User talk:Revolving Bugbear/Archive 11

Question about a deleted article

An editor just deleted List of occult writers. I don't understand his reasons. The talk page still exists (Talk: List of occult writers), but there was never a deletion proposal nor was the creator (me) of the article ever contacted. Is this proper procedure?Rosencomet (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently this was a mistake, and the editor replaced the article and thanked me for pointing it out. Sorry to bother you on this one. Rosencomet (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Editprotect you just carried out is not at all non-controversial "link maintenance" -- please revert until matter is clarified

Hello. Thank you for helping us edit the indefinitely protected due to edit warring international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I truly appreciate the effort you have exerted in persuading editors to cooperate and all the administrative tasks the locked article has required of you (and several other administrators).

However, I regret to inform you, that this particular edit was misrepresented, and that it was not non-controversial at all. For one thing, the time elapsed from the timestamp of proposing the edit to you carrying it out was only 32 minutes. And during that time, one other user agreed to it. That user, incidentally, has a user box on his user page, where he proclaims an ideological adherence to Marxism, and the edit entails representing what constitus offcial reaction of the State of Cuba. I trust you immediately see a potential for conflict of interest in that one consent. The user who actually proposed the edit request, neglected to acknowledge, that he is involved in an editorial dispute over what this particular section of the article is to say, and in fact, before the article was locked, removed crucial content, altering what it does say. As that removal was part of the editwarring that locked the article and it itself contitued a repeated revert, you can already see that this is a problematic item, just based on its history, and that is before I address the matter of its content.

Furthermore, the "link maintenance" (this is how the proposer described the edit), in no way meant preserving the sources used, finding replacements for their (broken) links. Entirely new sources were placed, while the old ones were removed. One of hte new sources is in an unidenified language, which I am having a hard time translating into English by means of machine translation. It is vaguely similar to Spanish, but it is not Spanish. I doubt the editor who proposed it can even tell us precisely what it says. You can see the problem that alone raises.

One of the removed sources was in Spanish. At least that can be readily machine translated for simple texts. But that link was broken, and the source is gone. I cannot ascertain what it said. I have been unable to find its web archive. That source was used twice, once as the basis for even including Cuba in the article.

One other replaced source (three superscripts were present in the article before your edit protect; three exist there now as well, but this represents switching two sources for 3 distinctly differnet sources) is not a broken link but a link to a protected source, which says (this is a copy and paste):

You are not authorised to view this resource.

You need to login.

I hope you can see now, that this aledgedly non-controversial editprotect is just bubbling with problems -- as is the items that is being edited. It is, frankly, unsourced. If anything, it should be removed on those grounds alone, not resourced to completely different sources, without anyone -- you in particular -- making sure the editors had a chance to examine the merits of it.

While I was busy examining its merits, you swiftly carried it out. Please revert, and please allow a discussion on the merits of what was in the article to take place. Respectfully, --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I have not at all addressed here, that the gist of Cuba being represented in the article is in my considered opinion a case of unjustified, unsourced, unverified original research, that Fidel Castro's journalistic work constitutes the official reaction fo the state of Cuba. This is however precisely what is being claimed on Commons, to represent Cuba on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png maps (same graphic, different format). Granted, Fidel Castro's writings are a form of perhaps even influential Cuban reaction, but these should be truthfully portrayed as that. Portraying them as official actions of Cuba's diplomacy -- as is done on Commons maps, and on the talk page in this article on Wikipedia -- is WP:OR, sad to say. But this is just a context-setting postscriptum, to help you understand what you stepped into. The gist of what I am saying is, that the editprotect template was a) used under false pretences and b) executed by you too soon. Best regards, --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for undoing the edit promptly. I do not regret writing it up, because the situation is murky and needs elucidating. And we are agitated, what with unceremonious hurried editprotects recently carried out by another admin -- see talk page for those voices. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And neither do I (have a horse in this race). My mount is the donkey of painstakingly correct Wikipedia content. No malice implied. "Standing" as in "a mandate to carry out an editprotect so swiftly". And I make mistakes myself all the time; it's par for the course of doing useful work. As you say, cheers. --Mareklug ^talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

What I meant is because there was no consesus reached on changing "unanimous" to "unoppossed" this gave no AUTHORITY to anyone to A)delete and B)re-write the entry and also add this "Kosovan" flavor. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility

With all due respect, it's very difficult to be civil with someone who's always opposing your moves, writes an essay response as to why I'm wrong every time, and is generally unpleasant. --Tocino 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Sean G 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.

