|This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
- I wonder if you could create an user page on the norwegian Wp (http://no.wikipedia.org/) so it is no discussion about who is who if you have to make actions on articles at our Wp. Thanks! — John Erling Blad (no) 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I'll go ahead and do that, I also protected the redirect, to prevent anyone from recreating article there. Thanks, Prodego talk 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1 Wikitruth
- 2 Office Actions?
- 3 Freecycle Network
- 4 The Hunger Project
- 5 Request for help from 14 year old
- 6 Delete My User
- 7 Calling the Office
- 8 Paul McKenna
- 9 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jeff Gannon and articles linked to it
- 10 Mindy Kaling
- 11 I might need some help
- 12 CSD G11 heads up
- 13 WP:OFFICE actions and location
- 14 Pacific Western University
- 15 "Right to Vanish" abused
- 16 Pacific Western University
Could you please state on Talk:Wikitruth whether the placement of Wikitruth.Info on the spam blacklist, and forbidding Wikipedia editors to link to sites that redirect to Wikitruth.Info, is a Wikimedia Foundation-based action? Administrators currently acting on that page are stating that their edits are being motivated by consultation with Wikimedia Foundation counsel, but as far as respectfully differing editors are concerned, we believe that you are the sole Wikipedia admin authorized to make non-countermandable decisions based on foundation counsel's advice, yes? Your clarifying statements and/or edits would be appreciated there. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you tell us why each of your Office Actions is in place? What sort of problematic content are they responding to? Seahen 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- In some cases, due to the nature of the complaint, it would not be advisable to give the reason for the action. Of course, if all the other pages had explanations, it would be easy to tell which had this nature of complaint. Therefore, office actions shouldn't, and aren't, clearly explained. Prodego talk 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It has been rather more than 24 hours. Some clarification over expected timescales (weeks months whatever is probably in order.Geni 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
People appreciate that sometimes for legal reasons the specific reasons of a complaint can't be disclosed. But the lack of honesty - stating that the article will be Office-censored for 24 hours, and instead leaving it for 332 hours (and counting) - is the real issue most people have with 'Office'. If an article needs to be left unedited for over 2 weeks then say so, do not say something and then do the exact opposite. To do so is discourteous to the Wikipedia community and a violation of WP:OFFICE itself (which requires all Office 'protection' to be 'public') Cynical 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The Hunger Project
I've just sent an email to the info team regarding an outright libel on The Hunger Project page.
Request for help from 14 year old
I thought I should draw your attention to this post copied from wikipedia Admin Noticeboard as it concern's a 14 year old's worry that he has been contacted on wikipedia by a predator. Tyrenius 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete My User
I want delete and remove my user, because I dont like the system in wikipedia, I think this dont is "free", because I create one article and anothers delete my article, because are "super users". And this users dont respect the another people, they have more right of me, this dont is free.
Please delete my account, is my right, say me how make this, or remove or rename the user, I dont no, for mi is one problem, because I am blocked!!
They say thinks bad about me, difamations...
Sorry for my english, I maybe dont remenver this page discution, send me one email in the subject Wiklipedia please. User "Wiki1guille" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Wiki1guille
Please delete me all, for confirm my user you can send me one email, is in my account. Delete this comment also.
