:The issue of the appropriateness of the EL seems to have gridlocked; one editor agreed that it was inappropriate, and I removed it under that basis, but after it was restored I approached another administrator who volunteers at BLP, and he does not agree that, as an external link, it is a violation. That moves it into the realm of a [[WP:DR|content dispute]], which can be very difficult to resolve, particularly when not all of the parties are willing to talk. As far as requesting longer page protection, you may wish to take that up at [[WP:RPP|requests for page protection]], and particularly if disruptive editing continues. Having already waded into the fray in an effort to address the external link, I am ''not'' the appropriate admin to protect the articles against content disputes, as the protection policy very clearly states that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute". Good luck with this. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:The issue of the appropriateness of the EL seems to have gridlocked; one editor agreed that it was inappropriate, and I removed it under that basis, but after it was restored I approached another administrator who volunteers at BLP, and he does not agree that, as an external link, it is a violation. That moves it into the realm of a [[WP:DR|content dispute]], which can be very difficult to resolve, particularly when not all of the parties are willing to talk. As far as requesting longer page protection, you may wish to take that up at [[WP:RPP|requests for page protection]], and particularly if disruptive editing continues. Having already waded into the fray in an effort to address the external link, I am ''not'' the appropriate admin to protect the articles against content disputes, as the protection policy very clearly states that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute". Good luck with this. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
== my mistake ==
Sorry about that problem on Joy Behar's page. My computer keys were stuck. [[Special:Contributions/24.154.250.242|24.154.250.242]] ([[User talk:24.154.250.242|talk]]) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the plus sign at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil comments here, unless you specify that you would rather I respond at your talk page. If I've left a note for you to which I think you may respond, I'm watching your page. Typically, I do not watch pages where I've left simple policy clarifications. If you want to discuss a note with me further and aren't sure if I'm watching your page, please feel free to open a new discussion with me here.
If you have a question about an album assessment I have made, please look first at the album assessment guidelines. It may answer your question. If it doesn't or if you'd like me to reassess, please let me know.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template warning I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked.
Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but thanks for your helpful comments on my article
Sarah Cahill (pianist). I will try to incorporate your suggestions as time permits. Since there are many many citations in print media on her, would it help to list those? As far as her notability, it is quite well established in the contemporary music world, so perhaps I should seek out comments made by other notables in the field.
Hi, Reechard. :) Some articles incorporate a list of external links (sometimes tagged "Further reading") or citations to print media, generally including notable reviews or interviews at reputable media. That would be entirely appropriate, although you'd do better to choose a few representative outstanding entries than create a long list without context. :) In terms of establishing notability, third party sources are what's used to verify that. For instance, we have this sentence in the article: "She is best known for insightful performances of new works, many of them written for her." Lacking citation, this is not verified and also falls under the definition of "peacock terms", which Wikipedia policy is to avoid. Who says they're insightful? It would strengthen the article to let us know. This is a perfect place to provide an inline citation to, say, the respected music critic who used the term. :) Wikipedia:Citing sources includes information on when to cite and how. And Happy New Year to you, too. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi, you left a set of comments at my editor review a while back, and I am curious as to your opinion of whether I could nominate myself at WP:RFA with any measure of success. Frankness and bluntness is completely appreciated. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR(Converse)07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll take a look at your contributions soon, and I will tell you if I see anything that would concern me. I have limited participation at RfA, so I may not detect issues that would be of concern to others, but I'll do my best. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through your more recent contributions, and I see nothing that would lead me to oppose you. That said, although I am extremely impressed with the work you do, I would personally feel more confident supporting your use of the tools (as opposed to abstaining, which is my usual approach) if I knew you were familiar with CSD (since I don't see a lot of work there) and if I saw more evidence of your ability to judge consensus. However, other editors focus on other things, and I think that you would likely receive quite a lot of support at RfA. You're knowledgeable, diligent and civil, all characteristics of a very good admin. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting that out. This is just a heads up to let you know that the article remains move protected. Now the debate has been settled I think the protection ought to be removed. I could of course do it myself but it's probably better if you do it, since you closed the debate and haven't been an involved party. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't one silly edit, but two libelous attacks in edit summaries. :) (I deleted the one, so it's under his deleted contributions.) I suppose he was blocked as a vandalism-only account and will contest it if he had more than bad intent. (Both lucasbrf & I were drawn to the editor by a post at ANI; the one remaining edit is up for oversight.) I don't do a lot of blocking myself, so I'm not really sure if it's common practice on suspected malicious account creation to indefinitely block. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moonriddengirl, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully.