Coaching match found

I'm pleased to inform you that several strong candidates for Admin coaching have requested a coach and that I've compiled a short list of candidates you can select from in picking a coachee. Or you can visit the Current requests section and pick another prospective coachee. Unisouth (talk · contribs) - 7,651 edits - Est. 1-2 months from RfA Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) - 9,640 edits - Est. 1-2 months from RfA Undead_warrior (talk · contribs) - 6,232 edits - Est. 3-5 months from RfA You may wish to consult the Coaching methods page for models other coaches have found successful. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Coaching Page - Prom3th3an

Questions Answerd :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  02:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistant coach?

Bugbear, as you may know, Prom was my adoptee before he entered admin coaching. I was curious if you would mind me coming on board as an "assistant admin coach" (not co-coach, as I'm still green in terms of admin age). He has expressed a willingness to have me on board here. Let me know... Thanks! xenocidic (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive done your follow up question and I do support xenocidic's request, however the call is yours :-)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered this question on xenocidic's talk page, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I welcome his collaboration. - Revolving Bugbear 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LSATs

Yikes - good luck with that. I've written them once. I totally bombed the logic games. The rest was cake. =) xenocidic (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Training Wiki

Hey RB,

Are you interested in helping me Founder a "Trainig Wiki" for adoptees (and adopters), admin coaching/ers to be able to try out various things (including admin tools) in an enviroment that is based entirely on Wikipedia (with appropriate Attribution).

This wiki will also be used for testing media wiki extentions that could be implemented in all the wikimedia foundation projects, but thats up to thwem we can only provide feedback on the extention page..

You may say "this idea has already been done", well you could not be more from the truthe. Ive seen the most common wiki that attempt's to give users experiance with the tools, but this wiki is noway similar to wikipedia (i mean they're not even running the same version or templates etc to try)

Have a think about it and get back to me (on my talk page)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Martincolman

I didn't mean it needed to "become encyclopedic"; that's just part of the standard csd template. I nominated it because it reads as blatant advertising for Martincolman, something that isn't acceptable as userpage content. Ironholds 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Very much appreciated. I'm a bit rusty after a 5 month wikibreak. Jeffpw (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your entry on WP:FACE

Hi Marlith! I'm sending this message to every user who has an entry on the facebook but whose picture is currently not visible for some reason. If you are interested in keeping your place on that page, then please restore the image or insert a new one. If you don't care about it, then you can just ignore this message. I will remove the entry within a week for you. See here for more info. Cheers, Face 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: My name is a coincidence.

Coaching Page Updated

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coching Page updated

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an/coaching

• Bugbear, I just thought I should let you know I'm withdrawing as assistant coach. You can see why on the coaching page. It's clear I've failed in my role as adopter and co-coach to instill the principles of CMR into our coachee, and his recent actions have effectively torpedoed his chances of RFA in the near (and quite possibly, distant) future. –xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

comment moved by Revolving Bugbear

Hi. I just made a comment there and was going to expand further, but thought I'd come here to further make my comment. To be curt, I don't believe Prom should continue an admin coaching program at this time. I'm all for editorial improvement and everyone lending a helping hand, but I think editor's need to show at least some basic level of readiness before taking the time to start a training program for adminship. Prom hasn't shown that, I quite frankly think he's years away from a succesful RfA. The most helpful thing to him at this point would be encouraging some sort of acknowledgement of this and make an effort to learn fundamentals, how to generally help the project, and stop worrying about adminship when it isn't realistic. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped it was an isolated incident. I appear to have been possessed of unjustified optimism. I am in the process of moving (yes, again ... it never ends!) but will have more to say about this later. - Revolving Bugbear 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's with, Bluegoblin7 was eventually vindicated but that still doesn't excuse the manner in which Prom protested BG's blocking (with complete disregard for CMR). –xenocidic (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an has retired, possibly permanently, as a Wikipedia editor and may not be returning, at least not for the foreseeable future. He or she may, however, make the odd visit back. Best wishes and good luck!

Heard you might be available for admin coaching...

Hey there. I have a request in at WP:Admin coaching, but based on a thread at WP:AN it looks like the backlog there might be closing down, since there are difficulties coordinating it and because, well, the backlog is just getting out of hand :D Folks who desire coaching are now counseled to find their own coach.

