User talk:LiteralKa/Archives/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
RE: Gay Nigger Association of America up for Deletion Review
Thanks for telling me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk page posts
Editors have every right to remove discussions from their own talk page. Perhaps you should read up on this guideline for more information. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinebot (talk • contribs)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming Bad Faith
Claiming that I'm pushing a POV is assuming bad faith. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard not to when you are removing a contentious issue without further discussion. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't a dispute on whether the event will be canceled or not. Terry Jones has made his decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a strong possibility he will change it, either way, the controversy was a major event. LiteralKa (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for this supposed "strong possibility". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pastor cancels Quran-burning, then reconsiders LiteralKa (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for this supposed "strong possibility". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a strong possibility he will change it, either way, the controversy was a major event. LiteralKa (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't a dispute on whether the event will be canceled or not. Terry Jones has made his decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know. I was about to tell you, but you beat me to it. Sorry. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I just figured that this was coming when I read in every article I saw that the Imam denied it. (Oh, and I don't even remember why I threw POV out there, sorry about that!) LiteralKa (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's okay. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I just figured that this was coming when I read in every article I saw that the Imam denied it. (Oh, and I don't even remember why I threw POV out there, sorry about that!) LiteralKa (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Goatse Security
There's now a Goatse Security article in case you're interested. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Mimecast
Hello LiteralKa, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mimecast, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Anwar al-Awlaki. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Supertouch (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for "welcoming" me to Wikipedia! I would suggest taking a second look before supporting libelous statements. Thank you. LiteralKa (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
GNAA RfD
Since you were the one who told me about the GNAA DRV, I figured that I could return the favor by telling you about the new RfD discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
vandalism
hi why did you make change to my user page with no comment? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- See the last bit of "vandalism" LiteralKa (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- i dont understand SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
SunHwaKwonh, please pay closer attention to my posts. I've already explained this on the RfD:
I removed that image due to a fair use violation, as I had stated on your talk page. LiteralKa is an acquaintance, not a "friend", and I never asked anyone to modify your userpage. I was even kind enough to revert LiteralKa's mistake. Can you please relax? It wasn't anything personal.
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
i saw it im asking why literalka did it first time with no explanation. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- He just answered the question. Please pay attention in the future instead of cluttering my talk page. LiteralKa (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- i dont see an answer please stop being rude and just explain thanks SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
RE: Gay Nigger Association of America
I wasn't paying much attention to Wikipedia lately, so I appreciate your message. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I figured that you and riffic, of all people, should know, given the time and effort you two spent on that article and related articles. LiteralKa (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not use edit summaries like "oh I forgot, since I am a mexican terrorist of basque descent" when editing my talk page. LiteralKa (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly this is offtopic here, but anyway:
[18:26] <vornicator> diego is basque [18:27] <vornicator> aka., mexican terrorist
- Does that make it up to you? The point of the discussion is, I did read a lot of things that you said in your IRC channel that make me bother about my privacy and online security, including my Wikipedia account, because of that, I've opted to let the admins know about the situation. Diego Grez (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
You appear to be engaged in mass-tagging of articles created by another editor for deletion. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. Please pay attention to others' arguments and do not resort to "revenge" editing to make your point. —Soap— 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is not "revenge editing". I happened to be looking through Mr. Grez' articles and noticed that many of them do not belong on the wiki. We don't need an article on every asteroid and song. LiteralKa (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
LiteralKa/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why was I banned when Soap had already warned me? I didn't edit again after that! LiteralKa (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your actions were incredibly disruptive, to even consider an unblock, we need an acknowledgement of why your actions were so bad, not a procedural issue. Courcelles 05:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- That is correct but since you are not new to this project, you most likely knew before your edits that none of them would be subject to speedy deletion (no matter your personal feelings about this) and thus tagging them would be WP:POINTy and disruptive, justifying a block even without a warning. That said, I'll leave the blocking admin a note to look at your request. Regards SoWhy 23:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
LiteralKa/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Excuse me, but SoWhy said that he would handle it. I am laughing so hard, this is the exact thing that happened when I was banned, two different admins took two different approaches. Cooperation much? LiteralKa (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry to say but I did not say that I would handle it. I just said I would ask the blocking admin to comment on the block and that's what I did. That does not mean that the unblock request (which is separate from an elaboration on the block reason) cannot be declined by another admin. You have admitted yourself that you knew your actions were in order to annoy another editor and as such you were fully aware that it was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The blocking admin might give you an answer to the question you raised above but his block was correct per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption, so declining the request was correct as well. Regards SoWhy 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
":I did not say that it was specifically for the purposes of:
- This is not a system of jurisprudence; double jeopardy does not apply. The fact that Soap warned you at the same time I was blocking you is just a coincidence; we acted separately. And I judged you were doing it deliberately. DS (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Double Jeopardy itself does not apply, but the concept does. You did not act at the same time that Soap did, and you know it. The concept of double jeopardy still applies because two admins took two different approaches, one assumed good faith, and the other took a heavy-handed approach and failed to do so. I received two different punishments for the same thing. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, I do find it amusing that when Mr. Grez "misbehaves", he gets a slap on the wrist, whereas I get blocked. LiteralKa (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a system of jurisprudence; double jeopardy does not apply. The fact that Soap warned you at the same time I was blocking you is just a coincidence; we acted separately. And I judged you were doing it deliberately. DS (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
GNAA
Shame about that DRV, it looks like you can't get a fair trial in this town for some reason. I'm starting to think you'd have an easier time getting a page on Conservapedia. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. :) LiteralKa (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This is probably how most Wikipedians feel about our efforts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is how /I/ feel about them :) LiteralKa (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A guy who has been dead for years will most likely not become notable in the future.
