User talk:Splash/Archive20

Archives
1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006 16 September 2006 12 November 2006 6 August 2007 24 November 2007

I'm challenging the deletion of my first article on the creator of the term, "destroy today," Jonnie Hallman. The article was written in a neutral tone, with a description of the subject's importance, with true sources, but the article was tagged for speedy deletion by a user named Bit Lordy about three seconds after it went up and deleted shortly thereafter though I did challenge the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. I would appreciate the restoring of this article because I feel that it was tagged for deletion before being read fully. Thank you for your consideration. Thereswaterhere (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry your article was tagged so very quickly after deletion; so many article flood into Wikipedia each day, editors just deal with them when they find them or they tend to get missed completely. However, I did read your article before I deleted it, and I reviewed it again just now. I am afraid I am firmly of the view that the subject does not pass the standard Wikipedia tests for biographies, particularly this one (but also see the more general notability policy). In short: the subject of the article has not had multiple, third-party, independent and (importantly) reliable sources write about him from which a Wikipedia article (a tertiary source) can be constructed. The same appears to apply for the phrase "destroy today". I hope that clarifies things for you. Again, I'm sorry you had a bumpy introduction to Wikipedia — perhaps you would try editing existing articles for a time while generally picking up the sort of thing that gets a good article. Splash - tk 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to build a bio page of myself, I deleted most of what I wrote in the first edition - tough all of it is my own original words and not copied - and all I left was facts like birthdate, etc. and it was still deleted. I'm a well known celebrity in the Sourcing industry and I believe people should be able to read some basic facts about me here. Can you give me some idea how I can create something like that without having it deleted before I'm even done writing the page? Note that I am a contributor of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcing_(personnel) Thanks!

Well, it was definitely copied from the webpage that I linked in my deletion reasons, so its copyright is probably owned by the company that owns the webpage. However, on the more important point, the page was not written in a neutral, encyclopedic manner (see the policy on this). General guidance on biographical standards can be found here, and on the 'notability' thresholds expected of Wikipedia articles in general here. However, writing about oneself or something which you have a closely vested interest in is generally not a great idea, as it is very hard to take the step back and objective view that is needed for encyclopedic writing. There's some good advice in that regard here - basically, it's for others to judge your fame and, if they conclude you're famous, they'll write about you eventually. (Though that is not an invitation for you to go find someone who will do that for you!) Splash - tk 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I am the original author of that material so there is no copyright violation. I can provide proof that I provided that content to that website and they can be contacted to verify as well. However I am happy to rewrite new content if that is preferable. On the other matter I do feel I meet the criteria for notoriety. I am a published author and recognized authority on in my specialty. I believe that if someone where to look for such evidence they would see I have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of my specific field. Articles and web references can be found about my role in the Sourcing industry going back at least five years. A simple Google search excluding results from my website and blog will prove this: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=active&q=%22shally+steckerl%22+-site%3Ajobmachine.net+-inurl%3Acybersleuthing&btnG=Search. I realize a google test is not enough for inclusion thus why I qualified it by including only external results where I am mentioned but where I am not the author. This proves I am at the very least notable because I have been quoted several times in Wired magazine, interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and appeared on NPR (National Public Radio) among other credible news appearances. I also have keynoted and presented at over 20 major conferences.

I understand its not ideal to write my own page and I had considered that, but I feel I can also objectively write about myself if given half a chance. You deleted my page 1 minute after I created it even though I had the under construction tag on it and now its protected. I am a novice at this with only one other page under my belt, and I work in a very specialized sector of the HR industry of interest to perhaps less than 1.5 million people worldwide, but I strongly believe it is a topic worth including in an encyclopedia. So my question is would it be possible to have you unlock it and put it under construction and then I can follow all the guidelines you stated above including not promoting anything and stating only facts. Once I have finished it then I would be perfectly happy to have it come under the regular censorship but my issue is that it was deleted while under construction. I am also taking into consideration Delicious carbuncles wise advise along with your own http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jobmachine&redirect=no.

All of this should really mean there are plenty of other people who will involuntarily decide to write about you. I deleted the articles because they were written in the tone of an advertisement (apart from appearing to be copyright infringements), and this is the trouble with writing about yourself, as you have an strongly vested interest in making the article in a particular style. In any case, no, I won't undelete the article as it stood, since it was not of an appropriate tone. However, if you wish, you may write it in your 'userspace' for example at User:Jobmachine/Shally Steckerl until it reaches the relevant inclusion standards, and then move it into article space. I would suggest a request at WP:DRV at that time. Splash - tk 16:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Wonderful idea. I will do that to ensure it is objective and exceeds all standards for inclusion. May I ask for it to be reviewed while its in my user space?

Yes, that will be fine - it's quite a common occurrance and WP:DRV is used to it. Splash - tk 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While amending my view at Hbdragon88's RfA, I came across this request for arbitration linked from your talk page archive. I know it's ancient history wiki-wise, but I wanted to say that I'm impressed by your willingness to fight the good fight. I've had some difficulties with some of the same people as you did in that matter. It was very cool of you to stand up. Kudos. --Ssbohio (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Funny the stuff you come across when reading archives on Wikipedia. Splash - tk 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I saw that as well – I was reading up on freestylefrappe and the motion restricting him to one account was passed at the same time the ArbCom request was going on . Another great moment: (Excluding these parentheses, MS Word tells me my count is 498.) Classic word counting. I laughed (again). hbdragon88 06:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Splash - tk 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are cited, please stop reverting the page. Instead of blanking the talk page again, do you have an idea on how to graft that information into the article> --evrik ^(talk) 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claims (there, see, they are claims) are cited in part from a source whose authority is not established and in part from the primary source. The primary source especially is inadequate for establishing what is a quite extraordinary fact — see for example the tag originally on the article which contained good advice in this respect and any number of standard policies, the bluelinks to which I will spare you. Anybody could write that on their own website; it does not make it a reliable source.

I am going to continue to remove the copyrighted information from the talk page. It can no more appear there than in the article. Please do not re-add it, or I'm going to have to protect the talk page to stop you. Personally, my standards for 'grafting' onto articles are higher than to simply believe everything I find on a primary source's (a pub's, in this case) website. Splash - tk 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You likely have no clue who I am, but as can be the way of Wikipedia, I've noted your edits for awhile (though always in passing, not "following", per se).

