User talk:De728631

Archives

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page or click here.

Quenya

Hi, the work you're doing on Quenya looks good. I just wanted to make sure that you know that if you disagree with any of my suggestions in the review or would like me to clarify anything I've said that you can just ask. I don't see the review as the kind of exercise where I say what you must do to pass the bar and you have to comply - rather I see it as a chance to collaborate to improve the article. So if there are particular things you disagree with or don't know how to implement let's just discuss it at the review page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maunus, I was going to leave you a few comments on the review page but somehow I was always too busy and forgot about it. Anyhow, thanks a lot for doing this job in the first place. Please see my response at the review site. De728631 (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some rather heavy editing now, and I just want you to know that if you disagree with anything I do - i.e. if you think that it does not constitute and improvement to the article please feel free to revert it - then we can discuss it on the review page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, and thanks a lot for your massive help. Please let me know when there are some especially challenging issues to be solved. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, regarding the review I am at a point where I am seeing that I cannot pass the article before the grammar section is rewritten to form a more coherent overview. It simply is to incoherent to be useful to a reader - one can read the entire section and not feel that one has an idea of how the language works. I don't currently have the time to rewrite this myself and it probably will be a couple of weeks before I do, so I would like to ask you whether you have the time and will to try out your hand at rewriting it, whether you have the patience to wait a couple of weeks for the review to conclude when I have had a chance to rewrite the grammar section, or whether you would prefer me to fail the review now so that you can renominate it later?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point I'm going to opt for a second opinion since I really don't see any need nor possibilities to improve the coherence of this section without simply adding many unnecessary fillers. This may be a matter of taste which we've already debated on the review page. So if another reviewer recommends further copyediting in terms in terms of coherence as well, then I'm going to try it myself. My time is also a bit limited but rather than letting the review fail now, I'll try to get the article improved. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The reason that I don't think I can pass the article as is, is that I know that User:G Purevdorj who has reviewed articles for me in the past would not pass this article in its current state. It is not about adding unnecessary fillers, it is about writing readable prose, and organizing information in a way that makes it accessible to people without prior knowledge. It is also not just copyediting I am asking for, but a substantial rewrite. If this were a peer review for a journal my verdict would be "revise and resubmit". I think you should ask for a second opinion, but I would encourage you to find a reviewer who knows linguistics and who has worked on language related articles. I'll refrain from editing the article while we wait for more input.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a request for a second opinion. Best, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, let's see what others think about it. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, De728631. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks for nominating and curating the article, and congratulations with the GA. You did great. I will cntinue to do some minor copyediting when I have more time, but I do think it is a valuable and worthy article. Well done!

Credits for The Hobbit Soundtrack

Hello De728631,

There is all credits information in digital booklet & album cover of Hobbit soundtrack but there isn't exist in Wikipedia. Example: Misty Mountain song composed by PLAN 9, not Howard Shore. Besides, "Song of the Lonely Mountain" song adapted from this song (I mean, "based on" / co-written). Unfortunately, I'm not so good at English, therefore, I cannot add to Wikipedia. Could you add the following credits infomations? Thanks.

As screenshot from the digital booklet and cover of the album: http://i.imgur.com/RJVOJ.jpg

As text;

All compositions by Howard Shore except:

Portions of Disc 1: Tracks 8, 12; Disc 2: Tracks 5, 17 contain excerpts of the
“Misty Mountains” song composed by David Donaldson, David Long, Steve Roche and Janet Roddick.

“Blunt the Knives”
Lyrics by J.R.R. Tolkien
Music Composed by Stephen Gallagher
Performed by Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Graham McTavish, James Nesbitt, Dean O’Gorman, Ken Stott, Aidan Turner
Produced by Stephen Gallagher
Mixed by Ed Cherney 

“Misty Mountains”
Lyrics by J.R.R. Tolkien
Music Composed by David Donaldson, David Long, Steve Roche and Janet Roddick
Performed by Richard Armitage With Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Graham McTavish, James Nesbitt, Dean O’Gorman, Ken Stott and Aidan Turner
Produced by Plan 9 and David Long
Mixed by Ed Cherney