"A guy who has been dead for years will most likely not become notable in the future, either."
Do you really make arguments like this? What kind of argument is this? You have statistical evidence for this claim? How likely? 50 percent? Less? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.151.118 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — 74.198.151.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Do I need to cite a relatively obvious statement? The guy isn't some super-celebrity who people will talk about years after his death. There isn't going to be a whole lot of new info on the guy. LiteralKa (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz Humbug! 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)LiteralKa/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your block was totally unnecessary. I ran the draft by WP:FEED. The article no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion! The closing reason for the last (serious) DRV was completely irrelevant, too. Improper closure + BS reason should mean a relist, at minimum. I discussed the "issue" of the GNAA article with several other editors, and the response was a clear "I see no reason why it should remain deleted". The fact that the closing admin sought to close such a contentious issue at least 2 hours early is inappropriate. Closing it ASAP would be inappropriate. Ironholds told me on the IRC channel that this DRV would be closed after 7 days.
Decline reason:
I looked briefly, and there doesn't seem to be any glaring procedural failures. A close 2 hours early on a seven day discussion is unlikely to have much of an impact on consensus nor is the closing rationale so obviously bad to be invalid. I agree with Spartaz assessment that renominating so quickly is disruptive. Right or wrong: If you don't abide by consensus and keep bringing up the same issues, you will eventually be ejected from the conversation, which is what has happened here. Any Wikipedia editor needs to be able to shrug their shoulders and walk away, even if they still believe they're right, and your argumentation below doesn't lead me to believe that you'll do that. henrik•talk 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This is a classic case of refusing to drop the stick. There was no prospect of this DRV reaching a different conclusion and you knew it. The nomination was purely disruptive and you need to understand that further disruption will not be tolerated. I'm afraid that off wiki channels of communication such as IRC have no bearing on what happens on wikipedia. I might be willing to reduce the block if you agree to drop this but its pretty obvious that from the moment you are unblocked we will be back at square one. Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not true. I had a couple admins, normal editors, and ex-admins tell me that they would have closed the DRV differently. One admin even told em that he was waiting two hours (until the 7 days were actually up) to close it with an overturn result.
- The fact of the matter is that closing a DRV early with a completely irrelevant reason is inappropriate, among other things. Yet I ignored that, and instead sought to improve the article. You're punishing me for that. LiteralKa (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not punishing you, I'm preventing further disruption. There is always a degree of dispute about contention Deletion Discussions and doubtless many shades of opinion on the consensus but he said/she said is no reason to disrupt the project by exhausting the patience of other editors by asking the same question repeatedly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is a week-long block not a punishment? I was not only being bold by putting it up for another DRV, but the article had also gone through enough improvement to warrant another DRV. LiteralKa (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to the page history there was no improvement in the draft since this last DRV [1]. There is a big difference between being bold and flogging a dead horse and frankly you so far over the line that you would need field glasses to see the line if you turned back. Since your last block was recent, for 72 hours and for a disruption related reason an escalation to a week is a reasonable response as you clearly do not feel deterred from continuing to disrupt the project. Interestingly, given your claims above, I'm seeing zero on-wiki discussion with admins, other users and ex admins about the close of the DRV from a look at your recent contributions. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is a week-long block not a punishment? I was not only being bold by putting it up for another DRV, but the article had also gone through enough improvement to warrant another DRV. LiteralKa (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not punishing you, I'm preventing further disruption. There is always a degree of dispute about contention Deletion Discussions and doubtless many shades of opinion on the consensus but he said/she said is no reason to disrupt the project by exhausting the patience of other editors by asking the same question repeatedly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
When did I say I talked with them on-wiki? I use IRC for that, where people won't get pissed at me for it. These are the changes from the last (real) DRV, from the time that the first vote was cast. LiteralKa (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The last real DRV? What on earth is that? The link I posted is from the close of the actual last DRV. That's all that matters. I think we exhausted this conversation. Lets wait for the reviewing admin shall we? Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, would you have any problem with another user bringing it to DRV? I was preparing to close the last one with a full rationale when I was, ahem, distracted, and based on the discussion there don't think it's as clear-cut as you seem to be making out. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that there is anything new to discuss in the short period since the last DRV was closed? What would be the grounds of the next DRV? You didn't like the outcome? That's not a reason to rerun such a disruptive topic unless there is some evidence of procedural impropriety in the close or new information has come forward to justify further consideration. Repeated nominations in short order are simply disruptive. Try it the other direction? Say GNAA had been kept no-consensus and the delete side kept renominating it for deletion/DRV for exactly the same reasons in short order. That would be very quickly considered disruptive and that is where we are now except the boot is on the other foot. You can obviously renominate it if you like but I'm willing to put money the result will be the same except that opinions on each side become even more hardened from another rancorous debate and the chance of getting a proper clear consensus is reduced even further. Personally, I think its time to leave this be for a while and come back in 3-6 months - but only if there is something new to add. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the DRV was closed by an admin who left a short rationale that read more like bean-counting than thinking it through, and that having a debate closed by somebody who normally works well in contentious DRVs/AFDs such as myself might appease the "losing" side, whichever that side would be. If an established editor shoves it up again, in good faith, would you be willing to let it run, and let it be properly assessed? At the very least we can make clear that this is the last chance - it's put up, it's debated for a reasonable period of time, and it's closed with a rationale that investigates the objectivity (or lack thereof) in both overturn and endorse arguments to reach a conclusion. If someone chooses to nominate it after that, they get hit with the heavy end of the hammer. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could always ask the admin to expand their reasoning but I don't think the argument that the keep side would feel happier if you closed the DRV is really a valid reason to rerun this. I'm slightly surprised that you don't have the good grace to just accept this one went against you and move on. To be honest as well, something tells me that the keep side won't be happy until this is restored so arguing that your closing it would make the close more palatable isn't really a compelling argument to overturn the DRV in my book. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- "I'm slightly surprised that you don't have the good grace to just accept this one went against you and move on" - I haven't made a judgment call on it, actually; I'm slightly surprised by your tone. My argument is not "if I was to do it, I would close it as overturn, and the sky would rain bunnies made of chocolate and flowers made of unicorn jizz and the world would be at peace". My argument is that if you want to kill this dispute stone dead and leave the corpse twitching in a shallow grave you need a closing rationale more detailed than "meh, no consensus that there's reliable sources" following a statement that the horse and stick will not meet any time soon - a statement which has been provided. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You could always ask the admin to expand their reasoning but I don't think the argument that the keep side would feel happier if you closed the DRV is really a valid reason to rerun this. I'm slightly surprised that you don't have the good grace to just accept this one went against you and move on. To be honest as well, something tells me that the keep side won't be happy until this is restored so arguing that your closing it would make the close more palatable isn't really a compelling argument to overturn the DRV in my book. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the DRV was closed by an admin who left a short rationale that read more like bean-counting than thinking it through, and that having a debate closed by somebody who normally works well in contentious DRVs/AFDs such as myself might appease the "losing" side, whichever that side would be. If an established editor shoves it up again, in good faith, would you be willing to let it run, and let it be properly assessed? At the very least we can make clear that this is the last chance - it's put up, it's debated for a reasonable period of time, and it's closed with a rationale that investigates the objectivity (or lack thereof) in both overturn and endorse arguments to reach a conclusion. If someone chooses to nominate it after that, they get hit with the heavy end of the hammer. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that there is anything new to discuss in the short period since the last DRV was closed? What would be the grounds of the next DRV? You didn't like the outcome? That's not a reason to rerun such a disruptive topic unless there is some evidence of procedural impropriety in the close or new information has come forward to justify further consideration. Repeated nominations in short order are simply disruptive. Try it the other direction? Say GNAA had been kept no-consensus and the delete side kept renominating it for deletion/DRV for exactly the same reasons in short order. That would be very quickly considered disruptive and that is where we are now except the boot is on the other foot. You can obviously renominate it if you like but I'm willing to put money the result will be the same except that opinions on each side become even more hardened from another rancorous debate and the chance of getting a proper clear consensus is reduced even further. Personally, I think its time to leave this be for a while and come back in 3-6 months - but only if there is something new to add. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Where did he do that? I just asked him to review an essay I wrote on the subject, which at the time was just a verbatim restatement of my DRV nom reason, for coherence. I don't think this constitutes a COI or anything. And did he talk to the guy who did the 22nd (i think) of February DRV nom? I thought that was just a sockpuppet of somebody or something. LiteralKa (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and to clarify "Ironholds told me on the IRC channel that this DRV would be closed after 7 days", which is probably a bit vague. What I meant was that he showed no sign of seeing it as frivolous or in need of a speedy close. Not that he suggested it or even endorsed it. LiteralKa (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
LiteralKa/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like my block to be reduced to five days. My intentions weren't clear above, I do not, and did not, intend on renominating it any time soon. A simple warning would have sufficed.
