know how I would have come down if the RfC went through, but I do know that running away does not absolve you of your transgressions.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reposted my questions to WP:BN. We'll let the 'crats check it out. Also, the stewards probably had no idea what was going on, so he may not even get a one week window. We'll see if they respond as well. لennavecia 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Don't know if you care. But I thought it was interesting enough to tell people about this. No reply necessary. -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

o.O Uhm... what? لennavecia 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He gave me one as well and I'm as baffled as you. I guess we're both part of the Conspiracy To Suppress The Truth. – iridescent 17:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing either of you of anything. It really was just for your information. If you don't find it interesting, no problem. Sorry I bothered either of you. -- Noroton (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lara and Balloonman

I was just thinking, of all of the people who have changed their names in the 3 years that I've been here... I think you and I are the two users who are most tied to their original names ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Perhaps you're right! لennavecia 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say, I think I do rival you both here. I'm tied to my old username like you wouldn't believe, although it is somewhat similar to my current username. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now this might bely your argument... but who did you used to be? I honestly don't know!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not one to pick up on subtleties are you? لennavecia 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was subtle... ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad call

Scarian leaves in a huff with a post on his talk page, a person he's in conflict, with, you, requests on meta, and Meno does it? Bad call on both your parts. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather a selective reading of events. Scarian's valedictory missive clearly says "(Oh, and desysop me please just in case this account gets hacked or something)." Don't see why he couldn't have the proper thing himself, but it's what he asked for. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

She is the instigator of the pending RFC, that is a clear COI and she should not have posted the request. Plus his post was made in haste and should have been clarified. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a problem with it. He made the request and anybody could respond to it. He does have 24 hours to reverse his decision, but somebody could make the post to META, and it really didn't matter who made it. I say this as a person who generally harps about COI and SOD. While another person making the request would have been preferred, it was not mandated.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about time that people started to use terms like "conflict of interest" correctly, and understood what they actually meant. A conflict of interest arises when there is a conflict between a person's private and public obligations. What are Jennaveccia's private interests that are in conflict with her public ones? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe this can take place on more pages? I don't have a COI. It's really quite simple. There is either going to be an RFC or there is not. It all depends on whether or not he resigns his bit. I have shit to do. I have to work all weekend. I have plans starting in a few minutes and the same plans tomorrow night. Then I have Mother's Day to celebrate and so forth. I'd rather spend what wiki time I have doing things that really matter, like dealing with BLP issues. However, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with one way or the other. If he's resigned under a cloud, I get to enjoy my time, if not, I've got an RFC to draft. He made the request. If you want to assume bad faith, Rlvese, that he was not sincere in that request, then do so, but I prefer to take the optimistic view that it's now settled. If he did not want to lose his bit, he should not have said he did. That simple. This isn't on me. His behavior warranted it. He did the right thing by resigning. Let him leave with whatever scrapings of respect he can muster rather than call his intentions into question after he's gone. لennavecia 04:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, Rlevse. He either meant exactly what he said, or he's doing the sneaky-ass "retire under a cloud, 'forget'/pretend to give up the bit, and wait 6 months until the dust dies down to un-retire with bit intact" routine which has become so popular and tolerated these days. Either way, it's not our damn job to be his psychotherapist or Wiki-lawyer. He made the request; he got it. Stop trying to cast aspersions because you're mad he ran off in a grossly immature (dare I say...un-adminlike?) huff. Bullzeye ^contribs 05:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and it appears from some of the comments at WP:BN that giving up the BIT to avoid a controversy and returning 6 months later is accepted by some.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Current event icon

This nice proposal for a new icon seems to have sat at the current template forever without complaint. Fancy changing it to the nice shiny one instead of the flat weird-line-at-the-top one? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 08:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. :) لennavecia 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD snow deletion

Hey check out [2] if you can. If it matters the afd could be closed based on WP:G5. It was created by User:DavidYork71. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. لennavecia 04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Wálter Herrmann