Anyway, I was curious (besides editing articles) what you're "up to" in Wikipedia these days. I haven't seen you "around" as much lately (as I "used to"), which likely just means we frequent different "circles" : ) - which also makes me curious as to what I may be missing : )

That and the few times I have noticed you in the last few months you've seemed rather "out-of-character" to me (which may be my fault in interpretation, I'm sure.)

Anyway, if you have the inclination to share, I'm curious. And if not, I understand. (I'm intentionally not looking at your contributions history.) - jc37 12:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short answer to your question of what I have been doing is "much less than in the past". Something rather beneath 2000 edits this calendar year so far, I think - rather less than your average active admin, I would guess. I went through a fairly extended period of not really caring anymore, and finding other things to do. This was caused by misguidance from up high, really - I object to the scaremongering from earlier in the year about Wikipedia sinking by April, the edicts that we have all the articles we need, when I happen to know we do not, and the increasing use of Wikipedia as a multi-bladed weapon in someone's fight against poverty I don't really care to be manipulated as an agent of. Strangely, it was the ever-changing messages of enthusiasm from donors in the fundraiser notice that woke me up recently. It made it seem more worthwhile again. Article-wise, well, not a whole lot I suppose (which is likely to earn me a ban as an abusive sockpuppet shortly :) ), but I've pottered around a bit. I mean to actually write the articles on my part of wireless communications as a knowledgeable and well-meaning but not-exactly-MOS-compliant editor has 'helped out'. A lot. :$

On other Wikipedic things, well, the low-grade admin work mainly - AfD closures, some CSD sessions, a little DRV here and there. I 'reformed' the top of DRV recently, not that many people noticed. I don't think you're missing anything. A small amount of work to keep WP:NOREVOKE this side of Hades, but that wasn't terribly friendly on either side (though that was partly calling spades spades). Without meaning to trumpet, at one time or another, I've been a 'major player' or the running admin on most of the major community process pages, from deletions to undeletion, to copyright, to un/protection and 3RR. I even(re-)invented some of them. I suppose in a sense I'm serially bored and my Wikipedic attention span has fallen a long way. Hrm, I'm trying to answer your question properly, and not doing a very good job, I feel.

As for my 'character', well, it's harder to be what I imagine you mean by 'in character' :) when feeling pretty disillusioned with things. I'm sorry about that, and I've been trying harder lately. Though, I wonder what impression you have of my 'in character' disposition that is so different to what edits that you wrote me that note. I have seen you around enough and formed a good enough impression that I take your note to me seriously, though - clearly I have not had the recent track record I would have liked. Perhaps when you see me off the rails, you would give me a gentle poke if you can, and I'll not bite back.

Well, this is all silly and long. But writing it was actually very cathartic, so I'm going to leave it all here for me to read again later, without any expectation upon you to do the same! Regards, Splash - tk 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you for the obviously sincere response. What brought this up was the ArbCom elections, and stream of consciouness notion-linking. I started thinking about the administrators who I respected when I first came to Wikipedia. I saw all the drama, and saw several who were either dealing with it directly; dealing with it tangently (in support of those dealing with it directly); and those playing "cleanup": cleaning up the rooms after the mayhem had occurred. But what made them even more than that was their knowledge (and really, firm belief) in the "system": the core-ness of what Wikipedia is, at least what it is to them. It's hard to explain. Steve block used the word nous to semi-embarrassingly describe me one time. Perhaps that is what I'm trying to convey...

The day you most impressed me was actually, in hindsight, a commonplace, "nothing" sort of action for an admin. You simply unprotected a page. Not because you felt that the others wouldn't continue to edit war, but because you felt that the case of that edit war wasn't enough reason to keep the page protected. I don't remember exactly how you put it, but your edit summary showed your obvious deep belief in this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", really impressed upon me that day. Not so much for the protecion/unprotection, but the "tone". (It's hard to explain without having the actual diff, and that's extremely unlikely.) Anyway, I've watched you in discussions whereever I've seen you, since then. And over the last several months or so, you've seemed more-and-more "Ill-disposed", as if you were looking at the world and it was crumbling around you. (Becoming more the "crotchety old person" in character, than the Splash of the past.)

I'm probably waxing verbosely as well (many words saying little...), but I felt that I should at least attempt to convey my thoughts.