“Song of the Lonely Mountain”
Lyrics by Neil Finn
Music Composed by Neil Finn, David Donaldson, Steve Roche, Janet Roddick and David Long
Performed by Neil Finn
Produced by Neil Finn, Elroy Finn, Liam Finn
Mixed by Dave Fridmann
Recorded and engineered by Jason Huss at Roundhead 
Strings performed by the London Metropolitan Orchestra
Conducted by James Brett
Orchestra Leader: Tom Kemp
Strings Recorded and Mixed by Lewis Jones
Assistant Engineer: Toby Hulbert
Strings Arranged by Victoria Kelly

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureocan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note about the detailed credits. The problem is however that I'd rather like to see the CD booklet myself as an original print, or at least published by a reliable online source, and not by some random image sharing site. And we cannot link to the url you provided because the scan of the CD booklet is an infringement of copyright. So unfortunately I think we will have to keep the credit lines as they are. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources that can be verified, and I at least can't check whether the scan you state above is actually true. By the way, even the publisher Water Tower Music credits only Shore and Neil Finn, so for the time being this should be sufficient until we get some verifiable credits. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed information. I understand the situation. If you could write to you personally, I would send to you Digital Booklet file (Or Google search: caG8IPuO dc262 **you could delete this part after seeing it**). Of course, this booklet is copyrighted. Therefore, I did a lot of research. There is many sources as "reliable source". Here listing (I hope, can be the Reliable Source any of these sites);

Thanks a lot for your efforts. On a general note, blogs, forums, fan sites and user-based websites are generally not considered reliable sources, simply because there is no controlling authority for the content they publish. Neither do we use commercial links with a price tag on the site like Amazon or Onlinesheetmusic as a reference; e.g. Discogs has explicitely been ruled out as a reliable source, see here. So a lot of those new links cannot be used either. The Google search you provided looks promising an quite original, and it matches your first link to imgur.com . So I'm now going to quote the album booklet without using a weblink, which is actually alright. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IronKnuckle SPI block

If the checkuser came back as false, is the Looks like a duck to me evidence strong enough for a ban? We have just one AFD comment? Suspicious yes, but proven? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still suspicious but please see this addendum to my block rationale. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for semi-protecting my talk page for a couple of weeks. That should help cut down on vandalism from the socks that are being created so quickly. 72Dino (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. De728631 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting

You know, sometimes if you kindly ask an editor to expand an article instead of being a complete asshole drilling deletion warnings at established editors you might get more of a response and you might find more editors like you..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know,

This user
templates the regulars.

because templates are a convenient, neutral and fast way to convey a message. And I was actually going to add a custom message to your talk page after finding some more stubs that don't look notable either.

To those watching my talkpage, please ignore the "asshole" bit since we've recently had enough drama in terms of civility. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

You're missing the point. We are here to build an encyclopedia together. Friendly, constructive collaboration is far more important than convenience and neutrality. Templating the regulars I find rude and overbearing, its not excusable in my book. It makes it look as if you resent the edits of others, rather than trying to build upon what they've started. If you are having problems with civility I'd say it is likely you are too heavy handed in your approach. Sometimes functioning more as a human being than a robot towards other editors might help. Think about it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:30, 25 January 2013 s(UTC)

Point taken, but it seems we're completely disagreeing here about the reception of templates. Another matter of personal taste that has to be taken into account. If I was actually resenting your edits and was uninterested in them I could've simply ignored your talk page at all. E.g. I can't stand it when people mark a new page for speedy deletion and don't inform the OP, let alone the frequent lack of notifications about not creating articles in another language. That is where editors really aren't interested in other people's contributions. And as mentioned above, this templated message on your page was only the starting point for a personal message to follow. It was just that you responded before I could add anything else. On a side note, I don't have problems with civility but I was referring to the recent drama fests at the administrators' noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Thanks for your assistance with the rationales.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCM article

