User talk:Razr Nation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:05, 31 March 2014

Contributions

Schedule · Academy · To do · RFA · Templates · Files · Barnstars & Awards · Featured content · Good articles · GA reviews · DYK · DYK reviews · Articles

Razr Nation's archives	Current discussion	Go to 2016	Go to 2017-19	Go to 2022	Go to 2023

Obama-ism (2)

Here is what I have been able to find so far in random order. You might say that too many of them mention Bushism but how could you write an article about Obamaisms without at the very least mentioning Bushism? They all focus exclusibely about Obamaisms.

Thank you.--HansBarack (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a detailed look soon! → Call me Hahc21 23:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steeplechase 2013

Hi Hahc- Thanks for giving me the Steeplestarter. I just wanted to follow up on if I would be receiving the two main awards for the Steeplechase 2013. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot about those. Yes, I will try to give them down to you this coming week. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse

Excuse me for the edit war but the other did not want to understand anything. What are the consequences? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014 (and this goes to Fitzcarmalan too): The edit war you just performed was well enough to block you both for a week. I have yet to count hoy many reverts you did in the last 24 hours, and I am still impressed that you took this too far. Another administrator might have surely blocked you without hesitating for that reason only. However, I am not to keen to block right away, and I feel that protecting the page so that none of you can touch it for two weeks is a better response. If you two cannot agree on a content dispute, reverting until the end of time is definitely *not* the solution. If you didn't know, we have the dispute resolution noticeboard, and in case that fails, a request for comment process to sort it out. I'd recommend to spend the next two weeks using them both to solve the problem, because if you resume reverting after the protection expires... → Call me Hahc21 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wise decision. So no blocking for us yet?--Panam2014 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and i'm willing to stop touching this article for even more than two weeks as a punishment. But i think Panam2014 should be reverted first so he doesn't get encouraged to persist with this uncooperative behavior of reverting then deciding to discuss like i said earlier in the RPP noticeboard, because this is clearly not how Wikipedia works. I have asked them several times to discuss and they ignored me. Once again, i apologize and this is certainly not a habit of mine to edit war. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who does not understand how. This is partly your fault. Finally, there was no consensus and the term revolution is controversial so I moved down. And you want to put it twice. Finally, my version was a compromise because I agreed to put down revolution while it was not planned. This is not your article.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussing this here. Go to WP:DRN like Hahc21 said if you are really willing to discuss. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, no blocking for you yet. I think it's better to let you edit and discuss. Blocking would only frustrate both of you even more and bring undesired consequences after the block expires. Also, Fitzcarmalan: I decided not to revert to a previous edit-war-free version because I did not know which version would be, since this back and forth has been going for a bit, I suppose. I will refrain myself from commenting about the substance of the word revolution or not, though. (I am Venezuelan and I am currently living the 2014 Venezuelan protests, so I would not be the best person to give a neutral comment on the matter). → Call me Hahc21 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand that and i'm not asking you to comment on the word revolution. But the part Panam2014 keeps removing was there for more that 2 months before their unilateral decision to eliminate it. [1]

Also, stay safe there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was renammed. --Panam2014 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last entry on this page regarding this matter because i might later take Panam2014's case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a previous history of disruptive editing in this user's few contributions on the English Wikipedia by moving titles several times without consensus for example. Like i said, i'm not asking you to give any opinion, i'm simply asking you to revert this user to the default version because this might encourage more disruptiveness and might give the green light for Panam2014 or other users to remove something controversial without discussing per BRD and we both know this is unacceptable. I will not edit war again and i acknowledge it was my fault to revert in the first place, but i will definitely report Panam2014 if they persist with this kind of behavior, especially when they appear to show no sign of regret for having done something wrong. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea if issues persist. There' you will have more eyes evaluate the dispute. → Call me Hahc21 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i'll have to bite again.

You seem to misunderstand my point Hahc21. The undiscussed version imposed by this user is still there (already provided the diff), and this fact will certainly encourage more disruptiveness to come. This is already an issue as long as it exists and you just said it yourself "if the issues persist". But i don't have to wait for something else to show up and it should be reverted. If you are not interested, do you think i should contact another admin? Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the undiscussed version is still there because it was the last edit when I protected, and reverting to another revision through full protection is something that an administrator should not do unless they want to get slapped or desysopped. I recognize that this is an issue, but I thought you would try DRN. It doesn't matter which version is there, it can always be changed after the protection expires (this is a wiki, anything can be modified). I said "if the issues persist" because I thought that both you and Panam were discussing the issue now that the article was protected, but if this is not the case, use WP:AN/I. → Call me Hahc21 18:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording should be changed puiisque section has been renamed and there is a reason: not neutral. So I just dropped the word revolution down to explain that there was controversy. Should not revert to the version of Fitzcarmalan because it is what caused the renaming. I know the functioning wiki. Filtzcarmalan but I doubt it. I can discuss. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Newbie running riot with twinkle. Thanks.