Oh, and speaking of "Cathartic"... You surprised me by using that term, since I so recently used it myself. There's no reason to comment (since the discussion appears to have died, I'll have to just build the CFD nom from what I have so far), but anyway here's the discussion : ) - - jc37 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, I have replied to your comment on the talk page of the ArbCom voting page for myself, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana. I am giving you this notification just in case you are not watching my candidacy pages. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splash - thanks for your questions. It is extremely late here in Australia, so I shall answer them in the morning. But just wanted to let you know I had seen them and will answer them with all diligence (after which I shall move my answers to the Q&A). Regards Manning 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No hurry. Splash - tk 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your recent comments on candidate votes pages, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, but feel free to edit my move to your liking. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, belong on the talk page. Thanks, and forgive the inconvenience. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of them was longer than two sentences. I have therefore corrected the situation. They were not threaded, call for no discussion and I will not have them moved. Splash - tk 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising your concern. I won't move your comments. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reasoning on why I moved your comment back to the talk page on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Newyorkbrad. Regards. KTC 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote will not stand without its comment. I have therefore retracted my vote. I hope that pleases you. Splash - tk 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a candidate I will have no involvement in the issue of what length of comments are permitted in connection with the votes or on which page they should be placed, but I did want to confirm that I saw what you wrote and will bear your thoughts in mind if I am selected. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will not stand for people destroying the context in which I voted, however. Splash - tk 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UobArms.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you think that improves the encyclopedia. Splash - tk 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below yours at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Having been tag-teamed by the election officials, I'm not your biggest fan, frankly. Splash - tk 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Davnel03 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just wondering seeing as you've just brought that up. Would something like tha (bad sig) go against you if you were thinking of being an admin, I'm thinking of putting in a request in the New Year. :) Davnel03 17:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash. Could you please userfy the deleted Template:SleepSeries for me? I can't remember what was on it. I understand it wasn't useful, but perhaps I could borrow ideas from it and make something more useful. Best regards, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Splash. What happened here is that the recent versions of this template merited deletion, but the template used to be useful. I looked through the history and found that in mid-September someone moved it to Template:SleepSeries2 via a cut-and-paste move. For GFDL purposes I suppose the history of Template:SleepSeries should be restored and associated with Template:SleepSeries2. (I've got your Talk page on my watchlist if you want to reply here. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History splitting is always such fun... I believe I have carried out the necessary rituals, but please check the histories of both templates. Referencing my admin log for the relevant actions might help. Splash - tk 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that must have been intricate work. The page history looks good to me. Was there anything of substance on [[Template talk:SleepSeries? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reverse version of that is why the technical myth of "history merges cannot be reversed" is allowed to perpetuate! There's nothing much on that talk page, but you might as well have it anyway; see User talk:Clayoquot/Template:SleepSeries (irritating that User:Clayquote/Template talk:SleepSeries doesn't associate properly in the User: space). Splash - tk 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've moved it to Template_talk:SleepSeries2/Archive1 just to make sure nobody comes knocking on your door again ;) Thanks for your skilled mopwork on this! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Orphaned}} BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical bot. Splash - tk 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your argument responses, only because that section is only meant to be a place where the proposer's rationale is displayed. It'll be a mess if that section turns into another discussion, and people won't be able to see the rationale as clearly. People are already answering those points in their !votes and elsewhere on the page and the talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I presume you haven't obliterated them completely, because that would be to be editorialise enormously. Where have you put them instead? Splash - tk 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't put it anywhere at all. You just removed some replies that are rather unfortunate for the proposal. That's too poor form, so I have re-added them. Handle criticism, or don't make proposals, and certainly don't write such blatantly POV and misleading big-ups for them. Splash - tk 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put them anywhere, but they are far from obliterated. They are available through the history of course. I see you've already taken this personally and have chosen to ignore my reasoning. However in response, they were not removed because of anyone's inability to handle criticism. They were removed to prevent the section from becoming another discussion. Since the edits were in the context of responses I was unsure of where else they would make sense, so I simply removed them without putting them anywhere else. I have nothing against the statements themselves whatsoever. My only concern, again, is that yet another discussion not be made out of that section. You would have been welcome to reinsert the responses in one of the many existing discussions, however you saw fit. I would not have disturbed them. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please don't imply things like people read every revision of a proposal page before joining in the discussion. An alternative is to remove the entire section as largely editorialising the proposal, and put it in a subpage or something, complete with the balancing responses. But you can't only remove the slightly critical parts of something and expect that to go down as mere housekeeping. Splash - tk 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already described my motivations to you, and they do not include silencing of opposing viewpoints. I am not implying people check past revisions. I was only pointing out that retrieval of the material you posted is possible, and could be rafactored however you choose in one of the many ongoing discussions elsewhere. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:38, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

My comments do not apply to any of the discussions elsewhere since they deal with the points raised in that particular section. I do not think that Claim-Response-CrossExamine is such a serious problem as to need to the -CrossExamine to be wiped clean. Splash - tk 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem in that it inhibits the readability of the section, encourages further discussion within that section, and ceases to serve the section's original purpose, which was to simply state the rationale. If you oppose the rationale you can state your reasoning in a discussion or in your vote, as everyone else has done thus far. I'm beginning a talk page section for you, please check it momentarily. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:49, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging further discussion is not a problem, as demonstrated by the very large amount of it on that page. You left that section on the talk page for a few hours only, and forgot to update the link from the project page. Among the housekeeping chores are keeping such links up to date. The end result in any case is that your 'housekeeping' leaves only half the story on the project page, a position I still do not understand your insistence on. Splash - tk 23:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't selectively quote. I said encourage discussion in that section. This has been my only point. I'm sorry if you truly have not caught on yet but there's nothing more I do to make you understand. I archived the argument responses because the section on the main page was revamped. If you'd like to restore them to the talk page you may do so, and you have always been able to do so. If you want to fix the link you may also do so. Housekeeping is everyone's responsibility, and just because I take one task upon myself does not therefore mean I am the only one who can perform such tasks in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:59, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

← PS There is no more discussion on the main page. It was all moved to the talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:04, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Got it - that makes perfect sense. I hadn't thought of that concern beyond "Support" and "Oppose"; with the sections split, that's really the only way to do it properly. I didn't catch that all four oppose sections had an ' until after I commented; before that, I figured someone hit the ' when they hit enter. Thanks for the heads up, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Bristol University Latin American & Ballroom Dancing Society, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol University Latin American & Ballroom Dancing Society and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our good friend Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is putting TV bios up for deletion again as Also We Brief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with tagging them as non-notable. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craziness. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man. Again? Good catch, though, apparently also using a Tor proxy this time. Thanks for the block, Wknight94. Splash - tk 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-P Avruch ^T 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I deserved that! Splash - tk 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Totally understandable mistake; Relato called me Avruch on the mailing list . -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I get confused between which of you is using a sig that doesn't match the username that sort of matches the other's username that matches their sig. Splash - tk 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA#User:David_Gerard —BradV 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI, the first and second relisting debate were probably due to the ArbCom injunction against decisions in any TV episode debates, and not because there weren't enough participators in the debate. Fram (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Splash, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your kind words (and the error in my answer, hehe!) and also appreciate your objectivity in the 'crat chat. Thanks :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Yes, that Sinebot threw me off a few times. It is very effective at masking talk-page vandalism from my watchlist. Re: semi-protection, I arbitrarily set it to expire after a few hours so that's why anons can edit here now. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this - I have corrected it and noted there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic crossed-wires — I think we were in agreement on the point in question all along. Splash - tk 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Is that what this is all really about?! A videotape trade gone bad?! Unreal. And he is definitely back in full force. Special:Contributions/Cryptographic_Slurm - AFD of newspeople, pictures of license plates, the whole deal. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the things some people get into! I closed off a couple more AfDs that were lying around; nothing else to be found in them, though. Splash - tk 10:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Spalsh your merging of Esthesioneuroblastoma and Chantal Sébire worsend both articles. The Esthesioneuroblastoma article was the only good article in the net concerning this very rare tumor. I think we should have two articles:

• 1.) concerning the Esthesioneuroblastomaas very rare tumor
• 2.) concerning the Chantal Sébire as person, who sufferes from this tumor and her fight for an end in dignity (and here the link to her you tubevideo who made her notable not only in the francophone world - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLvJNPefkU - and where should I put the link now ?!)

