User talk:R. Baley

Previous comments/messages in Archive1.

What is your problem Man?

Why do you have to get involved in editing and just barge in like that. You know that is extremely rude and i don't like it.

mfd

the editor who started this mfd (not understanding it was a joke) has deleted my comment (not understanding it was a joke). I don't actually love justin timberlake, and that isn't my password. I cannot revert it (the comment was placed there by someone else for me) as the conversation is too large for my phone to edit. I have just moved and have no computer access. would you mind uncensoring my comment, and yours as well? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

dammit, too late. I didn't look to see who had deleted it. Just assumed you were feeling misunderstood (clearly a joke, I mean Justin? That part was actually funny). R. Baley 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any time!

Sorry about the late reply, dear R, but I didn't want to leave your lovely message unreplied, because it's rare these days to be thanked for a deletion instead of being systamtically bashed for it instead ;) Please, any time you encounter a similar copyright problem, don't hesitate to message me for a second opinion and a quick deletion if necessary, k? Love, Phaedriel - 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you R. Baley!!

Thanks for your excellent photo essay. It helped me secure two photos for Athabasca University. Your essay is a moment to good procedure and practice, and should be featured if that's possible for a user space essay. You're my favourite person of the moment. Thanks again! Me-123567-Me 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to leave feedback. Me-123567-Me 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WMC, evidence and guilt by association

Your commentary on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_nth_repetition... puzzled me. Did you actually read the page before you supported the deletion? There's an exception to the "no personal attacks" rule in wp:user and I was trying to place my page smack dab in the middle of that exception. So how should it have been done right?

Separately, I'm of the opinion that a complainant's actual complaints deserve consideration independent of previous cases not involving the complainant. You seem to differ. Am I misreading you? TMLutas 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope didn't get a chance to read it, I was trusting the judgment of admins who did. If indeed you are trying to get a dispute resolved, you should keep the issues raised related to content rather than than trying to build a case for bad conduct. In the event you know where he has clearly violated a policy you should probably take it to WP:AN (though I should warn you, it needs to be very clear to get anywhere, and "clear cases" do not require a separate page to "build up" evidence). So with regard to user sub-pages, they're probably ok where they are devoted to resolving content disputes where the actions of an editor are incidental to the content which is in dispute. But probably not ok when focused mainly on a particular editor unless the dispute is long term and in such desperate need of a resolution, that a CSN or ArbCom case is clearly coming up real soon. Since none of the dispute resolution methods have been tried up to this point (making CSN and Arbcom extremely unlikely), building a case against an editor, is inappropriate. R. Baley 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

I reviewed the article according to the good article criteria, and my analysis is on the talk page. Thanks for your nomination! GreenJoe 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks!

Luckily he didn't ask me anything about images.....Tvoz |talk 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard closure

I only did the one closure, which I picked up on the talk page (I think it's a new template). But it worked fine on the Tammy Duckworth discussion, save for the same problem I had which is that it puts an extra "----" on the bottom and therefore shows an unnecessary additional section break. I've removed it. Perhaps the {{blpb}} template can be fixed to remove it. Sam Blacketer 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid issue at WP:BLPN

Hi R. Baley. I do thank you for your comments on this issue, and for your obvious interest in seeing this issue resolved rather than prolonged. However it may appear, I am sincerely not interested in escalating this dispute either. I would like to share with you my current thoughts and then, if you're willing, get your input as to how, if at all, I should proceed in light of these thoughts. If you'd rather stay completely out of this dispute, I'll certainly understand that, but please understand that I'm sincerely looking for guidance rather than validation of my position. In any event, my thoughts are as follows:

