Jump to content

User talk:Firefly322

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ericwg (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 6 June 2019 (Notification: proposed deletion of George Burman Foster. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has been loved!


A Barnstar?

For little 'ol me? Wow. Thank you. I will display it proudly. ô¿ô 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure to award it. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

I appreciate your request, but unfortunately I can't do that. Apart from a very few exceptions mainly involving WP:BLPs and obvious vandalism, articles are always protected on the current version. The protection I applied is simply to prevent further edit-warring and does not mean I condone any version of the contents; those are for its editors to thrash out either on the talk-page or via dispute resolution. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Wim E. Crusio

I have nominated Wim E. Crusio, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia dying?

Interesting link. Did you follow through to the article being commented on?

http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html

In summary, yes, I think the level of activity has dropped, but not for the reasons the blogger gives. In the beginning, everything needed to be written from scratch. By now, there shouldn't be any major topics that are not reasonably well covered. There will always be more to be done, but not on the scale that there once was.

Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean?

I'm honestly puzzled by your response at the Pokemon DRV. Literally, I have no idea why those things would remotely be related. Care to explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are quite nice and have the best of intentions. But I think your niceness and involvement in several issues has had unintentional side-effects. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the compliment, but I'm still mystified by the alleged cause and effect involved in that decision. Yes, I do engage on a number of topics as an editor and perform a number of roles as an administrator... but none of them bear on Pokemon, which is why I considered myself sufficiently uninvolved to close that AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on you

I just commented on you briefly at User talk:Matheuler. I do not think I said anything to bias the discussion of otherwise inappropriate, but please let me know or remove the relevant text if you disagree. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. At more than one specific editor still counts. Verbal chat 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Let me be the first person to congratulate you on Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola being kept. Unless there is a particular administrator who leans a certain way who closes the AfD, it should be kept.

I am very impressed with your efforts to keep this article. I think I speak for all of the squadron when I say we would be honored to have you be a part of the squadron.

WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
Hello, Firefly322.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very warm welcome!

It is really heartening to see new names in our growing organization. Can I ask how you heard about ARS? I will look forward to working with you! Check out the little tool below which currently lists all the articles currently tagged for rescue.

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Firefly322, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Firefly322 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)==Nicholas Beale== I think the best way of this article having a chance is to take the original deleted version (not this latest unsourced mess) and put it in userspace, and then improve that version. I can do that for you if you wish. Black Kite 05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

Finally someone who has a brain! Neuromancer (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yw. but I'm not so sure it's a brain exactly that makes me think this way. It's more like a lot of silly people who happen to have high-IQ's (higher than mine no doubt) truly believe that these ideas are sources of ignorance that must fought off. They really are suffering from a conspiracy theory mindset. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt seriously that their IQs are all that high. Neuromancer (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination)

Hi there, I've had a look and found some better sources, can you revisit this AfD? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. What else is there to say? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fighting the good fight. Just don't let them get to ya'. 'Cause in the end we will win. I thought you might be interested in glancing at a discussion about the alleged origins of bias on Wikipedia, in which I bring up the Denialism article and the arguments that were put forward during its 2nd nomination. Cheers! --ô¿ô 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern University

I saw you created an article about professor Philip Cary.

Are you affiliated with EU?--T1980 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not affiliated with EU in any way. Which article? Can u link to it? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor?