yours Christophe Neff (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Christophe. I agree certainly with (1), but unfortunately I had to delete most of the article we had until just now because it was a copy-paste from a medical website — which is therefore a much better source of information than Wikipedia (see [1])! I think the important thing to do is make that article really good, and then these couple of sentences about Sebire will fit more comfortably. As for the article on Sebire, I do not think we need an entire article to contain those three-or-so sentences, since they contain the total information about the subject and are only notable within the context of having an extremely rare disease. It's only because of that she has appeared in media reports, and that is not good grounds for a whole article (see WP:BLP1E, for a particular policy justification which I also linked in my redirecting edit summary). This kind of article tends to accumulate a lot of excess detail about the individual that is not encyclopedic and that results in all kinds of undue weight problems. I would not link to the YouTube video at all, personally. It's not what either the condition or the person are famous for. Regards, Splash - tk 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again - and thank you for your answer. I have left a message on the Esthesioneuroblastoma talk page - but the page has disapeared - same thing with the article ! best regards and good evening ! Christophe Neff (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page and talk page were vandalised; I've reverted back. I'll copy my response there. Splash - tk 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to restore the semi-protection template. Now you can see there is a good reason for the semi-protection.--Jorfer (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no grounds for indefinite semiprotection of the article. It's nowhere near as bad as say George W. Bush. Protection is the ultimate blunt instrument on the world's best example of a wiki, and should only be used where standard techniques are overwhelmed. Splash - tk 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the aforementioned page has recieved more vandalism since you unprotected it. In my opinion, it would help stop vandalism to semi-protect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainlina (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also prevent everyone without an account from editing it. That is most people in the world, so we shouldn't semiprotect an article where the standard anti-vandalism tools are easily able to cope. See my reply above also. Some vandalism isn't a problem, after all. Splash - tk 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not prevent most people in the world from editing it as most people in the world are free to get an account. Currently from my own experience, the vast majority of those people that make useful contributions to Wikipedia get accounts. Controversial articles like this are used by many people, and it is very important that vandalism be minimized. Any vandalism that last for even half an hour is devastating when on a sensitive topic. If you look at the history, there is ruinous vandalism that has gone unnoticed for months before I corrected it. The template was obviously added by an administrator that agreed with my assessment. This article is the only article in my entire watchlist that has a high enough vandalism to good edits ratio to justify semi-protection.--Jorfer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hallo Splash
• Hallo derHexer

I have made a small contribution to the Article Easter bunny, concerning the origin of the Easter bunny tradition. As I suggest that many user will read the article, please feel free to check and perhaps change it. I have tried to name my sources. Furthermore I have the feeling, - in observing the history of the Article – that last night there were signs of a beginning edit war ? Perhaps you should watch a little bit to the article. Best regards Christophe Neff (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the {{expert}} tag. I added that myself, right at the birth of the page, because I was unsure whether I'd worded what was then a very short stub sensibly and really wanted someone knowledgeable to help. There's quite a lot more material there now, so I agree that the tag is no longer appropriate. Loganberry (Talk) 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo der Hexer Hallo Stemonitis Hallo Splash In a graduate class in geography (which I teach actually) my students will analyse the content of wikipedia articles concerning the geography of southern France with special focus to Leucate, Corbières and (MTE) Mediterranean type ecosystems (and botanical articles concerning mediterranean plants). Furthermore they will compare the different wikis (en,fr, de, es etc.). best regards. Christophe Neff (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed ad nauseum with respect to the other person who views self-noms as a play for power, I have every right to voice my opinion, for whatever reason I deem neccessary. People gain reputations (good or bad) very quickly here on Wikipedia thanks to the tools at their disposal. If a person has a glowing history and reeks of needing adminship, they will be nominated. Furthermore, my only interests here are vandalism and NPOV, not other's opinions of me. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that we both have every right to voice our opinions for whatever reasons we deem necessary. I would still advise that you not spend your time exploring this particular path, however; there is too much taint on it for anything good to come of it. Splash - tk 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I will do more homework on each individual request before commenting, but will always be wary of a self-nom. And thanks for formatting this. Not sure what caused the problem. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the formatting, if you scroll to the bottom of this edit window, there's a single whitespace before your new section heading, which causes MediaWiki to flip into 'preformatted' mode. Splash - tk 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I noticed you got the barnstar of good humor earlier. Have you suffered from increased wikistress since then? Are you showing signs of Wikipedia:Adminitis?

Perhaps a short break might be a good idea. :-)

At any rate, I've replaced the questions. There's a purpose to them. I've provided more information in the relevant section on the RFA talk page.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: on having studied the symptoms list quite closely, I think I may have exhibited a flash of "general BOFHness". That's a comparatively minor symptom, given the list, and I think a more thorough differential diagnosis would be needed to reach a conclusive view. For example, there is the possibility that, rather than adminitis, I in fact have demonstrated an ability to detect clever-clogs stupidity and remove it. And to call it by its name, too. "Underlying meta logic" my ....

Supposing my self-diagnosis is right, I think you're going to be reverting me on each occasion that other editors also make the mistake that clever-clogs stupidity at the expense of (especially failing) RfA candidates is a constructive activity.

My turn: now that your questions have been answered, what have you learnt re the suitability of the candidate for admin access? Splash - tk 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned that they posses a decent sense of humor, and that their mind is flexible enough to find some sort of sense in a silly situation. Those are traits that show that the potential to become a useful administrator is there. I eventually listed my opinion as neutral, because this potential possibly hasn't quite been reached yet.