Xenocidic said you may be available for admin coaching. I am interested in getting the mop mostly to facilitate the dispute resolution work I already do at WP:ANI and WP:WQA. I think an RfA would be likely to fail right now, though, as I am pretty weak on mainspace contribs (I have some, but no FAs or GAs or anything like that) and because I have not participated in RfAs or formal Wikiprojects.

I also have, eh, some relatively recent wrongdoings (see my deleted contribs, as well as User:DontCallThisHandBad), which I am sure would earn me quite a slew of opposes should I ever make a run at it... but I intend to be very upfront about those issues, and I believe anyone checking my contribs over the past couple of months would be quite confident that nothing like that will happen again.

Right now, I have had to back off the dispute resolution work a bit because of some stress in my personal life, but I'm hoping that will let up soon. Actually, this might be a great opportunity to focus on less stressful stuff like article building... but I think I'd need some pointers about where best to start, particular with the idea that I have an eye on possible RfA in the future.

Anyhow, let me know what you think. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again

Just wanted you to know that I'm still around and still editing. I haven't had much time for it since July is my busiest month, but I hope to do more soon. If you get the chance, please give me or direct me to instructions as to how to enable an email address.

Also, I have not had any contentions about my recent editing, except a bit on Hippie with an editor who always seems to misunderstand my edits at first but with whom I always seem to come to an agreement eventually. However, I'm afraid I might have some trouble on Sally Morningstar. This is an article about a magical and New Age author who I have never met and who has never been at an event I've worked on (who lives in the UK). Pigman proposed the article for deletion based on notability a while back[1], but did not win it, since the main objection seemed to be the claim that her books (over 25 of them!) were self-published and I proved that to be untrue. Pigman then cut most of the facts out of the article, although they were not controversial or contested anywhere. I returned them recently with citations from a bookseller's website review and from one of her own books, which Kathryn deleted. I've added corroboration from a publisher's website and one from an organization that booked her as a speaker, and added a reference from another book. I'm hoping that will satisfy them, but history shows that they will probably keep deleting my edits, and maybe nominate the article for deletion again, in spite of her many books. I invite you to look it over.Rosencomet (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the SM article as well, and I feel that Rosencomet is not being treated fairly by Pigman and Kathryn. I have never met SM and have no connection at all with hedgewitchery, magic or any other New Age activity. Ning-ning (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Text of Deleted Articles

Dear Revolving Bugbear,

I'd like to try to beef up some of the articles that were deleted earlier this year and see if they can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. I'd like to access the text of the last version that was up, and I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me how to retrieve them, or do it for me (preferably the former).

The one's I'm most interested in right now are Philip H. Farber (who now has a new book out from Red Wheel, a Samuel Weiser imprint), and Nicki Scully (I think it would have been kept if not for the controversy about me). I'd also like to retry Grey School of Wizardry, but for that one I'd also have to deal with a redirect page presently up to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart.

Also, how do I enable an e-mail address for my Username? Thanks for your time.Rosencomet (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the author of these three deleted articles. Rosencomet (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Sir, I admire your response to SDJ. Axl (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved here - 08:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready to get back to work

I believe in putting your money where your mouth is. I asserted that Danny Choo is a notable person and claimed that I could make the article worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Following recent appearances on G4's Attack of the Show! and a CNN report that was the most popular video on CNN.com today, I believe that I have demonstrated that Danny Choo is a notable person by virtue of his celebrity on television and the internet. I'm not sure what the procedure is for restoring a deleted article, so I'd like to ask my mentor so that it goes by the book.

I have a renewed sense of confidence that I have something useful to contribute to Wikipedia, and I'm going to get back to work on my assignment. Thanks for your patience. DOSGuy (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've answered the first set of questions, but need clarification for the second assignment. DOSGuy (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the coaching page - Revolving Bugbear 00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't describe the feeling of dismay I had when I read this message. After all this time, I still expected to see an orange "You have new messages" box, or an indication of an edit to a page on my watchlist when you posted on my coaching page. I thought you had never responded, and I just came to your page today to see if you were still alive! I've been waiting for a month for nothing. DOSGuy (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned thank you note

Just wanna say thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.205.62 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Backmaun back, mon?

