User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveFour

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berandal

You just beat me to the closing, I almost EC'd you :) BTW, when you close Afds you should generally note that it is a non-admin closure. I used to just write "The result was Keep. (WP:NAC)" or something. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted; thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:119.199.95.150

Please remove our permission to edit the Wikipedia pages. We are a school and it appears that students have been vandalizing your work. The leadership here recognizes the significant effort it takes to keep Wikipedia useful for everyone and would like to apologize for the inconveniences certain students have caused.

Said students will be disciplined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.199.95.150 (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Regretfully, as I am not an administrator, I cannot fulfill your request. You are welcome to file a report at WP:AN about this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tell your admin at your school to include wikipedia's IP address on the school's routing and/or sonicwall/firewall filtering devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdfjkghs (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing AfD

Hi there. Thanks for contributing to the project by closing those NAC AfD. You should however be aware of that discussion should be open for seven days before they are eligible to be closed. When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English football transfers 2009–10 it had only been open for a little more than six days. But the result of the discussion was a clear keep, so I doubt there will be any problems with that closure. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Level 2 icon

Hi.

I hope I am not bothering you but I wanted to have a chat about edit 578024244 in Template:Uw-error2 and similar templates. Every time I saw the orange icon, it struck me as how odd it is and how I do not associate any meaning with it. I was looking around and decided that the meaning of a level 2 warning is better associated with or or .

What do you say?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

To me, the orange exclamation mark triangles seem too similar to the level 3 warning icon. You're welcome to propose this on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, however. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Mind if I ask a clarifying question? Does "similar" means good similar (as in "it's similar, I like it, let's pick that one") or bad similar (as in "It is almost indistinguishable from the red one; let's not pick it")? If latter is the case, what about the other two?

Oh, and can I ask where you discussed the previous change?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All three of your proposed icons have an excessive similarity to the level 3 warning icon, IMHO. The only discussion of my change to the level 2 warning icons is at User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveThree#User_warning_templates. Nonetheless, I believe that the general lack of objection to a change on many high-profile templates indicates a consensus for it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, I think that's a good course of action. I'll do that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning on a User

Hey there,

I recently reverted an edit by a user that vandalized the Wikipedia Article Water supply and sanitation in Yemen. I am just wondering why you wrote a warning for the user as shown here when I reverted their edit. Shouldn't I warn the user because I was the one who reverted the edit? I'm not sure on this, just asking. I'm a little new to Wikipedia.

Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

You are correct; I get a bit overenthusiastic sometimes. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! :D Newyorkadam (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Copyright issues

So what is the issue with these? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We apparently need a link between the displayed icon on the warning templates and its corresponding image page so the copyright info on the image page is readily accessible. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, could you do me a favor...

...and not do that "torches and pitchforks support" thing any more? I know you mean it jokingly/ironically/whatever, but it's far too easily misunderstood, and torches and pitchforks are too real (well, metaphorically real) for it to be very funny. Just a thought. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What is improper about citing Official Statements?

Is it improper they way they are being cited? I'm just confused since the notice does actually mention and link to the wiki article in question (Streisand Effect). I just don't understand why it keeps being changed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.158.225 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources, such as your link to the Reddit page, are disfavored for use in Wikipedia articles. In this case, use of material apparently covered only by the primary source violates the "undue weight" provision of the neutral point of view policy. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very kindly for watching my back! Cheers! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Millennials

The move will be reviewed again. What policy describes the order of the two? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Common sense: the preferred phrase in the article should be consistent with its title. For example, in Kerosene, we should not have ten usages of "paraffin", even though this is a common term for the fuel in certain parts of the world. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, It's okay to describe the word in the first paragraph. You still have not provided a policy. Common sense would say otherwise -- "Millennial generation" describes the group. But you're late to this discussion. Read the talk page notes.

In addition, based on your logic we should change all the other articles about generations to; "Xers", Zers", "Losts", "Silents", "Greatests", etc. You know, remove the word "generation".172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 110.174.147.166

As you can see on that IP's talk page, he is a major nuisance with regard to the Eye color article and its talk page and has noted hatred for me; apparently thinks (or thought) that I'm Asian as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia isn't credible.

The movie "Matrix" was a stolen film that was held up in a federal court. Facts are fact. They, the Wachowski brothers did not create this movie. People should know the truth and/or high light how they went through a legal situation due to the true source of the movie. I am not the only one who thinks some of the information is distorted. This is not just about the movie but even with some other topics like history and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.100.74 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which supports your claims concerning the provenance of the film? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please block/ban this IP

This IP address is connected to a school and thus immature children are likely - as they have evidently already done - to vandalize pages. I ask you since you have reverted some of the fraudulent pages.

