Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 26 January 2010

I am taking an indefinite wikibreak. I do not know when, or if, I'll return. But it'll be no earlier than 1 Jan 2010 (using wikibreak enforcer*). * but Firefox+Noscript defeats it...(but Leechblock helps)

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page

• Archives of previous messages: to October 2005; October 2005 to Dec 2008; to May 2009; to August 2009; to 15 November 2009

Acknowledgement

I thought it was very gracious of you to apologize to Dab for the misunderstanding that led to the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI (see 4th sentence). It's unfortunate that somethings on wikipedia are so predictable. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps you could point out the agreed summary and ask him to strike the remark. Rd232 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The results of any such effort are even easier to predict! :-) (see the Evidence page for some background) Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New unreviewed article

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GW… 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages

Hi Rd232. Sorry to disturb you while you are on wikibreak, but I think this is a special interest area of yours:

We need a single place to announce discussions about MediaWiki messages, since the "MediaWiki talk:" pages are not watched much. If you are interested in this, see Misplaced Pages talk:MediaWiki#MediaWiki messages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer

Rd232, please could you remove the statement about wikibreak enforcement from your talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a clarifying footnote. Rd232 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But then if you do not intend to be on wikibreak ("enforced" or otherwise), why leave the notice up on your page at all? Or if you do intend to be on wikibreak, why are you still logged on and posting? This is the cognitive dissonance the wikibreak notice creates. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

With wikibreak notice, I've been trying to limit myself to open issues. Without, I might be tempted to involve myself in new things. I had a post on this page which clarified things, but I archived it when I thought I was done. Rd232 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that moving my comment here out of context was the greatest idea. But I'm glad to see that your wikibreak and dab's are only temporary. Happy editing. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any context. The wikibreak has nothing to do with the RFC. Like dab's, it's about RL. Rd232 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (please comment)

Hey Rd232, I know that you are on Wikibreak kinda sorta, but I know that you have been interested in the Honduras articles, and I would appreciate your comment here: Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move No consensus was reached this last week, and it was relisted. I hope that you can kind of understand the logic of what I was saying there, even if you don't agree with the move. Thanks a lot and I hope that RL is going well for you! Moogwrench (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/userfication

Hey there. I was wondering if there had been any follow up on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/userfication. I was thinking that if someone hasn't already, we should probably go ahead with the implementation. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a WP:AN request (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment.2Fuserfication) but possibly because it was slightly premature it was archived without any action. Perhaps you could make another request. Thanks, Rd232 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede

Hey Rd232, sorry to bother you again on your wikibreak, but since there has been a lot of revert activity regarding this issue, I thought you might like to opine. I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

The thread at AN/I was archived today. Any suggestions? Should I move it back to the main board? It's disappointing that you are the only person who commented. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth a try. If that doesn't produce any results, maybe an WP:RFC/U would help. Rd232 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just look at the politics section and make your own edits? The failure of others to get involved was part of the problem. Again see where we DID get consensus at the post-protection Draft - (the Talk page). Obviously I always get reverted and can't be bothered to try to edit the article any more, maybe you all will have better luck. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, a while back I made quite a lot of effort, with limited success. I don't have time to repeat that, and I'm not sure I'd spend my wikitime on that if I did. Rd232 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do remember. It was much worse then because of User:Malcolm Schosha who was much worse than Drsmoo and is now "retired" after repeated blocks for becoming increasingly obnoxious on other articles. I am quite willing (and really have little choice for now since my edits always reverted) to step back if others DO get involved. If it was just you and Malik vs. Drsmoo I think things would work out much easier. Note he seems to be making the news again and I was going to put up some new notable WP:RS info on the talk page only for now, just to give others something to work with. (I have him on google alerts.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fynire again

Fynire is continuing to be disruptive and flout Misplaced Pages policies, including adding copyright violations which he was previously blocked for. Despite being warned and reverted many times for adding unsourced material, he made this edit which even includes unsourced quotes attributed to a living person which is a big no-no. Then after having that edit reverted, he adds it back with a source and it turns out to be a copy and paste copyright violation. Can anything be done about this permanently disruptive editor please? O Fenian (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to get drawn into this again whilst I'm on a 99% wikibreak. Take it to ANI or some other WP:DR venue. cheers, Rd232 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki developer memo