(duplicate note from article talk page) Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from articles which you have created. I have restored the speedy tag and also added a "hangon", which is Wikipedia's method of indicating that you are offering an argument on the talk page against the deletion of the article. You may wish to review the notability guidelines on web material, which might help you determine what kinds of information are typically included to substantiate notability on websites. You may also wish to consider creating articles within a user subpage, which will allow you to develop them incrementally with less fear that they will be deleted before you can finish. Many Wikipedia editors (me included) use a sandbox for this purpose; you might want to create one at User:Askeladden2006/sandbox. When articles are finished, they can be moved into article space. Another useful way to let new page patrolers know that you are still working on an article that you might want to consider implementing is the {{inuse}} tag. Added to the top of an article, it expands with a template to let others know that you are working. This will not necessarily prevent edit conflicts or stop someone from prematurely evaluating an article for speedy deletion, but it might help. I'll duplicate this note at your talk page. :) If you'd like clarification on any of this, please let me know there, as I will have your talk page watchlisted. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your note at the article's talk page, I understand if you are frustrated by the repeated deletion of an article on which you were working. I would like to point out, though, that I am not the only administrator on Wikipedia and that I have never deleted the article. All I've done is attempt to help you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, everything is now deleted. Even the talk. This is so unfair. I am disabled and I was not even allowed to use the time I needed to start the article. You have to understand it takes time to type an article without using arms or hands. Also, you should be consequent and not only go after nonprofit groups for sick people. You should concentrate on all the articles about forums you have already! And let me finished!
Wikipedia has many articles, and sometimes articles that do not meet guidelines are overlooked. That doesn't mean that all articles that do not meet guidelines should be overlooked. Again, I understand that this must be frustrating for you. However, I have done the best that I can to advise you how to proceed without running into these problems, and I note that you have made use of a sandbox as I suggested. I do understand that it takes time to develop an article, which is why I made those suggestions and did not myself delete the article. I hope that none of the material was lost when it was deleted, as you had already copied the contents of the article to said sandbox. I also hope that utilizing a sandbox will allow you time to develop articles at your own pace with less concern about swift judgment. If you wish to discuss this further, I have—as I noted above—watchlisted your talk page, and I will see your responses there. However, if you'd prefer to continue it here, I would be perfectly happy to do so. In the meantime, I will duplicate this response at your talk page to ensure that you see it as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How can I find out who deleted it? Even my comments on talk were deleted. I think the article would have been finished today if I didn't have to discuss everything and do the start over and over again.sigh. you have to admit it gives the wrong single to let all the other articles stay.--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) you will find me on my talk page, thanks.[reply]
Hi. You can see the deletion log of an article by entering its name in a search. Friends International was deleted by three different administrators. User:Mike Rosoft deleted it at 9:14 UTC under WP:CSD#A7, as a website not indicating importance per the guidelines at WP:WEB. User:Od Mishehu deleted it at 9:41 for the same reason. User:East718 deleted it at 11:26 because at that point it had become a redirect page and the article to which it pointed was gone. User:Xoloz deleted the article at Friends International Support Group, also for failing A7. The same administrator deleted the talk page, which is standard practice when the parent article has been deleted. This is why I duplicated my notes from the article talk page at your talk page, because I knew there was a chance this would occur.
You're free to communicate with any of these admins about their choices, of course, but in this case I think I would probably instead continue to develop the article at User:Askeladden2006/sandbox and later move it to article space, when it may no longer be subject to A7. On the deleted talk page, you mentioned NikeTalk as an example of another discussion forum. The Media recognition portion of that article is a clear assertion of notability, and it is thoroughly cited, which is probably why it hasn't been deleted. (Even so, it's been nominated for deletion twice.) Survivor Sucks was also nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Sucks), so it's not a valid candidate for A7, and it has a source to Time (magazine). It would be very helpful to your article if you can offer source distinct from the forum's own site, which can't be used to verify notability according to policy.