I was wondering why you protected Wálter Herrmann last month. The reason given is vandalism, but I see no record of vandalism on the page. Thanks. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, X98lee15. I protected this article under a liberal interpretation of the semiprotection policy for BLPs, after it was listed at User:Lar/Liberal Semi following this edit, which stayed in the article for 16 hours. لennavecia 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, fair enough. For whatever reason, I didn't notice that edit when looking around. Didn't look back far enough. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I surely don't mind questions. :) لennavecia 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am confident that a consensus for unprotection would develop at WP:RFPP were the issue taken there (as the AN/I thread on User:Lar/Liberal Semi suggested, the community are not comfortable with long protections over vandalism that is non-defamatory [and surely the offending edit can't be read as suggesting that the biographical subject had or has herpes]), and so I wonder if you might now unprotect. I will understand entirely if you would that the issue should be discussed more broadly, and I am happy to list at RFPP in order that we might get more input on the matter; please let me know when you've a moment (here is fine) what you'd prefer. Thanks, 69.212.18.218 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected it, but I'll reprotect following any defamatory or similar vandalism. لennavecia 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, including for your prompt reply. I must say that I did not expect such a fair, tempered response; although I have had pleasant interactions with you in the past and have known you to be quite sensibly generally, I know that you are ideologically committed to BLP rigidity, and I thought I might be told off, if gently. Kevin reacted as you yesterday when I asked him to consider unprotecting another article that I thought was protected excessively in reply to a request at Liberal Semi, and I am left to conclude that those who participate there are not quite the reflexive, obdurate, bellicose extremists I think I imagined they were. Thanks once more. Cheers, 69.212.18.218 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Haha. Uh, yea, I'm pretty hardcore about BLP, but I'm not going to be helping my cause if I am not willing to work with the community to find something that works. Baby steps. I think that's the view most of us have taken, and being hardcore extremists wouldn't do well to get more people to see things from our perspective. I appreciate you coming to my talk page, by the way, as opposed to going straight to RFPP. لennavecia 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

John Carter's evidence

Jennavecia, perhaps you didn't see the post John made to evidence talk this morning? He's had a death in the family (very close) and is asking for more time. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that. That's terrible. Thank you for telling me. لennavecia 18:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Np, figured you probably hadn't. I was a little miffed at the start of the day that he seemed to have mistaken the probation proposal for a ban. Makes perfect sense though in light of what he's facing. A good lesson in assuming good faith. Durova^Charge! 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

Hey Lara, hope R/L is treating you well these days. Anyway, seeing as you're the "go-to" gal as far as BLPs go, I thought I'd ask your opinion on something. I know that WP:BIO is primarily a notability guideline, but I wondered if it might be a benefit to have some sort of wording, or even link to something that covers what WP:GRAPEVINE does for WP:BLP? I posted the question on the bio talk page as well, just to see what the regulars there thought as well. I'm wanting to get more involved in much of the BLP issues over the coming weeks and months, and I want to have a firm understanding of what is and isn't right; especially since I seem to be hitting a fair amount of them anyway ... lol. I know the BLP also has the section/blurb "#Dealing with articles about the deceased" ... would it be out of place to do something similar to the BIO guideline? Thanks — Ched :  ?  20:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Hmm. Well, why is it necessary to make such a change? Is the BLP policy failing somehow? I've got a pretty bad headache and I'm really tired, having only gotten four hours of sleep last night and a rough night at work, so perhaps I'm just not able to look at the big picture here. Entirely possible. So, I'll check back on this tomorrow after some rest. Just wanted to respond so you know I've read it and will give it some thought soon. Very pleased to know you're interested in helping with the BLP issues, and I'll be glad to help you get involved. لennavecia 04:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - hope ya feel better. I'll check back tomorrow (well, now today for me) - and no, just the opposite - I think BLP is a better view of BIOs, and was wondering about extending it to WP:BIO. What triggered the thought was a mistake I made in removing some contentious unsourced material from an article with the errant edit summary "per WP:BIO" (since the person had died 10 years ago or so). Then when I checked myself, I saw that there was nothing in BIO that covered removal of material. Anyway, feel better, I 'll catch up with you tomorrow/later today. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I understand now. I thought the last part of your post was a separate question from the first part. So, basically, you're asking about having something similar to GRAPEVINE added to BIO for BDPs? Well, I suppose that's a possibility. Best to discuss it on Talk:BIO, which I believe you've already initiated. Of course, any unsourced statement can be challenged in any article, so you've got WP:V on your side. I've got to get to work, but I'll check the discussion, if one yet exists, on Talk:Bio this afternoon. لennavecia 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, exactly where I was headed. Not all editors follow through and check all the policy and guidelines before editing. I've seen some pretty lame excuses for some pretty odd material .. lol. Perhaps it is redundant to put something in BIO, but perhaps even a "see also" link would be an improvement. Just one of those transient thoughts that drifted through the cobwebs of my mind I guess.

