User talk:Wizardman

To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. Wizardman

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Request for help Greetings, I would like to inset a photograph in my overview of a contemporary Italian composer but the task is daunting. I received the picture electronically from the composer himself. I see that you are an experienced Wizardman, can you, please, help?Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you I DID upload the picture but then I got stuck. Would it be possible for you to send me an email so that I can send you the photo and a longer message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC) To Wizardman, an imaginary Gold Medal for his competent, invaluable help. Thank you,Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Nur Amalina Che Bakri You relisted the afd but the article is deleted. Don't you think you should undelete the article if consensus hasn't truly been reached? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 1980s Mark Corey (pitcher)? Hi. Per your edit, who is a 1980s pitcher named Mark Corey? I couldn't find such a person. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Muhammad al-Durrah dispute Hello Wizardman, I was wondering if you near reaching a decision on the point I raised here - which is a matter of some controversy? [1] as it seems to be getting out of hand and we can't seem to come to any agreement. It is perhaps a small point but I believe the ramifications are important. Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher again Nobody wants to refute my argument, or even touch the CfD. I think the CfD for Satcher has gone on way too long, and should be put out of its misery as an overly narrow category just like the Anthony Smith one that you deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Alastair Wizard -- I appreciate your input and work when it came to Alastair. What consideration did you give to my own points that: 1) It is impossible to edit war by yourself, and the other party should be equally liable, and 2) Alastair's CONSIDERATION of taking mediation action cannot be worse than the other party TAKING such action. Were both sides warned? Thanks. Tim (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Bedford at ANi What the heck is that Apology thread for? It makes Bedford feel like shit and it only creates drama. The only person it could benefit is you: you either want attention or you really feel guilty over it. And you shouldn't feel guilty because that's retarded. Delete that thread, it's pointless and petty. Beam 04:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Starting to look like? That's what it is! What else could it be? What else will that accomplish? DO you want to hear "You don't need to apologize" from 10 different people? Create some socks. If you want to make Bedford feel like shit, you already did. Beam 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC) I hope you don't think I'm a jerk, but I was blunt only because I thought it could only hurt you and others. Beam 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC) For the record, it did not make me feel like shit; if anything, it told me which people I am definitely better than. And deep down, those people realize that too that I am better than them.--Bedford Pray 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC) lol Beam 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Wizardman, are you sure it was wise to delete this thread?[2] It would seem directly applicable to the ban discussion that was going on. --Elonka 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 29 14 July 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: Transparency  WikiWorld: "Goregrind" Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 30 21 July 2008 About the Signpost WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics" News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts  Dispatches: History of the featured article process 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. Ralbot (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC) RFA thankspam Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC) RFA Thanks again, Wizardman, for your nomination of me as an admin. As you probably saw, it was successful, no doubt due to your enthusiastic nomination statement. If you ever see me screw something up, please tell me. Thx! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) RfB Thank You spam Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas I have to say I was surprised by this deletion; the sources seemed rather better to me than others in the same area which have recently been kept. I also note that after I brought up several sources, including much of a chapter in a book, the only new vote was to keep. So I was wondering if you could explain. Cheers,John Z (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) There was no new delete vote after more sources were provided. That was the nominator, Ism Schism, saying "delete" once again. Maybe relisting, if possible, to get other opinions might be easier? Otherwise I guess I will take it to DRV. There were so many Hinduism AfD's recently, 40 simultaneous ones at one point, that I think people were overwhelmed. I know I was, so it was hard to find and post sources in a timely fashion. Thanks,John Z (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for relisting! I forgot to say so yesterday.John Z (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Article credits done I did the article talk page credits; I'll let you do the people credits. Besides, considering who one of the people to be credited is, propriety says I don't do those credits.--Bedford Pray 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Alastair Haines still causing problems Hi, you recently cautioned Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) as a result of an RfC/U on him. Unfortunately, his behaviour has not changed: In his reply to you, he denies any failings in his editing. On Talk:Gender of God he is continuing to make threats ([3], [4]). He is being incivil and attacking editors ([5]). He is being territorial regarding the article ("subhead stays until ..."). He is immediately reverting any edits he disagrees with ([6], [7], [8]), operating with a double standard - changes he disagrees with must be justified on the talk page before inclusion, while changes he approves of must stand on the page until he has been personally convinced that they are bad. In the former case, the material he is strongarming into the article is material that was supposed to be discussed in mediation, which he rejected. I'm hoping you can help me take this further, as I've been unable to find documentation on the proper recourse after an ineffective RfC/U. Ilkali (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Proof User_talk:Elonka/Archive_21#I_will_submit_to_0RR_if_everyone_else_does_too. Like ChrisO, I tried to extend as much good faith to Elonka as possible. However, she unevenly has singled me out for retribution for reasons I cannot fathom [9]. I have written her an e-mail explaining to her that I am very clear on my talkpage how I'm dealing with my arbcom restrictions. She has not responded. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC) To my knowledge, there is no overlap between ScienceApologist and ChrisO. It is true that I have dealt with both users, but it's on different articles, and in relation to completely separate ArbCom cases. Awhile ago, I issued a one-week page ban on ScienceApologist, but it was for the Atropa Belladonna article, a completely different topic area from Muhammad al-Durrah. I would also point out that ScienceApologist already appealed that ban at ANI, and the community upheld my restriction.[10] So again, no overlap. --Elonka 01:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with Elonka, this connection is too shaky and ScienceApologist should not certify this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. I won't object if anyone wants to remove it with due proof, as I find the connection shaky. Wizardman 02:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I'll go ahead and copy over my reasoning to the RfC talkpage, too. --Elonka 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Spec Shea DYK On 2 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spec Shea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombina and The Skeletones - Deletion Review Hi Wizardman, It seems I'm supposed to contact you (the deleting administrator), before going through the deletion review procedure... I wasn't actually informed of the deletion (typical! Even though i had quite a few edits to them (Was noted about the dispution of license in response to the images)), so didn't actually know they were up for deletion until they were gone (was not really on WP much at that point) I am after seeing if you would agree to undelete the article (and probably the albums, however, the notability of those is a bit more iffy). I am happy enough to do the undeletion myself. You didn't actually comment in the deletion, just close and delete the articles. To counter the first 3 points regarding notability of the band. Per WP:MUSIC "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" The Band at least meets these 2 criteria: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. And possibly some of the others. [11] - They were a feature band of a Radio 2 session back in 2005. The BBC itself asserts enough notability and international credability, and with the tracks being played, it therefore means they meet the criteria. They have also been featured in various magazines, and played at large festivals around europe Granted, i will agree that the articles werent brilliant, and not the best sourced. If we can get it undeleted, I'm going to work on improving it, getting it better and properly sourced. And then for images, the band have said they will deal with the licensing, and sort that out if necessary Thanks —Reedy 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks! —Reedy 08:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Gulledge You closed this as a Delete with no comment, but it was far from a consensus; there was just a bare majority for Delete, and most of the Delete voters ignored (at least one purposefully) WP:BIO's unambiguous language specifically qualifying any "fully" professional athlete, which anyone playing AAA baseball certainly is. Would you mind elaborating on your rationale?  RGTraynor  07:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I came here to learn the same thing. I think on this one you really need to provide an explanation as a part of the close. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Brian Edgar Was it you who deleted Brian Edgar? Because if it was you, do you mind at all if I have a copy of the deleted page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.34.151 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC) RfA thanks Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support! Miracle Your decision to mass delete all the entries I did on Miracle ballplayers was BS. There were far too many opinions in the debate to save several of these ball players. That didn't matter to you at all; you completely ignored the debate and imposed your will. Regardless of who is and who is not on the 40 man roster, there were several good ball players on that list who deserve separate consideration. Deolis Guerra, as it stated in his now deleted Wikipedia entry, was one of the players included in the Johann Santana trade between the Mets and Twins. I would think that fact alone would make him note worthy enough to save. Don't you think that the occassional Twins fan might be interested in reading about this player they picked up in this blockbuster trade? Likewise, don't you think a Mets fan might be interested in learning more about the minor leaguers they gave up? Forget the fact that he was in the All Star futures game.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Some questions About the RFC on bogdangiusca [12]: you said "Due to inactivity, I'm closing this case" - Whose inactivity? Ours? We presented the case which I believe is pretty simple. Were we supposed to do more??? About "Romani people and supposedly related ethnic groups" [13]: What exactly should we take to mediation: the relation between Romanies and other ethnic groups, or the terminology? AKoan (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Well, I'm kinda confused. For example, if somebody makes a RFC on me, and I don't respond then I get away with it?!? Anyway, he responded here: [14]. I think that case is simple and I don't know what else could be said. And the essence was not the terminology, this is already under discussion here [15] and people have a civilized attitude there. The problem is that bogdangiusca, who is also an admin, moved that page in a "illegal" way. And it is not the first time that he has a biased position because of his nationalistic agenda. We hoped that he gets a warning or something in order to avoid such "accidents" in the future. AKoan (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion review Deletion review for Kelley Gulledge An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kelley Gulledge. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  RGTraynor  14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apostolic Christian Church of America How deeply did you investigate the copyright concern I raised in my opinion? (And to which my attention was drawn by DGG's edit summary in declining the prior A7 speedy deletion request.) If not for the copyright concern, I'd have opined keep myself. But my understanding is that a valid copyright issue is dispositive, it outweighs any and all keep opinions. So I want to know if you really looked at the copyright issue here. GRBerry 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Kansas Avenue AFD Hi there, you closed this as delete. Any real objections to a re-direct. The content is already at the list article (likely via c/p) and I'd like to preserve the history. Just let me know, thanks. TravellingCari 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Done, thanks. TravellingCari 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) My Demeanor Regardless of whether or not you liked my demeanor, my opinion remains. I don't believe that you gave any consideration to the debate. Anyway, thanks for the restoration. Robert Delaney, Anthony Slama and several other players on the Miracle also deserve restoration. I wish you would read some of the articles you deleted.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Many thanks! Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion review for Anthony Slama An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anthony Slama. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Question on RfCs Hi Wizardman, I see you've been clerking Elonka's RfC. Well, I want to ask something. On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, it says in the "Use of administrator privileges" section the following: "This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and blocking or unblocking users. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above." This means that RfCs of admins where an admin has abused the tools should be listed there, but if it's just editing concerns about an admin, it should be listed in the "General user conduct" section. In Elonka's RfC, it mainly appears to me to be concerns over her editing and handling of disputes, not actual use of the tools. As such, shouldn't her RfC be listed in the "General user conduct" section of that page rather than the section on admin abuse, or am I missing something? Thanks. Acalamari 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I did use tools in "editing a protected page", which was to log cautions on WP:ARBPIA. And issuing warnings is only to be done by "an uninvolved admin". Also, the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing that I placed on the page, were "in my authority as an uninvolved administrator". So I think that the admin section of the RfC page is appropriate. However, on the flip side, ChrisO's RfC is more formatted as a "general editing" RfC. For example, most admin RfCs have a section for "Powers misused", but I don't think he listed anything like that. Mostly he seems to be arguing that I'm not enforcing the conditions in the proper way, or in other words, he feels that I should be giving him more leeway (since he is more experienced) than I should give to editors with opposing views. So yes, things are a bit muddled. But to be clear: I don't think I actually used tools anywhere on the Muhammad al-Durrah article or related editors. No protection, deletion, or blocks. All of my actions were to place conditions and warnings. And a very very few brief bans: Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Admin log. Which I'm actually fairly proud of, since I feel I offered fairly minor guidance, but had a major impact in stabilizing the article. :) --Elonka 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Wizardman, for your response. That helped a lot. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall I couldn't help but notice your name on this list... My experience with you is limited, but based upon the one rash decision I watched you make without any real explanation, I believe you should step down.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Could you please elaborate on which decision makes you think Wizardman should stand down? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Oh Lord, don't entertain this. How absurd. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Generally, recall is used after a relatively long history of poor conduct. You're asking for him to step down based on one thing you think he was wrong at? Nonsense. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Not going to happen - just because you're a little pissed Johnny Spasm. This is bordering on disruption to the project and you are strongly warned not to engage is such farcical requests in future. Nick (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion of page Podbharti Recently noticed that the page was deleted. Funny to see that some editors said it was not notable. Its so strange that Wikipedia finds a porn site Savita_Bhabhi notable and worthy of listing and deletes pages like Podbharti and Indicast. Its a shame really, just thought I would tell you that I admonish this notion of Wikipedia and wonder why the admins don't even bother to notify the authors of the deleted pages even once before taking such drastic steps. Mere 2 votes from total strangers to the topic and they just delete the page. Huh! --Debashishc (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I wish to add a request to take a look on my talk page for the message left by Chirag who nominated then page (for no good reason) for deletion. Its not difficult to see that he is on some sort of deletion spree. He even offers me advise to nominated pages for deletion. The page deleted had enough citations in the article to make it notable. --Debashishc (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Chrisjpatrick Thanks for blocking him. i hope you don't mind me putting the block notice over there. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Michael Jackson What was your reason for deleting the page entitled "Michael Jackson's forthcoming studio album?"