Accept reason:
I'm holding you to your word that you will not nominate this again soon. If you feel that the circumstances have changed enough to justify another DRV please post a brief note at WT:DRV seeking advice. If a consensus of DRV regulars agree then you should not feel constrained by my warning, but I do caution you to avoid frivolous requests. Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
GNAA question
I see that the original GNAA article was userfied for you at User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America, which looks a lot like the current draft in Murdox's userspace. I assume there is crossover between the two histories, but would like confirmation on this point. Assuming that the article is ever actually moved back into the mainspace, I'd like to make sure that the history is all easily accessible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that it "looks a lot like the current draft", it's much more well-cited, etc. But that's not your reason for being here, so I digress. This is a "clean copy" that incorporated the salvageable parts of the old article (which were few and far between, if I remember correctly) and new material. LiteralKa (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you misunderstand or not, but Lifebaka is asking about whether User:Murdox/GNAA is a derivative of the original GNAA article. Due to Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, page histories and author must be preserved or made available. As such, if Murdox's draft is a derivative, then the page histories should be merged together in order to preserve the history of the original. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. You'd have to ask User:Murdox about that. I didn't start the draft. LiteralKa (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you misunderstand or not, but Lifebaka is asking about whether User:Murdox/GNAA is a derivative of the original GNAA article. Due to Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, page histories and author must be preserved or made available. As such, if Murdox's draft is a derivative, then the page histories should be merged together in order to preserve the history of the original. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, Murdox said that he didn't incorporate anything, so I just need to double check if you remember copying any text over from your draft, since you are the primary contributor to the page. If not, then we don't need to worry about anything. I might want to move the history back to the mainspace and delete it regardless, to make it easier to find, but only if you're okay with it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
ArticleHistory template
Regarding this, the {{ArticleHistory}} template only supports specific values for outcomes. If you use anything else, the output is '?' instead of what you typed in the field. Not entirely sure why, but that's what it does. So to match the earlier entries, I put the more accurate description of the close in a comment. --RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I rescued a template from a while back, I just replaced all of it with that. LiteralKa (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has already survived a AfD which found the existence of numerous sources, and even without that would not be eligible for the a7 speedy criteria as it is not an article about an organization or person. Please be more careful when tagging articles for deletion in the future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I must have pressed the wrong button in Twinkle, apparently it doesn't ask for confirmation or anything like that. :\ LiteralKa (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK Nomination
I just nominated an article that you have worked on for Did You Know. Feel free to suggest an alternate hook. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, turns out there's an unwritten rule about articles with swear words at DYK. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome messages
Why have you been adding welcome templates to the talk pages of IP editors who haven't edited since 2006 or 2007? Prodego talk 00:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- IPs, unlike user accounts, don't exactly "go away". They remain in use. Chances are that a good portion of those IPs will eventually wind up using Wikipedia again, given its size. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've taken your csd tag off because the article isn't nonsense. It's about a gotra which is a bit like a clan surname - shows unbroken male descent from someone. I'm trying to think of an appropriate tag - I don't think db-context would do. Try again if you have another idea... Peridon (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I went with the "incoherent" criteria. LiteralKa (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's the trouble with Indian English - it uses a lot of words that Brit English or American English don't (sometimes these are Indian words and sometimes real English words that we don't use except in bodice-rippers and pirate films). Anyway, I've put 'unreferenced' and 'stub' on it so someone might rescue it. Or bin it. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Mark crane
Hello LiteralKa, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mark crane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Your DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Dimachaeri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I'm also notifying the author. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the graph is older doesn't mean it is useless. It presents a link to a piece of historical information that occupies approximately one line of text. More information is always advantageous over less information, even if, as in this case, it is historical. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't know if you saw, but the person who originally was
vandalizingmaking changes to the page earlier was indef blocked because they were massively socking. So that doesn't really factor into the three revert rule. Your last edit did, however. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)- He wasn't blocked at the time. That's wikilawyering. The clear intention of the policy was that edits that they were blocked for may be reverted. I have not yet violated 3RR, you have. I have reported you to 3RR as a result. LiteralKa (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't make much sense, but okay. Killiondude (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- He wasn't blocked at the time. That's wikilawyering. The clear intention of the policy was that edits that they were blocked for may be reverted. I have not yet violated 3RR, you have. I have reported you to 3RR as a result. LiteralKa (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- LiteralKa: Wikilawyering is trying to get someone who disagrees with you blocked or warned on a technicality, as with the 3RR report you filed. Zhaoni was already identified and blocked before Killiondude reverted any edits by you. The spirit of the rule does not endorse blocking or warning in such a case. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
DYK for Dimachaeri
 | On 6 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dimachaeri, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the dimachaerus, a type of gladiator, used a fighting style adapted to defend with his weapons rather than a shield? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Jesus at Herod's Court
Hello! Your submission of Jesus at Herod's Court at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Your CSD tagging of Lufthansa CityLine destinations
If you are not aware that there exist separate destination articles for airlines! If you want this article to go, then please CSD tag IndiGo destinations, Air India destinations Kingfisher Airlines destinations, British Airways destinations, Emirates destinations, Gulf Air destinations, etc, etc, etc. I guess you need to read WP:CSD thouroughly before you tag any such article in future! —Abhishek Talk to me 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to click "tag", not "CSD" in twinkle! For some reason, they randomly swap places from time to time! LiteralKa (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tag the article for what? It absolutely has no problems! I have noticed you falsely CSD tagging articles. Please do not repeat it again. I'm watching your contribs and if you falsely tag an article again, I'll have to report to an admin. —Abhishek Talk to me 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- My very own wikistalker! (And yes, the article DOES have problems, despite what you may believe.) LiteralKa (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jinjwal, Mark crane. Oh look! Redlinks! LiteralKa (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- From your tagging I infer that you have no knowledge on airline destination articles. Any airline destination article will usually be linked to only its airline article and have just one source. That is more than enough. If you don't stop inappropriately tagging articles, I'll have to take you up at ANI. —Abhishek Talk to me 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're taking a tone that suggests ownership of the article. This is rather disturbing... LiteralKa (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- My very own wikistalker! (And yes, the article DOES have problems, despite what you may believe.) LiteralKa (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
NPOV tag on Mood Ring
I noticed that you stuck an "NPOV" tag on the Mood Ring article.
