User talk:MastCell/Archive 12
 | This 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
No, please
Don' be sorry, that's fine.
I got a bit upset by the WP:SPA reference, and I logged off to think about these problems (that's what I usually do to avoid stupid unnecessary disputes). Thinking about it, you were perfectly right ; no matter how many contribs I have on the French-speaking project, I'm still barely a WP:SPA on this WP... And I had not thought I was being provocative on the talk page, but yeah, again, my exasperated answers to his hijacking comments may look so.
Sorry for making such a mess of a few comments... Sometimes, it's just, too much. NicDumZ ~ 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page... I apologize. I wasn't referring to you as either a single-purpose account or as provoking Greg. I was referring to Jeemde (talk · contribs) in both cases. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell Talk 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The perils of bad teeth
Yeah, I don't quite buy the mechanisms the authors propose either -- I suspect its a population association. Still, another reason to floss! Djma12 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call
I was in the middle of gathering info for WP:ANI and WP:RFCU when I saw you had just done this. Thanks for saving me the trouble. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick hello
Hope things are well! -- Samir 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Dewarw and Wrawed
I have just read the "Sockpuppery" pages/ my talk page etc, and I realise that I must rectify this situation before any more inconvenience / time wasting on your part happens.
I (as a person) created both accounts and have used them both during the same time period. I don't want to start making excuses but there is a reason for my multiple account.
I created them at different times, on different computers because I was not sure which user name I preferred. I had also set the Wiki page to auto log in. For this reason, I kept using the accounts without really thinking when I was on different computers.
Please see that I have used the Wrawed account for other things, independent of Dewarw. However, on some issues such as on the Andy Murray page, I became quite aggravated at the behaviour of another user (threatening to start, and starting an edit war) and as a result I knowingly changed computers and used the Wrawed account to back myself up as I realised that I could not do it on my own. As of the Harry Potter articles, I do not recall backing myself up, only using both accounts and perhaps making similar statements- after all I am the same person!
Therefore, I fully admit to the "Sockpuppery," and I hope that I have not wasted too much of your time. I shall, of course, stop using the other account (anyway, it has been blocked).
Regards, Dewarw 09:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of The Wealth of Networks
While I agree that the article's summary of the book was really messy, I don't think that justifies for the deletion of the whole article. I think that this is a very important book. So does Lawrence Lessig: [1] That's why this book needs its article in any serious online encyclopedia, especially a free content and commons-based peer produced encyclopedia. Thanks for considering reinclusion. Mauro Bieg 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article can certainly be re-created in an encyclopedic form. Its previous form was promotional and unencyclopedic, and would require essentially a total rewrite to become so (hence the speedy deletion). However, that says nothing about the notability of the topic - it may very well be notable, as you suggest, and appropriate for inclusion. If you're interested in writing up a better article on The Wealth of Networks, go for it. If you'd like to see portions of the deleted article I can move it to your userspace for you, but it was essentially lengthy chapter summaries without any of the analysis or secondary sources necessary for an encyclopedia article. MastCell Talk 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well. thanks.. I'll see... :-) Mauro Bieg 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you mind if I undelete the pre-outline stub versions of this article? Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Expired PROD Dark-Hunter Series
Hi. You deleted Dark-Hunter Series after its prod expired. However, the series is notable, with one of the books in it currently #8 on the New York Times hardcover fiction bestseller list. Could you undelete the article? I'm personally not familiar with the series, but I can fix the {{Unreferenced}} and {{Wikify}} problems. Thanks. Bláthnaid 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, it's been undeleted so you can work on it. Good luck. MastCell Talk 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
WIS television
Thanks very much for your attention to the edit war occurring on the WIS television pages! JTRH 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind putting a copy of this deleted article in my user space - say, User:John Broughton/Criticism of Ted Stevens? I'd like to review it for sourced information that should go back into the main article (looking at a cached Google version, there were 11 references, for example).
Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of my entry"lovehere"
I agree the part I went into political beefs should have been removed but I was not asked to and have been going through so much I have forgotten to. I did add to the wiki I link to, Ben Young, co-founder of The National Bank of Detroit recently but know my information on the other Youngs is right and needed no updating yet. I need the information about my ancestors as I have no copies of it- my father recently passed and my mother threw away things . I don't know the names of which Browning ancestors were in the Revolutionary War, for example. If you could please return that information that you deleted to me, I would very much appreciate it so that I can present the material to the appropriate place if Wikipedia is wrong. I thought Wikipedia was ok because I could back up with library of Congress numbers that my grandfather is in fishing encyclopedias--you guys seemed ok with info in encyclopedias. I was adding to that background but did not yet know how to enter an item under his name. Please consider allowing me to personally have the deleted information back so I may use it to try to make an article that meets your needs or whoever is interested in the Young family ( for Paul H Young's brother, wife,and son made internet-searchable names for themselves, also) Without your help, I will have a tedious task re-gathering my information on ancestry, and I am terminally ill. Thank you. Deanne Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovehere (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll restore it. It would be a good idea to pull the information out and copy it onto your home computer too, since things on Wikipedia are subject to deletion for all kinds of reasons. MastCell Talk 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Alexis Skye
I'm not happy with you just wiping out my article without contacting me. I am one of the top contributors to wikipedia and so not appreciate my efforts wasted by people who decide what is notable themselves. There are thousand sof less notable people on wikipedia. Is Orges Shehi notable. No ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted Alexis Skye as an expired WP:PROD. As you are one of the top contributors to Wikipedia, I'm sure you're aware that someone else nominated it for deletion and there was no objection within a 5-day period. You may want to watchlist articles you create to keep an eye out. I'm happy to restore the article, as specified in the deletion policy, if you'd like to contest the deletion. However, I should also say that since the article appeared to me, on my review of the PROD nomination, to fail WP:BIO, it would likely be sent to WP:AfD on restoration for community comment. So let me know if you want me to restore it. MastCell Talk 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I wasn't told about it - if I'd have know I would have tried to improve it . It was even referenced ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the editor who nominated it for proposed deletion should have left a warning on your page as a matter of politeness. However, sometimes only the creator of the article gets the warning, as it can be hard to determine the relative contributions of other editors on the fly. Like I said, I will restore it if you'd like, but without non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources it may not survive AfD. MastCell Talk 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The article also helped remove some red links on several pages - I thought I was doing a worthwhile job creating the page. Your're too right the nominator should have contacted me. I haven't got time to be fussing over it when there's so much work to be done. I'm in the middle of adding all the places in France to wikiepdia. I sure hope they won't be deleted too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes but I'm not willing to spend a lot of time with the afd brigade. i'll try to improve or strtess notability a bit more tomorrow but if I can't and it still isn't up to scratch then under my consent with you and the nominators it can be deleted permanently. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, it's been restored. Good luck and let me know how things work out with adding independent sources. MastCell Talk 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but somebody had remove much of my info that it started with - I'm not surpised it was deleted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've restored it to its original state and I'll try to add more tomorrow, I'm off to bed now all the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There doesnt appear much notability to her at present other than shes tall I must admit. There's a lot of google hits for her. If I can't do anything tomorrow I'll ask you to speedy delete it again cool? At least give me a chance thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'm fine with holding off on AfD for now. Just let me know how things are going in a couple of days and we'll decide what to do with it. MastCell Talk 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I've added some stuff to Alexis Skye. In my view this looks absolutely credible and notable as an article and notability is stressed far more tha n many other models that exist on wikipedia. I hope you think its ok ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
May You?