• The comment in question was stupid, and added very little to the debate. So why fight to restore it? Well, I hate to invoke Voltaire, because the quote gets bandied about so often and because (as User:FCYTravis correctly points out) Wikipedia talk pages are not unrestrained free speech zones, but it's less about restoring the specific comment and more about standing up for the principle that editors can't delete each others' comments just because they're dumb and don't add much to the debate - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to ArbComm your right to say it."
• More seriously still, User:FCYTravis's conduct in this dispute has made me question his willingness to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. When the combined consensus at WP:WQA and WP:BLPN (where he explicitly told me to list the dispute after he refused to abide by the WP:WQA consensus) has been (rightly or wrongly) that he was incorrect to delete the material, and when he tells me, in effect, that it doesn't matter how overwhelming a consensus I can garner, he won't agree to restore the material...well, I have trouble letting something like that slide. When he tells me that the only way he's going to abide by a consensus is on the orders of ArbComm, I have trouble letting that slide. I'm prepared to accept that it may be in the best interests of the project to let it slide, but it will take some convincing.
• Overall, he's clearly a good editor. This isn't a case where you've got a problem editor and you think to yourself "Well, this is ultimately going to have to end with him being banned, but I need to go through the proper dispute resolution channels first." I would dearly love for us to be able to declare a consensus, act in accordance with it, and move on. But at the same time I feel like I went into this process quite prepared to let the issue drop if that's the way consensus went and that, since consensus went the other way, the onus is now on him to give in.

I would welcome an attempt on your part to convince me, in light of my thoughts above, that letting this drop is the right course of action. Further, I promise to listen completely open-mindedly to any such attempt you make. But if you'd rather take no further role in the dispute, that's completely understandable as well. In any event, thank you for your intervention thus far. Sarcasticidealist 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment in a moment, still trying to clean up troll stuff (maybe you saw the top of my page?) Patiently, R. Baley 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SI, for the purposes of this post, I assume that everything you say is exactly how it went down (I don't really know, but I think I can make a convincing argument anyway). I have seen enough on this site to know that some users have achieved enough "status" to bully their way through a lot of things. I don't care for it either (generally, this is especially true of late with BLP, though, not to my knowledge, with FCYT specifically). With regard to your first principle: lose the battle, not the war (metaphorically speaking, WP is not a battlefield of course). I agree that people should be able to make points and not have one person be the arbitor of whether it's OK or not. Whether FCYT is right on the technicalities of policy doesn't matter because you can't possibly put your whole self behind a principle, when your defending (simultaneously) the godwinning of a thread and a blowjob comment (w/Nixon thrown in). And seriously, if you've compared the article/kid to hitler, you've greatly undermined/negated any point made. (I know it wasn't yours, but someone else's point).

I'm thinking you might want to wait for a better comment to be made, to make your case for this principle (One that can be shown to help improve the article, for instance). It might never come (and in that case, all is well). Because while you may be right "technically", in the end it's just a really bad comment.

Finally, it doesn't have to be your argument. If there is a strong consensus (with a will behind it) it will probably exert itself, regardless of what any one editor does. Oh, and another final point, has anybody tried just archiving the thread, in it's entirety? Would that alleviate everyone's concerns? The issue of whether to include the name is settled, right?

Hope this helps,

R. Baley 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll sleep on it before I decide what to do (it's 3:26 in the morning here, and I nominally have a day job). I'm still a little disturbed by his approach to consensus, but I'll certainly take what you say under advisement - thanks again for posting your thoughts. Sarcasticidealist 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping on it is almost always advisable in these situations. There's never a hurry and it's just a wiki :-)

Best,

R. Baley 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub, guys - if a better comment was made, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have an issue with reasonable and rational discussion. But I feel that the comparisons in question were unnecessary, insulting and completely out-of-line for describing the actions of some 14-year-old kid dancing in a home movie. Put yourself in the shoes of someone or someone's family who ends up with a Wikipedia article for something that a bunch of stupid people saw on the Interwebs and laughed at. It's bad enough that we have an article on him - to allow anonymous Internet jokers to compare him with Hitler is beyond the pale. There is nothing which obligates us to accept the lowest common denominator in speech and thought. We can be and should be above that. Indeed, we have a policy which explicitly states that we must live up to a higher standard when discussing living people, in articlespace or talkspace. There are millions of ways to rationally make an argument about SWK - many of them are already on display on that talk page. I have removed none of them, and will remove none of them - except for the one which invoked Godwin's Law. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Scan that entire userpage. There are many debates and many viewpoints from all sides. None of the others resorted to such tabloidesque sensationalism. If they can do it, why not him?