On a "I probably don't know you well enough to post this" side note: After this post brought such pleasant visions to my mind, I read that you "had a headache" ... sigh ... the story of my life. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha. XD لennavecia 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Electroide and Arlonuelle

Hi,

I just wanted to mention this to you, since we discussed it briefly on the administrators' noticeboard a few days ago:

I have no solid proof, but I think that User:Electroide and User:Arlonuelle might be the same person. They've both been uploading a lot of the same (or very similar) copyrighted photos of male athletes and male models, and editing the same articles, and their user pages are remarkably similar. Is there a way to verify whether they are the same person? I've heard of something called "checkuser" that can do this, but I don't know anything about it.

I think that User:Cybernetic DanceAngel might be the same as well, as I noticed that Arlonuelle actually left herself a message on her own talk page, but then went back, edited the message, and changed the signature to Cybernetic DanceAngel.

It's all a bit strange... —BMRR (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs and image links to support the above claims? لennavecia 23:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Over the past couple of days, both users have been uploading copyrighted photos of athlete/model Julien Arias. I can't provide diffs from Electroide because the images she uploaded were eventually deleted and no longer show up in her contribs list. Also, within the past couple of days, the Cybernetic DanceAngel account was created, and judging by the contribs, has also been editing the same pages. A week or two ago, both Electroide and Arlonuelle were uploading a similar batch of copyrighted photos of model Josh Ohl. Again, I can't really provide diffs to back this up because the photos were eventually deleted. —BMRR (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff in which Arlonuelle leaves herself a message on her own talk page: [3]

And here is the diff in which she goes back and changes the signature to Cybernetic DanceAngel: [4]

—BMRR (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That should be enough for WP:SPI. لennavecia 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Electroide's last edit was on the afternoon of May 16, and Cybernetic DanceAngel's first edit was on the afternoon of May 16, about an hour or two after Electroide's last edit. Maybe just a coincidence, but it seems fishy. :-\ —BMRR (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a quick peek at this? I think I filled it out correctly... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electroide —BMRR (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Memorials to contributions by the living

Thanks for your spirited and passionate contributions to the encyclopedia, and for your sense of humor, kindness, and willingness to tackle difficulties head on. Your stepping up to engage in the effort to address real life challenges faced by another Wikipedian is particularly noteworthy and commendable. Thanks also for your service to our country. Have a nice weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) لennavecia 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Smells like fish

APK noticed this comment and decided Jennavecia deserves the highly coveted Tamer of the Koi Award™. Certain Wikipedians are like koi - their mouths are always open, they fight for attention, and all hell breaks loose when it's feeding time. Occasionally, a Tamer of the Koi will remind the fishies why they're here in the first place. Some will shut their mouths and listen to the Tamer, while others choose to continue bitching; even if that means some good koi grow tired of the situation and leave the pond. APK hopes the bad koi will eventually learn their lesson, but until then, he supports your sentiment.

Hahahahaha, thanks!! لennavecia 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoserjoe

I recieved an email from someone claiming to be Hoserjoe. According to him you "used language such as sh*t and f*ck". He say's that when he brought it up to you he was indeffinetly blocked by User:Under_tow, who (accoring to hoserjoe) has some romantic interest in you. The user and talk pages for hoserjoe have been deleted, so I can't look into this myself.

