User:Tstormcandy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:ANI

You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not amused by the ANI poster, but thank you for informing me. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All of us end up with our names on the ANI marquee at some point. It's your time to shine, babe. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rawr. Since this user filed a 3RR complaint against me a week ago which was deemed no violation since I stopped myself at 3 and even said in an edit summary that it was 3 and I'd revert no more; and at vandalism today where it was removed in a record 3 minutes as essentially a hoax, I'm not terribly concerned. Just a waste of time to have to fill out this all. Eh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, he's raised the matter on my talkpage. I've let him down gently. Crafty (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you steer clear of him or her for a bit? I suspect the editor is on the path of self destruction on their own. Toddst1 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I've never once contacted the user directly I have no problem with that! The only reason s/he comes up at all is as gigantic flags on my watchlist or Huggle, and I can't openly ignore what might be horrible violations of... whatever. I'm expressing my right to defend myself and then disappearing on the matter forever. Since it's on ANI proper I suppose I'll have to not comment there for a few days just to not have to look at it. My name is semi-common at ANI... I comment at a lot of them. Ooh, even more irony. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

This admin has a new baby (their first). That may adjust reaction time. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, no worries. Not like it was high priority mail anyway. Dedication to a jinxed ANI is all the more impressive in that case. I suppose no pain could possibly be worse in comparison... but might want to check about that again in a year or so. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. (Wife, not him. But read his user page. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Penguin extremists

Thanks for the much-needed injection of humor. --TS 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, you're welcome. I think my general logic was... climate research? Antarctica is inhabited and one of but a few places that does research all year! What could happen there that wouldn't be depressing? Penguins! Though I admit it's been done before, if you want to get extra picky. You just know that the "tyrant" in command of Westarctica has WMD sitting around somewhere and has been waiting for the correct moment to send in the Penguins to rout the scientists away. My prediction is that the US would find a way to get involved in an occupation for a decade despite the continent not being populated and no US land claim there. My money is on the penguins.

Compared to the odd torment I seem to enjoy posting at ANI in my spare time, it was actually nice to remember that some people have a sense of humor yet, ha. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your hangon tag

The page is not an archive, it was not moved there, and was used exclusively by socks to attack others, socks that are now blocked indefinitely.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done. If the puppet investigation is over, I can go with the CSD since any stretch of technical phrasing is gone. Sorry about this, but wanted to keep all evidence open if cases weren't yet closed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, it's not that I'm disagreeing that action needs to be taken on the user's userspace articles. Just objective consistency about investigations evidence until they are resolved. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm not an admin, if it at all matters.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for removing it. I deemed it wasn't an archive as, if you check the page history, you can see that it was not moved there from any other page. Also, if you check the page it is attached to, you will see that the user asked others to add proof that wikipedia is biased. This is not the purpose of the user space.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The material has clearly been moved there from other pages - so it is an archive. No proper process for puppet investigations has ever been followed. The so called "socks" are a husband and wife, each using their own single accounts. This accusation of socks has come up before.[1] Here are the discussions [2] [3] which led to a rapid indef blocking of both their accounts - even though they didn't edit the same pages and neither one has had a 3RR or block in the past year. The discussions to block these users involve William Connolley who is referenced in the articles and postings concerned from WP:RS CBSNEWS. So he is clearly WP:COI to be encouraging this indef blocking. Proper procedure has not been followed at all. Please investigate and ensure proper process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.3.167 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, it was gone 2+ full days ago, and I have no idea what's happened to the situation since. I think it was there for all of a half hour? You'll see I'd gotten this message above and had fixed it in <5 minutes, and even if I disliked the request I dislike the WP:WW even below admin levels. It was as a matter of technical process, looking over or to see if it was mentioned at other noticeboards. I saw the mentions on this and had no problem taking it off. I never said I found it to be saintly or anything, and I'd been miffed for an hour about the "quotations" page especially after none seemed to have ever existed. Oh jeez, you just reminded me that I ran a wikistalk run to compare contributions of 4-5 usernames suspicious of edits in certain places with styles or convenient dating. Part of my check was no SPI cases, so then I figured I'd start one given that some of the user subpages were copy-pasted from elsewhere. Suppose I should go back to that. That's at least something of a reminder. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI-comment

Sorry for the delay in responding. Part of it was because of Real Life(tm) chores -- like assembling some Ikea furniture for my wife -- & part of it was because I needed to think through my response.