I left a message at Misplaced Pages talk:MediaWiki/DeveloperMemo#Some comments that probably interests you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

deleting legit pages

I'm trying to figure out what the actual criteria for letting a page stay is. Does something need to hit the front page of USA today to be important enough for this site? Isn't the coolest thing about a encyclopedia that you can find stuff out that you wouldn't normally find on the front page of a newspaper??? No wonder people hate this site so much. I can list 100s of pages that are equally as "unimportant" as the ones that I've seen you delete and I'm wondering why certain ones get deleted and others don't. Even in a project like this censorship is alive and well. Fly46 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're vastly more likely to get a useful response from me if you tell me what you're talking about. But, OK, since you only have 1 deleted article in your contributions, it's clearly Ink Monkey Mag you're talking about. This was deleted per WP:PROD, i.e. a proposed deletion not contested for 7 days. You can ask user:Hysteria18 why they thought it didn't meet GNGs. You can also ask any admin to restore the page - they should do so on request for deletions made through this process. If you want me to, I can do it, but I'm on a sortof-wikibreak so you may not get an immediate response. Rd232 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're on all kinds of wikibreak. Congratulations on your uneventful return back. ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced BLP bot

Hey there

I wanted your input on a bot that you requested (and i scripted)

see discussion here Tim1357 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, but there were a number of rulesets discussed, notably not bothering to notify people who've not logged in for a while, and notifying everyone active who's made non-minor edits. As I understand it the bot currently is set to notify only one person per article, which doesn't make sense to me, especially without a recent-activity check. Rd232 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rd232. I think we are moving in the direction of starting with article creators and postponing messaging major contributors. Would you like to join in the discussion on the Bot requests page? - Pointillist (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in so promptly - Pointillist (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick follow up (thanks for RFC etc info in close)

Note from the Polanski WP:TLDR team extraordinaire. (I'm sure you're desperate to know this, but ... :-)

• I was going to take the dual edit war (over 3RR) to AN3 when I saw this had been started, said to self, why this here?
• Please excuse the foolishness of the uninformed ... it is not yet notched in my brain where different problems go. OR if one can stop them when they go to the wrong place ...
• I pondered briefly reverting this one, since I knew it was wrong set of facts for here. I emailed initiator to shift to AN3 —he replied "didn't want to forum shop."
• Oh, well, I stayed away until I was mentioned, and you know how things go. lol

Bottom line: Please excuse so much real estate of ANI consumed by this. A learning experience. (sigh, so sleepy) Thank you for putting "learning experience" out of its misery... and clearly highlighting in your resolve what should be obvious, but instead something to be learned. Now to figure out how to do that. Happy holidays. (no reply necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays, and a quick question:

What's the proper course of action in dealing with a user who spams vandalism on a page, in this case , and then leaves it alone? The edit has been reverted, but I was wondering if further sanctions are necessary, or if there's a template I should be putting on their talk page. Thanks, and have a great Holiday Season. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a single edit that's very recent (minutes), you should template, choosing from the big list at WP:UTM, to reduce the likelihood of them doing it again. (Don't automatically use the Vandalism series - Edit Test is nicer, especially if it's a first mucking about.) If the edit's a bit older, it doesn't matter too much. Happy holidays. Rd232 11:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and split the page.

Misplaced Pages talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article is now a separate page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