Is it possible for you, as an administrator to delete my other two user pages that I dont want, which are User:Truko9308 and User:nosaints4life., is it possible?TrUcO9311 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, it should be done. Are you still using those two accounts? MastCell Talk 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
New York, Westchester and Boston Railway (former deleted, new started, confusion)
I have begun working on a new article for this. and noted that an article for it had been deleted and that there was some kind of redirect to the New Haven Railroad article. Since the histories are connected, there is ample reason for internal links, of course. 2 questions: Is there any reasonable way to retrieve the deleted material? How can I track down the redirects? I've tried using the "what links here" tool but it produces some very long lists. DCDuring 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi- the article was deleted as an expired WP:PROD. The only content of the deleted article was a redirect to New York and Putnam Railroad - there was no other content in the article. If you'd like to re-create and expand it, that would be fine. Does that answer your question? Let me know if it doesn't. MastCell Talk 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not what I most wanted to hear, but a complete answer. Thanks. DCDuring 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. I was hoping for some real content. Thanks for the offer and thanks for closing the loop for me. DCDuring 16:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks for the protection of Newark North Gate - hopefully we can come to an agreement! ACBestDog and Bone 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to close that, and as a delete, not no consensus. Editors counselling keep haven't engaged the fact that it's an unreferenced mass of original research and a fair-use gallery to boot. I hate to see something like that slip away as "no consensus." Reading through the comments, I think it's clear most people who showed up don't actually understand what the nom's objections were, or don't understand our policies in the first place. Either way, "no consensus" is erroneous--such an outcome presupposes that editors have knowledge of policy but simply disagree over whether the article is problematic or not. I'm considering taking this to DRV but would like to hear your reasoning first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there were quite a few easily discountable "keep" arguments along the lines of "But it's useful!" On the other hand, the nom mentioned a number of items that are not really grounds for deletion - copyrighted images can be removed, and the redundancy argument was addressed, if not rebutted. I agree with you that the "delete" arguments were generally stronger, but I didn't see quite enough to get over the "if in doubt, don't delete" hurdle. That said, I respect both the points you made above and your experience and understanding of policy, and I'm comfortable with a "delete" closure if you feel that it's more appropriate. There's no need to go to DRV from my perspective - I would be OK with amending the close to "Delete, after discussion". Does that sound reasonable? MastCell Talk 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and amend the closure to "delete", with an explanation. If there's an uproar about it, it would be fine to go to DRV. I find the discussion there is usually on a pretty high level, with one or two notable exceptions :), and it's a useful sanity check. MastCell Talk 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey this Delete idea was not a good one for if left open, it would have consolidated a mass of information that is unclear and redundant such as the confusion people seem to have with airline Brands and real operationally certificated airlines. Additionally, Airline Holdings companies would consolidate much information as many of the airlines listed are in individual categories when corporations like AMR, Northwest, and Mesa own two and three of these. It was a big topic to cover without others sorting through the erroneous information that the Airline "Connection" and "Express" and "codeshares" tend to conceal but headway was being made using the information in wikepedia itself and fact checking it from background and valid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As expected: [2]. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Catalan dialect examples
Hi MastCell! I see that you deleted Catalan dialect examples after an expired PROD. Was there any information worth merging into the main article, or the dialect subpages? I would hate to see useful information go to waste, though it may not deserve its own article. If so, would you mind undeleting it so I can merge the examples instead? Thanks, — Zerida 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I restored it and moved it into your userspace so you can take a look - more details on your talk page. MastCell Talk 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perfect, I'm glad I caught it. Thanks very much. — Zerida 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Iantresman sockpuppet