• If you think AN/I is a catch-all for all kinds of incidents now, it was much worse even a year ago. And it doesn't help that every kook who gets the door closed on them comes either there to complain that they've been wronged, or to User talk:Jimbo Wales.
• You may want to branch out from the Wikipedia namespace -- even if to simply do wikignoming. As another long-time Wikipedian once put it, WP:AN/I it where one goes to see a series of autowrecks. And most of the cases that reach WP:AN/I have gotten to the point where there are no simple solution; it's the last stop for disputes before they come before the ArbCom.
• If you can't stay away from the Wikipedia namespace, you may want to study the contributions of a guy by the name of GTBacchus (talk · contribs). I've met him face-to-face: he's a nice, patient guy who specializes in trying to mediate disputes, & has a certain measure of success with it.
• Don't think you haven't been noticed. I noticed you: I honestly thought you were an admin until I took a look at your edit history & user permissions.
• And lastly, yes a lot of effort put into WP:AN/I doesn't get rewarded, let alone appreciated. But it's not only at AN/I; a lot of contributions to Wikipedia -- good & important ones -- don't get the attention they deserve, & it costs the project in attrition of good people. If you let it get to you, you'll eventually grow bitter, burnout, & do stupid things like what happened in that WP:AN/I thread. That's not a fun way to end one's career here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in here as I saw your comment to llywrch. I actually started WP:AN (not ANI, but I was strongly supportive). I totally agree with him - it might be worthwhile doing some Wikignoming - it's enjoyable and far more productive than arguing on ANI. Certainly it's less stressful! Plus it contributes to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden idols

Hello Datheisen. I saw your comment at ANI, which wikilinked this phrase. Our article on that topic seems to have no appropriate sense. What did you have in mind? EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about disambiguation! I would never in a million years thought it'd be pulled apart so much with the heavy historical meaning among them. I meant it in a biblical sense or "Indiana Jones Style"; stemming from the ten commandmends that one should not worship false idols (even if they look pretty) I believe they had cows made of solid gold. Meant to agree in general consensus with many opinions being expressed that it's quite inappropriate to push an agenda with two "idols" like that on Wikipedia (or anywhere). I AGF on the editor insisting upon that point, but it's not a good position to put innocent children in, regardless. I'm apt to some hyperbole to express a wider concept on a "big picture" scale as a conversation stales or gets repetitious and like the thought of readers saying "Oooooh" to themselves at the comparison instead of groaning constantly at an ANI. One argument mentioned at some point in the conversation was "it's just that she has 2 kids", and that it looked harmless to someone be it readers or editors means nothing and any sort of BLP, defamation or controversial matters and has to be taken as seriously as, say, the mess that has been BLP as of late, which is the only reason how it tied in there. ...I just really didn't want to think of how many cases like that there are sitting around. Any person or thing being sold off as defining a controversial topic? Idol, or "posterchild" or internet fab would be what we have today. From an outside view, it's a harmless inclusion that could easily have "fallen through" patrols had it not been so astutely noticed. ...As for the debate after that point, I'm not going to touch it.

You'll see I made a total fool out of myself trying a defined "walk away" and pretty basic civility reminders, but it was shooting myself in the foot. It became clear no consensus was going to form within that thread and it could be taken to more appropriate forums... or from the ANI perspective I'd rather the direct confrontation stop.Usually a mention of "next time would either of you feel silly if you ended up with any kind of block over ((whatever))?" works fairly well... or at the very least, I find those I've found a few at RfC instead of more ANIs or blocks in logs since I usually check on persons I was worried about in the few days following any ANI. I'm too ashamed to see what happened in this case after the apparently-ridiculous "just leave on equal terms" idea. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ANI discussion I removed