Would you mind refactoring this comment a little? Dismissing my contributions to the sourcing is fine - AfD is a good place to discuss whether what coverage there is occurs in usable sources. I would, however, prefer that you avoid terms such as pro-denialist camp, both in general and particularly in reference to my editing. Such accusations of bad faith and cabalism detract from the task of building a quality encyclopedia through collegial discourse and editing. I know you are aware of such behavioral norms as WP:NPA and WP:CIV, so please just dial it back a bit. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that you're a bad editor in that you would write lots and lots of silly and obvious POV statements.--Firefly322 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for being awesome. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It's evident we have differing opinions, but let's neither of us engage in edit-warring. Agreed? Grsz11 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are an experienced editor enough to be well aware of WP:3RR. I am. Alas, this seems like a redirection away from answering my points on the talk page. Please keep comments there from now on. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to everything you've ask. Grsz11 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. thanks. look forward to working with you. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi. I'm concerned that you deleted edits that people should be able to see to evaluate the notability of the article. For now, I'll put the refs/language on the AfD page. But can you do one think in the meantime -- explain why you reverted my chrono move of the litigation to where I believe it belongs (lower down)? Also, we should discuss why you are deleting the material, as I think all or nearly all is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved the litigation section down one below where it now stands. You moved it up. It is in better chronological order and makes more sense IMHO if it is move down one section again. OK w/you? Also, if you added the Youtube cites, can you pls address them w/Hipo on the article talk page, as he is seeking to delete those footnotes (I wasn't the one who added them)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing it now on the talk page. I didn't notice the litigation section move. I'll take a look (probably move it to where u suggest). If I don't remind me and we can talk about it. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that in a recent deletion you deleted the book infor from the body of the article. If you look at WikiProject Books instructions on article structure for non fiction works, they suggest both the template and the information that you just deleted from the body. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that as with most templates, they repeat info in the body of the article (think of every bio template that reflects the date of birth -- invariably also reflected in the body of the article). Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's what I understand. Quoting: "A general book article includes:
  1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
  2. A book synopsis.
  3. Information about its publication.
  4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
  5. Noteworthy citations and sources."
Where does it say that you need to add that info to the body, even if repeated in the box? One of these 5 points? It might I just don't see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep on reading, below it gives greater detail. Under the heading "Intro" it says:

"Infobox (Template:Infobox Book)

  • add into the infobox the first edition and possibly the first paperback edition ISBN, any others would go in ==Release details== section at the end of the article

And then under the heading "Headers":

Release details / Editions / Publication

  • {{cite book}} {{cite book |author= | title= | publisher= | year= | id= ISBN 1234567890 | pages= }}
  • title, author, publisher , year, pages, ISBNs — The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870—1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster New York 1977 Octavo, pp. 698, ISBN 0671225634, ISBN 0671244094 (Pbk.)—David Hackett Fischer (2004). Washington's Crossing, p. 564, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195170342.
  • year, country, publisher (ISBN), Pub Date, edition — 1989, UK, Fontana (ISBN 0006165745), Pub Date 9 February 1989, Paperback
  • list the first editions and perhaps the most respected current editions, mention if it is a partial list. Possible order: hardcover, paperback, audio book, e-book....
No problem. Thanks for listening. Do you want to be the one to put it back? (since one of our colleagues has suggested that I was edit warring on that page). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are more expert than I with adding videos, I wanted to make sure you saw this.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

It is inapropriate to accuse others of supporting Sharia or saying that conversations are "disgusting," or comparing people to NAMBLA is never acceptable. Please review WP:NPA and WP:BLP - and follow them. Consider this your final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was obviously sarcasm, I restored it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "WhenAnwar al-Awlaki wrote warm things about Hasan, he might as well have writen warm things about Nambla."
This BLP talk has gone too far. It enables editors to censor discussion, that is inappropriate and adverse to wikipedia's designation as a free encyclopedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Terrible block. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested here. Nathan T 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 55 hours for disruptive editing, for flagrant abuse of BLP. Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable, and while we normally allow people extra leeway on their user talk pages, this material is defamatory. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Firefly322 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  1. This is my own talk page. I have been accused of edit waring on my own talk page. That seems like WP:wikilawyering to me.
  2. I don't see how I have violated WP:BLP in anyway, since he is sourceablely evil and I have not insisted on keeping it in the redirect discussion page. Just here.
  3. How can one defame someone who thinks the Fort Hood Shooting is justified by God's law?
  4. Also the context of the quote has been removed by blocking admin.
  5. How can my comment on my own talk page WP:DISRUPT wikipedia?
  6. I made fun of Anwar al-Awlaki? What's the big deal?
  7. If unblocked, until there is a consensus one way or the other, I will not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
  8. As I told the blocking admin on his talk page, I wish to discuss whether or not the community thinks this talkpage comment is acceptable.

