Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jahiegel (talk | contribs) at 09:21, 18 December 2007 (→Daniel Brandt: no prob; thanks for restoring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CommonsHelperHelper

The script you developed for use with CommonsHelper isn't working at the moment. Could you take a look at it and see what's up? (: Octane 05.12.07 0752 (UTC)

Undeletion request - Image:Tvnationvol1.jpg

Hi, Krimpet. Could I ask you to undelete Image:Tvnationvol1.jpg so that I can add a fair-use rationale to it? Thanks! Powers 12:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done :) --krimpet✽ 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppet picture

That's not the rationale I'm talking about. Why is there a need for a cartoon on a policy page? It adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the policy. Wryspy (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal

Thank you for writing such an articulate appeal on behalf of low income Wikipedians. :) Durova 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Coming across the OTRS ticket, I was quite surprised to see that this ISP was hard blocked, and wanted to find the best way to allow them to contribute again. I'm glad to see the community greatly agrees here! --krimpet✽ 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Zlate piesky

Someone uploaded image of Zlate piesky to commons and wrote I am the author of the image. But I am not, I am the uploader only (the author gave me a permission. Unfortunately all sources (link to the author) were lost when you deleted the image from wikpiedia (12:13, 15 November 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Zlatepiesky.jpg" (CSD I8)). Can be that information retrieved so that the information about the author can be corrected? Minor issue but the credit belongs to the author of the image. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 09:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - I have updated the licensing information over on Commons to reflect this. --krimpet✽ 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Defender 911

This user, whom you blocked in August, is requesting an unblock, and saying that he's learned his lesson. I just thought you'd like to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Carolyn Doran

Good call, even though I do not think she will pass the notability litmus test, keeping the talk page going will help to diffuse the inevitable drama. Risker (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm not sure she's too notable either, though the BLP issue is a bit of a red herring as her criminal history over the long term is well sourced by the likes of the Washington Post (I checked LexisNexis, and was a bit disturbed by the results :/). I'm hoping we can take this slow and handle it with a minimum of drama; we've got quite a while before the deadline. --krimpet✽ 06:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been looking at some of the same sources; this one has a really different feel than many other "recent events". Risker (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. What was that stupid deleting admin thinking? He's such a jerk... :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User Penser

Please look into a violation of 3R by Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Erm, it's a common misconception, but 3RR actually applies to more than three reverts in a 24-hour period; in fact, you yourself appear to have broken 3RR there by making 4 reverts in a 24-hour period :/ I strongly suggest furthering discussion with this user on the appropriate talk pages instead. --krimpet✽ 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a deadline?

Seems like there is. Would have been nice if I'd known we were in a hurry, then I'd have endorsed closure rather quicker. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't any fixed deadline; hence there's no reason to wait five days to close a DRV when the community's consensus is already clear. --krimpet✽ 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd expect the flashmob who turn up the start to be engaged, wouldn't you? That's how DRV goes for anything controversial. I saw lots of people shouting WP:ILIKEIT, but DRV is not normally a rerun of XfD. Given the points raised at CfD, I found Jc37's close to be rather Solomonic, better than just pretending there's no problem I think, and within the normal range of CfD closes. No information lost, can have comments added, easier to keep an eye on: what's not to like? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the DRV, I don't see "WP:ILIKEIT" arguments being tossed around; I see an overwhelming response that the closure was against consensus. DRV is not AfD round two; it is a review of the deletion decision itself. --krimpet✽ 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When I read the CfD I didn't think that {{listify}}ing the category was against consensus: it was a compromise which met the arguments in favour of keeping the information while in part addressing the concerns of those who wanted it deleted. But this could go on indefinitely. I'm not pleased, and now you know I'm not pleased. That's my desired outcome achieved in full. Lucky me. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I also feel that a closure after just two hours was premature in this case. I don't think community consensus can be so clear as to justify a WP:SNOW closure when most of the arguments at the CFD (both 'keep' and 'delete') focused on the the principle of voluntary admin recall rather than the utility of the category. It was the latter issue that was under discussion, and most of the comments failed to address it. I'm not saying that a full-length DRV would not have resulted in a consensus to overturn, but the claim of "strong consensus" seems to be unsubstantiated. However, given the circumstances, I can't really fault you for how you acted (after all, the DRV was unanimous at the time) and I won't request another review; I just wanted to convey my thoughts on the matter. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The St. Louis signer is back

