Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 18 June 2007

• To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here. If your email requires a timely response, please notify me here to ensure I see it.
• If you have a question or concern about a deletion (or other action) of mine, please ask nicely and do your best to figure it out yourself before asking.
• You can sign your comments with ~~~~, or not; page history will tell me who made what comment when.

Clarifications

For future reference, most clarifications are copied to the talk page of the case, as here, and especially when they bear on enforcement issues. Cheers. Thatcher131 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Will do in the future. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?

Per this thanks for not treating me in a balanced and fair manner. How can it be on rulew for one and another for Irish people? I think it out of order not to treat people equally.--Vintagekits 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Billboard

I hate you. No, I don't. Up until four days ago, Billboard redirected to Billboard (magazine), so I was under the impression that leaving it as Billboard would still redirect there. Now it means there are a ton of improper links that I've created and I or someone else will need to fix. Thanks for letting me know. ShadowHalo 22:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User categories

While some of Bryan carter may have seemed a joke. It is a legitimate article about a local entrepreneur. Someone who will very likely become famous one day soon. The wording may have seemed a joke but in reality it is a very true article that some who look up his name will want to see. There are references to things like "teabagging" on Misplaced Pages, something that would be found offensive by MANY people. This is not about my friend, myself, or my company so I don't see the problem. If Kanye West can have a page on Wiki, there is no reason why Bryan Carter cannot. Please explain further.

Tdbeall 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Per your recent deletion of around 40 political categories, I remain to be convinced why these categories are, as the speedy deletion reason was given, "divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose". There was no discussion of this, and the last CfD nearly a year ago closed "no consensus". Furthermore the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by political party per CSD C1 was invalid, as it had not been empty for four days. I request that you restore these and put them to a consensus vote on CfD. I've actually got no problem at all if that discussion deletes them (the community may well have moved on since this time last year), but I think things should be done by consensus on a matter as widespread as this. Orderinchaos 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4. Picaroon (Talk) 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 17:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Vote

Hi, I wanted to wait until the RfA was over to avoid inflaming things (and I always thought until the end that something would happen and I wouldn't make it), but I understand where you are coming from, and I will be VERY cautious on such things while I get used to having the mop, and I will take your comments very seriously as something to avoid. Thank you for hopefully making me a better admin. SirFozzie 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For proving my point on the talk page right, within 60 seconds. Neil ╦ 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice you had protected it. After the first of my two edits, I realized I had screwed up the formatting of the page by leaving out a |} from the column. So I immediately clicked edit again. And then I noticed some vicious uselessness masquerading as text, so I removed it too. Thanks for assuming bad faith and wasting my time by forcing me to reply to you. Don't bother apologizing. Picaroon (Talk) 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 1 hour, for edit warring on a protected page. I accept the first may have been an honest error, but not the second. Neil ╦ 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Picaroon (Talk) 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that, presumably to reduce drama, Picaroon has not appealed from the one-hour block. Had he posted an unblock request I would have supported granting it. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As would I. There was no edit warring, and it was a bad block. Majorly (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are no big deal, and one hour is only, what - the time I could've written some stub in? Not many people read our Nigeria articles anyways; I know this because typos of mine (like the one I got blocked for fixing, but in article space!), sometimes remain for weeks on end, until I stumble across the article and fix it myself. Tourism in Nigeria, which I had intended to get started on, won't be missed. Picaroon (Talk) 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked now. Call it "time off for good behaviour" (and for politely accepting the short block in the spirit it was intended). I am sorry that it was you who got blocked. Neil ╦ 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Regarding , looking at the list of "parties", I doubt the title Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is appropriate here. It's clear that practically all users involved are Persian, however, others maybe added to the case. Also, would be nice to leave a comment on the pages of those claimed to be involved in this new case just for information. Thanks. Atabek 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The case does not go beyond Atabek and I, Atabek added people who have nothing to do with our dispute, but since I guess other people are being involved then User:Grandmaster and User:Dacy69 should also be added. But again, this is an issue between Atabek and I, its not a content dispute like Atabek is trying to make it out to seem. But whatever, it'll make things more complicated but I guess what has to be done has to be done.Hajji Piruz 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also don't agree with new title of the case. It is not about Armenia-Azerbaijan. Even though there is some edit dispute on Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages, basically major problems are resolved. This case is more related to Azerbaijani-Persian dispute and should be renamed accordingly to refelect different nature of the dispute. The only linkage is that user:Hajji Piruz was involved in previous one on the side of Armenian editors and now he is attacking azerbaijan related pages with a group of Persian editors. It is pity we should distingiush editors by ethnic affiliation but that is important to understand the nature of the problem. --Dacy69 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of this case should be changed, because not a single Armenian editor is involved in this dispute. VartanM 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How would Iran-Azerbaijan sound, then? I confess to not really caring what the ethnicities of involved editors are, but I suppose it matters. Picaroon (Talk) 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I opened the case centered around user:Hajji Piruz.I can't understand why my case went as a subsection of user:Hajji Piruz harassment on Atabek. Anyway, the current title should be changed. Regarding your proposal to change it to "Iran-Azerbaijan" - it might be but both current Arbcom application involve user:Hajji Piruz and somehow it should be reflected in the title.--Dacy69 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the committee has previously declined to open two separate cases which largely concern the same user. because one of the jobs of clerks and clerk helpers is to maintain WP:RFAR and make sure the arbitrators don't have to wade through redundancy or confusion while arbitrating, I merged the cases. The statement from Ghirlandajo makes it clear that there is continuing conflict beyond Hajji Piruz, so I'm wary of that name. Anyways, I have asked arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) his opinion on the naming, among other things, so I trust him and the other arbs will sort out the minor issue of what they want the case to be named and what scope they feel is appropriate. Picaroon (Talk) 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a misstatement by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani above, as I haven't formally added any people to the case, you can check my edits of the ArbCom page. I only stated that the edit conflicts, which User:Hajji Piruz is trying to elevate to personal basis, involve larger group of contributors as the parallel ArbCom requests show.

It's difficult to give a certain name to the case. The fact that it's not Armenia-Azerbaijan this time is for sure, yet some new editors uninvolved in previous case still continued to revert conflict on various pages after ArbCom. At the same time, there are some Iranian editors who are on the opposite side of the conflict or take independent stance, so I don't think Azerbaijan-Iran is appropriate title either. I think a more general title, like Edit Conflicts on Armenia-Azerbaijan-Iran-related pages, or something along those lines would be more appropriate. Atabek 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Atabek 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)