Dear Revolving Bugbear, I am concerned that the sockpuppeteer who went as User:RasputinJSvengali, User:BackMaun, and User:Alien666 (who I suspected might be connected with User:Mattisse) may be back. (I originally contacted Thatcher, since he was the one who indefinitely blocked them[2], but he replied that he no longer has Checkuser.) I have noticed similar activity on some of the same articles once edited/vandalized by them. Examples include the introduction, twice, of “Satanists” in the section of Starwood Festival that pertains to attendees by User:67.177.27.74[3]. This user edits articles once heavily edited by User:Hanuman Das and his socks like User:Alabaster Crow, User:Tunnels of Set and User:Khabs such as Illuminates of Thanateros, and Chaos Magick (also edited by BackMaun, RasputinJSvelgali and Mattisse).

Also, please note the unexplained deletion of a paragraph of Allen H. Greenfield by User:24.119.74.180[4]. This user has only edited two articles, both created by User:999 and related to the O.T.O., and one had both Alien666 and BackMaun revert-warring with Khabs, Jefferson Anderson, and Frater Xyzzy, the other edited by Alabaster Crow.

I feel a real “here we go again” vibe here. I haven’t noticed any editor who seems to be the returning Ekajati/Hanuman Das/Frater Xyzzy/Khabs/999/Alabaster Crow/Tunnels of Set so far, but I do wonder whether there’s a connection between User: 67.177.27.74 & User: 24.119.74.180 and our old friends BackMaun/Alien666/RasputinJSvelgali. Could you take a look at this please? Rosencomet (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not Ekjati. I am the person who opposed the Allen Greenfield article in the first place. The reason I did so is because the piece was initially self-promotion, written by Greenfield himself. Since then a number of changes have been made to the article. The second article on Greenfield started off as reliable, with legitimate and factual information sustained by reliable sources. Since the article's re-created several months ago the article has slowly been edited every week for the past several months, allowing the accretion of unverifiable information to enter the article. In short, the second article is now mutating back into the first article which was little more than advertising space for Greenfield's dubious books on UFOs and his emerging religious sect "Congregational Illuminism."

The continued mutation and growth of the Greenfield article without proper, verifiable citation from reliable sources is simply the degeneration of WikiPedia into a marketing scheme for occult authors. Eyes down, human. (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't have this fight on my talk page. - Revolving Bugbear 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I never thought that User: 24.119.74.180 was Ekajati; on the contrary, I wondered whether he was User:Backmaun, who had battled WITH Ekajati. Now that he has identified himself as Eyes down, human., that's a settled issue, I guess. Any discussion of Allen Greenfield should take place on its talk page. I'm still concerned about the identity of User:67.177.27.74, but that seems to be a separate issue.Rosencomet (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Legovamp.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Legovamp.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Dear Revolving Bugbear, Long time no talk.

I am hoping you can help me avoid getting into the same bind I was in before concerning Kathryn NicDhàna. I believe I have been following the advice I have been given by you, Thatcher, Fred Bauder, and others, that I am (as Fred Bauder said) "welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge." [5]

I do not believe I have edited anything controversial. I have made quite limited edits to such articles as Starwood Festival, mostly adding citations and fixing links (and the odd revert of vandalism). I have not had an objection of any sort to an edit in a very long time. But suddenly, I am getting the old treatment from Kathryn, who is saying I should not be editing this article at all, and calling a simple mention of the Nemeton set up at Brushwood Folklore Center in the Nemeton article "astroturfing". I deleted a few nearly two-year old tags from the Starwood Festival article, and she returned them, adding an "advert" tag with no explanation of what suddenly made the article sound like an advertisment. To me, it seems to state facts without value judgments, and the lists in the article (which have had very few additions, and include only names that are notable enough to have their own articles) are comparable to lists on dozens of other articles about festivals. I have supplied lists of examples of this to the talk page twice.

I really don't want to be drawn into a rehash of the same old arguments. These issues should have been considered settled long ago. I am not adding external links to any website I am connected to, and I am supplying third-party citations to my edits. I am not editing only articles I am connected to, but edit fairly widely and responsibly. I think I am a valuable Wikipedia editor, and have both created and edited many articles that made a real contribution. But I need to be allowed to do so without another repeat performance of harassment; and that's what I consider accusations that I have no right to edit articles that arbitrations and arbitrators have said I can edit. To me, her latest addition to Starwood Festival is an invitation, or even an incitement, for editors to nominate the article for speedy deletion.