As this person is clearly worth it, I'll possibly help them out a bit in future. And that's what I learned. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Also see the RFA talk discussion about this kind of question. My own preference is for more direct questions like question 15, but User:MessedRocker has convinced me that the unusual questions are also worth asking. See [2] ... the link to adminship is somewhat more overt in those sample questions, even if they too seem nonsensical at first blush.[reply]

Is a goose-chase of smarter-than-thou questions the best way to have learned those things, though? We've also learnt, by-the-by, that the original poser of the questions never had any intention of participating constructively in the RfA, unlike yourself. I think the summary removal of questions that are posed solely for the poser's personal entertainment to while away some time, with a side helping of thumbing his nose at RfA as a whole, is a sensible thing to do. Splash - tk 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the person-in-question's admission of bad faith? In the mean time, note that I was pushing for question 15 (from Fillls AGF challenge) to be answered as well, so I think that -in total- the set of questions I was working with/involved with was rather balanced. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions are tested by practise. But I don't think I necessarily need an assumption of bad faith to decide that the evidence is good that the original poser of the questions had no constructive purpose in asking them. Splash - tk 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But when I reposted them, I had a constructive purpose in asking them. Was there a difference between the two times? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you explained as much above, which was why I didn't remove them the second time. I don't think the questions are anything like the best that could have been use for the slightly tangential issue you say they resolved for you, but at least you were not merely in the business of making a point about something. Splash - tk 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That gives me something to think about. Thank you for your time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion regarding WP:WEB in Wikipedia_talk:Notability#WP:WEB. Please join the discussion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this was an appropriate venue for the discussion of what is considered a valid question. However, I do feel we have gained from this experience. Thank you. Regards, Rudget 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are beginning a process of rethinking what 'valid' means in RfA questions. I realise that people aren't much going to like the end of the free ride in making up RfA questions, but raising the 'activation' threshold for it will be good in the long term. See also [3]. Splash - tk 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I rarely ask questions on RFAs (I think I've asked about 6-7 questions in a total of 200+ RFAs I've been involved in). Reducing the number of silly questions will almost certainly be better in the long run, I can't see silliness at RFA being sustainable. Rudget 14:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I offended you, but I think that Q9 was acceptable because I needed to know the candidates views of WP:RECENT as well as WP:BIO. If this example offends you I will be able to reword my question. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at that. WP:RECENT deals with articles etc. that contain or are based on material that is currently of high-profile but which is unlikely to remain interesting beyond a nearby time horizon. It doesn't have anything to do with who has the more general publicity as both are global phenomenons in their own right. Which order simple vandalism would be reverted in is unimportant, since it is not material that is staying in any case, and non-admins can revert as much as admins can. Two topics which of enormous encyclopedic note and two vandal edits needing easy removal are not especially relevant to an understanding of WP:BIO. So I think your questions are wide of the mark, especially 9 and obviously 11 (the latter was just performance art). Question 10 is just an implementation detail that the answer to is of no consequence as I already explained. Why not just ask "What are your views of WP:RECENT and WP:BIO?", if that is what you want to learn? Splash - tk 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll just ask that in the future then Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occured to me that I caught a bit of heat from certain contributors for asking "What do you feel constitutes concensus" on various RfA's a couple of years ago. With-in a short time, there started to appear a host of ancillary questions for the candidates. Perhaps close questioning of candidates can take place within the respective user pages, and the questioner can then make their decision based on the direct answer as well as the information provided within the context of the RfA. The individual can then support or oppose based on a more complete reasoning. BTW, keep up the good work Splash! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:V#Frieda_Harris. You placed the deprecated {{confirmation}} template without the required but unsupplied OTRS ticket number in this edit. Can you please fix this? Thanks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on the talk page referenced. Splash - tk 22:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the request for speedy deletion of Occupation of Kharkiv because there is a list of criteria under which articles may be speedily deleted. The one given here is not among them, so other editorial approaches should be considered instead. Splash - tk 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about you suggest one. As far as I'm concerned it should never habve been created because its an unsalvageably incoherent page given it seeks to cover three different other articles in less then a paragraph with no sources!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is new, the result of a move - the page it moved from is now a redirect to British NVC community CG1 (Festuca ovina - Carlina vulgaris grassland), but the history which goes with it is at the page I asked to be deleted. Can you delete the page, while copying the history over to the article? SP-KP (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible. I'm not quite clear on which article's history and which article's content should be at which title, and what should redirect to where. Could you write me a dummy's summary of what you need? Thanks, Splash - tk 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add (i.e. merge in) the history from the deleted page to the retained article, and leave the redirect as is, I think all will be in order. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC) That works for me. Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just noticed that you have rightly deleted the above page. The one who wrote the page seems to be a new editor who was not aware of wikipedia policy concerning page creation and I had left him a note on the article's talk page. If possible, I would like the note to be dumped on my page to take it up with him. Wish I could reproduce it from memory, but I cant!! Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Prashanthns (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry. I've done that before, but I usually just type in the question #'s into the Ctrl-F thing, which only takes a minute or so. I didn't mean to come off rude in the edit summary, I was just kidding around.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you, of course, but it's not at all obvious to me why Category:Museums established in 1882 needs to remain when Category:Museums established in 1881 and Category:Museums established in 1883, not to mention many others in the "sequence," are both red links. --Russ (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean, but it seems pointless to delete a valid category page from a sequence just because it happens to be empty; it is very likely to be of use in future, after all. I think ideally in such cases, the category pages for the others would be deliberately created, rather than deleted so that they are ready and waiting. The same isn't true of other, arbitrary empty categories that have been created and forgotten or deprecated but not yet deleted; they can be removed as a useful tidy-up exercise. Splash - tk 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jc37. I was wondering about the RfA questions you've been asking recently. Since you're copy-pasting them into all RfAs, I guess they aren't specific to the candidates you're giving them to, and so they seem more like questions for the sake of it - especially those that can be despatched with a straightforward copy-paste from a policy page. Given the tendency at present to conduct a kind of 'performance art' questioning of the candidates with questions of arbitrary complexity, I'm hoping people might restrain themselves from asking questions for the sake of it, unless they need to learn something particular about a candidate that cannot be determined from their contributions list and other standard sources. In a couple of recent RfAs, there would have been well in excess of 20 questions for the candidate had I (and certain others) not summarily removed them - I think you'll agree that it reaches ridiculousness at that level. There's been much chat on WT:RFA about it of late as well, and it seems people are not keen on such 'trial by ordeal' approaches. So I was wondering if you might consider not copy-pasting your form questions into RfAs unless you have a particular absent piece of learning in mind? Splash - tk 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, and have been following that discussion myself.

A couple things to consider:

The questions I post deal directly with situations which the person in question may have to deal with as an admin. These are generic to any individual, and honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing these made part of the default questions.

Second, it's not only the answers to the questions, but "how" they are responded to (if at all, they are optional, after all).