If there is some way of adding IP's voluntarily by users to an editing blacklist, I'd very much appreciate if you linked me to such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.193.180 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures

Please remember to let AfDs run the full seven days before closing pbp 03:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the AFDs I close are all clear, obvious keeps, I have respectfully decided to WP:IAR regarding this particular point. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't close these AFD's early, the idea is to give people a chance to vote. Only if the nomination is clearly totally stupid and a speedy close is justified is this early closure worthwhile. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RCSI-Bahrain

Hello. I have received a message from you regarding edit warring on RCSI-Bahrain page. This page is extremely biased and distorted and causing controversial information made by BBC and The Independent harm the image of the degree us students work so hard to obtain. I would like to request that the page be reviewed, and political information be removed from affiliation with the university. Who can help me do so? The user in charge of the page himself declines to remove anything, which is because he is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.199.154 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The content you are removing appears to relevant, sourced, and NPOV. Mere personal dislike of content does not constitute sufficient grounds for deleting it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The arbitration case request that you were a party to has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I noticed that you had added the {{blocked user)} template to the page of an editor who was subsequently unblocked, only days later. I wanted to ask if you really feel it is necessary for you to use this template. Shouldn't it be left to admins? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete G13

Hi,

if someone removes a G13 speedy delete tag please do not restore it. These can be challenged like a prod. Hopefully the challenger will do on to improve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whats up David

YOLO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.169.132 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all the help dealing with vandalism tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't

I just noticed that you have added the {{blocked user}} template to an editor's page. Please don't - that's for people who will remain blocked with no chance to appeal, and should only be done by the blocking admin. I'll ask that if you've done it anywhere else besides here that you undo them yourself. Cheers ES&L 14:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, seconded from me. Unless the blocking administrator (in this case me) asks for another editor to do something regarding a block, it's generally best not too, as you did here. Whilst I know it can be satisfying for a vandal to be blocked and taken care of, leaving additional block templates with edit summaries like 'goodbye' is unnecessary and some would say a little provocative. I am sure you did not mean it to be interpreted like this, but this is how it often comes across, hence why I'm asking you too stop. Thank-you, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just been pointed out to me here that this is in fact a regular occurrence, an activity you do regularly rather than a one off. Please don't. There is no need to, and it is merely provocative. To quote the documentation of the template you keep adding: "it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." This template is only used in extreme circumstances, judged by the blocking administrator. User-pages of indefinitely blocked users (especially if the user-pages don;t even exist) can usually be left alone. Thank you. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've spot checked a couple of them ... you still have not gone back and removed them as requested. Please do that ASAP. ES&L 11:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) ES&L 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - closure

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemer Seminary A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed; and Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. --Bejnar (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the AFDs I close are all clean, obvious keeps, I have decided to WP:IAR regarding this particular issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's one you cannot IAR on ... NAC's specifically forbid speedy closes, and many people don't !vote until near the end ES&L 22:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if it's that important, I will refrain from closing AFDs until at least seven days have elapsed. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to add my voice to the others regarding concern for non-admin closures of AfD discussions before the full seven days (~168 hours) have passed. For example, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah (2nd nomination) at "00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)" -- this discussion was opened at "22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)". It had almost another full day (really a little over 22 hours) to run. We will all have differences of opinion on what is a "clean, obvious keep" but this discussion did have one delete !vote in addition to the nominator (see stats). I've noticed several other similar early non-admin closures by you recently. Although I'm happy that you're trying to be efficient in reducing the number of deletion discussions, please do this more carefully -- including linking to the deletion discussions in the articles' talk pages (not done here, but it's not obvious why). Thanks. - tucoxn\^talk 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Frank Rocholl

Thanks for voting positive to keep my article about Henrik Purienne You seem to be experienced in the field of the arts and photography? I´ve written another one about the other editor of Mirage Magazine, Frank Rocholl, that has a large background in typography and editorial design. I´ve added a publications listing and a few links that verifies the guys expertise. Hopefully it proofs his relevance besides Mirage Magazine. These titles are all standard literature for graphic designers, especially the Los Logos Series. Would be a great help if you have any suggestions to prevent deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