Hello, Krimpet. I was wanting to let you know that the soft-block you placed on the St. Louis signer IP vandal (12.74.128.0/19) expired on the 14th. Unfortunately, the block appears not to have gotten the point across, as the editor is back as 12.74.157.106 and is up to its old tricks again. Would you be willing to place another block, or would you prefer I make another ANI post instead? Thanks for your time. —Scott5114↗ 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. :) --krimpet✽ 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) —Scott5114↗ 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert AMbot?

I noticed that you reverted a bunch of recent edits by AMbot in order to restore the list in CAT:AOR (administrators open to recall). Could you please explain why you did this? I'm a little concerned because I noticed one of the administrators (Bearian) reverted back to the AMbot version. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I had closed the DRV on the category's deletion as "overturn," so I reversed AMbot's orphaning of the category, to restore things back to the way they were prior to the CfD. --krimpet✽ 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You SNOWed a CfD after two hours? I'm still debating whether or not I agreed with jc37's close, but I have no question that speedy overturning the DR was over the line. I've considered an RfC, but it appears the CfD's closing admin is reviewing the options, so I'll wait on it for a bit. Speedy closing such a controversial issue added far more to the problem than it fixed. Justin 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the DRV ending in any other way but "overturn." There was a unanimous response from a pretty diverse bunch, including participants who both supported and opposed deletion, that the decision to remove the category and replace it with a project page did not reflect consensus here. --krimpet✽ 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably would have ended in an overturn. But why add to the drama? The CfD had input from 50+ people, the DRV had input from 16, and 4-5 of those are arguing for the usefulness of the category, not the improper close. When you have a CfD with input from 50 editors, it's clear there's a great deal of controversy. We could have had a questionable CfD close with a proper DRV, but now we have a questionable CfD close with a questionable DRV. WP:SNOW should be used very carefully, and this is one of the worst situations to pull it out. Justin 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you even agree yourself that you think it would have ended in overturn, why are you arguing this? :/ Process for process's sake is unnecessary here on Misplaced Pages. This isn't a particularly "controversial" issue - the controversy was over the existence of voluntary recall itself, and even the overturned CfD close kept that system in place in some form. --krimpet✽ 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

I do think that a consensus exists for the preservation of the history here, but that issue will be resolved at AN/I or in a DRV of the DRV or some such fun process; I write now only to note that, having deleted the history, you neglected to restore the page as a redirect. Cheers, Joe 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally omitted restoring the redirect to return the article (or lack thereof) to the way it was before. Doc deleted the redirect a while back due to privacy concerns, which was overridden by JoshuaZ's repeated restoration of the history. --krimpet✽ 07:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it (or perhaps something of which I'm not aware has transpired in the interim), but DRV overturned—emphatically, in fact—Doc's deletion of the redirect. Even as we continue to discuss whether the redirect should have under it the history, no one, to my knowledge, disputes that the redirect to Public Information Research is indeed to exist. Joe 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot all about that DRV, you're right :/ I've restored the redirect per the consensus there. --krimpet✽ 08:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem (apologies, by the way, if "perhaps you missed it" sounded rude; only once or twice per day am I reasonably concise, and usually at the worst time; it happens here, I should fear, that my locution, which meant to be entirely sincere, might have conveyed another sentiment). Thanks, in any case, for having addressed the issue, although, were I not myself an occasional late-night editor, I would observe that at 4 a.m. you should be sleeping, not undeleting :). Cheers, Joe 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)