Thank you for getting involved with the Contemporary Christian music article (the notice you posted at the top of the article). Would I be able to remove the "about.com" remark without any problems? It was told to Walter that it can't be used but is still there after several days. It's a poorly sourced/typed "quote" by someone who isn't even experienced with the genre on a highly ad-filled site. Also, there are two other points I made on the article that were not sourced that the user claims comes from books he owns. In addition to that, I actually included info that wasn't overly quoted about early influences of the genre that are reliable (from NY Times for instance), the artist's websites, music websites (ie. MTV) and CCM websites as well, not to mention included in related articles within Wikipedia already. I'm confused why some sections are kept and others are removed. Then I've been threatened with warnings and blocks as I'm trying to get to the bottom of it which I haven't appreciated. Would just like someone unbias to take a look at it all and fix it, not just ignore it with distractions about insignificant issues or make suggestions that don't pertain to my inquiries (ie. about creating an account or whatever). I appreciate your help and have a great day... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also been have been using About.com as a source when I was told by fellow editor that a specific guide on there was actually reliable. So it seems that there are conflicting opinions about this source. I would suggest that you wait for the topic at the reliable sources board be either closed or archived since the discussion there has only recently been started. In the meantime it would be a good idea to find other, reliable sources that make similar statements like Kim Jones, so could actually replace the About.com sources instead of removing the entire text part. That said, my problem with the article is that entire sections are made up of loosely arranged quotations of original text: "Statment 1". "Statement 2". And so on; that's now how an article should be written. On the other hand I have to agree with Walter about what he wrote here. Many of those sources are actually unreliable. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You both aren't realizing those were removed sources I just listed. I did not need him to respond to them or justify why they are bad. However, some of those sources he had to click on BIO or scroll down. Regardless, the info I included is from the actual singer's articles already (such as about Gaither being an influence: [1] and Happy Goodman's sourced via MTV and NY Times). Those can not be disputed. It was at first about the sources, then it became about the content to him. I put it in a new section and that still wasn't good enough. Why should I have to come up with better sources to something poorly written without a valid source that he's trying to keep in the article? He didn't do that with me. My entry wasn't left until I fixed it per an editor's instructions, but then it was just reverted again and I was warned for edit warring when it was him doing it without discussing it first. He was flip-flopping and power-tripping about what I was right about. He's the one who needs to come up with a better source or remove it. But he hasn't. This is what I'm upset about and is a "double-standard". But you both are misunderstanding that you're arguing sources I haven't even included in the "Diversity within CCM" section. Look at the good sources. Compare it to the content of the websites/articles. I overly sourced at first, I admit. But much of it is already "common knowledge" on their respective articles and that he agrees is accurate himself. All the other sources in my last change is fine. I was told on my talk page I could keep the info and his should be removed, but I know if I do it then there will be hell to pay without me given a chance to explain my actions. It seems easier to just silence/block someone than work it out. I told him About.com was bad before that forum began. You can just look at it and tell. He was using the same argument with me about sources he didn't like, yet wants to keep About.com? Made no sense. Then he admits that other statements aren't sourced or that he has books with some of the info. When is that okay? And the noticeboard topic is resolved but not archived. But it shouldn't take days to get it removed. It is just a case of an IP user being scolded and blocked but other users getting to do as they wish even when it contradicts Wikipedia. Then when I use certian innocent words, I'm told I'm "insulting". Those are just observations and facts (feelings about the process such as "inept" which aren't directed to a specific person or left on their page). They are 'lies' that I referenced on my own talk page for my own personal records and I was blocked for (all distractions from the real issue that is going ignored). Very disappointing that this type of behavior exists here. Anyways, why can't someone just remove it? Seems everyone is scared of Walter. I don't get it... Have a nice evening! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Walter user's problem with most of those was that [he] couldn't see any text about the content I included on the article. He said they only listed books and albums. Those were just confirmations that the artist/songs existed or he had to scroll down further or click the appropriate section the info was on. Those usually get removed from the article once they have been confirmed I've experienced in the past. I didn't assume they all would be used, only the reliable ones. But, he just dismissed it all which was not proper. Those cites don't actually need to be provided as they are already proven on the respective articles about the singers linked to. It was all a waste of time and a misunderstanding I guess. I feel he was "trigger happy" with the reverts and didn't actually take time (as with his supporters) to analyze my intentions better. I was judged as an IP user plain and simple. I was playing devil's advocate I guess. It was me telling him to remain professional and not make it personal at first. His mission was to just keep what he wanted and remove what he didn't. And it's not only my contributions he wanted to keep off what he must think is his article, it's a long history of this happening with others too I've come to find out. Now how come I can't type what I observe without being accused of insulting, while users with "wiki powers" (as he calls it) and admin can make all sorts of rude comments as they wish on their warning/blocking pages where they get together and praise each other (high fives) or belittle the new editors or IP users generally? I guess they just thought I'd suck it up and take what they dished out, but I had a point to prove and one editor "listened" today which I appreciated since he put everyone in their place and backed me up. And the words I listed on my own talk page were observations and articles I wanted to work on. They have not been nor can be directly linked to the Walter user personally. Just major contradictions in general which leaves a bad impression on those wanting to do honest work here. Just saying... So anyways, all of that to say: what happens if the page is not updated to reflect proper sources or isn't removed and if I post my contributions back then it starts problems again? I can list each sentence I posted with reliable sources and content from other articles that match it for someone who will read/focus. Not someone in a hurry who just reverts it without looking at the big picture. No one cared to let me do that though, the process was aborted by hearsay or tales about insults and edit wars that I did not create. (Thanks, and sorry this is so long.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The fixes have been and/or are being made now. I have yet to replace my contributions to the article but will eventually, hopefully without incident. Thanks, take care! P.S. I expect to take a long break from using this IP address and visiting the CCM-related sites all together, as I had planned to do before fighting to resolve all of this as a matter of principal. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the update. I've been away for two days, so couldn't reply any sooner. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-English_language_articles_-_reconsider_their_fortnight.27s_free_pass.3F Peridon (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I've just returned from a weekend's absence and I think all that I would have had to say has already been said. Currently it doesn't seem to me that there's much support of reconsidering the 14-days-rule, even more so since the OP has now learned about our modus operandi. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British rail transport magazines

