User talk:Mayalld: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,297,583 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/January. (BOT)
HELP : /
Line 1: Line 1:
Hmm, can i not rename them later? Kinda hard to give them a more descriptive name when I dont know what theyre gonan be about yet. I tried computer since i madeo ne oon those but its taken already and wont let me edit it, just says view source ; /
{{usertalk}}
{{usertalk}}
{{usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|icon=lang}}
{{usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|icon=lang}}

Revision as of 10:55, 3 February 2009

Hmm, can i not rename them later? Kinda hard to give them a more descriptive name when I dont know what theyre gonan be about yet. I tried computer since i madeo ne oon those but its taken already and wont let me edit it, just says view source ; /


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thenks for your concern....

but if you go back and look at the edit summery of the editor who is reporting me, you might see why he is getting attacked by other editors. He is the most uncivil editor that I may have ever come across, and his behavior on talk pages only makes his situation worse. I think that when this is all said and done and you all figure out that I am not that other account, it will say more about him then it will ever about me.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA

Hiya - good to see that you've put yourself forward for RFA, and you have my support already. Just a quick note to say that I've put your edit count on the RFA's talk page - this is generally something your nominator would do...if it was something you were getting around to, my apologies for jumping the gun! Good luck for the next seven days...! GbT/c 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA isn't going well, but the comments seemed to be focused on deletion expertise, rather than trust, competence or friendliness issues, and this is a good sign for your next RFA. If this one doesn't work out, I hope you'll run again. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an opposer I totally agree with Dan. There is no question in my mind of your even temprament, dedication and trust; however a better understanding of CSD is needed for me to support - and clearly many others. I'm sure round 2 will be fine if you can address this issue. Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all these comments guys. I expected a rough ride because I know my deletion expertise is below par, and I'm reading the comments thoroughly, because seeing RFA as a pass/fail thing isn't particularly useful. I see it as a valuable opportunity to get feedback, and to work out what my personal plan should be to become more of an asset to the project (and it is about working out how I can do better, rather than working out how I can "pass" and RFA). It is a bit of a PITA that the RFA is probably going to fail on the deletion issue, when that is the one tool that I'm not actually seeking, and have absolutely no intention of using, but C'est la vie! Mayalld (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel kinda bad seeing all the "per WilyD". While I don't think you're quite ready, I also don't think you deserve the beating you're getting either. Personally, I do find people who're over-anxious to speedy a bit problematic, but the remedy is pretty clear - don't be so terrified of AFD. Apart from G10s, there's really nothing that needs to be speedily deleted. Lazily deleted usually works just as well. I hope you handle it well - I certainly found my ArbCom run a little disheartening, I'll confess. Cheers, WilyD 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I've taken a lot of what's been said on board, and I'm pretty thick skinned, so it isn't giving me any pain, and I know what it will take to fix the problems. Whilst I could disagree with your 6 diffs (I count them as 3 bad, 2 debatable, and 1 good), I think its fair to say that I sometimes spend 5 seconds too little before deciding. That will be (is) fixed. I actually want to ask a favour of you (call it a penance for being the rallying point for the opposers if you want). I'm keeping note of everything that I put up for CSD/PROD/XFD from here on in. Three months down the line, I would appreciate you looking over the list. I figure that if I can convince you that I've got it, I should be able to convince anybody! Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me, I'm sure I will. That said, although I probably have a reputation as quite the inclusionist, it's probably not merited. I'm probably much more like "process-wonk". The issue with CSD is that there are very few eyes that see it, and very little time to fix it. PROD, XfD solve the latter, and both respectively. I once reviewed my own history, and ~1/2 the articles I've sent to AfD have ended up being kept. CSD one has to be a lot more of a stickler precisely because you so often see things there that merit inclusion, but are in rough shape and need some work or whatever. I think the point is that PRODs and AFDs can be debateable, as there'll be debate, but speedies should never be debateable because there's unlikely to be any debate. CSDs & PRODs also attract very little attention, which means fuckups are far less likely to end up at DRV. Anyways ... WilyD 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do labels! Some might label me a deletionist (hell, lots of people have done!), but I don't believe that I am a deletionist. I think my major issue is that I have equated (lack of obvious notability) + (COI) + (POV) to be blatant advertising. Clearly, I was wide of the mark. So, I will adjust to the way the world works. You will most certainly get a call asking for a review, probably sooner than 3 months (although I don't intend to try again sooner than 3 months).Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blatant advertising criterion also requires that the article require a fundamental rewrite to not be so, though. Often times one can blank a bit and it's fine (especially when it's just a few superfluous adjectives). No opinion about COI, but that's entirely neutral and probably notable, right?This too, is entirely neutral - notability is hard to gauge, - google might help or whatnot. No idea about COI - but who cares? Better, I think, is to compare how it's written to how you'd write it. Has a few minor issues but doesn't require a fundamental rewrite - the third paragraph/sentence is a little marketing-y, this is probably also true of the fourth, but they're not that bad, and could just be blanked in the worst case. The Critical technology article was PROD'd and died - not surprisingly, as it wasn't good, but it's just about a bit of jargon - there's no product or service, so there's no advertising, right? Company traded on a stock exchange, article cites a "reputable" newspaper (Okay, the Sun is terrible, but it's real sort of tries. The word "provides" is kind of a marketing term, I agree, but otherwise I think that article's how I'd write a stub - one word isn't a fundamental rewrite, right?)
I'd avoid rerunning too quickly, yeah. People get cranky. Since it's mostly a single issue (some new user biting alluded to, I didn't look into it - a single incident? I wouldn't worry), if you work it out and demonstrate that you're on the ball, you'll probably be fine. WilyD 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is that I will leave it for 3 months. That will be, IMHO, ample time to demonstrate that I've got the message. Part of my problem has been that I made some errors, and that once you make some blatant errors, the borderline cases start to stack up as errors. I would defend the Critical Technology case as a good CSD. It was a writeup about a lecture given by a non-notable motivational speaker, and was, in my view, promotional, because it was presented as a newsy write-up of his latest "thing". It wasn't a conventional G11, but it wasn't "bad" as such. As I said in the RfA, I also think the G6 of the article at AFD was right. It was AFDed, because a merge result of a prior AFD hadn't been actioned. In actual fact, the merge had been done, and the article was deletable for exactly the opposite reason to the nominators rationalle! The accusations of biting a newbie, I believe I can defend. She wasn't a newbie. She was indef blocked at de for repeatedly refusing to abide by policy, and came here refusing to abide by policy despite very clear explanations, and ended up indef blocked for block evasion. Mayalld (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The G6 point is probably the most important of them all. The licensing requires that the history be maintained - to delete that article would constitute copyright infringement. There's a technical procedure one can do to merge the histories (you delete the target, move the redirect to the target, then undelete everything), but you can't just out-and-out delete it. Critical technology, probably nobody would object, but it isn't really a G11 - if I found it in C:CSD, I'd probably decline but PROD or maybe AFD - while poorly written, it could be fixable (or maybe it's not, hard to say). WilyD 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive hangon tag