Whats up with this? Is there something he's not telling me?Drew Smith What I've done 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin VirtualSteve helped me during this, if I recall correctly. The user, suspected to be a sock of another Joe, who had several sockpuppets all with the name "Joe" in them, was harassing me over edits to the Elvis article, where the vast majority of editors to that article were losing patience for him. This was like, November 2007, I think. He continued to harass me, making claims about my personal life and altering my comments on his talk page. He was warned by Steve and persisted regardless. Because of the libelous and defamatory nature of the claims he was making against me, he was then blocked. لennavecia 19:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. And clicking through diffs, it started when he added, against consensus, multiple times, the Christian singles to the Elvis template. I reverted, he called me deranged admin and said he did not appreciate me telling him (I'm not even sure if he's referring to a reply I gave to him or one that was on my talk page when he viewed it) "Don't start shit on my talk page" and my use of DGAF (Don't-give-a-fuck). So, that's what he's talking about with my use of expletives, but people should really get used to that from me on my talk page. لennavecia 19:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Well, it seems like a fairly cut and dry case of someone trying to abuse good faith then. Just out of curiosity, who is under_tow? He provided a link to his userpage, but its nearly empty, and he is the one who indeffed him. Drew Smith What I've done 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:the_undertow. لennavecia 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Have awoken to see this thread. Drew I did block both Hoserjoe and BomberJoe. BomberJoe was an alternate (sock) account of Hoserjoe. Hoserjoe engaged in a number of personal attacks against both Undertow and Jenna (Lara) from around November 2007 until the Hoserjoe account was blocked by me on January 23, 2008 with the comment Using talk pages as places of personal attack, despite being in discussion at WP:ANI and gaining a final warning there, comments include sexist, ageist, and other improper derogatory attempts. On January 25, 2008 both accounts were further short blocked by me following continued attacks. On January 27, 2008 Undertow - who was an active and capable administrator with the project at that time blocked both accounts indefinitely. Hoserjoe (BomberJoe) is being particularly disingenuous with regards his version of events given to you by email as you detail above. I hope this assists - please come to my talk page or comment here if you have further questions, however IMO both accounts were fairly blocked following protracted discussion with an editor who continued to abuse the NPA policy of this project.--VS ^talk 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have told this user that I can't help him, and to go through the normal channels. After seeing both sides, I tend to agree with the block, however there seems to be a misunderstanding about the socking. He claims that he had two accounts to edit two different topics which, if I understand policies corectly, is allowed. But, other than that, I generally agree with you.Drew Smith What I've done 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Drew - just to clarify slightly both accounts were not specifically used to edit two different topics. Joe had an interest in aircraft, airforces etc. Both accounts edited in this field and he transferred to such editing (from one account to the other) after being blocked in the first account. That said - thank you for your interest and my best wishes to you.--VS ^talk 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to clear things up. This was particularly troubling the way joe described it, and I needed clarification. Thanks again!Drew Smith What I've done 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, BomberJoe was connected to Hoserjoe because Bomber supported Hoser in a discussion on Talk:Elvis Presley. There was a history of sockpuppets with "Joe" in their name disrupting the pages there through the months. Checkuser couldn't connect because the previous were stale. So, yea. Bomber could have been indef blocked for that (abusive sockpuppetry), but I warned instead, as there was so much other drama going on at the time. لennavecia 06:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

jennatalia

If I said jennatalia made me smile, would that be wrong? ;-) - well it did! Privatemusings (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a long thread about this in my talk archives for last August. You'd probably appreciate it. لennavecia 06:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Skype nick

Hey there Jennavecia. I think that I might end up hosting tonight's WikiVoices skypecast, so I wondered if you could give me your Skype nick, as it would make things much easier if we are pressed for time later. If could could reply here with it or give me an email, I'd appreciate that. Thanks, NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

laralove23. لennavecia 06:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK ...BLP uncat

Ok, before I get too far along here, I want to check myself.

1. I went to this page
2. followed link to: this page
3. searched web for any obits,
4. HotCat "Living People" to each
5. add tags to talk page if it seemed proper
6. went back to this page and checked the ones I did - (should I just remove from list - seems to me that it would save extra steps)

I'm gonna stop here until you review what I'm doing so as not to get too far down a path that's wrong. Better I get "good habits" at the beginning, then to try to revert "bad habits" further down the road.

OH ... and by the way young lady, just who the hell are you calling a "Grumpy Old Man"? ... lmao, sorry, couldn't resist. Saw a post you made to recent RFAR, and just had to reply. Hope you appreciate the humor, rather than being a person who would get "seriously annoy[ed]" ;P cheers. — Ched :  ?  18:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, that's what the directions say. ;) And yea, I think people can sort of assume who the grumpy old me are. I appreciate them, however, and they don't care about civility, so I think I'm good.