And answers of "per x page" are pretty worthless. Any editor can quote a page, but do they understand the application of the tool in question? That's what I'm hoping to see in the answers. And interestingly enough, I've found that my experiences/thoughts in looking over a candidates history tend to be greatly clarified by the questions. People whom you thought would "sail through" suddenly illustrate that they have no idea what consensus is. Or would immediately block for a simple policy violation, punitively. Or have a rather warped idea of an admin's role in dispute resolution. Or even in how they should interact with other editors. It's amazing how these questions have shown several individuals who see adminship as the next trophy or prize to be won in their mmorpg of Wikipedia. ("I've been an editor for awhile, I should be an admin.")

Though I'll admit that after seeing some answers, the one on CSD needs rewriting. It seems to be spawning answers of "Whatever the page says", regardless of my intent. The point of the question being one of when do the CSD criteria apply, and further, when does IAR apply. So I may reword that one.

I simply feel that it's fair to ask these in order to determine whether they meet my personal criteria of trust. I'm more interested in the quality of their contributions in the talk spaces than edit count, or number of DYK/FA/whatever. Great editors do not necessarily make great admins. (As we've unfortunately learned from experience.)

But here: I think the most concrete way to resolve this would be to ask: Would you answer the questions? As someone who's opinion I respect, I'd be rather interested in your answers. - jc37 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think one piece of Wikipedic terminology to be dispensed with is the theory that questions are optional: they aren't, as we've seen in many previous RfAs, and, if someone refused to answer your questions I have no doubt that would influence you strongly. If it wouldn't, then why ask them at all? So there is no such thing as an optional question to a candidate who is bound to feel obliged to respond. And given this, it is to my mind rather an abuse of collective power for a long list of people to demand that their special questions also be answered.

I think if we ask questions "what does x page say?" it is reasonable to expect answers "the stuff it says on page x". The candidate has every motivation to play it safe, and cannot reasonably faulted for that in a trial-by-ordeal such as is demanded of them when they must answer — quite literally — 20 questions. Most of the questions in your list fall, in my opinion, into that general nature. Otoh, these more-recent "What would you do if User A did X and then User B did Y because User C had done Z, N times more than User B had done X?", are just performance art on the part of the questioner who is essentially trying to prove how wikipedically clever they are at constructing questions, and not learning anything specific about the candidate at all, and certainly not anything on which I seriously buy that their support/oppose opinion critically depends.

For those reasons I do not think the prevalent trend of endless lists of additional questions is helpful, and in fact I believe it to be directly contributory to the present dearth of candidates. And I am not one to fly into philosophical panic the moment there are less than 15 running RfAs. This in turn leads to the endless rounds of "RfA Reform (n+1 th nomination)", because people think something about the process is broken, when it fact it's the people breaking it. Questions are only of help to the process when they teach something unavailable by other means, and when that something is an item without which someone is unable to otherwise reach a conclusion. With respect, I don't think your form questions pass those tests and this is why I removed most of them.

As to which of your questions I would answer, well, I am not under the pressure of an RfA, and so you have your answer here. If you were to ask me today that list of questions on my talk page, I would only bother to reply to the one about consensus determination, and possibly the business of invites to edit wars, though I think that last one is slightly ill-posed. Incidentally, the answer you got to that one here is flat-out wrong, and I'm concerned that even in the face of that, you've supported — why set questions if wrong answers don't matter? Splash - tk 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To try to respond in some semblance of order:

Actually, It's not uncommon to see the "optional" questions not responded to. (My last RfA, for example : ) - I'd agree, though, that the first 3 really aren't optional. (There's a discussion concerning the wording of the template about that very thing.)

I'd also agree that so many questions are created with a bias or slant, and aren't well-worded. (No need to even discuss the ridiculous pop culture ones like - Do you like ice cream, or such-n-such film.) One thing I had hoped (and it turns out to be at least somewhat sucessful) is that by my proactively adding these questions, the "other kind" typically aren't asked.

Honestly, unless the candidate has entered into such a discussion with someone, there really is little way to tell whether they understand blocking/protection/speedy deletion. And as these are the tools that we're entrusting them with, I don't think taking a moment to ask them to summarise/generalise is a "bad thing". Same with how they would determine consensus.

The last question is more of a question of something that happens fairly often on an admin's talk page (though one need not be an admin to be asked to help in such a case).

One thing I intentionally avoided was specific instances. I've seen that once you start adding specific details to a question, the responses get lost in the details. So I've attempted to keep the questions as general as possible.

And as people still "vote" per editcountitis, and other such arbitrary "criteria", I have a hard time seeing how questions that actually pertain to the tools and responsibilities of being an admin would be so "out-of-line".

Anyway, my reason to ask you to answer the questions was to have you experience them as the responder. (That, and honestly, I was curious as to what your answers wold be : ) - It had nothing to do with a question of your own ability. (Incidentally, see this.)

And finally, I'm interested in your thoughts of how you read the candidate's answers. I see your note (and Pedro's response) on Peter's talk page, and, as you may recall, your strong beliefs about "anyone can edit" is one of the things which I respect about you. And while I rest somewhere between your and Pedro's position on this, I recognise that this is more a philosophical question, and for me, anyway, wasn't enough to oppose for.

To me, the questions aren't so much really about having the "perfect answer". It's as much about how they answer as it is what they say. I had/have concerns, but not enough to oppose, and decided to support rather than neutral, based on "the whole package", not merely the questions. (See also this.)

So in other words, the questions are an additional tool or resource in which to determine trust of the candidate with the tools. They aren't the only one (there's contributive history, for example), but they can be a valid and rather helpful one.

Does that make sense? - jc37 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does make sense, and is actually a good defense of your questions. I suppose I'm still hoping that, if the candidate is already facing an RfDeluge that perhaps editors who come later, whatever their questions, will simply hold off on the given candidate, and see if they can learn what they need from the existing batch of info without adding to the situation. I think the candidate's answers are factually correct recitations of policy for the most part. The inclusion of examples improves on this by showing he actually understands (within the limits of his examples) rather than merely recites, however. With my better understanding of his answer to the edit war question as actually answering only a specific example of it, I'm less unhappy with the answer, but I think it misses the subtle engineering that can be required in these cases and sounds more like a forum moderator than a Wikipedia administrator. The answer would sit better as that to a bid for a seat on say the mediation committee or something.