I do not know of an explicit rule forbidding adding a {{hangon}} tag to an article upon creation, especially one that's been CSD'd before, but it is not in good faith and there is an obligation of a tagger to remove it. This particular user has done it on his other recreated articles as well, and other users have responded by removing the preemptive tag as well. I believe this is the correct response.

I suggest you do not add hangon tags back unless you have an articulable reason. Shadowjams (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a pre-emptive tag may be a bad faith act, it can potentially be a good faith act, where a creator supposes that an article will be speedied rapidly, and has something to say. If the article is elligible for speedy deletion, a hangon won't actually stop it. As such, I can see no compelling reason to remove a hangon ever. You should also note that articles previously speedied are NOT eligible for G4 deletion. Mayalld (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehaven Amateurs F.C.

  • Hi, I'm surprised that you removed the speedy delete from the above. The article is virtually empty and even a cursory glance at Google indicates little if any relevant sources/refs.Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are crossing each others comments on this one, OK let's see what happens for 24 hours as you say. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a gut feeling (and it is based a bit on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) that a sourced article can be found here. I've added a bare bones of a lead and a single referenced fact to at least get it out of A1 territory. Mayalld (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done what I can with it, any help appreciated! I'd still feel that it's touch and go how notable an amateur club like this can be. I do admit that it's certainly not a speedy now :-)Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet

Hello. Firstly, thanks for your assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrumpyGuts. The checkuser has come back "IP appears unrelated," but I remain suspicious because of the behaviour involved. As someone who obviously knows his stuff, do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree? If so, perhaps I owe GrumpyGuts an apology. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI

Say, did these get straightened out?

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/81.131.6.69
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for sockpuppet investigation/Pretzky

I did a bunch of the deletions just before bed time, so I'm not sure where they left off after that. Dreadstar † 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're currently here:
Let me know if they need to be moved, not sure where the SPI team is on the naming standards.. :) Dreadstar † 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are great there, cheers. Sorting out one well-intentioned bit of bold moving is taking quite a bit of effort!