Also, humor never offends me. Well, almost never. لennavecia 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

addendum

I also ran across User:Dr pda/persondata.js recently and added to my monobook - is this something I should be doing as I go along as well? — Ched :  ?  18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I think I have that, but I don't remember what it does. لennavecia 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It adds metadata that can be used for database sorting — Ched :  ? 

These:

1. Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
2. Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain
3. Early_life_of_Eliot_Spitzer
4. Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI
5. Early_political_career_of_David_Paterson
6. Early_political_career_of_Sarah_Palin

Should I put the cat "Living People" on them? .. they are about BLP, but not the actual BLP article?

• (do people really consider me grumpy? .. not that it's a big deal either way - just curious) — Ched :  ?  03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you old? I thought you were like 18. Uhm, yea, those. I don't know. Probably not. Find Marybelle in IRC and ask him. لennavecia 04:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Marybelle? Him? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

...her? --Closedmouth (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's humorous IRC nick. لennavecia 05:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

18? oh hell, I wish. I'm the one that mentioned you reminded me so much of my daughter. But thanks for the compliment, I try to keep up. Doesn't matter really, age is irrelevant (to some extent) here. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being grumpy Ched, I was born grumpy. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

lmFao .. ahhhh ... I should probably stick with "no comment" on that one. ;-O — Ched :  ?  06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

wrongful death suit

Jenna is there no relevance to the story and the current legal action as it should be placed upon the history page until resolved?22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)98.250.12.72 (talk) Camp Tamakwa significant case law could potentially be the outcome of the lawsuit 98.250.12.72 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as the criminal case was removed from the page pending an outcome, so should the civil case. The criminal case was dismissed, thus does not belong on the page. The civil case should only be included if it results in a notable outcome relevant to the camp. لennavecia 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers, a challenge for you...

I don't like my sig font. It's getting on nerves. I want a sig with same Arabic symbol I use for the J and the same (or closely related) colors. That's all symbolic to me, so must remain unchanged. Otherwise, design away, if you are so interested, keeping the sig guidelines in mind, of course. لennavecia 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of IAR. I'm sure it's what Jimbo had in mind. –  23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, awesome. Thank you. XD Let's see what other alternatives come up. Hahah. لennavecia 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. How do I get one like that? I'd like a spinning bit as well if at all possible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but Lal Hilditch as Living people? ... I'd think 1894 dob would make it unlikely, but haven't been able to find obit yet. Not that there's really anything I'm asking you to do ... just an FYI. Nope, have no idea what compels me to post this. (other than your work in BLP) — Ched :  ?  02:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can put him into Category:Possibly living people, or, as I would do, add Category:Date of death missing or Category:Date of death unknown. One of those. لennavecia 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, answers even when I'm not expecting them. Hey, do I understand correctly that you served in the military? .. if so, Thank you, especially on this day! I appreciate you protecting my freedom ;) — Ched :  ?  03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm a veteran. Someone told me Obama asked all Americans to thank a soldier this weekend, so thanks. I thanked someone, too. :) لennavecia 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary source vs. secondary sources, WP:BLP vs. WP:V

Hi, your input would be welcome and appreciated here, should you care to comment. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting so quickly at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Exactly the sort of useful, pragmatic advice that I had been hoping for. A future project could be to make corresponding changes in WP policy … --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If a discussion is opened up on a policy page, let me know and I'll chime in there as well. لennavecia 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your crusade...

...doesn't interest me in the least: the status quo does, and that descriptive usage--which is correct whether one regards Jimmy Wales as a founder or the founder--had been there until QuackGuru went on his particular spree, complete with a false edit summary. Why you and he should have your knickers perpetually in a twist over this is beyond me. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if people were more concerned with having accurate, verifiable information, rather than bending to the whims of the site's co-founder, there wouldn't be an issue. Thus, my bejeweled thong remains in a twist fighting for the obvious. لennavecia 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Carrie Prejean. Thank you. Rico (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Rico (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between being neutral and being vague. Which discussion are you referring to? لennavecia 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be like Grawp

Well, that was fast. Three seconds after you moved it for me, User:One baleeted it. I've listed it at DRV. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw this coming... and I think I eluded to as much. لennavecia 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