Please note that you are not supposed to do that without at least initiating a discussion on the corresponding talk page. I don't see any neutrality issues with the article - so until/unless you get some kind of debate on the issue started, the NPOV tag is totally inappropriate - hence I'm reverting it. Please don't put it back without discussion. Thanks!
SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 April 2011
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
GNAA article and Wikiproject importance
The article on GNAA is decidedly not a mid-importance Internet culture one (in fact, it's notability seems borderline). It doesn't meet "This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas..." Also, as you are quite highly involved, it might not be the best idea to edit Wikiproject importance here. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- As per the Wikiproject's importance guidelines: Mid: "This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. Articles about important internet memes and lore." Low: "These articles may be about short lived internet phenomenon or articles with little reference." GNAA is an integral part of trolling culture, it is one of the most visible troll organizations, if not the most visible. LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 April 2011
- News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news
- WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Threats
I just happened to hear someone made death threats against you. Not to be nosey but do you mind emailing me if it is to personal with a little more insight into the matter. I have one or two relatives that worked in law enforcement. Maybe I can help you out. mauchoeagle 03:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I own a gun for that very reason. (I'm fine, thanks though) ;] LiteralKa (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI thread
No I am not reporting you... I raised an issue at ANI over the .CH fork that keeps getting reinserted. See WP:ANI#Encyclopedia Dramatica Drama The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I never thought you were, I was merely saying that attempts have been made to prevent this in the recent past. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement and POV
Hello, LiteralKa
Please allow me to be frank: Everyone loves to put an {{advert}} tag on a software article. I have seen people putting such tags on Featured Articles as well! If you think Comodo Internet Security article is written like an advertisement or is not from a neutral point of view, please produce a valid argument to that effect in the article talk page. Otherwise, hit-and-run tagging won't help anything.
Thanks in advance,
Fleet Command (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- LiteralKa, you have reverted the article and you refuse to enter discussion. This is called edit warring and disruptive editing. Please do not repeat it again. Either drop the matter or discuss in talk page. Fleet Command (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- My reason was in my edit summary. Your refusal to acknowledge as much is subversive and underhanded. LiteralKa (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- No personal attacks, please! And Wikipedia says "discuss" not "do it again with a reason that you think is good". Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If you wish to continue, I'll see you in talk page. Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking you whatsoever, I am calling you out on your hostile manner and misleading actions. The large number of obviously POV citations, along with the promotional tone, leads me with no other option than to conclude that it is {{advert}}-worthy. As for the ownership accusations, the fact that you are making a big fuss over an obviously valid tag leads me to believe that you may be in violation of it yourself. LiteralKa (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Avoid personal remarks too! Discuss contents only, not people! And please do not use weasel words like "obviously POV" which attributes something without proving it. For the last time: If you believe there is POV and advert, discuss in talk page by providing instances of the violations from the article. Be prepared to be asked for solution. Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Essays are not policy! You are demonstrating ownership of the article by refusing to acknowledge that there may be some issues with the page. For example: 16 of the 23 citations are directly from the Comodo website. LiteralKa (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I've read the article and I don't really see the POV and it doesn't read like an advert. There is no problem with citing the website of the company for non-controversial info like versions and features. As long as the notability gets established by reliable sources. Jarkeld (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally: WP:BRD applies: you were reverted, so lets discuss at Talk:Comodo Internet Security. That way other people can have their say on the issue. Jarkeld (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Essays are not policy! You are demonstrating ownership of the article by refusing to acknowledge that there may be some issues with the page. For example: 16 of the 23 citations are directly from the Comodo website. LiteralKa (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Avoid personal remarks too! Discuss contents only, not people! And please do not use weasel words like "obviously POV" which attributes something without proving it. For the last time: If you believe there is POV and advert, discuss in talk page by providing instances of the violations from the article. Be prepared to be asked for solution. Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking you whatsoever, I am calling you out on your hostile manner and misleading actions. The large number of obviously POV citations, along with the promotional tone, leads me with no other option than to conclude that it is {{advert}}-worthy. As for the ownership accusations, the fact that you are making a big fuss over an obviously valid tag leads me to believe that you may be in violation of it yourself. LiteralKa (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- No personal attacks, please! And Wikipedia says "discuss" not "do it again with a reason that you think is good". Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If you wish to continue, I'll see you in talk page. Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- My reason was in my edit summary. Your refusal to acknowledge as much is subversive and underhanded. LiteralKa (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Jesus at Herod's Court
| On 22 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jesus at Herod's Court, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Jesus at Herod's Court (pictured) is mentioned in only one canonical gospel, the Gospel of Luke? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011
- News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talk Back
Message added 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GAN of GNAA