I had removed the section I created because no one responded to it, but I guess I could keep it a bit longer and see if anybody wants to make a response. Momo san ^Gespräch 06:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If left for however long, it will automatically fall through on its own, though I'm not sure if it'll clear it out if there are no responses-- it clears itself from the page. If you get no replies it might be a case that persons don't consider it right to be at ANI. I haven't looked in detail and I can't help all that much, and I figured something like this was the case and why I'd never in a million years call it anything but a good faith action. You might want it left there anyway, since in the future you could point to it as saying you reported an ANI but had no reply. You can also add a reply within your own thread at the 24hr-or-so window before a bot comes through for possible cleanup. Sorry about this, but I'm not particularly sure it'd look good in the log if anything from the ANI log was removed, even with this perfectly reasonable rationale. Sorry =\ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A musical note before Christmas :-)

Just stopping by to wave ... my brain is way too fried to skim your beautiful long stretches of sense for an inspiration to comment ... so I'll just note you "music note" signature grace note.

I hadn't thought about it before, but perhaps I should be imagine your messages as being sung. (Smiling but not kidding.) Many happy arias to come. Cheers, miraculous one. (PS, I've upgraded my user and talk pages ... if you skim the top, you'll see a "musical" link - Take a listen, and let me know if you like that song... if you feel like wasting a moment or two.) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Datheisen, appreciate your comments on ANI, it's actually very complicated to figure out, there is alot of discussion on the talk page, and the article should remain stable until things are decided on there. Reading through it should enable you to figure out what the various editors' positions are, which should help with understanding any edits that were made before. Regards. Izzedine 09:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all... a giant mess, that much I can tell. The sources listed in the ANI? I'm not going to deny that's about the most high-quality sources you could ever come up with. Since those are of such quality, "in theory" they should get a good deal of weight in an article discussion, which is kind of what I was assuming. ANI is for sorting out procedural matters and policy violations, and hopefully none of this has to go into that in the future. No one wants to be blocked over things like this and that's usually something I can get most people to agree to... thus I had to call the oddities in behaviour as reported and general stubbornness by everyone involved-- period. Content disputes aren't for ANI so that's all I can suggest there. I know virtually every topic out of the middle east/southwest asia/ancient iraq/iraq/whatever you want to call it can be heated, but remember that Wikipedia has no time limit and if you have the position with sources and weight to back yourself up, things will start to turn. In 90% of these cases someone slips up heavily on civility and does something blatantly out of line, or up and violate 3RR, or expose by mistake they have a sock, etc., which kind of makes all of the discussion before then moot. If you aren't that person, then you don't have anything to worry about, and that good faith will be noticed in case there's later dispute resolution.

I certainly hope I don't find a list of the lot of you on any large disputes in the future! imo there is some middle ground with some rewording or additions that point of different definitions, perhaps. If anyone involved on the page is going to simply demand one view or one narrowed opinion only, it'll never get anywhere. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Goldline

I haven't removed the tag since I think it could use an infobox, some good sources, and maybe some work on the subsections/layout. I should probably get the motivation to stop complaining and start :) . Seriously though, thanks for grabbing that stuff. You definitely improved it.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Improved" is always a sadly ironic word when the article is 30% smaller after edits. I have absolutely zero-tolerance to any sort of corporate promotional gibberish or unsourced BLP information and think it's safest to slice out whatever is remotely worrying with total confidence. Since the article has gone idle for the better part of 2 days now, it seems people are content while waiting for the rename? Should probably get admin approval given it's been previous deleted... I explained in my !vote on the talkpage. In all honesty? The whole "TV gold rush" I find a bit humorous and ethically questionable at times and with this company the de facto center, but I'm actually excited about trying to piece together what an article on what's now a rather infamous firm... but in total neutrality. If things are done correctly, the result will be complete and total disappoint for readers who were hoping for something scandalous after a google search and their running into an actually encyclopedic article instead.