What the heck do you mean by this? Surely you know that is an out-of-process closure, without any consensus for any WP:SNOW. "Fork" is utterly not the issue, but all the same I will soon recreate without any of the former content. This kind of thing is rather ridiculous, and brings some disrepute on the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll let DR take its course before proposing new content. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW wasn't mentioned, for obvious reasons. If you want to spin off an article, follow WP:SUMMARY, and avoid WP:Content forking as you did. (That the fork had a title previously rejected put the icing on the fork.) Next time, discuss what you're going to do first on the relevant talk page, and if necessary draft in your own userspace. That's partly why I userfied the fork - you may be able to reuse some of it for an article which is an appropriate spin-off, rather than an inappropriate fork. Rd232 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I think your closure of Climategate scandal was premature and inappropriate -- as such I listed it under deletion review. jhe_iv (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call, I think. The aftermath isn't pretty, but I think things could have become very ugly indeed if this fork had not been quickly squashed. --TS 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was messy and only going to get worse. The concerns voiced by some shouldn't be ignored, but wouldn't justify a fork; and discussing them endlessly in an AFD of a fork is in no-one's interests. Rd232 14:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), and possibly others, disagree. It appears more people agree with you than disagree with you. I predict the DRV will end with your actions upheld, but it will be far from unanimous. As I said on the DRV, there are 3 reasons to close a good faith AFD early: SNOW, SPEEDY, and IAR. IAR must always be taken with great deliberation and is usually best avoided if it will cause controversy and drama, even if it is being used to avoid controversy and drama. I assume you deliberated hard before acting. I hope that in a similar situation in the future, you will again deliberate hard and will consider the drama this use of IAR caused vs. what it potentially avoided. After all, we hired you for your overall good judgment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. The creation of the fork was inexcusable, the POV aspects were irrefutable and the disruption it would have produced was worth avoiding. It would certainly have been targeted by external parties - there were already indications that a wave of sockpuppetry, ranting IPs and meatpuppetry was coming. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you might be amenable to the solution I proposed here (particularly the last half of the comment), even though I know you don't see a relisting as advisable. I'm okay with IAR actions, and I do agree about the problems inherent with the article in question (at least based on what I've read in the DRV and AfD), but when IAR actions lack consensus I think it's best to undo them. It seems clear to me that too many have a problem with the early close (not so much the close itself). Continuing to run the DRV just draws out the issue, whereas if we restart the AfD while keeping the article in userspace for now we'll end up with a less controversial close (though quite likely one similar to yours) and keep the content out of article space in the meantime, which was I think for you the main point of closing early in the first place. The next few days might also result in a re-written split-off article that does not have the serious problems of the original, in which case the DRV would certainly be a waste of time. Anyhow this is obviously just a suggestion and you're free to ignore it, but I'm generally interested in ways to short circuit drama and this seems like one possible solution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume both of you (BTP and RD2) are watching my talk page, but just in case, I've proposed something similar there except that we leave the AfD closed as "delete / userfy" and wait to have a renewed AfD until such point if any that I am ready to move an improved article back to main space and someone sees fit to again consider deletion. Let me know what you think. Regards, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, and note here that done, right, as you suggest on your talk page, the risk of a new AFD should be low. Rd232 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are being über-optimistic. The fact that the very word "Climategate" is now once again near-absent in the English Misplaced Pages is quite telling. Dimawik (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter for current discussion at the CRU incident page: WP:Consensus / WP:DR. And if "Climategate" isn't accepted in the title by the time Wikidemon finishes his draft, he would be wise to avoid using it initially in his new page (I think he said that), and then having a rename discussion if anyone wants. That would reduce the risk of another AFD, and reduce its complexity if it does happen. (Which it shouldn't, with sufficient input into the draft.) Rd232 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean the title of the article; the word itself seems to be disappearing from the English Misplaced Pages. Note how it is slowly moving down in the lead of the email controversy article. Dimawik (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a content issue, and I'm not interested in editing the topic. Discuss at the talk page, use WP:DR if necessary. Rd232 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a comment, not a complaint. Sorry for bugging you, and happy New Year! Dimawik (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rd232! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Paweł Piskorski - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Salt

It is very hard to salt user space because the page titles don't matter. --BozMo talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...it was a joke, to go with the "snow close". Because of the page's topic. Rd232 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. You must be German then? ;) --BozMo talk 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

? Why do you say that? I don't get it. Rd232 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When I worked for a multinational (for 15 years) I had people of sixty nationalities working for me. An interesting feature of both of the Germans and Dutch was that each said the other had no sense of humour. Of course both did but neither appreciated/understood the other. Personally I found Dutch humour easier to understand but the slightly whimsical humour of Germans I never particularly got. These days I work for a German/Austrian charity. The humour thing is still an issue: they are baffled or insulted by British humour but their own I don't get. Anyway why I said it was also a joke. --BozMo talk 07:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ok. German/British humour clash is a well-known issue (the British much more language-based); German/Dutch less so. I'm just a bit surprised - nobody's ever suggested to me I might have some German humour! :) Rd232 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, may be just me. --BozMo talk 10:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicht unbedingt. Rd232 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan articles

I have been "sort of" following some of the discussion between you and Voui on Elias Cardenas and Human Rights in Venezuela. While I have no dispute with the individual remarks that you have made, I do sympathize with an editor who is trying to publish something resembling the truth and has nothing to show for it, other than Venezuela is a showplace for Human Rights. This reflects nothing in any publication outside of Venezuelan government controlled media. So right now, we have, on a count of one to ten, with one being the least truthful 1- Venezuelan government media & Cuban government media; 3 - Misplaced Pages; and 8 or 9 - Everybody else in the world. Not sure if the truth will ever be allowed here. On the few political articles where civility prevailed, I have helped editors with contrary opinions in framing their arguments, knowing that I would similarly be helped in framing mine. This is clearly not the case here.

