User talk:Lee Nysted/Archive 2

I'll go first...

Thank you for visiting with me today.

I am new here; learning as much as I can, in the amount of time I will be able to devote to this "wonder of wonders," called Wikipedia.

Please help to make this place clean and safe for all ages? I will try to add some value, if that is possible.

Thanks, Lee Nysted 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the talk page of Bowsy

Comment on content, not on contributors. This is in response to your comment of JzG does not like me very much. Also: it seems like you have voted in an AFD because of this. That's not how Wikipedia and it's deletion process works. You don't vote to go against someone else you don't get along with. RobJ1981 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I voted because the issue is important to me. I assume you will learn to use good faith before making accusations that have no merit. Your comment was noted in the AFD page. I agree with that response. Cheers!Lee Nysted 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for your input and observation !

No problem! Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. –Llama man^talk_contribs 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Lee, when you were initially unblocked, it was with the strict understanding that you would not violate WP:SOCK. This includes having your friends edit content which would be a violation of WP:COI for you to edit directly, or to participate in "vote stacking" of any sort. It appears to me that in at least some of the cases given above, you are violating this. That is, you are having your friends edit for you. In some cases, checkuser confirms that these accounts are editing from the same IP address as you. Now, I don't have all the information available to me. For example, I do not have access to the checkuser information. And I could be mistaken; it may be that none of your friends have been attempting to add information about you or your band to the Wikipedia. As this dispute is spread among a number of articles, I find it difficult to track down the edits. But just in case, I remind you that you specifically promised not to violate WP:SOCK and WP:COI, and having your friends edit for you would be a blatant violation of this. Assuming this is not happening, I am afraid that I cannot override the blocks that have been handed out as I do not have checkuser access. I refer you to WP:DISPUTE if you have reason to believe that none of these accounts are friends of yours and that none of them have edited from the same address that you have, etc. --Yamla 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,Yamla

I appreciate your help. I have not violated anything since my unblock. Please know this and use good faith. I do not have any friends that are editing for me. As a matter of fact, none of the above accounts have even re-appeared on the encyclopedia. Go figure. I must assure you that IP address detection is not a good means of determining anything, however, if I am in a hotel or using a public access sytem. This, I believe happened, before the unblock, in Colorado. In any event, the issue is not unusual at Wikipedia and I am convinced it will be resolved. Thank you so much for your input. 67.163.34.18 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)67.163.34.18 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Lee Nysted 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Signed after multiple attempts without logging in.

The block on my account is an absurd error. Please remove now. My account was unblocked on the 6th of February by Yamla. She and I discussed the issues and it was resolved. Now an administrator comes along and blocks me thinking that the unblock was done today?

This is unconscionable. I am involved in two AFD cases right now, and have done nothing wrong since my inblock 3 weeks ago.

Please unblock now. Thank you Lee Nysted 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted is supposed to be unblocked...see reasons beloew. Please unblock this now. Thank you.Lee Nysted 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this case of yours; I've asked at WP:ANI to continue the discussion there. Sorry, please wait a little bit until we got this clarified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since the discussion an ANI hasn't brought up anything more definite, and the previous block was clearly based on a misunderstanding of the situation at least to some degree, I'm unblocking now. Sorry for the delay. However, please do take seriously the concerns about your behaviour that have been voiced here by Yamla, and on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does there seem to be a question as to "what is the next right thing to do?"

1.) This block was done by an admin., in error. He admits the error.

2.) There is no evidence being offered that I have done anything worthy of a block. Ever. Checkuser doesn't have anything that can show that I did anything that isn't within respected and available policy here. I use my own name. No fake profiles. Having said that, I did agree to several things Yamla requested. She unblocked me three weeks ago. I voted in two AFD cases.

3.) The gang that seems intent on not wanting me to be on Wikipedia, has no case to pursue this, other than an attitude that is quickly hurting this encyclopedia. See the debate about blocks, IP addresses, and the discussion about what is wrong with Wikipedia.

4.) There is no policy for someone to be punished or hurt by this encyclopedia.

5.) Please unblock immediately.

Thank you,

Lee NystedLee Nysted 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you FPAS for doing the next right thing.

    Lee Nysted 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

UNBLOCK still NOT working.