As for consensus, it cannot override WP:BLP. BLP was explicitly created because "consensus" decisions far too often failed to live up to our legal and moral obligations with regards to living people. Consensus cannot allow violations of BLP, any more than a consensus can decide that Wikipedia should host blogs in violation of what Wikipedia is not. The BLP explicitly states Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. It is unquestionably negative and contentious for anyone to describe SWK's actions as analogous to Hitler's. Demand higher standards in thought and words, Sarcasticidealist. Disagreements and good-faith debates can and should take place without juvenile resort to hateful false analogies. FCYTravis 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think there is still some question on the policy part, due in no small part, to the fact that it subject to interpretation of BLP. Probably, the consensus that developed was because people perceived that you were asserting control over the discussion in a way that can seem less legitimate when done alone. It's too bad there isn't a quick way to determine these things as a group, because I think it might not have led to arguments if everybody felt they had a say in the matter (and I also think that the consensus would have been to 'remove', but perhaps I'm too optimistic). Well, I hope that didn't come across as too critical, from what I remember, you're a good editor (as is SI) and I wish you well. Happy editing, R. Baley 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Eleemosynary

This regards the recent back-and-forth revertions of my friendly reminder to not engage in personal attacks on User talk:Eleemosynary. According to WP:TALK, a user can remove any comments from his or her own talk page for any reason, although doing so for no reason is generally regarded as uncivil, so it would have been good for Eleemosynary to provide a good faith explanation. Eleemosynary's lying about my comments in his edit summary — calling the comments nonsense and me a troll — are uncivil, but there's nothing that can (or should) be done to undo them via simple edits. Happily, his (or her) edit summary underscores my point, that Eleemosynary engages in personal attacks within edit summaries (although it may be open to interpretation whether calling a non-troll a troll violates WP:NPA). In any event, the comments were meant for Eleemosynary, and he obviously read them and chose to scrub his talk page of them. It's a tad dishonest, but I can live with it. Perhaps he will heed my warnings and refrain from further personal attacks. If not, next time he engages in personal attacks, my comments in his talk page history can be used to illustrate that his attacks are part of a consistent pattern made in the face of reminders of the policy he continues to violate. Calbaer 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calbaer, I had no problem with you leaving a comment. And I have no opinion to offer (no knowledge) on the dispute which you two are engaged in. The only thing I objected to was a supposedly new user with no contribs, being so confrontational about re-adding text to a talk page. I think you've hit the nail on the head about talk page history, and that's why we allow users to delete comments if they want to -it establishes that they've seen it, and in the future, should it become necessary, can be used to illustrate a point/make a case.

Hope you two can work it out (like the above section), I really would rather see the more established editors getting along better. Well, take care, and best wishes for happier editing in the future,

R. Baley 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "confrontational" was the right word, but I thought the way that user was handled quite odd. Restoring a deleted comment may not be great, but it's hardly "vandalism." Also, the indefinite block seemed a bit odd, especially since the template cited the contributions, which were pretty much limited to the two reversions. How these show that the user is a sockpuppet is beyond me. It would have been good of the blocker to state the real reason for the block, e.g., a common IP address. As it is, I'm a bit mystified about a block involving my words but not me! Calbaer 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Spindel

Hi R.B., I have been fortunate enough to speak with David Spindel on the phone and recieved a treasure trove of info on him and his career. He gave me full permission to use whatever I deem fit for Wikipedia. He's even sending a picture. His page is going to be reformatted in the near future. I wanted to thank you by sticking with me on this. Sixstring1965 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Your welcome. Make sure the pic has the appropriate license info (not to pimp my own material, but you might want to look at my guide to acquire a free image). As for any other material, use stuff that has been published first. For right now, you want to try and make his notability solid. R. Baley 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block me properly

