Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SQL (talk | contribs) at 07:23, 21 March 2014 (→Unblock request: OK, so do it?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Box of Shame

Howdy. I'm not quite sure what the procedure is for this but would it be possible for you, someone else, or some process to remove the box on my user page that says I am a sock puppet? I didn't want to remove it myself in the event that that was a gross violation of a rule. Thanks! Jcs7708 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Help

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have read your message there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

As you will recall, you and I had a rather lengthy discussion about my alleged violation of BLP when I had asked a question on a Misplaced Pages Reference Desk (about Oscar Pistorius). You had responded to an "administrator help" request that I had posted on my Talk Page. I came back here to close out that discussion with you. So, I just wanted to say "thanks" for your help in the matter. I do appreciate it. Thanks again. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, you were the one responsible for issuing a "block" against the offending editor in this matter. Thanks for employing that method to resolve this problem. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

hoax?

See this old message as well as your latest on the same page concerning more than 50 sandbox subpages. That editor is still using multiple accounts, the latest being an apparent airport hoax. —Telpardec (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The airport page was clearly a hoax, and I have deleted it. I have also posted a final warning to the editor, and if there isn't a satisfactory reply soon I shall block the accounts and nominate the sandbox pages for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Gracie Barra Montreal

Hi James,

Thank you for your message about the Gracie Barra Montreal page. I appreciate your contributions. Indeed there was a previous version of this page that has been deleted for legitimate some reason. To help this school, I took the time to rebuild this new page painstakingly by complying to all the Misplaced Pages policies amd rules. I believe that you deleted this page by mistake because it has been approved and assigned a class already by a couple of other Misplaced Pages official editor. Therefore, I will appreciate if you could take a second look at the page and consult with other editors who already evaluated it. When everything is OK, I will be grateful if you could please reinstate the page.

Thank you for your understanding.

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamadoutadioukone (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1. An article should not be written "to help the school", which amounts to saying that it was created for promotional purposes. Misplaced Pages is not a medium for promotion.
2. If you are working for the school, then you have a conflict of interest in writing about it, and Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about it.
3. The fact that someone has given an article a class just means that they have looked at it and assessed what it seems like, not that it has been given some sort of official approval and is exempt from the policies on deletion.
4. There is always room for debate about how similar a new article has to be to an old one to qualify for deletion as a repost of a deleted article, and if that were the only consideration there might be a case for restoring it and taking it to a new Articles for deletion discussion. That would virtually certainly be a waste of time for you, me, and all others involved, as I have checked your references, and I have very little doubt that it would be deleted again, as there is no evidence of satisfying Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. However, that is all predicated on "if that were the only consideration", but it isn't, as the article was clearly purely promotional, which in itself is sufficient reason for speedy deletion, quite apart from the previous deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From Mamadoutadioukone

Hi James, Thank you for taking the time to respond and give such a detailed explanation. I appreciate your dialogue.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the expression "to help this school" I used. I have no interest or affiliation whatsoever with this Martial art school. The reason for using this term is that I have seen the first version of the page that has been deleted. It appeared to me that it was obviously written by ignorance, in an advertisement tone by the head instructor of the school himsself. In addition, it appeared to me that the person who had proposed that first version for deletion was a Misplaced Pages official editor who happened to be a Martial artist too. Here is the profile of this editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:PRehse. In addition, it this same editor who reviewed the new version of the page and approved it together with another editor. Coincidentally, I am also a Martial artist (Judo) and a scholar (computer scientist) who lived in Japan for a long time. These are the coincidences that rang a bell and drove me to land a helping hand to this Martial art school. As you mentioned, the new article has been indeed build from scratch with no similarity with the old one. I am not debating about this aspect. I took great care about reading in the archives the reasons why the first version was deleted. Therefore, I followed step by step these warnings to make sure the same mistakes were not repeated again. I am sure you will understand my surprise when I see a number of Misplaced Pages articles of the same type, nature and same context that are out there on Misplaced Pages. A couple of examples are these: "Brazilian Top Team" , "10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu" and many others. We non-experts, usually follow good examples that are standing and have been accepted for a long time. Concerning the references, I have indeed read the criticisms about the first deleted version and I am pretty sure I have addressed those issues of reliability and independence of references about the school to establish notability. I was indeed obsessed by this last word all along.