Anyway, I missed the bit where you in fact asked for what I'd say. I had been meaning to torpedo every additional RfA question with a cheatsheet, but Majorly beat me to it! So I've put my answers at User:Splash/Jc37's questions. Happy to discuss these over there, to avoid talk page explosion. Splash - tk 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...but I think it misses the subtle engineering that can be required in these cases and sounds more like a forum moderator than a Wikipedia administrator." - No slight to any specific administrator intended, but in my experience, you've just described not a few admins...

And thank you. I'll read them over and post some thoughts there. (And in re-reading, the above sentence just doesn't show the joyous enthusiasm of looking forward to reading over your thoughts : )

(Oh, and if it furthers your goals, feel free to make them (move them to) a sub-page of the questions, to ease a candidate's finding of the answers : ) - jc37 02:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, the process is for scrutiny. I didn't quite mean it like that, though; by "after three edits", I meant after a normal 3RR. An example is in the history of Royal Burial Ground, when two editors reverted each other about five times. Both editors were in violation of 3RR, yes, but it had gone beyond that; protecting the page forces both editors to discuss on the talk page rather than revert. If you like, uncontroversial warring, in which an editor is undoing removal of vandalism, would be a better target for a block. However, I would prefer proper discussion on the article's talk page (which couldn't happen if they were blocked) first. That's why I would fully protect for a short period of time. Content disputes are different to 3RR in as much that 3RR is broader. It takes consideration; there's no point in blocking both because there are exceptions to the 3RR, and the history and the diffs should be looked into while the page is protected. If I find both users to be in blatant violation, with no real reason for breaking 3RR, then I would block both for 24 hours (or longer, depending on the block log; escalating blocks should be used for each violation) and unprotect the page. Anyway, that would be my reason for protecting the page; I won't jump in to block, as it can cause more harm than good. PeterSymonds | talk 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is backed up at WP:PROT: "On pages which are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations. Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." PeterSymonds | talk 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had virtually no experience with the candidate, actually. Neither the nomination nor the answers to the questions inform me sufficiently about anything that I find important to know when deciding whether or not to support. Therefore, I asked questions about issues that are important to me, so that I may make a more informed decision. As for the questions being formulaic, there is no relevant policy governing the answers to any of my questions that he can look up and parrot. (With the arguable exception of #24) They are all purely about what Avi's opinion on and interpretation of current opinions, ArbCom rulings and precedent is. It is this judgment, ability to discern community sentiment and opinion that I am curious about. At any rate, the questions are optional — he may elect not to answer them. Given the current atmosphere toward questions at RfA/B right now, I doubt anybody would oppose because he didn't answer them, and I definitely wouldn't have. I would just have less knowledge upon which to base my support or oppose. (Oppose, in this instance) seresin ( ¡? ) 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recreate the page without any of the copyright violations. Thanks. Chengwes (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine from a copyright point-of-view. I've completed the informative history on the talk page. Splash - tk 14:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash, you were good enough to sort out my ComputerTown UK copy/paste cock up the other day so I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion of the article Homeschooling in France? I proposed it should be deleted because - Information is duplicated at Home_schooling#France. Only a single link was added prior to Orphan template being removed. It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/free.fr. The proposal template was immediately removed without any good reason being offered. Is it worth doing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion thing or should it just be redirected to Home_schooling#France or left as it stands? Thanks Lame Name (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I think the Homeschooling in France article should just be redirected back to the original article. Along the way, the section naming the two organisations can be turned into a simple prose sentence in the target article. There can be reasons to fork an article, but really not when it's just a straightforward copy-paste without any further expansion (this may also begin to run into GFDL attribution problems if done too extensively), and I note that only two other countries have analogous articles in Category:Homeschooling. I don't understand why Diligent Terrier removed the PROD tag without giving a substantive reason, but I can suppose that he thought deletion too strong an action when lesser steps might do the job. If Diligent Terrier or another editor undoes the redirect, then next is to go have a chat with them and see what they're thinking. (And no probs re ComputerTown UK). Splash - tk 13:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Idol#Australian_Idol_Not_By_Year_But_By_Series_.28Official.29