There is a new sockpuppet of User:Iantresman: User talk:81.31.38.19. Please check it out, thanks. 24.199.99.169 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the IP address being used is proprietary of exmasters.com, a webhosting service that Ian Tresman uses for his site: World-Sex-News.com. 24.199.99.169 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, those AfD !votes will probably be ignored or downplayed anyhow. I'd have to look into it further before labeling it a for-sure sock, though it's certainly suspicious. If the IP continues its activity, I'd suggest filing a brief report at WP:SSP. MastCell Talk 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you concluded your investigation, there should be enough information to make some kind of link? Another anonymous user is also claimed to be my sockpuppet, but with opposite voting habits.[3], and Spebi has already concluded "no case".[4] 81.31.38.19 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A few days ago, you deleted Little T Learns to Share for failing WP:BK. Based on a google cache of the page, it appears that the book would pass criteria #1. I think this should be restored, or at the very least, sent to AFD. Thanks for your time. Zagalejo 02:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted under WP:PROD; I've restored the article and talk page as you've contested the deletion. I won't send it to AfD at this point, though it could use a little work. MastCell Talk 03:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. I'll put the article on my to-do list. Zagalejo 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
New Vandalism
I had reported a case of sockpuppetry and vandalism from IP # 63.3.1.1 on July 31, 2007, and it seems that this individual is starting to vandalize again. He vandalized the page Dinosaur King by blanking it from the IP# 63.3.1.129. I'm not sure if there is anything you can do. I really think that this person isn't a contributor; this person is a nuisance. Here is the link to the socketpuppetry case file Suspected sock puppets/63.3.1.1 I hope that you can help. Thanks in advance --Candy156sweet 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how constructive these edits are - the article is a bit of a mess. You may want to request temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP to lock out IP edits if vandalism from a dynamic IP is a problem. Sorry not to be of more assistance. MastCell Talk 03:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you, or another admin, resolve this case asap? This has been pending for some time now after it was brought about by a new user who simply believed that because myself and another editor were in disagreement against him I was instantly a sockpuppet. It is quite insulting and makes it difficult to deal with other editing conflicts as long as it is still pending without any admin comment. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Strothra 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will try to get to it as soon as possible. Suspected sockpuppetry cases tend to take a long time to properly investigate and close, and the board is understaffed, so I apologize for the delay. MastCell Talk 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Thanks for understanding. --Strothra 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Nicolaus Copernicus
The very predictable edit war at Nicolaus Copernicus is going on for about 200 years, also on Wiki again after protection has disappeared. *Sigh* Please protect the neutral version (European) again, permanently if possible.-- Matthead discuß! O 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, if you want me to be a nice boy
Please help out with twits who post crap like this on my user page. PLEASE. That or I'm going to start drinking. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Raymond arritt took care of it while I was out enjoying the sunshine this weekend. MastCell Talk 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Need help to stop vandalism of Serbia (1941-1944) by the banned user Velebit/Guivon's sockpuppets
Hi Mastcell, for the past while on the page Serbia (1941-1944), a permanently banned user, User:Velebit or User:Guivon which record shows that you banned earlier, has begun repeatedly adopting anon number usernames and continues to claim that there is bias on the Serbia (1941-1944) even though extensive changes by me and other users have been made to reduce any offense. Guivon, aka Velebit, aka User:4.249.9.200 aka User:4.249.72.49, and so on, refuses to recognize that the previous controversies with the page have been completely dealt with, and when the tags such as the bias tag and unreferenced tag have been removed, he immediately calls this "vandalism" and reposts the tags, even though, as mentioned earlier, the sections with apparent bias have been removed and the article DOES have references which he is unwilling to accept. He is EXTREMELY harassing and destructive on the page and us positive editors on Wikipedia need someone to continually track this user and stop this user from destabilizing and destroying the article If you or someone you know can do this, that would be greatly appreciated. I myself am unsure exactly of how to report sockpuppets and I do not constantly have time to revert this user's edits and keep track of the endless new sockpuppets he creates. To help you or anyone you know who could help protect the page Serbia (1941-1944) and other pages which the banned Velebit's sockpuppets violate, here are his characteristics. Aside from the article mentioned earlier, he repeatedly edits and posts on the discussion boards of the Sajmište concentration camp article, he complains about the alleged incorrectness of Image Talk:Serbia1941 1944.png on its discussion page, and constantly accuses users of "vandalism" or "vandalism and false accusations" in his posts when editing, when their post does not match his opinion. So again, it would be greatly appreciated if you or anyone else could help stop this permanently banned user from manipulating and destroying the article Serbia (1941-1944) and others. Please contact me to say if you can help do this or if you know of anyone else who can. Thanks for reading this long post.--R-41 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Causeway Classic