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request, specifically because of points 2, 3, and 6, which show a grave lack of understanding of the aims of the project and for the levels of decency required for participation in discussions over living persons. MBisanz talk 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what a discussion of whether someone is evil, or how evil, has to do with writing articles. Once it's objected to why not let it go? If you want to discuss the shooting there are other places. But I think there is a principle (not evenly applied) that we don't disparage article subjects whoever they may be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tradition of disparagement on article subjects. Plenty of AFD's are filled with them, especially the ones headed for deletion. This seems in the spirit of Wikipedia not being WP:CENSORED. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildoMidnight, thanks for sticking up for the facts of the matter on the Incidents page. Considering that you didn't agree with me here, I would have to say it means you're a bigger person than I. I respect that. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say our BLP policies only apply to those we like is against the spirit of WP:NPOV. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, can someone please put up Bert is Evil for deletion?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(joking).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you see article subjects being disparaged, I suggest informing those involved that their behavior is inappropriate. There is a lot that goes on here that's not constructive, but we should strive to do our best and to aspire to maintain the highest levels of integrity, truth and fairness. Your views on article subjects are perfectly valid, but sharing them may not be helpful to building or improving this encyclopedia. I'm not sure our BLP policy applies to puppets, but I'd be willing to check. There's certainly an argument to be made that puppets are innocent while mass murders and other criminals don't deserve to be treated with any respect. But I think our policies make clear that all human subjects be discussed and treated with dignity and without disparagement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.V.L.N.Sastry? I really think that calling this guy "a media talkinghead" was a bad idea (not that my response was any better). Still, in general, I did and would stick up for Sastry, even when I thougt he should be be deleted. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Notice that even Wall Street Journal (read what the quote says) has reputation for editors calling each other Nazi's. This too is obviously a strange joke existing even amongst the epitomy of professional editors.--Firefly322 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Firefly322 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  1. If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
  2. I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback.
  3. I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus.
  4. The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/he no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history probably looked awful after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.)
  5. Obviously, I was beyond WP:BOLD and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly.
  6. But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page.
  7. Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring WP:AGF.

Decline reason:

Per discussion on ANI next block for NPA would be indefinite. Changing block to indefinite and imposing community ban per previous discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This is appropriate. I tried to downplay your unnecessary comments, but they were the tipping point that caused all the drama and led to the redirect being deleted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually have a different view. While I think the block for voicing an opinion that a fellow is evil is questionable (and especially inconsistent with treatment of other editors--justice appears anything but blind here), I think that the follow-on of an indefinite block for such a statement is certainly far too long. If any follow-on is appropriate (a matter I think open to dispute), I believe it should be much shorter, in the 2-4 week range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion that this editor intentionally sabotaged the RFD. I don't think he should be blocked for comments either, but he was bringing down editors such as yourself, Grundle and Child of Midnight. We all know what we can and cannot say on here, and to me, he intentionally passed that line. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that his block should be shortened?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. He was not on your side Epeefleche. He was trying to make you look bad. I firmly believe that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, and it's known to have happened, this editor can create a new account and actually be constructive rather than deconstructive, whether that was his motive or not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • William, I agree with you that Firefly is not on my side. That's somewhat obvious by his edits over the last few days, in which he deleted comments I had inserted into an article under AfD review that helped reflect its notability. That said, whether he is on my side or not doesn't affect my desire to have the rules enforced in an non-partisan manner.
The fact that Firefly was blocked for giving voice to Firefly's opinion that Awlaki is evil--and that Black Kite spoke up in support of such a block and said he would have made it indefinite--is in stark contrast to Black Kite's tolerance and active defense of another editor writing to other editors (living people as well): "You can go fuck yourself", and calling people "you fucking moron" and "idiot" and "bitch" -- while being warned over 20 times. If the second editor attracts only support from Black Kite without the slightest criticism, yet he blocks this editor, justice in this matter is not blind.
This lack of evenhandedness is emphasized by the failure of Black Kite (and any others supporting his view) to take action against YellowFive for his statement in a related discussion (to which Black Kite was party) that a certain living person "hates Muslims".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final note to Firefly

Firefly, if I am wrong about your intentions, please create a new account and make significant contributions to the project. Do not treat it as though it's a battleground. Once you've done this write "I told you so" on my talk page, and I will understand. Good luck. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that would be in accord with WP rules. It would be viewed as innappropriate avoidance of the block. If he is to contribute, the block would have to (as I believe it should be) be lifted.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although if he returns and edits constructively then we'll never know, although it probably rules them out for admin levels and above. Due to the long term behaviour of this editor I don't think they can expect an unblock in less than 6 months, after a formal request. Verbal chat 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a “thought police” problem on Wikipedia?