The edit history still needs fixing. Please let me finish what I am up to, and you can then have the correct edit histories to work with. Splash - tk 11:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can now move them to wherever agreement settles on. Splash - tk 12:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just thought you'd like to know that the text of Australian Idol 2003, Australian Idol 2004, Australian Idol 2005, Australian Idol 2006, Australian Idol 2007, and Australian Idol 2008 was copied-and-pasted (again!!!!) to Australian Idol (season 1), Australian Idol (season 2), Australian Idol (season 3), Australian Idol (season 4), Australian Idol (season 5), Australian Idol (season 6), and several of the articles have had additional changes (mostly by Smiley Miley Disney, who did the copying and pasting). There was also a copy-paste move of James Mathison to the (incorrectly spelled, according to the Australian Idol official website) article James Mathieson. Anyway, I'm going to post a request at WP:SPLICE, and I dropped a note on SMD's talk page about what was done. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (response) What you did certainly looks needed and practical to me. I was wondering about the coincidence between the two accounts as well. Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add a comment to WP:DELREV about Hero Certified Burgers – specifically, that I was able to find a negative source – but I really don't think that would change the outcome of the debate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by a "negative source", but it would have to be something pretty special to reverse the outcome debate, you are correct. Splash - tk 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The job of the closing administrator of any discussion is to filter and refine consensus, and to take actions that are required per that consensus and to make concise, transparent summaries of what was determined and what was done. It is not appropriate to inject one's own pontifications about other editors/admins which are not supported by the consensus of the discussion. Your comments to my talk page were appropriate and sufficient to make your point. However, your censuring comment directed to me that you inserted into your DRV closing summary is not appropriate, and I kindly request you to remove it as soon as practical. I trust we can resolve this at our level and not require any undue escalation. Regards, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point of closure notes is to make clear which comments were more or less important to the close. I felt that, because of the tone of your comment and the very limited effect it had on my closing the debate, it was appropriate to state such. This serves two audiences: first, of course, you and second other editors who then see that such comments as yours are not being allowed to disproportionately deflect debates off-course. In doing this, it discourages others from following a similar path in future. So I will leave a comment to that effect in my note, but I can rephrase it if you'd like; tho I'm not clear on what difference doing so would make. Splash - tk 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I took care of it myself. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question I asked is an indicator of many, many things. First of all, it can reveal potential abusers of the tools, editors whose goal was only adminship (think of gaming the system), editors who are selfish or apathetic to others, etc., etc. 10 questions is not that bad IMO—if a user can't handle this, can they handle actual adminship? If they have some reason for keeping their interests in Wikipedia private, than I'm fine with that. Questions like this are more revealing than simple policy questions. Malinaccier (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a completely uninvolved editor (I noticed it on recent changes) but these seem to be in a redirect loop. Thought you might like to know. I didn't check the others. --Faith (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'm positive I replied to this in real-time, but evidently didn't press save. Anyway, yes, thanks for the note, I got held up by my Internet connection at a really bad moment! All were working shortly after your note. Splash - tk 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I wasn't waiting around for an answer because I didn't have any investment. Best --Faith (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name on the list of admins who can provide a copy of a deleted page. Any chance you could provide me a copy of the one for the band Reach 454? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It consisted of two paragraphs: the first was a copyvio of the text at [4], the second was of the 'biography' at [5]. The article was identical to those two sources. I hope that helps; unfortunately as it was a copyvio I can't give you a physical copy of it. Splash - tk 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a heads up. I fully agree with you declining a speedy. However, it was a G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adilson Melo refers. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught. Splash - tk 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a speedy tag from this article with the justification "author of a bluelinked album is not a speedy candidate". But that album article was created at the same time by the same author. How does this add any notability? Ros0709 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with them jointly at AfD, as you have now done, seems like a good approach. In terms of speedy deletion, caution is needed. Since the album article showed no imminent sign of deletion, and there is no reason to assume all articles by the author are as a poor as each other, this led me to take a cautious approach to the article in question. Splash - tk 13:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Gangsta P articles were deleted based on the grounds that they fail WP:MUSIC, however no explanation was given why they fail and no proper discussion was held prior to the deletion. As far as I am concerned the artist in question passes WP:MUSIC on many accounts. He passes 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles. I'm not the type of person to raise a fuss, so if the articles can't be restored I was told you can provide copies of the deleted articles to me? Thanks for your time. Zup326 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion, brief though it was, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangsta P. I think probably the main issue is the lack of references to back your claim that he passes so many of the WP:MUSIC criteria, and the lack of any participation by you in the deletion debate. Also, it's not really clear to me from the text that he would pass those criteria even assuming references existed. The only likely one would seem to be the breadth of play, if it really was USA-wide, which would go to #11. If you can provide third-party, independent sources that back your claims, then probably the best place to do so is in a temporary article in your 'userspace' at User:Zup326/Gangsta P. Once that's up to scratch, you can either call back to my talk page or, for a broader response, go to WP:Deletion review where the folks will consider whether the article deals with the problems raised originally, tho the folks there will expect good-quality stuff. (Music articles get viewed with a lot of scepticism because of the vast bucketloads of high-school 'bands' that turn up on Wikipedia...). Meantime, I will email you the contents of the articles. Splash - tk 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BTGplc logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... regarding your message, I appreciate your concern - but it would have been more appropriate to enquire as to the situation rather than just assuming the worst. I'm certainly not interested in edit warring, nor do I personally care about where the redirect goes. However, there was an established consensus as to where the redirect should go, and the page has been plagued with multiple changes since then (usually from newer editors who aren't aware of the consensus.) Part of an administrator's role is to ensure consensus reached through discussion is maintained, and that involves using our discretion to do so. In this case, it is clear that leaving the page redirected to the TV series will not achieve that goal. Accordingly, the best choice is to protect the consensus version. If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss it with you - and I do apologize if my edit summary wasn't clear as to my intentions. However, I still feel that there is no need whatsoever to suggest a "misuse" of the admin bit when a thorough examination of the details clearly reveals it is not. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry, for being a bit late, but I just noticed, that you deleted the Entry on StEP (Solving the e-waste Problem), saying, that it is infringing on copyrights. I am not certain, which parts of this are concerned, so, should you have the time, I would like to go over this, and change the parts, that you think are illegal. I was really trying, to refer to the website, whenever I quoted it. Thank you Drenmark (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Drenmark[reply]

Addendum

I think I found the "corpus delicti", removed it, and put the site back up where it was. But if you don't mind, I'd like you to go over it and tell me, if there's still anything wrong.

Thank you Drenmark (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Drenmark[reply]

Unfortunately, it is still too close to the original content at http://www.step-initiative.org to be considered your own original work. For example, the Task Forces and "Guiding Principles" have (barely) grammatical changes only, and other parts can similarly be found on the website with minimal changes. The material on Wikipedia need to be owned by the person who writes the Wikipedia article, in such a way that they can freely license it under the GFDL. At present, the article is likely to get deleted on sight as substantially a copyright violation again, I'm afraid. I'll leave it for a couple of days, but others may not. Can I suggest that the thing to do is use the website only as a referencing source for the article, and to write the article as an original work that cites the website only for verification of the facts. Splash - tk 11:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please give me some time to make the necessary changes.

Drenmark

I don't appreciate that you unilaterally decided to remove questions you deemed "have copy-paste answers, or have already been answered" from Lady Aleena's RfA. While I won't comment on all the questions removed, I do object to my question of "Under what circumstances should an IP address be indefinitely blocked" being removed. I've asked the question before and seen the question being asked before at other RfAs without objection. I have not seen LA answer this question before, and this having a "copy paste" answer is certainly debatible. This question has previously been helpful in determining a candidate's understanding of policy. While I can definitely agree with removing stupid or irrelevant questions, this question was nothing of that sort. I request you reconsider and restore the question, and come to a consensus on the talk page before deciding to remove relevant questions again. VegaDark (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question can be answered with copy+paste from WP:BLOCK and WP:IP. If they get the answer right, it is only really fair to conclude that the candidate can read, which, while an important attribute in admin candidates, can be determined with a more-targetted question. There has been much discussion of excessive questions on WT:RFA over the past periods of time, and much dissatisfaction with them. Splash - tk 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the basic correct answer is of course that IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. The meat of the answer, however, is when that almost comes in to play. I could come up with an answer, but it certainly wouldn't be a difinitive "copy/paste" correct answer. There is a great range of potential answers for this aspect that would be interesting to hear from candidates on IMO. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]