Category:British rail transport magazines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American rail transport magazines

Category:American rail transport magazines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA vandal - Coin945's thanks

Thankyou so much for sorting all that out. I was on holiday and only had my phone (and about a 15 minute window before i had to go somewhere) to explain the problem and try to get it fixed. My efforts failed miserably (editing on my samsung galaxy is a real bitch), so I give my total thanks to you for sorting it all out. You're a true gem. :D--Coin945 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome. :) De728631 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bavarian TV Awards

No, I didn't the titles. I just noticed that from 2002 and down, there appears to be some translation needed. Obviously, "fur" is "for", but I mean the entries like "Peter Dudzik für die Berichterstattung aus dem Nahen Osten (BR/ARD)"... well, it's not obvious what that means. --Geniac (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pebe Sebert

Hi De728631. You recently deleted Portal:Pebe Sebert and I just wanted to note that two pages dependent on that one should also be deleted: Portal:Pebe Sebert/Intro and Portal:Pebe Sebert/Selected Article. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I really missed those pages. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brahman

Hi De728631. Could you have a look at this? Talk:Brahman#Lead #2.
81.107.150.246's contributions stop [2] where 81.106.127.14's contributions begin [3]. This is backed by 81's remarks on his editing history:

diff "who have edited this article over the last few years"
diff "I have been editing wikipedia for eight years".

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're both part of a range of dynamic IPs so it seems obvious that it is in fact the same editor. This is not something problematic in itself. If other, related IPs should pop up though displaying the same behaviour we might look into the possibility of a range block. Other than that I suggest you keep discussing the content issues like you've done at the article talk pages. De728631 (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will, thanks. It's good to know that I'm not alone in this. It's very tiresome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matej1234

The user was notified - diff at ANI. Regards, Giant Snowman 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roza Bal

Thanks for letting me know. Giant Snowman 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIV

Re your "edit war" note on my Talk page, please see my request at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max#Strasbourg — Thanks. Sca (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I moved my comment to Talk:Louis XIV of France. However, I note that "(German: Strassburg") has once again been removed from the article text — I assume, by User:Blaue Max. I don't think this should be done unless agreement is reached that it should be removed. The German origin and medieval history of Alsace and its primary city are known and accepted everywhere. In 1681, the city was known to its inhabitants as Strassburg (or Straßburg). Sca (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from the article because its addition was contested by Blaue Max. Generally, if an edit is repeatedly removed from an article, the person who first introduced the new content is required to present proof that it benefits the article. So, if you would like to restore it, it is you who needs to convince the others that having "Strassburg" in the article is useful. Your talk page discussion is a first step, so let's see how this develops. De728631 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made my argument at Talk:Louis XIV of France. I think it only fair for readers to realize that the city was of German origin. I don't particularly want to broaden the discussion into one airing centuries of French encroachment on the western edges of the Empire, since the article in question merely deals with Louis XIV, and before I got involved it already mentioned his annexation of Strassburg / Strasbourg. (Of course, I realize that now, three-plus centuries later, it's basically a francophone city with a frenchified German name.) Sca (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JakeInJoisey