While I can not speak to the issue of “repeatedly abusing editing privileges,” I note that the block by PeterSymonds, disclosed above at 23:46, 19 November 2009, appears to be over this statement, where Firefly322 wrote

The block, in my humble opinion, is unjustified and unconscionable. Who appointed Peter to the Thought Police? Even though Firefly322 did not append the obligatory “IMHO” or some semblance of same to this post, it is clearly a stated opinion. Most importantly, it wasn’t done in articlespace; he made it on his own talk page.

We can not have truth in our articles if vigorous debate can not occur in behind-the-scenes WP-space. The term “vigorous debate” doesn’t mean that one has carte blanche freedom to be uncivil to other editors, but it certainly means that debating about an infamous individual who is in the news is protected speech on Wikipedia when one is discussing edits to an article. No one can possibly make the case that Firefly shocked the conscience of other Wikipedians by stating that Awlaki is evil since every counter-terrorism and federal law enforcement agency is busy trying to figure out how that disaster was allowed to happen.

Are we to have self-appointed Thought Police step in and block me for several dozen hours for stating on a talk page that [IMHO] “Osama bin Laden is an exceedingly evil man” if I am debating an edit to that article? Is Peter going to say that that he finds my opinion offensive and block me because I should have said “Osama bin Laden, while he might be a perfectly fine man in many regards, sure seems to have been capable of making poor choices in the past.”

Peter owes Firefly322 an apology for his original block and the block should be officially struck so the reversal appears on his record. I have no problem with the later extended blocks so long as they are not direct fallout from Firefly objecting to the first block. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your principle, but not in this particular case. So the post above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this late and have no intention of doing a review of the blow-by-blow. All I can do is read what an admin writes and take it at face value. Since you are saying “not in this particular case,” I assume there is a lot more to the block than Firefly stating his opinion that Awlaki is some sort of poopy-head. I note that Peter cited the following as the basis for his block:
If the block on Firefly is for the “disruptive editing” part, I’m fine with that. I am quite alarmed, however, by Peter’s citing “[c]omparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable” as a basis for the block. It strikes me as yet more “I am a good and deserving admin for being able to ‘out PC’ you.” As I expect to not have to drink the PC Kool-Aid before trying to get anything actually grownup done here, I assume Peter’s comment was a slip of the fingers and was an attempt at adding more basis over continual provocation. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't for "comparing living individuals", it was for "comparing living individuals in this way", a way which was disruptive, against policy, etc. It is also a long term issue with this editor. Verbal chat 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and resolved in a community discussion about this user's long-term problem. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: It wasn't for "comparing living individuals", it was for "comparing living individuals in this way". Umm… perhaps. It depends on how one defines “that way.” I see a lot of wiggle room as admins circle the wagon trying to justify a block that can be justified for Firefly editing disruptively but not for one of the reasons stated. If the blocking admin wants to not be criticized for a poor rationale behind a block, said admin should learn what Wikipedia’s policies really are about and cite the proper basis for a block.

If Firefly was blocked for being editing disruptively, that’s perfectly fine. But if this “disruption” was over his insisting on his right to discuss—on his own talk page no less—an article on Awlaki by expressing a legitimate, heart-felt opinion of the accused murderer, then it is permissible and within the scope of a Wikipedian’s prerogative on Wikipedia.

If you think Wikipedia policy sweeps up legitimate discussion about (clearly) infamous individuals, you are mistaken. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a burden of proof required by a the U.S. government—and most Western governments—to deprive an individual of their liberty. In the court of public opinion, thinking someone who witnesses saw kill 13 people is “evil” is a legitimate and widely held view of the man and it is entirely permissible to share this belief on Wikipedia’s discussion pages when debating editorial content. Awlaki is indisputably a notable person of infamy and the discussion pertained to an article about the man; it doesn’t matter that he is a living person given this set of circumstances.