This is viran. And I can still edit pages. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairiliyan (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) OK (thanks SQL) R. Baley 10:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was going to a bit ago, and, got distracted. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User viran

I have declared all my sockpuppets on user:viran page. Please block them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja Vu!

please block properly. I can still edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bamadude

Thanks for getting involved in this - I was off-Wiki all weekend. And of course I remember you - your advice was one of several factors leading me to de-escalate on the User:FCYTravis comment deletion issue. It looks like it's escalated to beyond the level that non-admins are needed, but I've left a note on Cheeser's page asking him to let me know if I can be of any use. Sarcasticidealist 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi SI! You're welcome, I'm a little sorry I didn't get involved sooner, but I was worried about inflaming the situation (my prior interaction and all). I hope you had a great weekend, after all, nobody can be 'on-wiki' all the time. I'm keeping an eye on the situation (which hopefully has waned) but in case I miss something, let me know, and I'll do whatever I can to help. Oh and thanks for leaving a comment a C1's (and in general for your work at WA). Talk to ya later, R. Baley 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon Picture

Hi R, I wanted to run this by you quickly. After laboring over getting the picture correct for John Lennon, I wanted to make sure I did everything to spec. take a look. It's the opening picture. Thanks in advance.Sixstring1965 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sixstring, I'm glad you received the the appropriate license, the pic looks good (I'm assuming it's this one. What you need to do to finish up is send an email, or permissions request, to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (as per this link. It might take a little time for them to respond, they get a lot of requests. Once you've forwarded to them the permission you obtained for the licenses used, add "{{Otrs pending}}" to the image page (in the licensing section).

Sorry it took me a little while to get to this, I've been away from the wiki for the last couple of days. Try to read over the Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission article, I linked to earlier, and it's usually safest to send that email so that the license can be confirmed as soon as possible. Otherwise, an image might be in danger of getting deleted. Let me know when you send the email. Take care, R. Baley 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 talk 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Glad you got everything worked out. Don't really know why the SP request was a problem to begin with. Happy editing, R. Baley 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My First Vandal

R., I was vandalized for the first time by 216.165.22.115 and don't know what to do next besides revert. Any suggestions? Sixstring1965 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you spend any time here, it's probably bound to happen. The most important thing is not to let it get to you. As for what to do, check out this page about leaving vandalism warnings. For the specific vandalism to your page [1], I'd probably go with a level 2 (It's important not to over-reach here, if you want admin action down the line, they like to see that users, esp. new ones, were warned properly).

Also when putting the warning on the page be sure to use the 'subst:' code in the template like this for example, type "{{subst:uw-vandalism2}}" not just "{{uw-vandalism2}}" R. Baley 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created his talk page and left the warning (diff here). R. Baley 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For future ref, if it ever gets too bad, you might also want to request that your user page be semi-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (short cut: WP:RFPP). They should be able to semi-protect anything except your talk page (except in really extreme cases, even then only for a short duration). And should the shit ever really hit the fan, there's always Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (short cut: WP:AIV). AIV works pretty fast in cases of ongoing obvious vandalism or abusive edits. Hope all this helps, and really hope that it turns out to be way more than you ever needed to know. R. Baley 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're the best. Sixstring1965 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. RE: WP:ANI#User calls me a WP:DICK for linking to policy. You've closed it (finally; thank you) stating that it has been resolved. Is that on the basis of my final comment left there? - Rjd0060 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And I assume that you are talking about me in this edit summary; and I appreciate it. - Rjd0060 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. R. Baley 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Partly, I saw your comment on C1's page a little while ago. Both of you are good editors in general and just got caught up in a stupid situation because of a one-time thoughtless link to a meta essay (which is my problem with the essay, btw. I agree with the sentiment behind it). But the kicker for me was that the ANI thread seemed to be causing distress over a situation you were sorry had happened. Both of you would probably get along nicely were the circumstances different, and I hope that in the future, that's what happens. (People laugh at old shit all the time, after a little reflection, right?) Happy editing and take care, R. Baley 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(E/c) I agree with you. Thanks. I (can only speak for myself) got caught up in that whole situation as it moved very quickly. I really didn't see any positive outcome if the conversation would have continued forever, which is what it seemed like was going to happen. - Rjd0060 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Greenwald_at_salon_logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Greenwald_at_salon_logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind taking a look at Perro de Presa Canario? It was unprotected and went back downhill rather quickly (and that sure wasn't my intention). Anyway, I think the more folks there are participating in the discussion, the better. I realize and admit that I'm coming at the subject from a different angle than most, plus I'm still getting up to speed on what will fly in this context - that said, I'm able and willing to be flexible. On that note, I'm not comfortable with a single admin (user:Rklawton) working on the content in a vacuum and he seems to be less than willing to engage in any sort of discussion with me. Thanks -- Frangible (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