As he is now topic banned, should the links to John Kerry articles be removed from his talk page? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to remove them. He's been banned from editing Kerry-related pages but that doesn't mean that he's not allowed to read them. And it's still his "own" talk page. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know he's not banned from reading them, I just wasn't sure if it would be appropriate for him to keep those links. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheShadowCrow requesting unblock

TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:TheShadowCrow, where he has filled in an AE appeal template. Since the AE block that you placed in October 2012 has expired, this may not be the correct step. Probably his case should be handled as an ordinary unblock request. Elockid blocked him 3 months on 17 December 2012 for abuse of multiple accounts. Since his unblock requests are offering justification for his AA edits, you might be the best person to evaluate that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RfC - disposition in light of topic ban

Please advise as to the disposition of this RfC and to its intended closure by an uninvolved administrator. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Due Process?

Inre your recent issuance of a topic ban, am I not entitled under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log to at least be advised "what parts of WP:BLP were violated" and "which edits were in violation of policy"? Please note that my first response to the ANI initiating editor was for the specifics of the alleged WP:BLP violation(s) and received no response. A second request attempting to ascertain some specificity on my alleged violation was again afforded no response. How can any editor be reasonably expected to respond to allegations such as these when the specifics of the alleged violation(s) are not clearly delineated? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although your topic ban has been logged at the special enforcements site, it is in fact not a special arbitration enforcement measure applied on the discretion of a single administrator, but it has been decided by the community of editors in a regular public discussion. So the special requirements for BLPSE don't apply here. Moreover it has been pointed out to you in the ANI discussion, in various threads at your user talk page and the related deletion discussions that your reception of Kerry is problematic and possibly unencyclopedic. The ANI thread had been running for three days, and people have observed a certain "WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with regards to this subject [John Kerry]" in your edits and attitude. That alone would've justified discretionary sanctions per BLPSE but now you have been put on a topic ban by regular means. You may of course appeal this topic ban at WP:AN or at requests for arbitration, but maybe you should just concentrate on another, less contentious topic to edit. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin excursion
I have in fact just added the topic ban to the Editing restrictions page, as I thought that was where it went.[4] Feel free to revert if you think it shouldn't be there, De728631. Bishonen \| talk 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply] That's totally ok with me. Thank you for adding it there. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I am now attempting to sort out and fully comprehend the specifics of this topic ban, please consider refactoring the 2 prior and unrelated administrative housekeeping considerations? I can't imagine that refactoring should be problematical and, if not, I will delete this request when those considerations are refactored into their own dedicated space. Thank you for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a bit more specific. Which "prior and unrelated administrative housekeeping considerations" are you talking about? The specifics of your topic ban are as I stated them on your user talk page. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a bit more specific.

I initiated this inquiry, in this specific section, so as to inquire and fully inform myself as to the Wikipedia process upon which this topic ban was issued, not as a catch-all for administrative dialogue unrelated to that purpose. As I am still in the process of absorbing all this, it is plausible that I will have further inquiries of you in pursuit of that goal. I don't believe it is untoward of me to request that the integrity of this conversation be respected. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have collapsed these messages. But back on topic, i.e. your topic ban: to sum it up, the specifications of your topic ban have been set out in my initial message to your talk page, and have also been logged here. And in this case, the BLPSE page serves only as an additional registry. What this means for you can be summed up pretty easily: just don't edit anything that touches on the subject of John Kerry. Failures to do so may get you blocked from editing. You may, however, appeal these decisions at the administrator's noticeboard or at requests for arbitration. That is the essence of your new community-placed restrictions. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration and response to my request. With your kind indulgence, I would still prefer to keep extraneous dialogue within, at least, the hatted boundary you have courteously established. May I refactor all this extraneous dialogue within that umbrella? And If you don't agree with the equity of my refactoring, simply edit as you see fit or revert in its entirety? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refactor anything on my talk that you haven't written yourself. I wish to keep this thread as it is now. Do you have any further questions regarding your topic ban? De728631 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I had no intent whatsoever to refactor your comments following "i.e. your topic ban...", just those unrelated to the topic. Be that as it may,...

