User talk:GRBerry

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot or one of the newer substitute bots. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Email advice: When able to be active on Wikipedia, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Wikipedia". GRBerry

• Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
• Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
• Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006

At this point I became an admin, and began letting bots archive the page. Subsequent archives are in the order they became stale, not the order conversations started.

• Archive 4: December 31, 2006 to January 27, 2007
• Archive 5: January 31, 2007 to May 31, 2007
• Archive 6: June 1, 2007 to ongoing

IP sockpuppet

Actually, I don't remember much about that editor or case. Someone who keeps sockpuppeting should probably be blocked indefinitely. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion review: category:jewish american comedians

Thanks for fixing the template. I rarely mess with all the wikipedia policy/bureaucracy stuff and find it to be unnecessarily confusing. Regardless, I'm glad someone is there to fix my screwups. --Osbojos 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You did things right; the deletion review regulars just decided it was easy enough to change the templates by hand, rather than create convulted, probably non-maintainable syntax for the template you actually used in order to know whether to apply {{la}}, {{lc}}, {{li}}, or one of the others. GRBerry 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WinLIKE

I found that the article on WinLIKE was deleted and protected from restoration. Whatever were the reasons to delete the article, the ban on creation a new one on the topic seem to be illicit, as the tecnology exists and is used by quite a number of sites. You may delete the old article, but creation of new, independent one must be opened! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stasdm (talk • contribs).

You might start by reading the deletion discussion or the review of the deletion, which you participated in previously. As was said then, someone without a conflict of interest should write in userspace a new draft, making sure to strictly follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give the reasons to name me the person with "conflict of interest"? My only connection to Ceiton is that I was the first Russian WinLIKE user and so was asked to be a Russian WinLIKE forum admin.

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online DRV

You closed it, because it technically wasn't deleted...but where should we discuss it then? I want to revert it, because it no longer fails WP:WEB, but I don't want an edit war, because Jauerback will revert it back to the redirect again...so what should I do?VDZ 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the AFD with a merge result. The best place to discuss whether there is a consensus to unmerge is at the talk page of the merege/redirect destination, here Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. You need an overall consensus, in which the opinions of the AFD participants are given due weight in evaluating consensus. Having looked further, I agree that merging is appropriate for the article as it was. If the sources you brought to DRV are enough to write an article, write an article using them. I'm a big believer in the Wikipedia:Independent sources method of demonstrating that an article can be written. Whatever you do, don't recreate the game guide content (technical requirements, how to play) or the list of spam external links that was at the bottom. GRBerry 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did try on the talk page, and even asked for help at the village pump when nobody objected, then recreated the article, but Jauerback reverted it right after that and told me to take it to DRV instead... VDZ 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion was to rewrite the article using the independent sources to source all content in the new draft. Do that first, possibly at a subpage or by then restoring the redirect over the top, and discuss the rewritten draft. If that is a reasonable article, and you can't get people at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game to discuss it, then solicit feedback from the AFD participants. A draft written only from independent documents is decent evidence of notability. Just adding the links at the bottom, which is almost all you did, doesn't mean anything significant. GRBerry 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and thank you for getting involved a little with Great Commission Association. Please stick around for the next few weeks (if only by adding it to your watch-list). It's very hard to build consensus because of the strong POV on both sides of the editors. A lot of people have just given up. If you could help and moderate some with us, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Nswinton\^talk 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It remains on my watch list, and probably will for a while. GRBerry 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template the regulars

I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read my original comment, I said to endorse the initial deletion. I do not choose to opine further in that discussion. GRBerry 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment

GRB, thanks for the notice. I'm not sure how that happened, but I moved it to the appropriate section. Thanks again — xDanielx^Talk 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hukou

I note your comment on the talk page. I have carefully merged the relevant section into the article in my userspace, and then transferred it in 4 macro steps, and would appreciate your comments. Ohconfucius 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions on Pseudoscience

At my RFA you stated that I believe wikipedia should employ a "Scientific" point of view and that I support the full out deletion of Pseudo-science related articles. This couldn't be further from the truth. I have worked very hard on improving scientifically controversial articles that are often labeled pseudoscience. I have brought the Parapsychology article up to GA status. I believe articles who's subjects are frequently described as "pseudoscience" SHOULD exist and should be presented in a NPOV way, simply letting the facts speak for themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 evading his block again

Hi, I saw your note on his talk page. Despite your advice, he's editing from an IP address again, here. IPSOS (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. I cannot see that an individual can be "tried" for an offence without being allowed to defend himself.

Within the spirit of the law, I am limiting myself to do just that. I informed IPSOS and left a note to that effect on the sockpuppet page.

I am playing with an open hand. Thank you. User:Green108

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your informative comments on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of courtesy blanking

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this... any particular reason you blanked this discussion? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the IP editor comments triggered it. 68.101.0.201 was among the worse. She is of marginal notability, and having that page as a top search result is a massive disservice to both ourselves and her. As a side benefit, courtesy blanking will make the page less attractive to those executing the DoS attack on her. GRBerry 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine- I replaced the general template however with the afd template. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Doseuro

I don't feel Doseuro is sourced well enough, although if there are few-to-none articles on this subject in English (as stated on the article's talk page) I'll simply leave it alone. It can be tricky finding notability for foreign things and this looks like a mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me now though. -WarthogDemon 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistatement in evidence

You are mischaracterizing here. The editor states only that he was offline canvassed, not that he was canvassed to vote keep. More likely the opposite as he had previously voted delete, and changed his mind, but we can't say definitively either way. -- 67.98.206.2 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)