Do you approve of it going to GAN? Please report back on my talk page. Doh5678 Talk 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW LiteralKa, I'd be willing to help out addressing the reviewers' concerns if you are interested in trying to GA this. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
Anthony Weiner
If you have opinions on the Weiner article, please join the discussion about reducing the details of the sexting scandal in the bio article on the talk page. There is now a separate article on the scandal, plus a section further down in the bio article about it. There's no need to explain it in three places. Pkeets (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me
that the sources provided supported the phrase that you removed as "speculation" at Ludlow Massacre. However before reverting your edit I figured that I d talk to you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not promotional. The video was created mostly for this. This is an essay about not feeding trolls. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Adding it to Troll (Internet), and the essay consisting entirely of that video make me think otherwise. LiteralKa (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just started it! --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- And I added it to the other page to avoid confusion as is done with many other pages. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to confuse a brand new essay with a major article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whether I was correct to be concerned about that is not the item in question. I was not advertising. Besides, the video was created as advice in the first place. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I support the idea behind your essay, it's just the implementation I'm worried about. LiteralKa (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand the potential for it to have been questioned as it was, but I wish you would have talked to me about it first. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I support the idea behind your essay, it's just the implementation I'm worried about. LiteralKa (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whether I was correct to be concerned about that is not the item in question. I was not advertising. Besides, the video was created as advice in the first place. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to confuse a brand new essay with a major article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- And I added it to the other page to avoid confusion as is done with many other pages. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just started it! --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Warning conventions
As far as I know, they are not official policy, but are generally accepted ways of adding warnings. The same formatting can be found in examples at Blizzard warning, Storm warning, Ice storm warning, Gale warning, Winter storm warning and so on. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 03:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Nihilism Rune.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nihilism Rune.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Denying Speedy on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding
Just curious, if you removed the humorous tag on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding, then the page is claiming to be "a standard used to reference warnings on Wikipedia." Wouldn't that be considered a hoax of policy? I'm not trying to be challenge you, just better understand why you disagreed with the CSD tag. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think that it applies, as it is not a "blatant attempt at misinformation." I certainly don't fault you for tagging it as such, though, as it's a fuzzy area. LiteralKa (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For, at least temporarily, saving my page's rear-end, Thx. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Chat Me Up 02:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
July 2011
Hello LiteralKa. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Gay Nigger Association of America, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You literally named a section name "Criticism and", and since when is "attacks internet users" NPOV? I am prepared to defend every one of my edits. If you believe that there is a conflict of interest, you are going to have to cite specific edits, instead of templating the regulars. LiteralKa (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was a large template at the top of the page stating 'Under Construction', which is why my edits were half-completed - although i didn't notice the section heading! As for templating the regulars, I believe in templating regulars occasionally (see WP:TTR). I also have no doubt that you're prepared to defend every one of your edits, but I'm not after a defence. I'd just like you to keep your edits to the article down to a minimum, ideally only editing to remove blatant misinformation or vandalism. I know you don't like me templating you, but I have to throw out the pages WP:BFAQ, WP:COI and WP:SCOIC - they not only set out rules, but also offer helpful advice as to how yourself, as a 'Director of Public Relations', can edit articles about their own organisations without incurring the ire of the community. All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
|
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
| For using Wikipedia policy rather than emotion to handle disputes. nprice (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
A reminder
From your own userbox:
Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- How does that help your case and not mine? LiteralKa (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a "case" here as I have no involvement with any of the groups sharing a set of initials. I am just asking you to consider the possibility that this deletion debate may have negative consequences for an innocent group that, by coincidence, has a set of initials in common with your group. If you feel my remarks have no validity, feel free to disregard them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