My intention in this note is of course not to waste your time but to let you know that I was indeed aware of all the issues you raised before I painstakingly crafted the new version over several days. I have come a long way indeed and it hurts me to see all my time and effort gone in smoke. Therefore, I am confident that you have a better picture of this new page and will surely reconsider your decision.

Thank you for taking the time to read my long message. Have a good day.

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:46, 14 March 2014‎ (talk • contribs) Mamadoutadioukone (UTC)

I see that rather than wait for me to answer here, you posted at requests for undeletion, so I have answered there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you comment on this?

I have nothing against you, I just would like to see discussion before anything "indefinite" because on wikipdia "indefinite" seems to mean "infinite". CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user with an inappropriate username

Hi! I was just looking through the history of the parkour article and noticed a sockpuppet vandal (who has been blocked) with an inappropriate username. I gotta admit it's actually pretty hilarious, but just to play by all the rules here, it's a blatant violation of our policy and other people would probably be grossly offended by it (lol). So is it possible that u could erase it from public view? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I wouldn't have bothered myself, but I agree that some people would find it offensive, and it was just trolling anyway, so removing it is probably for the best. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding TO THE NEW

Hi James. Will be great if you can let me know which part you felt was advertising in TO THE NEW so that it can be altered and we can revive the page. The goal was and is to keep the page informative and that's why there's more than 20 external news links from which content had been sourced. It's competitors have similar pages - Dentsu and GroupM

Looking forward to your guidance on my talk page . Cheers! Irfan E Khan (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a question of "which part" was promotional. It was the whole character and tone of the article from start to finish: it read as though it had been written by someone who works in marketing or PR. The article was full of such promotional language as "cutting edge", "leading", "pioneer", and so on, and it said thing like "delivers a comprehensive range of digital services across marketing, content, technology and analytics" and "collectively manages the mandates for 100+ clients globally", which are not the way that ordinary people talk about businesses, but rather the way that people who write marketing copy express themselves. The phrasing of your message also suggests that you are working for the company for marketing purposes: the use of the words "we" and "competitors" do not suggest an uninvolved outsider. As I have already explained to you, Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy strongly discourages us from creating articles on topics in which we have a close personal involvement, such as businesses we work for or to which we are contracted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

G4?

JamesBWatson, you may want to reply over at WP:REFUND#Gracie Barra Montreal. I have to admit it doesn't look like it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4 to me, since the version you deleted was a complete rewrite that didn't resemble the one deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gracie Barra Montreal. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Maynardox

I stopped paying attention in 2012. He received several warnings about spamming. I checked his contributions again and all through 2013 he was doing the same thing as before, spamming links to his interviews in external links in articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Where should I report this? WP:ANI or WP:AIAV ? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

He also has a second account, User:Maynard Media --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to my attention, Harizotoh9. I too had stopped paying attention in 2012, and completely forgotten about this editor. I have blocked the first account, and posted a note on the second account's talk page calling attention to the block. Please let me know if you see any more from this editor, from any account or IP address. If I hadn't dealt with it I would certainly have said WP:AIAV rather than WP:ANI, as the former is far more likely to result in quick action, rather than an endless argument that leads nowhere. For some reason, "Administrator intervention against vandalism" is taken as covering promotional editing, as well as vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree!

Was my first day on Wiki and had the energy to swing hard. No apologies but I acknowledge.

Did I edit user page thats not helpful? cite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala Forces (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated changing of dates and deletion of sourced material by an IP User Misplaced Pages previously blocked

Hi. I discovered yet again than a non-registered user (172.250.31.151 (talk)) has been changing dates on the Millennials page. I noticed he/she is repeatedly doing this, as well as reverting another user's edits, which is not constructive. I am not sure what to do other than contact an administrator (I am not sure you are one exactly) or someone who has dealt with this person in the past. I can come back to your page for a response. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator, as you can see here.

Most of the editor's recent edits look fine to me, but I have seen a few dubious edits, and in view of the editor's history, I have posted a fairly long message to the IP talk page about the problems. If you know of specific edits that show that the recent editing continues edit warring from the past, then please let me know what edits they are, as that would lead me to reconsider the matter in a different light. Also, if similar editing continues now, after my message to the editor, please let me know, and i will consider whether a block is justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My reply to JamesBWatson: My edits are usually supported with a good reference. But as you requested I'll be sure to give an explanation of any newer edits -- unless they're trivial. Thank you for your input.