Mayalld (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Unfortunately, because I happened to see the problem on a sock report I was monitoring and decided to render assiatance, I was falsely accused of "shenanigans". Oh, well, no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.  :) Dreadstar † 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Douglemeister

Thanks for the heads up User:Mayalld, I added the code letters CassiasMunch (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hey Mayalld, I was wondering if you knew what was up with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jojhutton? It's been sitting still for days while others are moving around it. Grsz11 14:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mystery! I've gone over the head of the clerkbot, and moved it to the right queue. Mayalld (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsa1001 [COPY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE]

 Clerk note: When submitting reports to SPI, please take particular care to follow the instructions. The page is carefully constructed to ensure that it will work properly, and adding additional headings cause problems. Mayalld (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind attention to this, and for letting me know - and sorry for not being competent with formatting the submission template, as this is the first time I have tried to file a notice. Kind regards--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.D SOC

Hey there,

I'm having real difficulty understanding why the page i posted might be deleted. I created the original post thanks to popular demand within the society. I can understand that from the outside it does look like a joke or hoax but i can assure you that the society exists as a nationwide fraternity and in a serious and officious role.

anyway i really hope that you will allow the page to remain.

all the best

Alistair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairmcknight (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is proposed that it be deleted, because it has proved impossible to verify that the society even exists. Even if the society does exist, it is apparent that nobody independent has written about it. To be notable, it must have been written about by independent 3rd party, and it is clear that it hasn't. Facebook groups, and websites created by this alleged society don't cut it. Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i completely understand that the lack of 3rd party reference is an issue, however if you check the Alpha Phi page you will note that their only references are from their own website. I am not trying to be difficult, i am merely seeking to understand the proceedings.

Alistairmcknight (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site may harm your computer

When I checked through the history of the page I saw the speedy and didn't consider it a test page, nor does it really fit under any other speedy criteria. I was considering a prod but felt that a redirect would serve a purpose and is harmless. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless? Harmless?!?! You are seriously suggesting that making "This site may harm your computer" redirect to Google is harmless? It as it stands, it stands as an attack on Google. Mayalld (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that comes on searches in Google sometimes and is hardly an attack on Google. Of course you could try a WP:PROD it or send it to WP:RfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

sorry for removing the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change Login Name

Is that possible to change my login name from Renxu350 to RENXU350?
Mr Mayalld, do you have the priviledge of doing that? - Renxu350 (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I can't make that change for you. Changes of username need to be requested at WP:CHU Mayalld (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet.. - Renxu350 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSarey SSavy

I wonder if you might look at this again. There was User:SarySavy (or similar) referred to in one of the other people's comments along with a couple of others. It would be a shame to miss that just because I got the nomination wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, all the potential socks are indef blocked, so nothing more that needs to be done. Mayalld (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Just wanted to be sure. You have the tools, I don't. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suspected sockpuppet is SSarey SSavy (talk · contribs), who named as the sockpuppeteer in the case and has not been blocked, so the case should probably be reopened. —Snigbrook 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits.

Try reading the things you delete. If you dont understand English, please use babble fish, to translate it into the language you understand. Your edits are arbitrary, unless you're an expert in the topic, keep the janitor mop to your own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daremedareyou (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:OWN. I understand English perfectly, and understand that you are trying to insert numerous references to a particular brand into the article. stop it, or face the consequences. Mayalld (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your comments. The edit was legitimate, and reflected consensus. The content appears to be entirely promotional in nature, violates the NPOV policy, and lacks notability or encyclopedic value.
Cyt0plas (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question has been blocked from Wikipedia, and his AquaMaster article was Speedy Deleted for spam.
Cyt0plas (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It was recreated as AquaMaster though. That article needs a good check to determine whether the brand is notable, and if it is, some copyediting to remove puffery. Mayalld (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Hi, I hope I put the rfcu tag in the right spot: [1] Not used to the newer format yet! Thanks! Dreadstar † 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daremedareyou

If I may, don't bother with a WP:SPI on the above. He's indefinitely blocked, won't get unblocked anytime soon, and the IP will have been caught in the autoblock. It doesn't look like a static IP, so there's little point in the paperwork. GbT/c 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, just filed it before bed, thinking that the IP edits came after the block. Useful as a reference if/when he returns (however many months down the line). I'll close the case shortly, as clerk. Mayalld (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The poor man's checkuser shows that he's still trying through the IP - third (or so) entry down. GbT/c 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayalld&oldid=268228282"