User talk:JzG/Archive 136

Call me suspicious, but I don't think these are genuine editors.

• Aditya saidawat best (talk · contribs)
• Aditya Saidawat the new mind (talk · contribs)
• Adityasaidawat (talk · contribs)
• Adityasaidawatthegenius (talk · contribs)

--Calton | Talk 03:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Some kid, I think. Maybe the welcoming team can help him out, I don't have the patience right now :-( Guy (Help!) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You created this redirect on International Talk Like a Pirate Day, 2008. To save time at RfD, do you still want to keep it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I cannot possibly stress how important, fundamental, useful and corny that redirect is. But if course, it's up to Guy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I likes me that redirect, matey! Guy (Help!) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Arrrr, but it ain't as good as Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils m'lad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind considering lifting the full protection from Helge Solum Larsen? It was certainly an appropriate use of protection, but I just spoke to someone on IRC who seemed to credibly represent the IPs making the disruptive edits. They are concerned with some issues that fall under the WP:BLP policy, and I do agree there are some issues there which would be more easily fixed without full protection. They've agreed to cease editing the article directly altogether if protection is lifted, and I believe that they'll follow through on that. I have the article watchlisted and will quickly grab an uninvolved administrator if it needs protection again. Thanks for considering this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow; and I thought I was harsh! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh! No, you were way too kind. There might have been a salvageable version, I will check back, but every version I saw was dross. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit may have been a bit over the top (and is being discussed here:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default - but I am redoing the   ones - this is used multiple times though out the page - but only once with a template; and the page requests to avoid templates. If you really object - then the whole page should be standardized on one or the other. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Disregard - so many edits at once - looks like you left the nbsp alone. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I see from the deletion log that you deleted Ecosexuality as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I had written on the talk page that I opposed deletion. Since the notice for deletion must have gone up over the weekend, & since there was barely a chance for me to leave a comment before the deletion (& to my knowledge, the only comment), I doubt there was sufficient time to discuss the AFD. I know that we all want to continually improve Wikipedia, but I believe that it would have been much better to wait for consensus & improvement.

Yes there was a lot of promotional fluff, & ecosexuality can be a murky concept. But there was a number & a variety of sources. The article can be improved to encyclopedic standards. Plus, this article had been around for awhile. There should be a chance to improve it.

If you are unwilling to restore the article & wait for consensus (which, IMHO, would be best), then I ask a at a minimum that you restore the page to my User:Peaceray/sandbox space. I think that can deduce my track record from my contributions. I would not let it back into the wild until I felt that it could reasonably pass muster.

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of G11 is that there is no consensus building process, that's what speedy deletion means. However, it was tagged by user:DGG and reviewed and deleted by me, between us we have twenty years' experience of editing and admin work, so this is not a capricious act. There was no section of the article, and none in the history I could see, that was free of the taint of promotion. WP:TNT applies. If you want an article, create a new one with sources and proper neutrality, avoiding the copious fawning mentions of the tiny handful of people who dominated the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

fwiw,Guy and I do not always agree. If we both do, it is very likely everyone else would also. DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you please kindly restore the article under my sandbox as User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. I want to be able at least to harvest whatever references that would apply as WP:RELIABLE, optimally refer to & adapt whatever portions that were least tainted by promotional fluff, & then add appropriate encyclopedic content. Again, look at my track record: Peaceray (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). This will not be going back into the article space quickly. If so desired, I could even move it first into the Draft namespace for review after I have gotten it to an encyclopedic shape. I do know about the WP:TNT essay; I have been involved in article rescue & major rewrites before, & it will simply more expedient for me in this case to start with this former article's existing Wikimarkup. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

? Peaceray (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I see from the deletion log that you deleted Ecosexuality as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I had written on the talk page that I opposed deletion. Since the notice for deletion must have gone up over the weekend, & since there was barely a chance for me to leave a comment before the deletion (& to my knowledge, the only comment), I doubt there was sufficient time to discuss the AFD. I know that we all want to continually improve Wikipedia, but I believe that it would have been much better to wait for consensus & improvement.

Yes there was a lot of promotional fluff, & ecosexuality can be a murky concept. But there was a number & a variety of sources. The article can be improved to encyclopedic standards. Plus, this article had been around for awhile. There should be a chance to improve it.

If you are unwilling to restore the article & wait for consensus (which, IMHO, would be best), then I ask a at a minimum that you restore the page to my User:Peaceray/sandbox space. I think that can deduce my track record from my contributions. I would not let it back into the wild until I felt that it could reasonably pass muster.

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of G11 is that there is no consensus building process, that's what speedy deletion means. However, it was tagged by user:DGG and reviewed and deleted by me, between us we have twenty years' experience of editing and admin work, so this is not a capricious act. There was no section of the article, and none in the history I could see, that was free of the taint of promotion. WP:TNT applies. If you want an article, create a new one with sources and proper neutrality, avoiding the copious fawning mentions of the tiny handful of people who dominated the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

fwiw,Guy and I do not always agree. If we both do, it is very likely everyone else would also. DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you please kindly restore the article under my sandbox as User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. I want to be able at least to harvest whatever references that would apply as WP:RELIABLE, optimally refer to & adapt whatever portions that were least tainted by promotional fluff, & then add appropriate encyclopedic content. Again, look at my track record: Peaceray (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). This will not be going back into the article space quickly. If so desired, I could even move it first into the Draft namespace for review after I have gotten it to an encyclopedic shape. I do know about the WP:TNT essay; I have been involved in article rescue & major rewrites before, & it will simply more expedient for me in this case to start with this former article's existing Wikimarkup. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

? Peaceray (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent AE action, per this diff. I notice that most people have been logging their AE blocks when enforcing bans, so I recommend making an entry for this one at WP:DSLOG/2016. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I got distracted by a phone call. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)