Why did you delete this page? It is a 50-something year old DI-AA rivalry. Please restore it. jgladding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgladding (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it was tagged for proposed deletion, and no one had contested it within the 5-day span allotted. Looking at it, I felt the grounds for deletion were reasonable. However, since you feel otherwise, I've restored the article and talk page. MastCell Talk 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of page
Greetings, i'd like to ask you about the deletion of the page Jeremiah Massey. In the deletion log you say that the Prod expired. Why didn't i see any prod template last time i paid it a visit? There was one two days ago identified as vandalism that was removed. Many thanks. Sergiogr 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
PROD deletion of Veria
I've overturned, after a DRV request, the PROD deletion of Veria that you did. This would be completely unremarkable, except that I think you let a vandal trick you into doing the deletion. It looks like the dated prod template was copied from another article where it had expired, and posted into this article after the 5 day period on the original article had expired. diff. Given that the prod rationale is clearly wrong for the article subject (rationale about person, article about a town), you should have been suspicious... GRBerry 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops. Clearly the vandal got by you also at Jeremiah Massey. Can you help review your PROD deletions from today? Thanks. GRBerry 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
uh
It is probably terribly bad form to thank an admin for blocking somone... so I won't. It is probably also rather gauche to give one admin credit for another admin's work. So it's probably best it I now stop digging... and just say thanks for your contributions to wikipedia, which are appreciated. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Protection of Asana
Who asked you to protect this page? There is no edit war, only the POV of a misinformed editor. In addition to removing referenced informaiton, he took out an entire re-write of the section he characterized as vandalism.
There has been no discussion on any of the editorial changes on his part whatsoever. Next time, check your premise. --Empacher 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The request was made at WP:RFPP. Without going into who's right or wrong, there appears to be an edit war going on. Sources have been presented on both sides; neither of you appears to be engaged in vandalism or bad faith, but it would seem that you're reverting each other rather than discussing the disputed issue. Under those circumstances, and given the request for protection, I felt it was appropriate to protect the article temporarily while you discuss the dispute on the talk page. If you feel strongly that I've erred, you can request unprotection (again, at WP:RFPP). MastCell Talk 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
RE: your comment on the talk page regarding discussion, I'm not sure how to make that happen. Could you look at the talk page and give some advice on how to proceed? Bigglovetalk 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A while back, you dealt with a number of sockpuppet cases involving AFI-PUNK. Since you're familiar with the case history, I just thought I'd let you know that they're back.
Seraphim Whipp 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. The AFI-PUNK is now using ips in a dynamic range and is vandalising about 20-30 articles a day. Would it be possible to use a range block? It's getting hard to keep up with the articles he vandalises because he chooses different groups of articles each day.
- 87.167.245.44
- 87.167.245.5
- 87.167.212.188
- 87.167.215.209
- You will probably need to ask another admin - I haven't done any range-blocking and it's apparently somewhat fraught with peril. The advice I've heard is to collaborate with a more experienced admin on IRC, but since I don't use IRC I should probably just avoid range-blocking. You may want to post it at WP:AN/I or ask an admin with more experience with range-blocks (you could try User:Ryulong, for example). Sorry not to be of more help. MastCell Talk 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Slow
Thanks for adding the indef blocked notice to Moulton's page. My connection is running slow today, with multiple timeouts on pageload. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Palomar Medical Center
The article on Palomar Medical Center was deleted allegedly because of a concern of "No claim of notability in article."
I was not aware that an article that to have an explicit CLAIM IF NOTABILITY in the article other than a cite to a secondary source.
"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. . . . The 'secondary sources' in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29
The article, as orginally written, had several links to secondary sources.