BP Logix‎

FYI regarding that AfD. Two of the KEEP votes were posted by the same account and all of them from SPAs or near-SPAs. I submitted an SPI, but the check-user was inconclusive. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the closure. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the closure. I agree that it is a bit early to call it. --Mark viking (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I see you on recent changes sometimes when I get off Huggle and go back to the old-fashioned way of fighting vandalism. So I thought I'd give you a barnstar for your work. You're welcome, of course. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice job Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey David, I've stumbled upon this, you sure about this, I think it's too early in my perspective. Best, ///EuroCarGT 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, good luck! I believe your a net positive. ///EuroCarGT 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to comment, but you withdrew. A net positive, as far as editing. As far as handling newcomers, you've got a lot to learn. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I will address the concerns raised about my editing. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would have supported your nomination. See you next time! --IIIraute (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 on the assessment that you are a net positive to the project. RfA's, even brief ones, are brutal. For me personally, what would drive me to change my !vote the next time around would be if you consistently showed respect for other editors; particularly by readily accepting feedback, being kind to new editors whose first edits may not be particularly competent, and avoiding any sign of baiting editors that are blocked for their disruptive behavior. That and time, as is would be unusual for any account as new as yours to pass an RfA. VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An RFA is brutal, however it is a chance to see your positive and negative spots. You'll learn from these things and hopefully in the future successfully pass an RFA. This is why we have editor review, guide to requests for adminship and the miniguide to RFA. As what the others said on top, always been keen and respective. If you disagree with them, just let it go. Best, ///EuroCarGT 00:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend Bigpoliticsfan but if you're planning to run for RfA again, I would strongly advise you to consider finding others with a proven track record to co-nominate you. It was very kind of Bigpoliticsfan to nominate you, but generally speaking (in the past) the nominator will impact an RfA greatly. I could not help but notice that Bigpoliticsfan is fairly new and had several ANI's filed recently about them. You will want your nominator, essentially the person vouching for you, to not only be very familiar with you as a contributor, but be adept at everything it takes to be an administrator. That will come from experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, the current status quo, and of course a familiarity with other RfA's. Just a little bit of advice for the next time. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think withdrawing was a smart move but I hope you didn't take the comments personally and I hope you keep up the good work you do here. benmoore 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your encouragement. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

29 Re JO Waldner

I didn't make a change to the article, I undid a change somebody else made. Looks like its been changed back and forth a few times, you may want to address this on the talk page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8C00:C7F:65CE:3FFD:3BE0:852A (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but your edit did have the effect of restoring unsourced and questionable content. To comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view language such as "the greatest table tennis player who has ever lived" certainly requires a reliable source. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your 'Welcome' message to IP address 82.15.15.5

Your 'Welcome' message to IP address 82.15.15.5, summarised as "Welcome, remove mistaken warnings"

This user has a history of vandalism including blanking without reason or edit summary, introducing 'wrong' details and gaming the system against me, hence is on my watchlist. The most recent 'edits' here, check + and - are puerile vandalism, bordering on profanity and racism, and resulted in - quite mistankenly - a level 1 (uw-vandalism1) entirely due to your actions, I surmise, whereas it should have been level4 or block (I am assured by an admin that previous warnings are tallied-up, however). This is what you're championing by "remove mistaken warnings"...'they' will continue to get away with it.

'They' have blanked-out all the warnings from 2013 and including the IP address template in early 2014. The edits are mostly on political and celebrity pages and are usually no more than gossip and interference - disruptive editing. The (previous recent) level-4 warnings were therefore correct (uw-vandalism4).

'They' have recently stated "This is my page and I'll delete whatever I want. Idiots." here and "Piss off faggots" 16 minutes after your Welcome message here

In view of the former statement, and considering the past history of broadly-similar editing within a narrow topic-field(s), this can be considered as good evidence for a non-shared IP address. There is no evidence of positive contributions to the encyclopedia in general

I note you are up for adminship and the comment about 'handling newcomers' a few days ago. It seems therefore that you may have overcompensated in the direction of AGF in this instance. I hope this is of benefit to you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the warnings as "mistaken" because they primarily related to blanking of the user's own talk page, which is permissible, and the blanking of a section of a BLP that legitimately should have been removed [1], albiet with the reason stated in the article rather than the edit summary, an obvious new user mistake. That the user decided to proceed in bad-faith mode after I had extended the olive branch is unfortunate, but something over which I have no control. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, ta very much.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Islam in England

As much as I do support neutrality I however do not see how that article was remotely neutral? It is laughable how an article can compare anti-Islamic sentiment to anti-Semitism of the early 20th century. There is no comparing between the two as Islam itself is anti-Semitic and authoritarian for centuries. Look at the Middle East for instance as you cannot have a synagogue or any other religious institution without it being demolished or forced out of the country. Islamic theocracy is the modern day Nazism with or without neutral points of view. Sorry to edit without permission but somebody has to put an end to this fallacy of political correctness that has Europe in the state it is in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.92.84 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written on the basis of verifiability and reliable sources. You need to cite some reliable sources which support your argument before it goes in the article. Even if you had adequate sources, the neutral point of view policy requires that opinions be attributed to those who hold them, not asserted as unqualified facts in Wikipedia's voice. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)