How and when will truth prevail? Misplaced Pages looks silly here. Any serious researcher cannot use Misplaced Pages in understanding Venezuela at all. If it is their first article, it is likely to be their last. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, you haven't addressed either a question or a request to me, so I'm unsure how to respond. (And you meant Eligio Cedeno, not Elias Cardenas, whoever that is.) In general, many of the Venezuela articles are poor or don't exist at all (like much non-US / European), and a large effort to improve that using good sources would reduce the problems associated with political disagreements. You want to do that? Be my guest. You haven't responded to my suggestion yesterday, at Talk:Human_rights_in_Venezuela#Murders_in_Caracas, about Crime in Venezuela. In general, many of the problems I've seen, for some reason particularly on Venezuelan topics but it's a general Misplaced Pages problem, stem from many editors' inability to properly distinguish an encyclopedia from a newspaper; so everything becomes about specific Things That Happened Recently Which Must Be Mentioned, instead of proper encyclopedic overviews using secondary sources. Rd232 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Interpretation

I think you have misunderstood what i said on my talk page. It was not directed at you and was not directed at the article. I just realised i was not cut out for new page patroling, something i had never done before so it was a learning curve. In regards to the archiving i by no means attempted to hide the fact that i had some speedy deletes declined infact its listed in the edit summary that i removed them, just moved them into archive for asthetic purposes. In hind sight they could very well have been left there. In regards to that article i only tagged it as it didnt have any references (other than the obituary) i completely forgot to check the "what links here" (it didnt even cross my mind) however if in future i brave the waters of new pages again i sure will check. Cheers ZooPro 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, fair enough, I didn't mean that you were "hiding" anything as such; it's just constant archiving is not so helpful for communication. And NPP is a learning curve like anything else; just take it slow and look for feedback. And always check "what links here"; I try to check the creator's contributions as well, if it's a problem page - it can turn up other issues. Rd232 14:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

your unconstructive removal of factual sourced content

you can keep trying to remove worthwhile, valid, factual, and sourced content from the guardian page all you like but i will not let you. sorry if that bothers you. if it is "not a particularly important or interesting thing to discuss at length" as you have written, why dont you just leave the page alone and stop interfering with the content? Perry mason (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For your tone: WP:MASTODON. For the substantive issues: Talk:Guardian. For the edit warring: note that edit warring doesn't require breach of WP:3RR. Rd232 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

for you: WP:AGF. Perry mason (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting repeatedly against a talkpage consensus without even engaging with the discussion there is textbook edit-warring. Rd232 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

stop trying to blame me, ive added comments on the talk page, my page, and this page. all you are doing is constantly interfering with the page and making various attacks on me (you STILL need to AGF). if you dont think it us "not a particularly important or interesting thing to discuss at length", leave the page alone. Perry mason (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I gave you the wrong talk page link, and you didn't spot it. Obviously it would be Talk:The Guardian. Please see the existing discussion there. Rd232 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh bravo!

LOL! Best rewrite to an essay nutshell summary evar! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

:) thanks. Rd232 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Daybreakers

Sorry for being to rough here, the page has been through so much in the last couple of days, it's my instinct to revert additions of external links Could you consider working the review into the "Critical reception" section? Thanks ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 14:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't do everything and I choose not to do that! I left a note on the talk page in case someone else wants to do it. Rd232 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Miklasz