The link below is another demonstration that the Palomar Medical Center is a notable organization:
<a href="http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/14/news/inland/3_02_058_13_07.txt"> PPH board agrees to create task force to look into integrative medicine</a>
GrantAvenue 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article was deleted as a result of an uncontested proposed deletion. However, since you're contesting the deletion and are interested in improving the article, I've restored it. MastCell Talk 14:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
- For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
This was seriously out of hand. I appreciate your ending the bs. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey you're killing me!!!! You're supposed to give me nice articles, not one's that blow out my LAD. My life was much better off not knowing that Duesberg hypothesis actually existed. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Consider yourself fortunate that you did not see it in its earlier state, then. Also, AIDS reappraisal was a WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT Superfund site when I started here - it has really cleaned up nicely, and I only get occasional hate mail from the AIDS-denial crowd. Now the walled garden of autism/vaccine POV forks is another story... MastCell Talk 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Jenin
Mastcell your protection of Battle of Jenin is completely out of line. I reccommend you look closely at the dynamics of the discussions on the talk page before taking such a drastic decision, which I am sure is opposed by the vast majority of editors of that article. --Burgas00 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Decisions about page protection generally aren't based on a consensus or "majority" of involved editors; they're taken when an edit war is in progress. The request for protection and the protection itself are not "completely out of line" but entirely within the specifications of the protection policy. I don't view this as a "drastic decision", either; there is no deadline, and the protection will expire soon enough. I'd recommend, particularly given your history of edit-warring and ensuing blocks, that you use the time to try to reach a consensus on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Help
As an uninvolved admin, can you help out with User:Profg. These tags here and here are incredibly inappropriate. He's pushing it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pile-on: I was trying to help this highly disruptive new user, but after this I wash my hands of him. Have fun. I'm done. Were I not involved, I'd indef him as a disruption-only account, because so far that's all he's been, and every attempt to help him meets with insults as you see. Look at my post, and at his summary when he removed my post. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm involved only in trying to help him, so that's actually still a possibility. I'll let you try first though if you think it would be worthwhile. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which was promptly removed, but at least we know he's seen it. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Anabolic steroid FAC
I was planning to nominate the Anabolic steroid article for Featured article once again. It's gone a long way even since it's last FA nomination and is very stable and looks great. I thought I'd get your opinion prior to nominating it again just to ensure that it succeeds. What do you think? Would you support it? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- As you've probably noticed, I went and took a look in response to your comment. :) I think the referencing is generally excellent. My concern is mostly with what seems to me to be a bit of spin that downplays the adverse effects of anabolic steroids in young, otherwise healthy men, and also overstates their benefit as an anti-aging remedy. But I'll talk about it on the talk page. As to FA, I suppose it would depend on how much the issues raised in prior FAR's have been addressed. I could support it (as an exhaustive, well-referenced, comprehensive article) if we can hash out a few of the POV-type issues - which I think we can. Looking at the article as a whole, I do think it's an example of one of the better pieces of work on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Morales
Remember his vote at that RFA, look at this: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel Morales. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously I should probably recuse myself from handling that case, given my input at the RfA, but I think they're obvious sock or meatpuppets. To be honest, the Daniel Morales account probably should have been indef-blocked a while back as vandalism-only. MastCell Talk 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Socks at Dreadstar's RFA
There have been a lot of sockpuppets popping up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar for some odd reason. I thought I'd notify another admin just to keep an eye on it just encase it continues and spot. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Climax Entertainment
I don't understand why my page about a reputable video-game developer was deleted, when hundreds of other small organizations (including Climax Group, whose layout served as a template for my page) still linger in Wikipedia existence. I presented a completely unbiased overview of Climax Entertainment's work solely for the purpose of informing fans, such as myself. --Gutsdozer 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had MastCell's user page bookmarked since I had previously posted something on it. Saw that MastCell is on break, so just leaving a note here to let MastCell know that I left a note on Gutsdozer's talk page about deletion review and WP:CORP guidelines. (taking your talk page off my watchlist now mastcell) take care, Bigglovetalk 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Climax Entertainment. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gutsdozer 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding about this address, this is a University of Toronto Scarborough computer and I'm using it in one of the computer lab. Therefore this IP address is not a sockpuppet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Plastic pressure pipe systems
Please take a look at Plastic pressure pipe systems Msjapan keeps reverting to something which does not make sense. I am not a sock either. Please help, if it needs wiki work then great lets discuss. Msjapan wanted to delete the article so why is he still reverting without discussion? --Sandhurstman 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- For a "not-a-sock" you have an interesting habit of reverting to a version of the page posted by someone who is blocked for massive sockpuppetry.--Isotope23 talk 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you and Msjapan are bitter at being voted down by other editors/administrators. I am not a sock as I am only using one account. The article was left in a bad state and you have done nothing to improve the article.