No problem. Had I known that comment was by a banned user I would not have replied.--Samiharris 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored my comment. WP:NPF clearly covers this situation, as I am sure you would agree.--Samiharris 10:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hey, no problem. I've grown a pretty thick skin — you need it to survive here. And most people don't apologize, so thanks. Crum375 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rick Reilly's 4:03 high-school mile mark

You were right to delete. In 1966, he would have been 8 years old.  ;-) Hult041956 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup. I hate to delete, but it didn't have a credible feel to it. R. Baley 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbcom comment on ANI

RE:[2] Please don't revert out my comments in the archived thread.

I started my comments before you archived, miraculously, I didn't have an edit conflict for some reason after you archived the comement, so even though my date stamp is after your archive, I was first.

Out of curiosity, are you an admin, or are you aspiring to be one? T (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, and don't really want to be one right now (down the road, who knows?) I didn't intentionally remove any comments, so if that happened, sorry. Just didn't think anyone should have an ANI thread about their votes. Anybody is free to disagree and revert. For the record, I don't have anything against the Spartan guy either. . .sorry he would leave over something like this. R. Baley (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I looked back over the edit, and it doesn't appear that I deleted any comments, accidentally or otherwise (here's my edit diff). Must have been some kind of weird edit conflict. Happy editing. R. Baley (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Image question

Sending it to OTRS is fine. The e-mail address to send it to is permissions[at]wikimedia.org. That's how people generally do it, to avoid clogging up the image description page and to preserve others' privacy. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper2008 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hey, I saw in your contributions somewhere, that you were thinking leaving because you thought you had "ruffled some feathers" (or something like that). I just wanted to say that you should stick around, don't let anybody get under your skin, and well. . .make sure you use edit summaries ;-) Happy Editing, R. Baley (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring1965 back again

The abusive sockpuppet Sixstring1965 is back again in the John Lennon article discussion, this time with the multiple IDs of Innocentvictim and 12.72.53.178. The prat actually isn't even trying to hide his identity, confident that we cannot keep him out. Is there an editorial equivalent of a restraining order we can apply to this unhappy little elf? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you were able to put a stop to it. Sorry I wasn't around to help when it happened. The only thing I would suggest is that you don't let it get to you, delete when it's really obvious, and always drop a note to an admin (or noticeboard) if you have suspicions, whether it's obvious or not. If you delete a comment just put something like 'delete comment by indef blocked user Sixstring' in the edit summery, in a matter-of-fact way, without engaging him directly (taunts just invite further disruption). Good luck with the JL article, R. Baley (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did let his sheer audacity let me spark off into a rantbut it seems to bother Andreasgede when I give vent to that sort of negative energy. I am glad I did it, despite Cardinal's freaking out over the vehemence of my post. I'm rather done with it. I said what I needed to, and I'm all better now. :)