On Wikipedia’s talk pages, editors are free to offer their opinion that someone like Roman Polanski is “scum.” Roman—a living person of infamy—is accused of giving alcohol and a Quaalude to a 13-year-old girl and then raping her (oops… “allegedly engaging in a sexual act that wasn’t in accordance with the laws of a particular state of the U.S., were said laws were probably the product of narrow minded dead white guys who were not sensitive to the ways of other cultures so maybe Polanski made a ‘poor choice’ ”). On Wikipedia, thought may legitimately expressed that Osama bin Laden is “unmitigated, weapons-grade evil” when discussing the tone or content of a germane article. All these people of infamy are living individuals. I can tell you with great confidence that the Wikipedian community will not put up with admin conduct that has a chilling effect so that Wikipedians feel they must write that “Osama bin Laden made poor choices” to avoid being assailed by some admin.

As administrators, it is your responsibility to ensure that an editor is not disruptive to a collaborative writing environment and to ensure Wikipedia’s policies are followed. Period. Please learn to separate that from some fallacy that it is your prerogative to decide what thoughts can and can not be expressed on Wikipedia’s back pages when debating article content. If any administrator thinks Wikipedia’s policies governed FireFly’s statement—per se—they are sorely mistaken. FireFly’s expressing his opinion about Awlaki, in and of itself, was not disruptive whatsoever to Wikipedia because what he wrote is a legitimate “opinion.” If he was editing tendentiously (such as the aforementioned “a community discussion about this user's long-term problem”), then focus on that issue alone.

Peter was in error to cite “Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable” as a contributing basis for blocking Firefly and should have focused only upon the other disruptive aspects. I am coming to Firefly’s defense to protect his Wikipedian rights to share legitimate, Wikipedia-related thought because infringement on his right to engage in civil, vigorous debate infringes on mine. So long as I am not being uncivil to others, please don’t presume to dictate to me how I may think or how I may express those thoughts here on Wikipedia when discussing the content of articles. Thank you very much. Period. Case closed. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This is a website. He was blocked for disruption, the extra detail was a courtesy. Verbal chat 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue about the background and basis for the block, it might be good to start by looking up who "Awlaki" is. Nathan T 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine; he was blocked for “disruption.” Splendid. Then Peter went beyond that and cited how Firefly stated his opinion on his own talk page (*sound of audience gasp*) that Awlaki was “evil”. That was the aspect of this I was addressing. We seem to be talking cross-purpose now. I don’t care about the other stated reasons Firefly was blocked so long as the block is justified on those other reasons and was not for his stating his opinion on a topical and germane editorial matter—or for insisting upon his right to restore that opinion after others delete it. I’m quite done here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Firefly322! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 277 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. George N. Schlesinger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Nomination for deletion of Template:Buddhism and Christianity

Template:Buddhism and Christianity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Abraham Varghese. This might not do you much good since you seem to be blocked. Sorry about that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George N. Schlesinger

The article George N. Schlesinger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uninformative sub-stub lacking any indication why the topic might meet WP:PROF, or any third-party sourcing.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope

The article The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable tv doco

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Jesus Conspiracy

The article The Jesus Conspiracy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Taede A. Smedes

The article Taede A. Smedes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I can only find one link to her from Google News; doesn't seem to have any other coverage in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fang Aili talk 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope

The article The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to establish Wikipedia:Notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mais oui! (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heart of the Matter: God Under the Microscope (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mais oui! (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Physical Science for Christian Schools, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Physical Science for Christian Schools" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Puppy-throwing Marine viral video for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Puppy-throwing Marine viral video is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy-throwing Marine viral video until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest355 Talk 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Howard J. Van Till for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Howard J. Van Till is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard J. Van Till until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jinkinson talk to me 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NWofMrTompkins.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NWofMrTompkins.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Humility theology

The article Humility theology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The John Templeton mentioned in this article is not the subject of any article on WP. This is a non-notable theological position from a non-notable theologian. All sources found on BEFORE search were book sale sites, no independent reliable items.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taede A. Smedes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taede A. Smedes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taede A. Smedes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Burman Foster

Notice

The article George Burman Foster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ericwg (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firefly322&oldid=900511973"