Would you be willing to stop editing the GNAA and related articles? The Cavalry (Message me) 12:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would be willing to stop editing the GNAA if I would still be allowed to add sources. All other edits would be through edit requests. LiteralKa (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would you be happy if we topic banned you, or do you feel the GNAA is your primary subject on Wikipedia? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't that a leading question? Of course I wouldn't be happy if I was topic banned. GNAA is not my primary subject on Wikipedia, either. I'd be more than willing to voluntarily avoid editing the page, aside from adding new citations. LiteralKa (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by 'adding new citations'? Would that involve adding content, or simply citing unsourced statements? The Cavalry (Message me) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The latter. I would do the former through edit requests. LiteralKa (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, but I'm not quite happy yet. I'm concerned about your primary motivation because you only seem to edit the GNAA article - 147 times compared to the 29 of the next-most-edited article. That said, the edits you made there are rather good, so if you stick to non-GNAA topics you could be very How can we be sure that you won't simply get GNAA people to approve the edit requests? Perhaps if edit requests were only approved or declined by uninvolved editors, who aren't pro- or anti-GNAA? I thought we might get a WikiProject or maybe the ARS team (if they're keen?) to blitz the article and see if it can get to GA. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The vast majority of my edits to the GNAA article were when it was still a draft. I was attempting to get it to be "article-caliber." After that, my edits significantly dropped to that article. As for the approval, how about just any editor who has been registered for more than, say, two years and is not a know GNAA member? (FYI, I really don't care enough to get around the approval thing. Any edits approved by GNAA would cause more problems.) LiteralKa (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Two years is a bit much. Autoconfirmed might be better, and if there are any problems we can always SPI them. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The vast majority of my edits to the GNAA article were when it was still a draft. I was attempting to get it to be "article-caliber." After that, my edits significantly dropped to that article. As for the approval, how about just any editor who has been registered for more than, say, two years and is not a know GNAA member? (FYI, I really don't care enough to get around the approval thing. Any edits approved by GNAA would cause more problems.) LiteralKa (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, but I'm not quite happy yet. I'm concerned about your primary motivation because you only seem to edit the GNAA article - 147 times compared to the 29 of the next-most-edited article. That said, the edits you made there are rather good, so if you stick to non-GNAA topics you could be very How can we be sure that you won't simply get GNAA people to approve the edit requests? Perhaps if edit requests were only approved or declined by uninvolved editors, who aren't pro- or anti-GNAA? I thought we might get a WikiProject or maybe the ARS team (if they're keen?) to blitz the article and see if it can get to GA. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The latter. I would do the former through edit requests. LiteralKa (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by 'adding new citations'? Would that involve adding content, or simply citing unsourced statements? The Cavalry (Message me) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't that a leading question? Of course I wouldn't be happy if I was topic banned. GNAA is not my primary subject on Wikipedia, either. I'd be more than willing to voluntarily avoid editing the page, aside from adding new citations. LiteralKa (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would you be happy if we topic banned you, or do you feel the GNAA is your primary subject on Wikipedia? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of DrunkDuck
I have removed the prod tag you placed on DrunkDuck as it was discussed at AfD and kept back in 2005 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. I did this solely to comply with policy (the fact that it was kept after a deletion discussion indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, the primary qualification for prod); it is not my endorsement for keeping this article. If you wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
CaptainScreebo's warning
Please don't come and bullshit on my tp, you know full well that my comment, like yours, was humorous, even the edit summaries are acronyms of YOUR association and the issue at question here (COI), just adding my 2 cents to the debate. I know where you're at, you can vilify Jimbo Wales and MuzeMike on your site then start crying crocodile tears on WP because someone says "stop being such a gay nigger", really do you think that I am not older than the Universe itself? CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Calling me an ignoramus is a personal attack. Please desist. LiteralKa (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, please do not remove my responses. LiteralKa (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, nobody is calling anybody an ignoramus, it's an acronym for COI so if you feel that it's directed at you, what can I say? Oh and this, [2] appears to be totally hypocritical, there was an edit conflict, I didn't notice your comment, and on your tp you're doing exactly what you have the temerity to come and warn me against doing. A comment (I wrote by myself, thanks). CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, please do not remove my responses. LiteralKa (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
CaptainScreebo, relax. We've got everything in hand. As it stands, I'm certain no-one will take any action over the comment you made - just don't make them in future. LiteralKa - I thought you didn't template the regulars? The Cavalry (Message me) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do when it involves personal attacks and vandalism. LiteralKa (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- And stop dramatizing, there are no personal attacks or vandalism going on, you're just being pointy as you well know, buddy. CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do when it involves personal attacks and vandalism. LiteralKa (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I changed the heading. Is everyone satisfied now? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- My my, how reasonable, is it stable? CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hence my self-revert. Don't be a dick about it. LiteralKa (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. I would ask, however, that you follow the guidelines at WP:TPO, and not reword the header of this to something offensive or derogatory. It's under the 'Section heading' section heading. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked Indefinitely
I have indefinitely blocked your account for a number of reasons, listed below.
- Conflict of interest/POV pushing issues: It is well known now that you are the Director of Public Relations for GNAA. While conflicts of interest alone are not a reason to block a user, problems stemming from that conflict may be block worthy. It is clearly demonstrable that your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to promote the GNAA. In the past several weeks alone, I can see that you have moved the disambiguation page GNAA to a new title and made the original a redirect, as well as attempted - in bad faith - to nominate a number of articles about other organizations abbreviated as GNAA for deletion. Disruptive conduct such as this is not tolerated, and by itself could be blockworthy.