Please give me your thoughts on this. I know you don't want to see this become another big fight. I just want to be able to edit responsibly without being drawn into another contentious interplay.

I've also asked Fred Bauder to comment on this. Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have time to get heavily involved in this -- I have finals next week -- but it seems to me that the issue is not as cut-and-dry as either side seems to think it is. Fred Bauder is a solid and thoughtful user, so I trust his judgment on this issue. If there's something you specifically need me to comment on, feel free to e-mail me. - Revolving Bugbear 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it's that urgent. Please stick to the finals, and get back to me later. I haven't heard back from Fred Bauder, but as the English say, it's early days. His statement was quite a while ago, but I hope he will still help me out. (I had quoted it to Kathryn & Pigman a couple of times, but it was pretty much brushed off: [6]) This was back in March of last year. Rosencomet (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by remark no. 465-3188(c)

"I fear these comments will be lost to the ages just as quickly as they are posted"     —  well, just so you know, I eventually showed up and read them!  :D   The whole thing is a fascinating sociological discussion, even though the final result probably made a lot of people sad or bitter.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I had forgotten that entirely. It reminds me of the way I saw Wikipedia back then ... and Wikipedia has changed so radically since then, I can never see it that way again.

Fascinating, for sure, and in some ways a foreshadower of what was (and still is?) to come.

Peace - Revolving Bugbear 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CheNuevara navbar.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Graveandbat.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Graveandbat.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

MSU Interview

Dear Revolving Bugbear,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish you best of luck with the project, but I am probably not a very good person for participation, for various reasons. Cheers. - Revolving Bugbear 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - a new scope for fascism task force

I have proposed a new scope for fascism task force. Please express your opinion in the task force's talk page. Thank you!

Sapere aude22 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bm icon.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bm icon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

David Jay Brown

Dear Bugbear,

I have a problem with a couple of editors. It's the same old thing, except with new players. An article I edited was severely cut up, then eliminated entirely. I've been trying to reinstate some of the data with 3rd party citations, but I am being personally attacked with accusations of COI, in this case because the subject of the article appeared at the event I work on, the Starwood Festival, over ten years ago. I did include citations for four lecture venues this professional speaker appeared at, and one was for this festival, but ALL edits I have made including bibliography, filmography, and a lot of other data is being deleted simply because I am the person posting it. On top of this, I am being warned that ALL edits to other articles like Starwood Festival are COI, something that was settled long ago (as I'm sure you recall), and they have threatened to delete the entire articles. Qworty has already begun chopping up both this article and the [[Association for Consciousness Exploration] article. These are very aggressive edits, and they are accompanied by a suggestion to merge them. The articles are absolutely being gutted. I don't know what to do, and I'm asking for your help.Rosencomet (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This editor Qworty is now systematically gutting every article I have edited, including ones that are in no way connected to Starwood. He/she is deleting entire article text without tagging anything, even deleting bibliographies with books by major publishers and proper ISBN numbers as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when do bibliographies and discographies need "sources"? How does Qworty get to set these bars? This is a wholesale deletion of virtually all of the work done by many many editors on articles, evidently chosen simply because I have worked on them. It's a vendetta!Rosencomet (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this exchange says it all. [7] I don't know what's going on here, but this is someone who is dredging up 6 year old accusations and ignoring the results of the arbitration and the fact that it's ben years since I have engaged in aggressive editing or controversy of any kind.Rosencomet (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles gutted by Qworty include: Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, David Jay Brown, Michael T. Gilbert, Muruga Booker, Nicki Scully, Anodea Judith, Trance Mission, Louis Martinie, Amampondo, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Stephen Kent (musician), and Harvey Wasserman. Luisah Teish and Jay Stevens have been nominated for deletion. I'm sure more are on the way. I do not want to engage in conflict with this editor, nor do I want to see articles destroyed this way. I ask that this be looked into; I don't see what I can do without being accused of one or another improper activities. Please help.Rosencomet (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Qworty just merged Starwood Festival and [[Association for Consciousness Exploration] after posting the proposal for about 20 minutes, acting on a consensus of one person. This was an article about an organization that has operated over 30 years with 26 newspaper articles and book write-ups supporting its notability. I am reserving my comments to talk pages. At what point do you consider Qworty to cross a line? Can I expect no response from you? Is there another administrator I should approach, or am I just going to be ignored?Rosencomet (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)