Again, I am sorry that you've been so frustrated in this experience. In my observation, articles about websites and companies are among the most difficult to establish, as Wikipedia editors tend to be very suspicious of advertising or skeptical about notability. I hope that using a sandbox will help you avoid these problems with this article and any future articles you may choose to write. I wouldn't want to have to start over multiple times, either. I've been using a sandbox on articles that I thought might be misjudged before completion since early September, and so far it's worked well for me. I also routinely use the {{inuse}} template I recommended on articles when I first start them, even if I don't think they'll be controversial. If you want to see what it looks like in use, you can take a look at this edit, which was my first in a new article. As I mentioned, it doesn't always work exactly as you might hope, but it helps. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been very helpful and I understand it was not your fault.
I thank you for your help, but I really dont understand what to do here (I'm new). A few nights ago, I made an addition onto the Brien McMahon High School page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brien_McMahon_High_School) about the school's Drama Department. Many people were asking about it and I felt that they should have a Wikipedia page. It has a long history and i wanted to give an overview to the department. My main aim was to write a little history on the school's page and then go indepth on the Department's page. Please help!
Hi, Dondemio. The issue here is that Wikipedia's article are governed by policies on what is notable enough for a stand-alone article. The high school likely qualifies. The drama department may not, unless you can demonstrate that it is notable with reliable references from uninvolved sources (not the school's own web page, for instance). Newspaper articles, for example, are generally good for this, but their coverage needs to be substantial. It isn't enough for them to report, say, the time and date of a performance.
Notability requirements are less stringent on sections within articles, which is why I recommended that you might want to utilize the material there. It still needs to be verifiable, but in that case it can draw material from primary sources. (Note that it may still be removed if other editors of the article disagree that it is necessary for inclusion; in that case, you would work out the issues on the article's talk page as recommended by the dispute resolution guidelines.
If you have the kinds of secondary sources necessary to show that the drama department is sufficiently notable on its own to warrant an article, then you can certainly create such an article, but unless that can be demonstrated the article is likely to be speedily deleted again or deleted by another process. Please let me know if I can clarify this any further. I would like to be of assistance if I can. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the information. The Norwalk Hour (The city's newspaper where the school is located) covered the shows with many articles. Also, there are letters from the Principal of the school (Who had nothing to do with the shows). Would this be enough? Please let me know!
Nope, sorry, I dont have any links. (Do you mean to the newspaper's website?) It would be hard to get the articles. they are from a year ago... Is there anything else i can do so that i can write the page an not have it get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondemio (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite the source, that might help, but I strongly suspect it would not save the article, since city newspapers may not satisfy the requirement of widespread coverage. I really believe that incorporating the information as a subsection of the high school article might be the best way to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to add alot of detailed information (enough to make a new long article). My goal was to create a new article so that the School's page would not be so filled up by one part of the departments. So should I write the article then post it asking for it to be locked (can that happen?)--Dondemio (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably instead of adding a lot of detailed information, it would be better to add some well-chosen facts. As I said, if you overwhelm the article, there is a chance that you'll run into a content dispute. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by asking for the article to be locked. Do you mean protecting it so that others can't edit it? If so, that is not done pro-actively to deal with problems, but only after problems develop. As Wikipedia's reminder goes, "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." See the page protection policy for more about page protection. If you mean something else, please let me know. It might be advisable to create an abbreviated section on Wikipedia and link it to an external site (as long as the exteranl link complies with Wikipedia's external link guidelines—for instance, if you get permission to host the history of the drama club on the high school's website, there.--Moonriddengirl(talk)00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kyven. It's done. You can find the material at User:Kyven/temporary. (If you decide you don't want it anymore, please let me know or add {{db-userreq}} to the top of it so that an admin can clean it up.) Note that it includes the monstrously long "history" section. For GFDL purposes, that material must be made available, too, if any of that information is incorporated verbatim into another article, otherwise you find yourself in the odd position of violating the copyright of a deleted article. You have three options here that I can think of. (1) You can be sure that you've rewritten all of the text, since sentences and phrases are copyrighted but not ideas. (2) When articles are transwikiied, information on authorship is often incorporated into the page history by inclusion on the talk page. You could leave an edit summary something like "Material merged from Theater Hopper. See talk page for authorship information" and create a section on the talk page called "Authorship history of material merged from Theater Hopper". Then you'd copy the authorship information to there. (I'd recommend copying the code, so that numbering and whatnot is intact. It's probably easiest.) (3) You can ask the deleting administrator, User:Bogdangiusca, if he objects to the article being restored and blanked as a redirect so that authorship history can be preserved in the usual way when one merges an article--that is with a direct link in the edit summary to the source article. If he's on board with it, he can restore it for you for that purpose or I will. Before doing all that, please be sure that the addition of material from the deleted article to the other article has consensus. :) And please let me know if I was unclear about any of this. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was an indented comment, sorry if it accidentally went as a second vote (didn't mean to do that!). I'll fix it. jj137♠12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...whatever happened to that project I started, then unceremoniously bailed on? To be honest, it was either that project or bring a recall amendment to my home county's charter.