- Reviewing the article history and your edits in particular leads me to believe that your account is being used in violation of WP:SOCK. I've therefore blocked it indefinitely. MastCell Talk 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Sociocapitalism
I am disappointed that the topic "Sociocapitalism" is deleted. I did add it to the watch list but I was not contacted/warned.
This is a knowledge that is critically missing for the moment, and deleting it is a great discouragement to one who tried very hard to contribute to the wikipedia. In the present political and economic environment, this is one of the most critical subjects that we need to know.
Though in general wikipedia is a knowledge database that emphasizes on old subjects, it also tries to contain new and critical topics that can change the course of the world.
The question is: if Europe is not practicing Sociocapitalism for the moment, what is their economic policy? How do we call it? Laissez-faire capitalism? Socialism? In the book I referenced near the end of the section, the author clearly called the German economic policy "Sociocapitalism."
For the moment, there are 351 hits on google, and it was less than 50 a few months back. This is a new subject that people started to notice. The momentum is building up. Please put it back so that people can get a basic understanding of what it is about and let the experts on this subject have a chance to enhance it.
I plan to add up to ten sections to the subject, including overviews of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and the weakness of each one of them. There will also be a section regarding how Europe adopted this new economic policy. I will cite many articles and books along the way.
Thanks! Jimbaron 09:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)•contribs) 07:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the issue with the article was that it consisted of original research. Once the term acquires notability, in the sense of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources (i.e. beyond blogs), then it may be possible to write an encyclopedic article on it. But Wikipedia is a forum for summarizing and collecting information published elsewhere, not for creating a novel exposition on an emerging phenomonon. I hope that's helpful. MastCell Talk 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can start from scratch and compose a page that only cites existing reliable and independent sources to describe this existing phenomenon that has not been properly named in the past. There are two published books that used the sociocapitalism to define the German economy and the direction that China is heading for: (1) "Germany's Balanced Development: The Real Wealth of a Nation" by Kaevan Gazdar. (2) "Economic Development, Social Order, and World Politics: With Special Emphasis on War, Freedom, the Rise and Decline of the West, and the Future of East Asia" by Erich Weede. These are independent and reliable sources that contribute to this subject. This new page will consist of only independent and reliable sources instead of blogs and it will be conformed to the notability clause of Wikipedia. Will this approach work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbaron (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, potentially. I won't delete it if you re-create it using reliable sources and avoiding original research. MastCell Talk 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll do my best to compose a summary of reliable and independent sources without any reference to original research that has not been published. Thanks for the pointer. Jimbaron 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Barneca RfA thank you spam
MastCell, thank you, very much, for your support during my RfA, and for your advice and kind words beforehand; it meant a lot. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. I hope I can occasionally pester you for the odd admin-related task I can't do. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request
I have requested community sanctions against Ferrylodge here. He has requested unblocking for the purpose of posting on that page here. I contact you as the blocking admin. I neither support nor oppose the request for unblock; however, as all the articles on which he was edit warring are calm now, and his unblock request has been denied by multiple admins, I suggest that if you choose to unblock you make it clear that it is for the purpose of posting there only. Disclosure: I offered to post a link to his response, should he choose to make it on his talk page, or suggested that he could request unblocking for this purpose, so I have a) violated his request made earlier today to not post on his talk page, which he made in an edit summary here, when he removed my explanation of "vulgar", and b) if you are at all unhappy about being placed in this position, it is my fault, as I brought it up. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
AJOP Page Protection