*hug*

*hug* Gurch (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

... *hug* لennavecia 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert I.Sherman

I want to be polite about this. You are making a mistake in the application of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Robert I. Sherman has alleged that George H.W.Bush made an offensive statement against atheists. He himself is (also be Wikipedia's standarts) a reliable source for the fact that he has alleged this. However, there are other sources (newspapers) that also verify that he has alleged this. Of course, these sources also point out the evidence against Sherman's account. Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear on this point: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Any reader can verify the discussion about this topic from the sources provided and make his own conclusion. I will restore the article to its previous version. Zara1709 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'll take it to AN/I for further opinions. The article is an attack piece against a living person, whom has expressed objections to the content. It is not a biography, it presents no information on his life or career, only the details of two incidents. It's inappropriate, and several long-established editors and admins agree that not only is the content inappropriate, but to a point that it should be deleted to clear the history even if he is notable. لennavecia 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff would apply here, as such, I've made note of it at the AfD. As always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. — Ched :  ?  07:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is probably one simply solution to this issue. As far as I can tell, he is notable, although not as journalist, but as political activist for atheism. This was not apparent from the preceding version, so it is understandable that you came to the conclusion that it would be a coatrack about a person that is notable as journalist. To show that he is notable as a political activist, I would have to count the news sources that mention him in connection to his political activities, and we would likely have to discuss WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. However, in the deletion discussion someone also wrote: "Subject of minor notability requested deletion of article about them." I find this hardly credible, considering that this person has such a large homepage and apparently likes the attention of the public. If he would indeed ask for a deleion of his WP article, he would not help to advance his cause; Although he wasn't that successful with his various campaigns (most importantly the one about the Bush statements), he helped to bring the atheist's issue into the public. But - if he has indeed requested that his article should be deleted, I think that I could go soft on the issue, despite of the work I have already put into this. I would have to know, though, what he has actually written.

Could you sent me a copy of the ticket via the "Email this user" function on my user page? I promise that I will keep its contents confidential and not disclose it to anyone. Zara1709 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot share the contents of OTRS emails. I can, however, confirm that the email is from the subject, originating from his own server. If you need further verification, you can have any other OTRS volunteer confirm that it is from him and that he has expressed strong objections to the article. لennavecia 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

"The result was Speedy delete. Completely inappropriate title deleted as attack." 100% in agreement, even though exactly that text exists in another article. I think this is exactly what WP:CSD#G10 means. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. لennavecia 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lara, care to help out?

Hey, Lara. What's happenin? I've been working on bringing the article Bill Szymczyk up to GA standards. I recently expanded it from a stub to its current state; its slated to hit DYK in a few days, and I would really appreciate having an extra set of eyes for a copyedit before I submit it for GA. Its just not a subject which is probably FA-worthy, so this may be as good as it gets. You have always done great work on other FA and GA articles I put together, and I always appreciate your perspective. Plus, you are the coolest chick at Wikipedia, and anytime I can pad my resume with stuff you have worked on too, some of your awesomeness may rub off on me. Muchas gracias, and BRC forever! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude.. all up my ass with the flattery, huh? I guess I'll work on it just so you didn't drop that dignity for nothing. XD Hahaha. لennavecia 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dignity? What's that? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. لennavecia 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

Please see this discussion on Drawn Some's talk page for an explanation of those tags:[5] Fences and windows (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a discussion about nomming this template for deletion? I'm all about it. I'll fully support it, or nom it myself if need be. It's a nuisance on BLPs. لennavecia 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It recently failed an MfD, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). I don't support deletion; I believe that Drawn Some was making a WP:POINT by indiscriminately adding the tag to about 60 articles in two days. Why is the rescue tag a problem on BLPs? Fences and windows (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't need people scrambling to save articles on marginally notable living people. Better things to do with one's time than scrounge up what few references exist on someone so we can continue to host a potential libel magnet that no one will be watching. لennavecia 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If editors auto-add pages to their watchlist it'll be watched. Why not raise this concern on the project talk page, the project is open to ideas on how to improve its functioning. I've seen a fair few articles saved for the right reasons by ARS, including BLPs. The problems with BLPs go well beyond the ARS though. Fences and windows (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's just like the "orphan" tag where we now have editors forcing links to orphaned articles in 'parent' articles that have little or no connection. These tags are useless and they do more damage than harm. Instead of just deleting these BLPs, you have people trying to force their inclusion by devoting inordinate amounts of time finding immaterial sources only to pray for a 'keep by no consensus.' Law _{type! snype?} 04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's worth noting that I wasn't suggesting the project be nominated for deletion, although I did support that. I was simply talking about the template itself. Personally, I'd be happy as Hell to ban the use of the ARS template on BLPs, because I don't really care outside of that, but we all know that won't happen. لennavecia 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