- Exhausted the community's patience: When the comments from obviously biased GNAA-affiliated users such as yourself are discounted, there is a clear consensus at ANI to issue a topic ban against you in relation to GNAA articles. The users commenting there cite primarily the above issues, however the support is quite evident.
- Cross-wiki sockpuppetry: Checkusers on the Simple English Wikipedia, working in collaboration with Checkusers on this wiki, have determined that you are also the person who operates the Simple English Wikipedia account simple:User:Lugurr. While there is no explicit policy regarding sockpuppetry of this nature, we have determined that these actions are block-worthy for the conflict of interest concerns noted above, as well as the following reasons:
- With the global login system, there is a general expectation that a single user operates one primary account across all languages and projects within the Wikimedia Foundation's purview. This can be demonstrated through the efforts of bureaucrats and stewards to avoid conducting account renames when there may be a conflict with a global account; the account creation project's refusal to create accounts when an active global account by the same or similar name exists; and by the standing policies of bureaucrats and stewards to rename local accounts to allow them to be merged into a single unified account. Thus, while you are not operating multiple accounts on any single wiki, you are operating multiple accounts across all wikis.
- With the multiple concerns here on the English Wikipedia about your conflict of interest, you are deceiving the Simple English Wikipedia's community by veiling that conflict of interest from them. While clearly this is more an issue for Simple to deal with, it is still worth noting here.
- You are using your accounts to further bolster support for the GNAA articles on these wikis. A user draft at Simple is currently up for deletion at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/User:Lugurr/Gay Nigger Association of America. You, as Lugurr, !voted "Strong keep as it is currently an article on the English Wikipedia" - an article which, as I've noted, you work tirelessly on and have campaigned against deletion for on numerous occasions. In this way, you are further deceiving the Simple Wikipedia community; unlike the previous note, however, this deception does involve the English Wikipedia, and so it can be used as a rationale for a block here.
As always, you are welcome to appeal this block at any time by using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template, which you should post below this message. You may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee by emailing them directly at arbcom-l
lists.wikimedia.org. Please note, however, that the BASC is considered the court of last resort for unblock/ban requests, and their decision, if any, will be regarded as final. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- So really you just banned me for COI? LiteralKa (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I blocked you for cross-wiki sockpuppetry, compounded by other issues (POV-pushing, disruption, etc.) stemming from a conflict of interest. Not a ban (unless nobody agrees to unblock you, at which point it's a de facto ban). Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cross-wiki sockpuppetry would imply that I was socking on more than one Wiki. I have had one account on both. A topic ban covers the rest. Just because I mention the English Wikipedia doesn't make it cross-wiki. LiteralKa (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, you - as far as we can tell at this point - are not socking on any one, individual, project. However, your actions across both projects with these accounts (thank you for admitting to owning both by the way) is consistent with sockpuppetry and we are treating it as such; you are, in effect, socking across the global project and deceiving the global community, rather than a single project. Although as I've mentioned above this does include some deception of local communities. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- So by your logic I can be blocked on every Wiki because I have two accounts on two separate wikis? LiteralKa (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not what he said. It is appropriate to make it known that you have different accounts on other Wikis, such as on your talk page. Secretly using an account on another wiki to support a COI or evade a topic ban is not permitted. That's just the same as having a sock here in that case. CycloneGU (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't rebut what I said. LiteralKa (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, what did you say? Apart form word-spinning, digression and candy-flossing I can't see a whole lot of substance to your comments (doesn't need a title thanks) ;-) CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't rebut what I said. LiteralKa (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not what he said. It is appropriate to make it known that you have different accounts on other Wikis, such as on your talk page. Secretly using an account on another wiki to support a COI or evade a topic ban is not permitted. That's just the same as having a sock here in that case. CycloneGU (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- So by your logic I can be blocked on every Wiki because I have two accounts on two separate wikis? LiteralKa (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, you - as far as we can tell at this point - are not socking on any one, individual, project. However, your actions across both projects with these accounts (thank you for admitting to owning both by the way) is consistent with sockpuppetry and we are treating it as such; you are, in effect, socking across the global project and deceiving the global community, rather than a single project. Although as I've mentioned above this does include some deception of local communities. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cross-wiki sockpuppetry would imply that I was socking on more than one Wiki. I have had one account on both. A topic ban covers the rest. Just because I mention the English Wikipedia doesn't make it cross-wiki. LiteralKa (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I blocked you for cross-wiki sockpuppetry, compounded by other issues (POV-pushing, disruption, etc.) stemming from a conflict of interest. Not a ban (unless nobody agrees to unblock you, at which point it's a de facto ban). Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
Just a FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Zalgo (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
- News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
- In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
- WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
- Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news
The Signpost: 15 August 2011
- Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
- WikiProject report: The Oregonians
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
- Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection
The Signpost: 22 August 2011
- News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
- WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
- Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
- Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
- Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Meincraft
A tag has been placed on Meincraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ssaz 12 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Meinkraft
A tag has been placed on Meinkraft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ssaz 12 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)