I think we have worked out the issues. This happened while waiting for the page protection. I think it is safe to unblock the page. AJOP Thanks, Yossiea (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please unprotect the Association of Jewish Outreach Programs article so that I may edit and add to it. I am not a party to this edit war. I do not function on Wikipedia that way. Thank you. IZAK 02:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request on one of your blocks
Please comment on the pending unblock request on User talk:Memestream, on which you were the blocking admin. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, Mr. Mess-with-my-cardiovascular-health
I've been working on Chronic myelogenous leukemia, because it's interesting, and I like cleaning up references and such. I'd like to help you get it to FA status. BUT, I would like you to take a look at Herpes zoster. I would like to FA that article soon. I've reduced some of the tendentious editing of a couple of alternative medicine POV warriors, so I think it's pretty stable. Deal? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to look at it, though I'm going to take this weekend off from Wikipedia as much as possible. MastCell Talk 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits on Children Overboard Affair
Hi Mastcell. Previously you protected Children Overboard Affair to head off disruptive editing. Can you have a look at recent edits and related talkpage commentary there? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the facts, I'm actually rewriting this diff which Brendan made without gaining consensus, one of several hotly-contested edits resulting in him later being blocked for edit-warring. I trust that he has learnt his lesson. --Pete 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again MastCell. You only need to look at talkpage commentary to see the truth of the matter. Skyring is engaging in hand-waving and disruptive editing on the article and it's talkpage. I'm happy to accept protection of the page again. I'd only point out that seems unfair to block everyone on account of one apparent POV pusher. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Brendan, you want our article to cast doubt on facts that are not in dispute. Please styop wriggling about and explain why this is a good thing for an encyclopaedia. --Pete 06:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your actions are "schizophrenic", Skyring. On my talkpage, you appeal for calm as if to imply that you are behaving reasonably where others are not, and as if you are ready for consensus building instead of disruptive editing, yet you continued to engage in the latter after posting comment, and you continue to factually misrepresent my edits. Let MastCell and others read for themselves. I'm not disputing any facts. You are disputing the particular fact that one section of the Committee report was government-authored and referred to in the mainstream press as a "dissenting report" in accordance with ordinary parliamentary franca lingua (something that you, a purported ex-journo according to your talkpage, should well know). Why you would seek to whitewash this basic fact is mystifying. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK - I apologize, but I don't think I have time to sort this out. I'd recommend pursuing some of the steps in dispute resolution - for example, a request for a third opinion or request for comment on the content issues. MastCell Talk 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Anabolic Steroid FA
I've nominated the Anabolic Steroid article for FA. Please leave some comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Article deletion
Hello,
(1) I see that on 18:14, September 6, 2007 you have added a PROD template to the article "Self Employment Scheme for Registered Unemployed (SESRU)" while the concern was: essay. After 5 days since then, you have served up deletion for the said article since the PROD expired uncontested.
Therefore, I wish to mention, as I disagree with the said deletion, that the delay in asked CONTEST was unintentional and I also wish the said article to be UNDELETED.
The reason "essay" for deletion is though briefly understood but I will appreciate it if a fuller explanation for the concern "essay" is given to me.
Some of the reaons in support of my disagreement: why I wished the said article must be undeleted?
(2) In the article "Self Employment Scheme for Registered Unemployed (SESRU)" I have conveyed my knowledge by providing factual information for those who desperately need it. I have accumulated this knowledge through dedicated practice which consumed many valuable years of mine where the same article clearly dealt with the constitutional objective and the implementation of prevailing State law. Such information is definitely going to be the proper content of any encyclopedia.
Also I firmly believe that the said article is unique in its nature as it is almost impossible to establish the same fact by others due to its rigorous nature. I had to spend almost 10 hard working years to gain relevant knowledge to write this article. -- Soumendra Nath Thakur 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Replied in depth on your user talk page. Briefly, personal expertise, no matter how compelling, is not a suitable basis for a Wikipedia article. Information must be sourced to reliable third-party sources. See WP:NOR and WP:V. MastCell Talk 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)