Speaking of changes, we see you've become an administrator! Congratulations!
Hey, welcome back! I'm thrilled to see you. :) The project you started and unceremoniously bailed on went the way of almost every wiki proposal I've seen. People argued; people agreed; people dithered; nothing was done. I decided henceforth to have nothing whatsoever to do with lists and focused my energies on policies I could work on in small pieces. In terms of policy, I hang at WP:CSD and WP:BLPN primarily these days. My RfA was a real nail-biter. :D When I was nominated, I thought, "Great! I can take care of that CSD backlog!" Ha ha! I had never actually realized that some days you can work two hours steady on CSDs and wind up with more than you started with. (I know this; I have tried it.) I'd ask what y'all have been up to, but I'm going to go peek into your contributions and find out for myself. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Administrator oversight
I have completely re-done the Sniper (disambiguation) page. This is my first attempt to fix one of the cleanup-tagged Disambiguation pages. My question is: do all the entries I have included fall within the scope of what should go on a Disambiguation page? Pen of bushido (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now that is one complex disambig page! My admin tools don't necessarily give me any better ability to judge disambig pages than the next joe, but I will happily give my opinion. :) It looks very good to me. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I would suggest that you might link to link to the primary topic in the lead, the way they demonstrate with school. So you might want to eliminate the primary definition from the list and open with
MOS also suggests with people to "include their birth and death years (when known)" and, to eliminate excess white space, use {{TOCright}}. Finally, to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, your section headers need to be reformed so that only the first letter is capitalized, since none of these seem to be formal titles. That's about the extent of my suggestions. It looks good to me; very structured and usable. :) If you want further feedback, you might want to wander over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, where you're likely to find people who know the guidelines about disambig pages backwards and forwards. For instance, I'm not entirely sure if convention is to list people notable for the thing being disambiguated. I don't recall having run into that one. And it leads me to wonder if it's considered appropriate to link to categories in the "see also"--say Category:Military snipers. I just don't know. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Editor Review
Hi. Thanks for the editor review yesterday, and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. As you mentioned, I was away for a while (not specifically in relation to the whole giano thing), but as my family has increased I haven't had enough time to contribute. In fact almost all of my contributions are while I'm supposed to be at work as I only have a (very poor) dial-up connection at home. This may explain the limited number of contributions I can make, and why I'd like to be able to focus my wiki-time a bit (I do have some work to do also!).
If you have time (and I really mean only if you have time, as you do seem to be very busy here), I would appreciate a more in-depth ER, but it's quite alright if you can't do this, I do understand. Thanks again, and you have already given me some things to think about. --The.Q(t)(c)14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I didn't really realise what it was. It wasn't a very clear article and mabye I should of read it a bit more carefully. (Respond on my talk page) ThundermasterTRUC13:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD
You know I realized that after I did it, but I have seen movies deleted for that in the past. I'm putting a PROD on it as soon as I'm done here, thanks! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sometimes people do stretch those criteria, but so far (in spite of tons of conversation) there's just no consensus to delete films and the like by A7. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought conspicuous nonsense was a sound basis for speedy deletion? The text claims an improvement of "hundreds of times" in efficiency - is the implication that current turbines are a fraction of one per cent efficient not absurd on its face? I can go through the rather drawn-out process of nominating the article for deletion but seems to me to be pretty obvious. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion specifies that it is for "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content". Nonsensical claims (and I agree that the implication that current turbines are a fractio of one per cent efficient is absurd) can be neutralized or removed, but for the entire article to be speedied under that criterion, it really needs to be gibberish. It's always possible that the article can be salvaged if insupportable claims within it are fixed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a whack at toning down the Road Runner physics. The original was virtually cut'n'pasted from two web sites, I should have nominated it for copyright violation instead. It would have saved considerable editing time to just delete the whole thing. But I suppose the Pokemon principle applies - we didn't get to 2,000,000 + articles by being exclusionist,now, did we? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've certainly left that article better than you found it. :D Well done. I believe the purpose behind limiting CSD is to allow editors a chance to do just that, fix something up so that it does survive. The theory seems to be that in the five day process of AfD, somebody may come along with time and energy enough to invest. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theater Hopper article
Hello, I'm relatively new to the process of recreating entire articles, and didn't realize the person who deleted it was an admin. The text I used in the recreated article was taken from a Comixpedia article which had apparently gotten the deleted text from the Wikipedia article. Therefore, I assumed it wouldn't be a problem considering they had taken the info from Wikipedia to begin with. If it still needs to be removed I understand, or I could attempt to get the permission/explanation of the creator of the Comixpedia article.