I'll have my eye out on the article, certainly. Just to say, in case you were wondering-- I found your template-adding edit in a random Huggle RCP check... total fluke. Recognized the name and figured it might be bad. I'm was pleasantly surprised to see content enough appropriate for a starter article even after slicing away the questionable stuff... then again the author is clearly an experienced article contributor so I'd expect nothing less. I deal more on the "pick up the pieces" or "pull the plug" troubles in articles usually... my edit history has its highest count at ANI I only recently noticed. Guilty pleasure. Thanks for the message! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because of that (musical) note ... and "miraculous"

I was just thinking I hadn't thought much about that music note in front of your signature (you may have illuminated it on your user page, but I've been and remain lazy at times) ...

... in any case, I was thinking (now that I'm thinking :-) ... that your long (carefully composed) speeches are perhaps a kind of aria.

So, given the license of New Year's ... here's something I'll think of as your theme song (unless/until you tell me otherwise. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) ~

Hah. No opinion for the timebeing. Err, glad to see you're done with your talk page... sanctions? ((No need to get into it, I actually got curious and read some of the discussions)) As someone apt to talk far too much, I can see the issue. As a minor plus, I see collapsible boxes being used in a wide variety of different places now to cut down on mess. Looks good used more... so just pretend that counts as a win and carry on? Eh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note 1: Restrictions ^Lifted

Note 2: Blocked for giving $1,000 to Wikipedia. (Not kidding, actually. Poetic, yes?) -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 05:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Tilt Changes / Rookie Mistake

Hi Datheisen. Thank you for taking the time to explain the editorial process to me. I hope to return the favor to a newb in the future ;)

Bkdanilo (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Bkdanilo

Alright! Let's have at it! Meet you at your talk page :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you :)

Hello Datheisen. My name is Ikip. I have been editing Wikipedia since October 2005. I have been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since mid 2008. I helped create WP:Incubator I also strongly support, Wikipedia:Petition_against_IAR_abuse[4] here have a template I created, a small token of appreciation for your work:

Be it known that Tstormcandy has signed the Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse.

In fact, I am probably the most vocal critic of the 320 deletions 3 days ago. I appreciate you comments on BLP. Thanks. Ikip 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant no specific offense, blah, though I admit my brain is fuzzy as hell on this all by now. Concerns were regarding just actions in general to promote drama and not to rib an option that I entirely agreed to in the RfC and I've been nagging about endlessly for a few months since NEWT. IAR suggests bettering the encyclopedia, and however much unsourced BLPs might do harm in some cases and mass deletion also causes harm, community sanity is a concern for now as well. I do completely admit that's a really sad to say. Frankly, I hope whatever "ends" this all includes a clause permitting incubation particularly for new BLPs accidentally in violation and that whatever BLPprod/etc process be done very slowly so things can be rescued properly.

Most hopes on that for me came from NEWT and knowing that alone would almost completely eliminate all troubles with A7 and I'm still grumpy nothing ever came of the proposals back then. ...Um, in other words, I at least think we're on the same team. IAR is welcomed and I wouldn't object to movement of things like this if, say, a new policy were in place and something was nearing whatever time scale but still looked 100% savable, since it'll be hard for all articles to be improved with even a week's warning... even if it's over the course of a few months, without some hundreds of editors helping. I plan to be there trying to stub-ify the unsourced with something, at the very least and I've dragged stuff out of the CSD grave before. Just that I've been bashing my head into my desk too much the past few days and probably have a concussion. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave myself a lobotomy. :)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#I_suggested_this_on_the_BLP_RFC.2C_what_do_you_all_think.3F Your input and intelligence would be a great asset to this project. I can't do this alone. The last time I did this with three other editors, it was only 4,000 articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force this time it is ten times as much. Ikip 10:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. We are slowly succeeding, and momentum is starting to move in our favor. It is because of you that this positive movement is even possible. Always remember that. Ikip 10:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Tstormcandy/Archive 2, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal

Hi, Datheisen. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restarting the conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks, I really appreciate it. I've been doing other duties because I've been somewhat tired with the new baby, and I just haven't wanted to crawl back to a place where Giano decided to make an appearance and Bish (who I thought was a friend) calls me "prissy". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you are still following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks, but there are a few initial proposals for the actual text of the policy that are now on the page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Aah, thank you. I've just been in a daze the past week and my watchlist is currently about 30 things in the project namespace and it's kind of... a garble. Much appreciate it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