But if you click on the link, you'll notice a post-script that's not directly related to you. Never-the-less, if you're in the mood, AND you have an opinion, I would be VERY interested to read your opinion (here, ~~or there,~~ or on my talk page). In the meantime: Thanks!. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was all very weird and crazy. It is the first time that I had to deal with a suspected sockpuppet since passing my RfA two weeks ago, but my previous experiences with socks had prepared my gut to recognize who quacks and who doesn't. In general, I think it was an awkward situation that we all managed to handle pretty well. → Call me Hahc21 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henrique Capriles Radonski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chacao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kniazev speedy

The deletion of Alexander Kniazev was premature, in my opinion. Speedy was contested on the talk page, since the artist's discography satisfies WP:BAND with thirteen records, four of them on the Warner Classic label. The incoming links to Alexander Kniazev from other Wikipedia articles are another indicator that speedy deletion was inappropriate.

No need to post a talkback— I will watch this talk page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that the article, in the state it was when I deleted it, clearly met A7. It just said Person X is a cellist. He studied and graduated from A. Also studied and graduated from B. In my eyes, it did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Therefore, the speedy deletion was appropriate, since they are applied accoding to the state of the article, and not it's possible notability. However, your comment about WP:BAND is correct (though CSD is not meant to be used to discuss notability), and I will be willing to restore the article if you will work on it so that it no longer meets A7. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 03:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could make the discography more explicit in the article as a list. Would that suffice for now? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you will have to add too that he has released X studio albums, selling more than Y copies in Russia, receiving Z awards or something in the lead too. → Call me Hahc21 03:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have prompt access to info like that. I started that stub to satisfy the red links I was seeing here and there. Sorry to see it go, but there it went. Regards, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore a copy on your userspace if you want to work on it calmly, if that's okay with you. → Call me Hahc21 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no need for that. I saved a local copy when I saw the speedy tag go on. If I can work it into presentable shape, I will put it back into the main WP space, if that is acceptable under the rules. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I know that Wikipedia can be rude sometimes, though! Feel free to ping me if you ever need something. → Call me Hahc21 04:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Later Sui Dynasty Request

Please reconsider about undeletion, since I prepared to the article expansion. When I logged in, I see the article already deleted. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but AfD is binding. I can't unilaterally go against consensus and restore the article just because you ask. Please consider submitting your article at Articles for Creation so that it can be checked before it's moved to mainspace. → Call me Hahc21 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAS (software)

Was wondering if you could help me figure out what's going on with my GAN for this page. The first GA review was abandoned. The second GA review was a pass, but the editor never did the formalities of adding the GA icon, etc.. A second editor who had read it a couple times said he would be willing to promote it, but then a third editor completely deleted the entire GA review page. It looks like it's in the GAN queue again - do I just need to wait for a third review? CorporateM (Talk) 04:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I think I will review it for you. It's short and looks quite ready. No idea why the second GA review was deleted, but anyways. → Call me Hahc21 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! They deleted it saying it needed a "real" GA review. To be honest I was just happy to get two editors saying it was GA-ready and one actually using a check-list, rather than a drive-by review.

If I am not being too much of a burden, I would also love your input on the Hubspot article (maybe later, whenever you have time). It's a marketing software company best-known for the marketing they do for themselves and their advocacy for inbound marketing (very well-known in marketing circles)

I routinely go back to my older (crappier) COI works and clean them up and this is one of those. The reviewer said it was still a promotional puff piece and that non-COI editors should take over further improvement, but realistically nobody else besides myself is ever going to bring it up to GA. And it is always hard to tell when there is so much emphasis on my COI whether the article is actually promotional or if it is a response to my COI disclosure. I asked Edge3 (a very good GA reviewer) but he was unavailable. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis Fleming

I note that you deleted the page Amaryllis Fleming. I was not aware of any discussion about this. She was a well known cellist and it would have been easy to add extra sources to the page if alerted. Can you reinstate so I can work on it? --Mervyn (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion. I will restore on your userspace so that you can calmly work on it without getting another surprise CSD tag. Hold on... → Call me Hahc21 14:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mervyn: Okay. I have restored the article in your userspace here: User:Mervyn/Amaryllis Fleming. I also went ahead and salted Amaryllis Fleming for a week so that you can calmly work on it without having to worry about other user recreating the article (which would be a bit messy). Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 14:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I just noticed that you got the broomstick. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! → Call me Hahc21 18:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Flotilla (video game)

The article Flotilla (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flotilla (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Newyorkadam -- Newyorkadam (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics of Repressed Memory

You deleted the article on the forensics of repressed memory, despite their being more votes to keep it than to delete it. I would like to know how you interpreted this as a consensus to delete. Emt mast (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because AfD is not a vote, and the strength of the arguments has more weight than just saying keep. Apart from that, the three IPs that voted keep didn't offer compelling and policy-based reasons as to why it should be kept, unlike the delete votes. → Call me Hahc21 22:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I disagree with you. The point of AfD is consensus. This was not reached. I am going to bring this to appeal. --Emt mast (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. → Call me Hahc21 02:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My account has been confiscated.