- Userpage was deleted (for anyone else curious) q.v. Wikipedia:Username#Deleting your user account ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Calling the Office
Hey Danny, we spoke at Wikimania about my becoming more involved in the foundation and helping out, and you suggested I give you a phone call at the foundation office. What hours are you typically around there? It'd be great if I could call at a time I don't pay for cell-time, but if that's not feasable, I'll give you a ring anyhow. Thanks. --Improv 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this an Office action? An IP blanked an entire section claiming to be acting under WP:OFFICE. I suspect that the IP either did not know what WP:OFFICE is or knew and intended to decieve users. Can you confirm whether or not this is an Office action before I restore the section in question? savidan(talk) (e@) 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find a clear procedure for requesting office actions, so I am leaving this message here in the hopes that you will see it and act as you see appropriate. We are having a major dispute over the fact that Jeff Gannon, a living person, is called and categorized as a male prostitute on a number of Wiki articles, when he has never been arrested, tried, or convicted of prostitution, which is a crime. Admin Gamaliel continuously reverts my edits to remove this probable libellous material, citing the fact that many news articles "have called him" a prostitute. I hold that Wikipedia "calling him" a prostitute, rather than simply reporting the quoted facts, is editorializing, conclusionary, and original research. Gannon's listing on List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, is one particularly egregious example, which I have attempted to remove Gannon from, and has been reverted several times by Gamaliel. I don't think he understands the full import and meaning of WP:BLP, and this dispute is not going to get resolved without intervention from the highest levels of this organization. Crockspot 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it's courtesan not prostitute, and that is unambiguously true from his own websites. Several escort agencies use the terms courtesan and escort interchangeably; courtesan has more cachet for the linguistically unsophisticated I guess. Guy 13:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Guy, it has been a few weeks since I posted this, and a lot of head butting and a RFC has taken us to this point where just as of the last few days, we are no longer calling him a prostitute, but an escort. If I hadn't been raising such a major stink over this for the past two months, he would still be called and classified a prostitute. Crockspot 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the article. She is a fellow Dartmouth alum, and I don't want anything negative in her biography. She's a nice woman, and she doesn't deserve to have tabloid gossip in her encyclopedia biography. Billy Blythe 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why is this article still protected? Is there anything other than the Emmy faux pas? That was like a month ago. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I might need some help
CSD G11 heads up
Howdy! We're in the middle of a bit of a dust up regarding the new CSD G11, and your insight would be welcome. Improv deleted a large number of articles under G11 citing that the subjects themselves were fair game under the new policy because they were commercial products. Examples include Pepperidge Farms, Nilla Wafers, Chips Ahoy!, Toll House, Teddy Grahams, Nutter Butter, Milano (cookies) and more. He asserted that this was consistent with the relevant discussions on foundation-l that shaped the new policy and that if anyone wanted to know about those products, "they could use Google". All of these were restored via deletion review and a discussion was also started in the policy pump, but the admin in question feels that his interpretation is The Right One and the rest of us are missing the point. This may be true, but I'd like to get some foundation insight on the matter. I'm a proponent of G11 and a deletionist, but if one level headed admin can misinterpret the policy so dramatically, perhaps there's a need for either a clarification in the policy or insight from y'all to the effect of how this is to be applied. I spoke with Tony S. in #wikipedia-en-admins about this, and he suggested I drop you a message. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
With Wikimedia Foundation projects popping up all over and in various languages, the thought has occured to me that perhaps WP:OFFICE will be used on non-English Wikipedia projects also. In this case, would it be best to make a centrally located version of the OFFICE policy, and locate it on (perhaps) Meta, where it would be easier to locate and more obviously applicable to all of Wikimediadom? Have a great day! ~Kylu (u|t) 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Pacific Western University
"Right to Vanish" abused
Hi, this is info only - I'm not asking for action on your part:
- Analyzethis (contributions), a chronic spammer, apparently exercised his right to vanish -- sort of. He's back using one of his IP accounts, 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs); see the latest spam. Previously Analyzethis added numerous links to his commercial web site, middlesell.com. Then he vandalized user and user talk pages after his links were deleted. Finally, he claimed his right to "vanish".
- I will request semi-protection for the University of Mary Washington article.
- There are a variety of Wikipedia-space and talk pages on which his behavior was chewed over; I can provide you the links if you want.
- Since "right to vanish" as I understand it is a Foundation Office action, I thought someone there should know.
- If I have taken this information to the wrong venue, please steer me in the right direction.
- You're busy, so no answer is required on your part. --A. B. 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (date/time of revised comment)
Pacific Western University
Hi Danny - I spent the past two days rewriting the Pacific Western University article. Every sentence is footnoted (there are 27 different footnote newspaper sources). Also, I determined that Pacific Western University is not "unaccredited" (which may be one reason you froze the site). In California, Pacific Western University has approval to operate from the State of California through the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. Specifically, Pacific Western University is a "California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Degree." I reviewed all postings on the topic and believe my changes address all concerns. I would like to add my changes to the article. Please let me know how I can go about doing this. (I'm hoping to move this one off your desk). Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)