US F1

Hey, don't fret. We've all made mistakes like that on the Wiki at somepoint. Sometimes you think that the edit isn't helping but in fact it is. I remember when I was just starting out, I made silly little errors that I could sometimes be lambasted for. When I noticed the Lavrinc article had been used twice, the ref name just came in handy! But you get the idea, and no offence taken. I'll apologise for not making it clear first time around! Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychology 101 as it relates to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Part_1_Disagree

As other editors have pointed out, there has been several intentional moves in this request for comment:

1. Arguing that change is inevitable. The most vocal editor in this is arbitrator SirFozzie which had 17 opposes and 14 approves. Change is never inevitable.
2. In closing Phase I, only one position is advocated, marginalizing or ignoring all other positions.
3. Repeated attempts to silence editors, particularly me. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ikip and Wikipedia:An#Page_ban_for_Ikip_from_the_BLP_RFC
4. Attrition, having the argument drag out so long, and editors get so tired of the discussion, that editors will either:

1. drop out of the discussion, or
2. accept a proposal which if originally proposed, would get wide spread opposition. Balloonman's proposal is very similar to Jerochman's proposal.

The end result is that editors who support radical, disruptive change, control the conversation, and less involved editors think that they only have a narrow list of choices, and !vote to accept bitey proposals which will only further hurt wikipedia growth and bite newcomers. Compromise means that both sides give up something.

I would possibly support this proposal if it includes strong WP:BEFORE language, to help protect new editors contributions, as the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#WP:BEFORE proposal, which has 19 supports, advocates.

I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your position on this important proposal. Okip 12:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

changing deleted content to make page live again

My company's page was deleted. How can I make changes to that page to make it visible once again? Also, are there certain things I you would suggest I add to the content so that it doesn't get deleted again?

Thanks, and here is the link to my company's page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heavy_Construction_Systems_Specialists

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HCSS Software (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I remember that article, and frankly I'm surprised the discussion wasn't allowed to run on longer. First off, try have a list of things you know you could improve ASAP so the article will be in better shape as soon as it might be restored and wouldn't be subject to deletion again in the near future. After that, for an undelete, head on over to deletion review and give them pretty much the same questions you gave me but so specifically say you can address the previous concerns. ((As a non-administrator I cannot look at the deleted page, and for that I apologize, but)) If I recall and as I wrote there, the largest concerns were a need to demonstrate general notability as we define it on Wikipedia. To back that up, we most always need to have outside parties having information published that offer a completely outside view and offer individual opinions without using information from the company's website or press releases and the like. Check over here about the kinds of good examples (and not-so-good) examples we look for.

I'll give you one other tip up-front... you may wish to change your username (see WP:UAA) to directly separate yourself from that affiliation. Even after that, it can be very difficult to remain neutral when writing about one's own company. I do wish you the best of luck, and feel free to leave me any other messages in this section of my talk page if you have more questions or concerns! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61 RfC

Hello, this note is just to tell you that an RfC has begun regarding User:Chelo61. Since you may have been involved with this user, your input is appreciated. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chelo61. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deshashta Brahmin

You reverted my edit to the lead of Deshastha Brahmin AND the table I deleted from that article. Please take a look at the revision history and you will find the reasons for my action. Please undo the revert. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuggernaut (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any brainlessness; a filter had marked things amiss. You are free to undo whatever errors I might have caused. If there are further concerns for whatever reason, feel free to let me know. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Incident

There's a discussion over at ANI on a user. I would appreciate your input. You were one of the editors participating in the previous discussion, and I'm currently informing all the editors involved--hkr (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I'm a firm believer of a final WP:BEANS test as a time a problematic user can try to return some good faith, and this seems to have been a failed test this time. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 12:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011

My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

November 2014

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar ☥ 05:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, fun! Yeah I'm not going to edit actual content but I can't stand heinous broken logic or policies ignored.. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)