Your advice is solid, as usual. I'll endeavor to follow it. A question, though: when I refactored the other sock's comments, I simply struck through the text, as some of the comments had been responded to by legitimate users. Am I supposed to remove them? Is there protocol for this? More, is there an article page (outside of WP:TALK) that discusses indenting protocols (increased indenting for subsequent edits, and such)? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case the repeated re-appearance is disrupting actual ongoing collaboration for work on the article (repeated archiving if nothing else). In my mind it's enough that people know that a comment was there (for the legitimate responses already made). Any post or edit by an indef block user may be removed. This applies to edits or comments made after the ban (be judicious about deleting, striking is ok, too). And if someone disagrees, well it's a wiki -discuss. Oh, and be certain that it is a sock (I would say more but . . .WP:Beans applies here).

As far as indenting (I hope I understand what you're asking here) I'm not sure I've seen that written anywhere. All I know is that you try to make it clear who you're "talking" to. Some people just un-indent when the conversation has moved substantially to the right, and leave a note (un-indent- rp to _____). Hope that helps, R. Baley (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent)Okay, Last question: can a previously blocked user petition for re-admission? I've seen barnstars (though not awarded barnstars) for those editors who were banned and rejoined the community and have since made themselves useful. I've never heard more than rumours of such. Is there a path to re-admission that you have heard of? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, anybody can appeal for reconsideration, either to the blocking admin, or getting a 2nd opinion (from an admin, I think by placing "{{unblock|your reason here}}" on their talk page. However getting an overturn without the consent of the original blocking admin seems to be rare), or by appealing to Arbcom. A couple of relevant links are here (Appeals Process) and here (Appealing a block). R. Baley (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

ber

Happy Christmas!! sixstring1965 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring1965 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

yay. apparently this user is dumber than a sack of wet rocks. Maybe a community ban is going to be the only way to shut this slow little clown down for a while, so they can stew in their own juices. You can see the editor is not really caring about the regular blocking thing, and apparently has not interest whatsoever in regaining entrance to wp legitimately. Let me know your thoughts, and I'll proceed with the commban process. He cannot say we did not give him the tools he needed to do things the right way. WP doesn't support utter stupidity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, could Bluewind be one of Six' puppets? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful, but possible. . .keep an eye out. R. Baley (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

My contribution VERY MUCH helps editors to understand the forces that help shape an article on Wikipedia and justly belong RIGHT where I placed them. Any further attempts to remove them will be counteracted and put you in a position to be reprimanded yourself. Thank you 69.244.181.184 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

good luck with that. R. Baley (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Took it to ANI for further input. R. Baley (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For filing a checkuser. They may decline it as "too obvious". With Obedium I have kind of decided I am going to waste no more effort on protocol than it takes him to switch IP and set up another sock. But it may turn up some more substantial socks too which would be good. --BozMo talk 10:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did check with Alison first, and filed upon her recommendation. I agree about the obvious thing, but it never hurts to 'dot all the i's' so to speak. Hopefully a little more can be done from a technical standpoint in blocking this user. R. Baley (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The New Year's Cards

Thanks from that format fix, I thought 1 div would have been enough to avoid this mess, but I've fix the rest, I've only send the cards to about a dozen users and the rest if needed will be without the cards. I'm obviously not the best editor as far as tables and cards and other stuff like that Also to yourself as well, have Happy New Year 2008. --JForget 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and a happy new year as well. R. Baley (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Not a particulaly threatening person but certainly weired. I was tempted to just block him myself but it would be better if another admin did it. Thank you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be (who wouldn't be tempted) but you're one of the (many) good ones. Hope that some intervention is forthcoming. Oh, and btw happy new year :-) R. Baley (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikistress

Thank you. It is people like you, that make me want to continue here. Yes, I have been stressed from many on, and off Wiki conditions, Which include: Being uncerimoniously dumped by girlfriend, having my teenage mind corrupted by a phobia of death (which is thankfully subsiding), and having many issues with users here on Wikipedia. Thankfully, things have gotten a big boost here and there. I am happy you have reached out to me. It means alot. I don't know if I will ever be a 300-edit a day user on this site, but I do love Wikipedia. I'm happy there is peolpe like you on this site. It makes me know, that even in the darkest moment, there is life. Tech43 (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you for help. I have also reached out to users I have had problems with. Again, thank you. And I will take your advice with glee. Happy editing, Tech43 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

your welcome, R. Baley (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

heh heh heh...