Also in connection with these edits ( & ). Two (2) was removed because if you do a word search for the quote it doesn't appear in the Forbes article. So it's a misquote. For number three (3) we actually could use a better source for a number such as this. At this point, the author just claims Millennials are "about 80 million people".

My reply to CreativeSoul7981 is: your edits appear to be more constructive recently. However, based on your prior edits to the generational articles over a long period of time -- weren't you arguing over the statement in the introductory paragraph on the Millennials page to "no later than 1981 or 1982" and getting into many disputes about those particular years? See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CreativeSoul7981 I need to look for the examples of those disputes in the archives. Please stop POV pushing (if you in fact are). Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have problems with the editors in past disputes if you check the history. In fact, I have previously included the other date ranges in edits to the generation pages. I also backed up one of these editors (Peregrine981) by reversing an anonymous user's edits when he reversed Peregrine's for no reason. My concert was in regards to this very same anonymous user deleting my sources and and also changing the dates in the edits I added (with the sources). So basically, the source included the date ranges I used in the article, and this person just changed the dates. Isn't this vandalism. He's done this at least 2 other times. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your talk page reveals alot about your disputes. Many seem trivial and are a waste of time. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reddysbhargava

Could Reddysbhargava and Talk:Reddysbhargava be deleted (again), and could you maybe consider blocking User:Reddysbhargava? DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been done. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could this IP be blocked for overly persistent vandalism, or at least be looked at? DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Plants and their geographic categorisation

I notes with interest your removal of some geographic category from Betula pendula. I raised this issue here in January at Wiki Project plants, but elicited no interest whatsoever. In the meantime we have editors such as User:Impuls666666 adding what appears to be every tree known to the Flora of Ukraine. I don't believe that this is helpful but would welcome your suggestions about how it might be mitigated. Thanks  Velella    15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Another

I think a temporary full-protection needs to be added to Compas music. There is serious, excessive edit warring going on, and it's been happening for months now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You may possibly be understating the case: the two editors in question have been contending against one another since at least as far back as 2011. The whole history is extremely complicated, and even though I have spent some time looking at edits to the article, it is not clear to me whether the current situation is an edit war or not. Certainly there are quite a few reverts, but are there many examples of the same changes several times over? If you can give a few unambiguous examples, I will be willing to take action, but I have found searching through dozens of edits looking for repetitions of the same change is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and I have given up. If any action is needed, I am doubtful that full protection of the article is the best option, since that would freeze the version preferred by one of the edit-warriors in place, excluding anyone else from making positive contributions. Since both editors have been blocked for edit warring in the past, neither of them needs any warning about it, and if the current situation really is an edit war then blocking them may be better than protecting the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking further, I have found that the IP editor has been blocked at least six times for disruptive editing of various kinds, so I will be willing to block for a long time if there is good reason to do so. Unfortunately, IP editors can often get away with things for a long time without getting a substantial block, because nobody checks the combined history of all the IP addresses involved, so nobody realises the extent of the problem. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just forget that then. I wasn't aware that you knew. Not too fussed, can't bothered either to be honest, I just came across it and it looked obsessive. All good. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: No, I didn't know about it: what I wrote above is based purely on what I saw when I looked into the history of the editors after you drew my attention to this. Thanks very much for pointing it out. It seems to me that the IP editor is very probably heading for a fairly long block, and I shall keep an eye on it for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I misunderstood. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Average Homeboy

