User talk:Causa sui

Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill. - Buddha

stephane edelson

Stephane Edelson wikipedia page has-been delated. I was going to write news about him. As he has Performed in a French gallery with pictures of the French president when he suffered an attack based cream pies (last september for the Paris Design Day - Gallerie De Dietrich -). The gallery has undergone such pressure, it had to give up the show. So, Stephanr Edelson made a flip book with these photos. He comes out in bookstores now in Paris. This book will not fail, just before the presidential elections to be a subject of controversy. So could you be nice to send me back the the content of the page Stephane Edelson, so that I complete it and then I return it to you. Regards Malkolinge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkolinge (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted by a discussion that took place here, where it was determined that the subject does not, and likely will not, meet our notability critera for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have moved the deleted article to your userspace at User:Malkolinge/Stephane Edelson. Before moving it back to the main space, please ensure that the improved article thoroughly meets the inclusion criteria I noted above. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

nutcracker redirect

Good luck with that. I already tried, and they reverted. Thats why I went the CSD route, to do somethign they couldn't just undo. Unfortunately, now I think you have "contested" my CSD, so when they revert again we will have to go through something more formal to redirect/delete it Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Worry not. We are not bogged down by such bureaucracy. WP:IAR to the rescue. If necessary, I will protect the page. causa sui (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may channel an administrator briefly. "muahahahahahaha" Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your redirect was reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Razed and salted the earth. Thanks for keeping an eye out. causa sui (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

my plea

please see here User_talk:Swarm#help_me_understand

Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, without promising any level of involvement on my part. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The cartoon vandal

That you recently blocked, may be a sock of a long-time blocked vandal. I'm not sure of the sock-master account, but if you are doing a lot of manual AV work, might be worth knowing about him. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up. Is there anything at WP:LTA? Maybe a page should be started if there is a pattern. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at James O'Keefe

Hello, Causa sui. Thank you for pointing out wp:REVTALK to me; I never knew there was such a "policy". (Isn't putting rv in front of all your reverts self-incriminating, though? We have laws in the USA protecting ourselves from self-incrimination, lol.) I have no complaint about your protecting the article -- I think it helped. But, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't need talk page consensus to remove a BLP violation. I am requesting your opinion as a neutral observer as to whether the phrase "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive," is a BLP violation, as it is contentious and unsourced. Thanks! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't contentious statements in the lead in BLPs be sourced in-line, instead of having the reader sift through the body of the article to find which reliable source, if any, actually made the assertion? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On both counts, I can only give you my own opinion. I can protect pages but I cannot "adjudicate" any disputes. You might understand that already but I've found out it's important to have it made clear in the outset after I protect a page.

The point of WP:REVTALK is that when complex discussion about why your side is right and the other is wrong is taking place through edit summaries, it becomes impossible to carry on discussion except by edit warring at the same time. The mistaken impression that gives people - that the way to communicate your thoughts to people is by reverting them - does not excuse the underlying edit warring. On the other hand, "rv" means "revert". There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you should revert another editor's contributions, and sometimes they should revert yours. You should be using edit summaries in this way so that people can know what kind of edits you are making, which makes it easier for them to conduct peer-review. So generally, we want edit summaries to say things like "tightening the lede" or "added cite" or "removed some unsourced claims, see talk".

On the question of whether we need talk page consensus before removing a BLP violation; this is a tricky question because the straightfoward answer (is) "no" -- but what counts as a "BLP violation" is sometimes a grey area in my experience. Since the standard is so strict, that any user finds it contentious is typically enough to get a review, but that is not by itself a sufficient condition to remove it. My advice would be to bring it up on WP:BLP/N for commentary there. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Causa sui. I appreciate learning about REVTALK, and I appreciate your thoughts on BLP. PS: I added a word I think you left out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A better response

Would have been, "rv, you misspelled rouge" here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. The thought did cross my mind. causa sui (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Misaplication of A7 in speedy deletion

I had already declined the speedy deletion request at Woolcott Chauncey some two days before you deleted it. That was because the article was clearly invalid for A7 deletion, as it claimed facts about the subjects life (naval hero, responsible for significant events during battles, etc.) which are clear claims to significance. I am quite confused.

• 1) How did you find this to delete it, as it was removed from WP:CSD
• 2) Why you deleted an article as A7 when it does not qualify
• 3) Why you didn't check to see that I had already deleted it, or if you had checked, why you overruled me?

I have no significant problem with the article being deleted via WP:AFD, if, for example, the subject doesn't turn out to be Notable. But there was definately enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Could you please restore the article, and take it to AFD if you wish it deleted. As another admin, you really shouldn't undo my admin actions (WP:WHEELWAR) without discussing it with me first, and in this case, its also clear that you have not properly applied WP:CSD#A7. --Jayron32 04:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you view this as a bigger deal than me. I undeleted it. causa sui (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

All good! Thanks! --Jayron32 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: TheOneWhoWalks

Sorry to see your assumption of good faith go to waste before negotiation even got to the table: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheOneWhoWalks. Leopards can't change their spots.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy marine

Closed as keep? Please expand on your rationale - issue is hotly disputed - Oh never mind I see you have closed it in reference to a time clause from the first AFD - what a waste of time this project is sometimes all those comments and you haven't even considered them - no sea change you should have done a DRV - completely a waste of time - did you read yesterdays close? - Youreallycan (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you closed it "procedurally" due to the minimal time between the first and second AFD? Youreallycan (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, no matter how I close it, someone will get angry. Procedural considerations did weigh a bit, though they weren't the only reason. I think it's important that people should not be able to endlessly renominate an article until they get the result they want, especially if the result they want is a delete, since an AFD that closes as keep can be renominated but a delete cannot. The fact that the prior AFD closed as Keep and there was no DRV suggests that there should be some clear reversal in consensus, which there obviously isn't. Finally, the discussion was more contentious this time around, but I don't think a plausible argument could be made that there is a clear consensus to delete. I might be persuaded that it should be closed as no consensus at best, but a delete close seems out of bounds.

I usually take your opinion on things seriously since I admire your work on BLP/N and elsewhere, so I won't make an exception to that here. Still, I think you will find that it won't harm your cause if you find a way to cool off a little bit about this. I promise you, it's not that big a deal. causa sui (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)