I wonder how many people noticed this.[3] C'est magnifique! Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why thanks! It could have been worse. . .I mean there's always this. :-) R. Baley (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your words greatly. After posting the nomination, I sort of had this weird feeling of complete uncertainty over whether I was completely out to lunch in nominating myself. The first supporter seemed to be supporting me solely on the basis that I'd nominated myself, which didn't really set my mind at ease, and the second didn't provide a rationale at all. Your !vote reassured me that even if my RfA was unsuccessful, I wasn't an idiot for trying.

As for whether I wanted it, I've thought for a few months (since I started contributing more in the WP namespace) that it's something I'd like to try for eventually, but it was really only once I started participating in others' RfA discussions that I decided that maybe I was ready now. Actually self-nominating now was more or less a spur of the moment decision this afternoon.

In any event, I hope you saw me partially credit you in my answer to Q2 for my decision to disengage during the User:FCYTravis/Star Wars kid/Adolf Hitler fiasco. I found your advice on that occasion to be very helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it hasn't been that long a time with the no see: I've had The Great Global Warming Swindle watchlisted since I participated in its RfC, so I've seem some of what you've been up to - I think I even reverted User:The Noosphere a couple of times. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that article makes people act crazy. . .I try to keep it at arms length. You're absolutely welcome for the !vote. We need more admins, and you'll make an excellent one; thanks for putting yourself out there. R. Baley (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

re: innappropriate orphaned image tagging

I'm not sure what I can do, the images fit the guidelines to be tagged and the bot has no way of knowing what pages the images were removed from. The only thing I can think of is reverting the page to the revision with the images until the dispute ends. BJ^Talk 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Minor Harry Potter characters

Re: this edit. I know people complain about protecting the wrong version all the time. I am only asking that you revert the page back to a version with the images because they are all being tagged as orphaned, thus ensuring their probable deletion at about the same time the page protection is expected to expire. This advances one side in the dispute unfairly. I have tried to remove the tags per template instructions, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or . . ." but my edits are reverted by BJBot. The bot operator suggests that the page be restored to prevent this (inquiry here and reply here). Thank you for your attention to this matter, R. Baley (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to put the images on another page (temporarily). -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonconstructive reverting.

Please refrain from making nonconstructive reverts, as you did to the Barack Obama article. TheOnlyJason (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

umm ok. well, bye then. R. Baley (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know, your pen pal has just begun a 48-hour vacation.[4] Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he'll be getting a little more time off than that. R. Baley (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TheOnlyJason

I have redacted my own quote which was pasted here. Originally posted at this thread here on Kralizec's talk page. R. Baley (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm baffled too, but you don't have to be so mean about it. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for your support. R. Baley (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't just you -- I put a note in WP:ANI seeking clarification as well. I was floored by that response. --Mhking (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mhking, it's too bad you had to take it to ANI. That page is quite bloated. R. Baley (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; it appears that I assumed too much good faith. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF. . .ok. R. Baley (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank-you Ryulong [5] R. Baley (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message [6], but you have no need to apologize. I had an inexplicable lapse in judgment (for the life of me I have no clue as to what I could have been thinking), and you were understandably frustrated by my bad call. Thank you for your hard work to keep vandalism under wraps, and sorry again for my mistake. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA Thanks