Hi. :) I know the text was the same as that Comixpedia, because I supplied to the editor who put it there (his request here; that's the only reason I noticed the article had been recreated). The problem is that the author information for the Wikipedia editors needs to be incorporated; you see that the editor who put it on Comixpedia placed the author information on the article talk page there. When you write for Wikipedia, you release your writing under GFDL, which means that you give other people permission to change or use it, but you retain the right to credit. The way the Theater Hopper article looks right now, it would seem that you wrote it from scratch. (It's always admins who delete articles; only admins have that ability at this point.) The easiest thing to do is probably to politely request that the admin restore the original article so that the authorship history is also returned. There is a chance that the admin will disagree that it is notable after all, in which case you do have the option of bringing it up for deletion review, if you think that it asserts notability per WP:WEB. Please let me know if that's unclear. I know it's a little confusing. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I definitely understand what you're saying now. I also neglected to notice that you were the one who received the request. Thanks for the help, I'm sorry for blundering into the process! -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's no problem. It's pretty complicated stuff. Until you're really familiar with GFDL, it doesn't make sense that you can violate copyright by copying Wikipedia content on Wikipedia. It happens all the time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy is the Future
homeopathy is the future
WOULD YOU LIK TO CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPROJECT HOMEATPHY? GOOGLE IT PLEASE TO FIND OUT HOW YOUC AN DONATE YOUR ITME AND HELP SAVE MILLIONSOF LIFES EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH EDUCATION AND WIKIEDITING. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help. I really can't tell you how hard it has been for me to work on these articles. I have had to learn to overcome my own positive bias and to deal with vandalism and BLP issues with very little support from anyone (not to mention a BLP attack aided by an admin). I tried to explain on the BLP noticeboard that the only way to deal with these "people" who may be in effect offline sockpuppets of one person for all we know is to block them first from editing the articles and get page protection for the articles because they can easily use another IP. If that can be done, you won't have to waste your valuable time and energy on them and I can learn how to do editing requests of page protected articles and take the necessary time to clean up. This would be very slow work. Protection just on the main article until Jan 19th is clearly not enough as I am busy again with personal matters and the other articles are still vulnerable to revenge attacks. Maybe indefinite page protection on all of them would be a better solution. The articles are all quite long enough and seem to be a lightning rod for spam (from those trying to promote their own interests) and defamatory attacks from those with strong negative feelings towards Janov or his ideas.
What I can not see myself doing is a whole lot of clean up work only to have all the material put back in larger quantities, which is what happened when I removed that one last link on Dec 29th. That is why I have not gotten involved in editing these articles since.
Frankly, it looks to me as though Wikipedia may have entered a crisis state. Experienced editors and admins may be just walking away as the number of complex problems grows together with the number of articles. If this is what is happening it is inevitable that Wikipedia will collapse under the weight of libel suits that will come eventually. GrahameKing (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the appropriateness of the EL seems to have gridlocked; one editor agreed that it was inappropriate, and I removed it under that basis, but after it was restored I approached another administrator who volunteers at BLP, and he does not agree that, as an external link, it is a violation. That moves it into the realm of a content dispute, which can be very difficult to resolve, particularly when not all of the parties are willing to talk. As far as requesting longer page protection, you may wish to take that up at requests for page protection, and particularly if disruptive editing continues. Having already waded into the fray in an effort to address the external link, I am not the appropriate admin to protect the articles against content disputes, as the protection policy very clearly states that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute". Good luck with this. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