Hey, I was just going to sort of ask a question: I declined the speedy on Average Homeboy previously because the article did have different sourcing from previous versions. The way the article was written was also fairly different, as the version I cleaned up ended up being about the video as opposed to the entertainer himself. The version deleted in 2012 at Denny Blaze had two sources, whereas the one at AH had eight. Even before I cleaned up the article, it still had more sources than the prior AfD did. I still don't know if it'd pass notability guidelines, but the addition of the new content and rephrasing of the article made it something that I'd be more comfortable running through a new AfD. It's kind of the type of thing where it might be a bit of a waste of time but it's different enough to where it would be better run through AfD so we could later hold up any previous rulings because we could say that we took the new information into account. I'm not particularly hard lobbying for this, but I had one of the page's editors leave a message on my talk page where they were confused as to why the newer version was deleted. I've pointed them towards deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: OK, since you think the deletion is questionable, I have restored the article. There is always a wide variation in interpretation of the G4 speedy deletion criterion is to be interpreted. However, the purpose of that criterion is to avoid the time wasted by putting essentially the same article through AfD more than once, with essentially the reasons for deletion applying. That being so, it seems to me that the only reasonable way to interpret the criterion is that if the changes do not make enough difference to in any way alter the validity of the arguments raised at the previous AfD, then it is sufficiently the same article. New sources? Yes, but are those sources any better than the previous ones? Do those sources successfully address the issues raised at the previous AfDs? "Rephrasing"? Yes, but if every time an article is re-created with some rephrasing we treat it as a new article, then G4 becomes meaningless. This article, under two different titles, has been taken to AfD three times, and all three discussions reached the same conclusion. It seems to me reasonable to think that when three separate discussions, with different people participating, have all reached the same conclusion, we need pretty significant change to justify overturning those decisions, and I really really cannot see the changes that have taken place as sufficient. However, I have restored the article, since you evidently feel differently about it, and experience leads me to respect your opinion, and also since letting it go to deletion review would at best be as much of a waste of editors' time as an AfD, and at worst would be an even bigger waste of time, as the article would be discussed, restored, sent to AfD for a fourth time, and discussed again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• My reason for bringing that up is that recently the article Remember the 13th was created, which was a re-creation of Remember The 13th Hoax, which was deleted only a few months prior with largely the same sources and content. I'd nominated it for a speedy deletion per it being almost identical, only to have it declined because there were 1-2 sources that were different- despite nothing new truly being added. It was my understanding through that, that any new additions to the article would merit another run. It's not that I have a huge desire to have this page on here, just that this is what I'd been led to believe was the norm for this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: OK, I fully understand what you say. However, my experience is that there isn't a "norm", and that interpretation of G4 varies very widely, with some editors taking virtually any change to an article, no matter how trivial, as invalidating a G4 deletion. Indeed, that wide variation is another reason why I was willing to restore the article once you had questioned it. I have found out from experience that deletion reviews of G4 deletions are highly unpredictable, probably even more so than for A7 deletions, and I regard it as unhelpful to commit myself to deletion when it is far from certain where consensus will lie if it is discussed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

After I posted my reply to your first message above, I saw that on your talk page you encouraged another editor to take this to deletion review. I think you should have either suggested contacting me as a first step, or else told the editor that you would contact me. Otherwise there was a risk that the editor might waste time and effort time taking the matter to deletion review, only to have their report summarily dismissed, either because of a failure to consult me first, or because the article had already been restored as a result of your consulting me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Debian --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crash (song

Crash (song was never deleted as the result of a discussion, so it isn't eligible for G4. The content is also different, so again, it isn't eligible for G4. WilyD 11:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD::

1. It was deleted as a result of a discussion: the discussion resulted in speedy deletion.
2. The content was different? You mean that it redirected to a different article? Utterly irrelevant, since what article it deleted to was irrelevant to the reason for deletion.
3. Irrespective of whether or not it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, it qualifies for deletion as an implausible redirect.
4. Irrespective of anything at all, it is obviously not a useful redirect, and I cannot imagine any good-faith reason for wanting to keep it. I can only assume that you are trying to make some sort of point, though I have no idea what that point is. I suggest that the best thing to do is to drop the matter, and find something constructive to do to improve Misplaced Pages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to direct readers to the content they're looking for when they make a typo (and failing to close a bracket is a typo I make twenty times a day. A discussion that's open for a few minutes for something that's then speedily deleted is not a deletion as a result of the discussion. It's a transparently useful redirect - it directs whoever ends up there to what they're looking for. That's the whole point of redirects, sending readers to what they're looking for rather than being unhelpful. If you don't believe that directing readers to the content they're looking for is an important part of an encyclopaedia (or somehow, a violation of POINT, though I can't imagine how), I'm not sure how you can hope to judge the usefulness of anything. WilyD 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilyD: OK, I now see that there is a good faith reason for wanting to keep the redirect, and I was mistaken in thinking there wasn't. However, I still disagree with you on almost everything else.