Excuse me, Seńor, I have moved this message from Mark Arsten's talk page to this since you say that you are the next one available and are also an administrator. I am the former owner of the "CastellanetaFan" account, Bbb23 has blocked it from editing for being used "only for Sock puppetry" but that isn't true. I owned the account for three whole years and did honest edits with it until abusing the privilege with multiple anonymous accounts, which was only a few months ago. I admit it was reckless, I am deeply ashamed for it and don't believe I entirely deserve the penalty. I am repentant and if I can be forgiven and have the account back, I truly promise to edit only while logged in, if I can just stay a major user. Please tell me that it isn't too late. --2602:306:37EB:49E0:41D0:6A89:C737:2C50 (talk)(CastellanetaFan)[[ 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Since you look that you are sorry, I think it won't harm to take a look. But first, apart from CastellanetaFan, I need you to list here *all* other accounts and IPs you have edited from (apart from this one), so that I can have a proper look. Remember that the only way the community can welcome you back is if you have stayed away from editing during a timespan of at least 4-to-6 months, especially if you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. → Call me Hahc21 02:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts I can remember using are:

CastellanetaFan (talk · contribs)
68.190.85.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
98.88.46.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
71.150.250.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
70.226.167.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
70.226.171.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2602:306:37eb:49e0:9d47:5b3:ebca:b7d6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2602:306:37EB:49E0:9103:1838:2251:8D16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2602:306:37EB:49E0:E5D5:3810:E44C:F091 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2602:306:37eb:49e0:fd13:edb:d02d:3e8d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2605:E000:4A41:E500:A82B:F917:E4B8:E723 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and ShortTermer (talk · contribs)

I will refrain from all edits until August if I have to. --2602:306:37EB:49E0:41D0:6A89:C737:2C50 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)(CastellanetaFan)[reply]

Woah! Okay, Let me take a look and then I'll give you a formal reply on what route to take. → Call me Hahc21 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look. Yes, your latest edit was made on 28 March 2014 (not counting your edits here but let's say they don't because you're asking for advice). My advice is to stop editing until 1 September 2014 and then come back to my talk page (or to WP:AN/I if I am not around then) and ask for an unblock of your main account under the provisions of WP:OFFER. That's what I'd do. → Call me Hahc21 03:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do hope this works.--2602:306:37EB:49E0:41D0:6A89:C737:2C50 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Blade

I got too impatient while working on Infinity Blade, so I ended up finishing it up and sending it to FAC before you could get there- it's just four nominations above yours! I'll try to give you a review, though I'll likely start at the bottom with the VG nominations most likely to get rejected. Thanks for recommending I push it to FAC! --Pres N 05:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Yay. Thanks and don't worry. I was full finishing up Flotilla and making some progress on Ancient Trader (and learning the tools too!). I will be more than glad to give you a review this week, and I'd be very delighted if you do the same for me :) Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 05:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, congrats on that! Welcome to the delightful world of banning aggravating children and dealing with the murky messes that no one else wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. Let me know if you ever need an uninvolved admin for anything. --Pres N 05:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Comment: A foolish request

Traffic report: Down to a simmer

Recent research: Wikipedians' "encyclopedic identity" dominates even in Kosovo debates

News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced

Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own

Op-ed: Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia

Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?

WikiProject report: From the peak

New signature

Just wanted to let you know that I like it better than your old one (saw it over on ANI :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 23:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Heh, took a while but I finally got used to it :) → Call me Hahc21 07:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2013 in film

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 in film. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Also, thank you for your follow-up comments elsewhere in the process. I felt really stifled after you recommended I not reply to so many opposes, but I understood why you were making that suggestion, even though I think such a bias is absurd. Anyhow, thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Cyphoidbomb. I'm a bit sad that you didn't make it, but I'm sure that in no more than a year you will do it in a landslide. I agree that it's a bit absurd, but many users are uneasy about candidates doing that (wonder why). I would be glad to serve as your nom of you ever feel like putting yourself up for the mop again. Happy editing! → Call me Hahc21 07:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gastón Álvarez Suárez

Could you please provide your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gastón Álvarez Suárez as "keep"? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Mark?

What's going on here? This is shocking news! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that Mark got burnt out and is taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia. It is uncertain if he will be back or not. I hope he does, but you know that the dramaz can be extremely frustrating sometimes. → Call me Hahc21 02:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it, but I don't have to like it. Mark will be tough shoes to fill. Really a shame... — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 What's going on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark_Arsten&diff=601748888&oldid=601746589 here]? This is shocking news! &mdash; [[User:MusikAnimal|<font color="black"><b><i>MusikAnimal</i></b></font>]] [[User talk:MusikAnimal|<font color="green" ><sup><b>talk</b></sup></font>]] 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 :Let's say that Mark got burnt out and is taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia. It is uncertain if he will be back or not. I hope he does, but you know that the dramaz can be extremely frustrating sometimes. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''Hahc'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''21'''</font>]] 02:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
+::I can understand it, but I don't have to like it. Mark will be tough shoes to fill. Really a shame... &mdash; [[User:MusikAnimal|<font color="black"><b><i>MusikAnimal</i></b></font>]] [[User talk:MusikAnimal|<font color="green" ><sup><b>talk</b></sup></font>]] 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)