eyes please

1. Kidnapping of Alan Johnston
2. Kidnapping of Shannon Matthews

actually they are events about BLP. I wasn't sure how to cat. I left on the list with note - project and cat talk pages didn't seem as active as your talk page .. thought I'd post here and MZM. Suggestions or thoughts? — Ched :  ?  08:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. MZ will probably say no. We should probably have a project discussion about it. لennavecia 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MZ said "yes, sorta," for the record. And ugly editnotice is ugly. :P --MZMcBride (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

stfu! My edit notice is good times... >_> Useful, at least. لennavecia 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

sometimes not sure how useful I am to the project at the moment. :-/ ... but I'll monitor any threads I'm aware of. — Ched :  ?  22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Having articles that are "The X of <insert person>" is how editors prevent a BLP from being deleted by way of WP:BLP1E. It completely skates the system and we all know the that the probability of actually hitting that sequence of words in the 'find box' to produce a searchable result is absurd. @Ched - you don't have to be useful to be on JV's talk page, few of us are :P Law _{type! snype?} 01:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Law, how you doin these days? Remembering that you'd had some distressing times recently, I hope that life is on an upswing for you. ;). Apologies for not being a bit more chipper today, but a recent post to my talk page left me feeling rather discouraged and disappointed. I suppose that hanging around the cream of the crop admins like you, Lara, and MZ had me expecting more than I should from administrators. Yea, I kinda pester her talk page a bit, but she hasn't bitched me out yet .. lol. Well, need to sleep on a few matters, ... Best to all. — Ched :  ?  05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After closing as "keep"

Hi Jennavecia. Hope you don't mind, but after you did this, I did this and this. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you!! I'm on the keep side so infrequently, I completely forgot that part. XD لennavecia 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Katarzyna Dolinska

Just curious, but was this article supposed to remain a redirect? You placed creation protection on it back in Nov. 2008 to keep it a redirect, but at a user's request moved the redirect to a different name, which allowed the article to be recreated. Normally I wouldn't think much of this, but I've seen sneaky COI users do similar things to override creation protections, and considering the article was recreated several times after AfDs resulting in delete outcomes (i.e., it appears certain editors are determined to see this article retained), it all just seems a little fishy.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I think I mistook something. Looking again at the history shows you protected the article to retain it as a redirect, then the user created an entirely new page with a different spelling of the subject's name to avoid the protection and asked you to merge the block-enforced redirect, thus overriding it and getting the article back when it was supposed to remain a redirect. Looks even more fishy to me now.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I hadn't realized the possibility of that. If the article shouldn't exist, by all means nom it for deletion. Thanks, لennavecia 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the redirect is appropriate so I reinstated it, although how long it will last is the issue if the previous creation protection doesn't automatically apply to it (I don't know how those things work).  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I reprotected it. لennavecia 22:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are clear on how AFDs work

I see that you deleted Mark Abis and then undid yourself and closed it as a "Keep" vote. If something was a delete, how does it suddenly switch all the way to Keep? You realize that there's a middle ground of "no consensus," right? This isn't about you having a super vote for yourself that overrules all other discussion, delete or keep based upon what you want to do, it's about reflecting what the discussion concluded. If your determination was that it ended as a delete, how can you just switch it? DreamGuy (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think my restoration comment and close comment summed it up. Maybe read them again?

00:33, May 31, 2009 Jennavecia (talk | contribs | block) restored "Mark Abis" ‎ (33 revisions restored: Missed that he has a song on compilation album.)

The result was Keep. WP:MUSICBIO #10, inclusion in compilation album. لennavecia 12:35 am, Today (UTC−4)

While you're reading, check out WP:AGF because the tone of your message leaves much to be desired. لennavecia 20:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)