User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc

Notice: threads on this page are automatically archived after 10 days of inactivity.

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Level 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

---

3.35 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 12:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

WTA Tour

I'd like your opinion: is it appropriate to call an article on the 1971 Virginia Slims Circuit WTA Tour 1971? Regardless of sponsor, the other yearly articles are called WTA Tour YYYY, but I am not sure whether we would say that the 1971 tour can be considered part of WTA Tour history. Your thoughts? Ordinary Person (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, being very unfamiliar with tennis in general, I can't answer your question, but I can suggest some lines of thought:

• Why do the other articles follow that standard? Are they correct in doing so, and moreover, can that reasoning be applied to this case?
• As there doesn't seem to be a particular naming guideline that refers to sporting events, or gatherings in general (conventions, expos, national and international summits), the salient guideline may be WP:COMMONNAME. WP:MOSTM may apply, as may WP:NCCORP.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) may not apply as it seems geared specifically towards events which wouldn't have an "official" title, or where such a title would be a POV-charged term bestowed by the media or a government.
• You could also look at WP:SAL#Naming conventions and WP:SS. The latter may have some advice since, really, the WTA Tour by year articles are spin-offs of particular sections of what would be a greater WTA Tour article.
• Barring any policy or guideline that seems to directly regulate this, existing consensus rules, which would suggest the generic title. It might be a good idea to later go codify said consensus in a wider-reaching guideline, such as one for sport in general.

I think the best route to take is to look at why the other articles are titled in that way. And in any case, I'd suggest redirecting the title you don't use to the one you do since it's surely going to be a valid search term. Let me know if you want me to take a closer look at this though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Ordinary Person (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ScanSafe logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:ScanSafe logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently has been replaced with a newer version of the same logo, though I believe it may be a "web version" of a generic logo. But whatever. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Due Diligence

Can I humbly suggest that if you are so inclined you carry the same due diligence to the article in question as to my comments on it. I honestly believe you'd conclude the orginal article was harsh and the current one more neutral. I think you're digging in the wrong place... Amicaveritas (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to distance myself from this case as I've found myself incapable of neutrally describing the situation, and thus incapable of helpfully contributing to it. My final suggestion to you is to please, please cease edit warring just because you feel you're "in the right" and because you have an interpretation of the BLP policy which supports that edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive no matter who is right- if you concisely and neutrally discuss why you feel the information is in violation of Wikipedia policy on the appropriate talk page or noticeboard, I can guarantee that your concerns will be given due and thorough consideration by editors highly experienced in handling these sorts of disputes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, the Wise - I learn from you. Good words, good action.--Levalley (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Levalley! :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As recorded elsewhere - Thank you for your comments. I now fully understand with regard to "edit warring" (something that was not ever my aim). I have sought recourse through appropriate channels which has delivered a satisfactory interim result and is leading to appropriate discussion and action. Duly noted on "my interpretation", won't engage in it again, it was simple frustration at not knowing the correct process being new. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (and I should say following what I believed to be the correct process without results)...Amicaveritas (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear things are rolling along! With regards to that frustration, I'd certainly like to apologize for my contributions to it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed but thank you anyway. Amicaveritas (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DunBradstreet.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:DunBradstreet.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed- orphaned as a result of vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Does the 3rr rule apply to removing unsourced information? Readin (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything that isn't reverting vandalism as defined by WP:VAND, or removing negative unsourced potentially libelous content from a biography of a living person counts towards 3RR. In short, yes it does apply. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...according to WP:VAND, and edit war is vandalism, and I was trying to use the requirement of a reliable source to stop an edit war (identified as such because the edit warriors were both suspended for a while) between two views that were not sourced, so it sounds like technically I was not guilty of 3RR. I'm glad we've cleared that up. :-) Readin (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... I believe you've misinterpreted what vandalism is. Vandalism is defined as deliberate efforts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Never is it good faith edits. Edit warring is therefore not defined as vandalism, as it frequently results from a clash of opposing, yet good faith viewpoints. Furthermore, edit warring to end an edit war is like bombing to promote peace, or drinking to promote temperance, and moreover is more likely to protract the edit war you'd hoped to stop. In the future, if you see an edit war that's progressed beyond 3RR, the solution is to warn and/or report the users involved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Can be found at WP:AN for you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck on this- maybe a year-long softblock on that /24 lucasbfr mentions will happen. Apart from that, all I can suggest is to ignore the hassling if you can, maybe work on an abuse report to the ISP if the person in question has clearly crossed the line into criminal harassment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, there's a short- to medium-term rangeblock in place. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan misunderstanding

Mendaliv, if you aren't aware of this already, you may be interested in Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Unlawful links, which references a couple of your recent edits. —Bkell (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't been aware of it. Just the WP:EAR thread that preceded it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

This is to inform you that a RfC for Tennis expert has been started here. AlonsornunezComments 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. This is been kinda daunting (setting up a RfC, getting Diff's set up, etc...) Thanks for the help. AlonsornunezComments 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I've said my piece there. Honestly I'd rather be discussing contributions than contributors, and my hope is that all the hardworking tennis folk can come to a formal agreement on guidelines for tennis-related articles.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• When you certify the basis of the dispute, you are involved. Your view has therefore been moved and modified. I think stating that you "stepped in and provided commentary and suggestions in this and related disputes, but have only done so from the position of attempting to provide highly informal mediation" is relevant, but I would urge you to remove the contradiction of suggesting you are in some way uninvolved, because it suggests you are not in a position to certify the basis of the dispute - I consider that you are in such a position based on what I've looked at, and currently, without your certification, I would not move this RfC to "approved". Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Amiga logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:Amiga logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently replaced with a more accurate version. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)