Do you have any further questions regarding your topic ban?

It's certainly plausible. I need, as I said, to spend some time considering all this. I'm not confident, at this point, that attempting to defend the mandates of WP:NPOV as to 'he who shall not be named" isn't an exercise in futility. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the related community dialogues inre this subject ([5][6][7]), I see allusions to BLP content not in compliance with WP:BLP but I am unable to ascertain which content that is. In my initial query to you here, I noted that, despite my request for provision of the specifics of the alleged violation, the ANI OP was unwilling to provide them...neither within the ANI itself when requested nor in this space where he was advised of this dialogue. In your response to me here, you did not address that same lack of provision. I believe you may be acting under the assumption (perhaps understandably) that this alleged WP:BLP violation has been the subject of a community review. It has not. It is this alleged violation of WP:BLP that must first be examined to establish the predicate for this topic ban under WP:BLP or WP:BLPSE...and disputing that allegation is my intent. I believe I can legitimately and effectively make that case under WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and will do so within the WP:BLPN venue with or without the provision of specifics, perhaps even more effectively without. I will, however, await your further consideration before pursuing this and would like to be advised as to how this topic ban impacts my ability to defend myself in this punitive action which strikes at the heart of WP:NPOV. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think you know very well about the BLP-related flaws of your editing concerning Kerry. E.g. this kind of rhetoric of yours was not redacted without a need, and the copies of previously deleted articles in your userspace are proof that it is you who seems to have a problem with NPOV. Not to mention the extensive discussion on your user talk page. Moreover, your frequent appearances at WP:ANI over BLP issues [8][9] and forumshopping [10] is cleary seen as disruptive, as has been mentioned in the topic ban thread. I have already counselled you how to appeal the ban, and that's all I can say about it. Please move on and try to find another area of interest to edit. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you would now characterize my prior participations in WP venues that are an integral and recommended part of the WP dispute resolution process as "forum shopping", particularly as they relate to highly contentious articles such as these, is noteworthy. Simply add my name to the now lengthy list of editors who won't go near these articles with a ten foot editing pen, my voice by mandate, most others by choice. Thank you for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Blacklist

I've logged adiondistics.altervista.org that you added to the blacklist. Logging a request is essential for future reference. If there are requests in the future for removal of this URL and no log is found, it will be removed without having know why it was added. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#Logging_entries_on_the_blacklist. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright. Thanks a lot for the reminder. I wasn't even aware this log existed. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail requested

Could I ask for further details on this discussion being closed as "no consensus"? By my count, there were ultimately seven users in favour of deletion or listifying—including the category creator, who agreed that the category should be deleted. There was one user in favour of a straight-up "keep" and one in favour of "keep but make hidden". I know that vote counting is not governing or determinative, but I have a hard time seeing how a 7–2 !vote can result in "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the strength of the arguments that determines the outcome of a discussion. Most people !voting for deletion simply repeated that this was overcategorisation without bringing new input why the category should go, but IMO that argument had already been countered by the "keep" faction. On the other hand, there were no convincing statements to result in a clear "keep" sitauation either. Renaming was unpopular too, so that's why I couldn't see any consensus. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did have the guideline on our side, which is more than the other had. Perhaps those voting for deletion took for granted that they didn't have to repeat the guideline since it was stated in the nomination itself. Guideline + 7–2 + creator agrees on deletion. Given those three, I can't see how a "no consensus" can be the result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline refers to "Unrelated subjects with shared names" but I don't see how the subjects of the category are truly unrelated. One could even argue that there's only a finite number of known minerals and of these only another subset has been named after people. As I said, when I closed the CfD I couldn't see any convincing arguments for deletion. Please feel free to send this to deletion review if you feel really strongly about it. I won't mind. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this on my list to renominate. I think results-wise, it is a bit of an outlier, since categorizing things by aspects of the things' names is pretty widely regarded as being non-defining. Thanks for the further information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Balun and associated blacklist

I have a filter setup currently as the editor is tweaking the link itself (Edit Filter 533). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, so let's see how it works. Thank you for staying alert in this case. De728631 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]