Many readers may search on Misplaced Pages for "Crash", meaning the song. Many may search for more specific search terms, such as "Crash song". Among the minority of Misplaced Pages readers who have enough experience of how Misplaced Pages works, there may very well be some who search for "Crash (song)". Among those, there may well be some who, like you, have a frequent habit of missing brackets. Among those, there may even be a few who miss a bracket not at the end of a sentence, having had time to forget, but at the end of a four letter word. Those who do will probably think "Oh, silly me", and repeat the search with the bracket. Really, if we had redirects for every slip that someone somewhere might make, and which would result in a few seconds' delay in finding the relevant article, we would have endless redirects all over the place. The discussion was open for rather over four hours and forty minutes, so "a few minutes" is a dubious description. A discussion that lasts a few hours, involves three people (including the closing admin) and is unanimous, is still a discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"A few minutes" may be a bit hyperbolic, but a three people, few hour discussion, where the closing admin !voted, can't be considered a discussion (heck, if it were deleted as a result of the discussion, the closing admin should be different from someone who voted, except in really unambiguous cases). The standard for deletion (both by R3, and in practice at RfD) is implausible, not uncommon - because uncommon typos still happen regularly, and so someone's looking to get directed somewhere. I generally agree with the preposition that you shouldn't pre-emptively create redirects for possible typos, but when the typos occur, it's a good sign that it's a good idea to create it, because the first time ain't likely to be the last. It's probably true that most users who get lost will figure it out quickly, but not all will (and indeed, someone failing to notice their typo will often go through the work of creating a new article - hardly a desirable outcome. But when you balance that against the upside of deletion (which is essentially nonexistent), there's no compelling case.

Beyond that, of course, speedy deletion shouldn't be used to do an end run around a deletion discussion whose outcome might go either, but to skip a discussion where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. WilyD 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I honestly did think that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. As I said above, until you gave your reasoning, I could not conceive of anyone having a good faith wish to keep this redirect. I now see that you have a very different view of the issue, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing then to restore the redirect and list it at RfD? It would probably be better to open a new discussion than re-open the hastily closed one, but I'd certainly be willing to be flexible about that. WilyD 10:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking the time to review the block on this IP. Doubly so for choosing to unblock it. I'm somewhat tech savvy, but I'm no expert. When Mastcell said it was an open proxy I just assumed he was right and never thought to challenge him on it.

I would go say thanks to him for not standing in the way, but he doesn't sound happy about things in general around here. The more sincere I try to sound the more I end up sounding like I'm gloating or something. I think its better if I quietly move on.

Anyway. Thank you. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mount Apo

Hi you probably remember me, you blocked me for edit warring a few weeks ago. I don't want this to happen again so please can you go to and let me know if you think anything I have done there is out of order. Viewfinder (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has been posting several different heights for the same mountain, in a way that I can only possibly see as vandalism, so you were quite right to keep reverting, Viewfinder. Reverting blatantly obvious vandalism is one situation where the edit warring policy is irrelevant. I shall also consider whether to block the IP address range that has been used by the vandal. If I find that other editors using the same IP range have been making a significant number of constructive edits, then a range block will be inappropriate, and I shall consider whether to semi-protect the article instead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for three months, since the vandalism has been going on since January. Please feel welcome to let me know if the vandalism starts up again after that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste

Sorry, forgot to restore first, trying to do too many things at once Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Message of apology

Sorry sir, I will take care in future. HulkRider (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Message of appreciation

Thank you very much for your help. I'm grateful to you. HulkRider (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Heya! Noticed that a user you had blocked has made an unblock request several days ago, addressing your concerns. See here. Would it be possible for you to review this request and respond please? Thanks for your help! SQL 06:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) edit is so utterly incompetent that that the unblock request should normally just be ignored. Doc talk 06:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline it if you wish in that case. Just bringing it to the blocking admin's attention. SQL 06:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that it should be handled, to get it off the list. Any admin can decline the ludicrous unblock request. Doc talk 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free. My intention was merely to bring this to the blocking admin's attention. SQL 07:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I'd decline the unblock request if I were one. You did nothing wrong by bringing it to the blocking admin's attention. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure only the actual act of an unblock requires the admin / sysop flag. I'd bet all the money wikipedia pays me that you can edit that page. If you feel that strongly that the user should not be unblocked perhaps you should take action. SQL 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)