As per this diff , Sdiver68 is claiming you told him his most recent addition of a controversy section to this BLP was okayed by you . I've been trying to explain to this user for several days what a "controversy" actually is, and what establishes notability. He's trying to add a controversy section based on several opinions the sports writer has given over the years. He's using sources that show what the opinions were, but not that they were controversial or notable in the long term. I've got a discussion going on the talk page, if you get a chance to weigh in there, I'd greatly appreciate an opinion. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything on the content, but I've left a note. Rd232 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I beleive your deletion of the page Obsession (band) was inappropriate. The page had been deleted only about a week ago, I put it under Deletion review and the Editing protection was removed, and the page reposted. See deletion review page - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Obsession_.28band.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) All concerns in the previous discussions of the page had been changed to meet all concerns. Advertising concerns were addressed and removed, all copyright concerns were changed (even though everything referenced was from my OWN articles from theobsession.net) This page should be reinstated. There is no reason the page should not be up. This is a pretty major band with songs on national movie soundtrack and spawned a world renowned vocalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbruno2 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's for the Deletion Review (DRV) to decide whether it should exist - until then, it should not be created. To assist the DRV I've userfied the page to User:Jbruno2/Obsession (band). Rd232 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

Rd232, please be aware that I believe Homolka (on the NG talk page) is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See WP:AN/I#Banned user returns?. You may wish to post a link to this on the NG talk page to let other editors know. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aafia

No worries, I guessed it wasn't intentional :) Fragma08 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc.

At 09:34, 19 January 2010 you created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc., but you did not add an AfD message to the article itself. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks; not sure what happened there - I used WP:Twinkle. Rd232 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I found some references for the parent company at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/search/?q=%22Herrmann+Ultraschalltechnik%22 - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of tools

Editing through protection because you don't like the version that was protected is not acceptable in any way. You need to revert yourself at this point, since what you did is wholly unacceptable. UnitAnode 02:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I stated my case on the talk page (and in the edit summary). I have no view on whether one version is better than the other - merely that one is the long-term stable one. You may note my position on unreferenced BLPs from my proposal at WT:PROD (Proposed Incubation). Rd232 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've got to laugh that you request this after endorsing mass deletion without community endorsement. Rd232 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't give a damn what you have "got to laugh" about, but rather that you chose to use your status as an admin to edit a protected article simply because it was protected in the wrong version. Doesn't speak well for you. UnitAnode 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Doesn't speak well for you that you misrepresent the situation so dramatically. For a start, a key policy page is not an article. For another, I'm dramatically opposed to the out-of-process deletions, and dramatically supportive of deleting unreferenced BLPs via a process that gives a reasonable stab at sourcing them. I'm unsure which version of the page supports that position, perhaps you can figure it out. Rd232 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. It was Lar who protected the policy and he's very much involved in this mess. It was a deliberate misuse of tools on Lar's part. --NeilN 03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Jimbo's fault. (Hey, we're running out of people to blame here!) –Juliancolton |  04:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode, Rd232 has a good point, you can't selectively choose which rules you and other editors can follow. Why did you leave your last account? Was your abrasive attitude similar then as it is now, would this have something to do with it? I notice that the editors who are vandalized the most tend to be the most abrasive and hard to get along with. Ikip 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you mind your own damn business, and focus on the BLP problem, and how to fix it. And if you're really REALLY curious, you could, you know, click on that link in my sig that takes you to my userpage. It will give you my "history." And to be quite frank with you, I'm not here to make friends with people. I like to (gasp!) edit the damn project. If you're fairly reasonable, and don't espouse things like keeping unreferenced BLPs, we'll get along. If you're not, we won't. Either way, this isn't real life (where you'd find me a veritable pussycat), it's an encyclopedia building project (or at least it's supposed to be). Do the hard work of building it (which includes removing the rubbish) or try to build cliques and win friends. Either way, leaving me the hell alone might be a good option for you. UnitAnode 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar 3 - to be awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion or assist in identifying and rescuing articles. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This barnstar is awarded to Rd232 for restoring and sourcing Alfredo Fuentes Hernández after it was disruptively deleted. Ikip 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Biographies brainstorming

Can you move your proposal from the village pump to the Requests for comment? It would help centralize discussion enormously. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation

Could you have another look at the article? Current status: , explanatory talk page post: --JN466 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Regarding this post, please peruse Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

please peruse wikt:threat. Funnily enough, the failure to recognise the importance of intent was the reason I made the remark in the first place. Rd232 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this at WP:ANI; Rd232, you may wish to comment there. I don't see this as a WP:NLT issue, but as a WP:NPLT issue. I believe Rd232 has clarified that no threat was intended, and hopefully now that someone else (me) has come along to say that I can understand why one could be perceived, this needn't escalate any further. Using the word "libel", however intended, can be a pretty big red flag for a lot of people around here, and is best avoided completely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)