Hi R. Baley - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I believe I've already indicated to you how much I appreciated your words, but it bears repeating: I greatly appreciated your words, and they helped convince me that I'd made the right choice in applying (the rest of the community seemed to need somewhat less convincing, the trusting saps). Anyway, it passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I was going to say things were looking good earlier. . .but I didn't want to jinx anything. R. Baley (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hey man! Thanks for reverting the SPA. Really appreciate it! Peace--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it

Your ANI comment is very sensible! Allow some discussion, then ban the user. You'll note that I haven't defended the banned user. I only noted others' comments and asked the user to defend himself. At first, he didn't know he was being discussed on ANI. Archtransit (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO RfA

Hey there. I was the user who added the note to an oppose comment in the MONGO RfA. I didn't realize that I was over-stepping my bounds, so to speak, and I struck the note. Have a nice day. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really an overstep. . .in any case, a gracious move on your part, I've done the same for mine. Nice user name by the way. . .I think I'll have another :-) R. Baley (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for getting rid of the harassing trolling message on my talk page. NHRHS2010 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Public domain picture

Yeah, it sure is in the public domain. At the time, I thought that the photographer had to have been deceased for 75 years for it to be in the public domain; since I had no idea who the photographer was, I had no idea whether or not this was the case. I later learned that in Canada, anything not subject to Crown copyright that was published before 1949 is in the public domain. In fact, I later put an identical photo (Image:Matthew McCauley.jpg) on the Commons, although I hadn't fully replaced the old photo with it. I've since done so, and deleted the image you referred to. Thanks for the reminder! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit Harrassing User:69.244.181.184

Thanks! 68.40.200.77 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi IP, I'm sorry you feel as if I've harassed anyone. It was not my intent. Looking back over my interaction with the above IP you mention, my last (and I think only) interaction was Dec. 22, over a month ago. I removed a comment s/he made from the O'Reilly article that was not germane to improving the article, but was instead an attack on the editors at wikipedia. At that point they made a non-credible threat to have me reprimanded, at which point, I posted at ANI for further input, and left it to others to enforce the talk page standards as they saw fit.

I can't help but notice that you're an anon IP yourself, if by some chance you happen to be the same editor as the one you mention in the subheading, I encourage you to rethink your method of participation here. No sense in beating your head against a brick wall. Check your political leanings at the door when you step in and it's really not such a bad place. R. Baley (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry

While reading into your post at ANI about Leave Power Behind, I pressed the wrong link and blocked you when I thought I had been blocking Leave Power Behind. I'm sorry for this mistake, and now I guess I'll have to double-check who exactly is on that page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! No worries. Thanks for the prompt attention. R. Baley (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was fairly sure I had the right name in the field, until I saw yours on the screen after the block is put in the system. The bright side is, I think I found a bug in the MediaWiki script for that page because of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, you changed it back so fast it scarcely matters. The only reason I even noticed was because I was adding a note at ANI about the informing the account holder about the thread. R. Baley (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's also teaching me that I shouldn't be up this early/late. Take care. :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Mr.Baley...i am "O.Waqfi" ,i had uploaded picture for Griffin Frazen,i think it is File:Griffin Frazen 1.jpg...you can see it at My contributions...and a admin remove it.because it is for someome alive and from website..what license can you put? my Regards --O.waqfi (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

is there another way to upload it,mabye put it like a sreen shot.the proplem i took it from a website, how i can email someone?...can you see this plz.--O.waqfi (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators will delete a screen shot in this case. Finding an email for someone who is authorized to speak for the actor (or finding the actor's email), and getting them to release an image is very hard. I'm sorry that the process is so difficult. I'm also sorry that there's not much I can do for you here, I wish there was. . . R. Baley (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC question

Thanks for the feedback, I was asking because of this, which has been puzzling me for a while. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That link I copied also shows the periods of highest editing activity, I would guess that an RfC of any substance would be around those same time frames. . . might help you know when to look for it. R. Baley (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've drawn a total blank. Thanks for the suggestions though. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)