Please assist. Thank you, Lee Nysted 20:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

try it now by editing my talkpage.--Isotope23 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Autoblocks. Forgot to lift them, sorry about that. Happens often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One was taken care of, but the other was not. I got it. If I had a dime for every time I forgot about an autoblock...--Isotope23 20:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   *  

There you go. == == Thanks.

I am good to go in Lake Bluff, IL. I was not in Lake Forest, IL., earlier today. 

That reminds me. I must check that system. I have two IP addresses there. One is wireless and the other is on line. I will sign in there tomorrow before heading for Aruba. DSL lines through SETAR(Aruba) and my wireless in Colorado are where I picked up a couple of people that are now considered "SOCKS." Some Steakhouse in Beaver Creek, Co. and an IP that keeps editing. No clue who they are. Lee Nysted 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to all the people that helped me in the last 24 hours !

You people rock... stars !

Lee Nysted 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD for mini game lists

Another AfD for mini game lists has started. We will appriciate your support for the articles as you proved decisive in keeping the lists in the previous Afd. Follow this link and post us your support for the continued existence of the articles. Henchman 2000 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, please see WP:CANVAS. Generally, I would suggest that if someone canvasses your opinion to an AfD, you state that fact as full disclosure when you add an opinion. Canavassing is a practice that is frowned upon and sometimes canvassed opinions are discounted.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just read the topic and policy. First I looked up canvassing. Lee Nysted 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lee, Yes, it is unusual for an AfD to be withdrawn. That rarely happens. But note my argument about how it had just survived an AfD 27 hours before. It doesn't make any sense (and wastes administrative resources) to keep AfDing an article, so there's a policy of Speedy Keep that says that an admin can withdraw the application for one of several reasons WP:SK. If it recently survived an AfD is one of the reasons, this article doesn't fit perfectly in that critera for a couple reasons, but it's pretty close, and it's reasonable to give it some time to cool off and fix the article. I've been wanting to really dig deep and fix the MP8mg article, but I didn't want to put a whole lot of effort if it was just going to get deleted, so it's a good principle to apply in this case. Note that if I were an administrator, it wouldn't be prudent for me to speedy keep it, because I have been involved in the discussion. Even though isotope was involved in the discussion, it's not that bad for him to speedy keep it, because he was actually voting for the article's demise. Great question by the way. If you have any others, feel free to let me know. McKay 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification... I never voted for the article's demise... I never added any opinion either way other than in regards to what I saw as a violation of WP:CANVAS.--Isotope23 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But note that when I vote in an AfD, it's because I think the rules should be applied in a certain way, like you did with WP:CANVAS.

Hmm, technically, the Mario Party 2 is actually exempt from the speedy keep because it wasn't involved in the previous AfD. It might be able to be closed for the same reasons.but under strict rules, it is not eligible for the speedy keep. McKay 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick summary if you are interested...

Black Falcon (talk · contribs) Nominated Mario Party 3 for deletion, then bundled 4-8 into the AfD. Black Falcon then noticed that several of these had just come off of AfD, so Black Falcon requested that the AfD be withdrawn. It is generally regarded as a bad practice to renominate an article for AfD so close to the earlier AfD and Black Falcon simply had misread when the previous AfD had closed. Per Black Falcon's request, I closed the AfD. As McKay stated above, the Mario Party 2 article really cannot be speedily closed; there is no WP:SK reason that covers this. It was not previously AfD'd and the nominator has not withdrawn his nomination. At this point the AfD process needs to run it's course. Mario Party 3-8 may show back up at AfD at some point in the future if someone wants to renominate them in a month or so (I'd actually be more surprised if they didn't). To be clear I have no opinion on these articles either way at this time. They don't make Wikipedia better, but they don't hurt it either. They just need to be sourced if they stay.--Isotope23 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update!

I suspect my involvement in these cases will be to be supportive of analysis and reliable information, rather than deletion. For my family, it hardly helps us if we are left to our own devices when attempting to do research on the web. I, personally, know next to nothing about video games, albeit, my children have some interest in same.

One key "note" here... I disagree that non-trivial articles do not make Wikipedia better. We advertise the size of our arsenal every day. If taken to a log scale, we could eliminate all articles for the same reason you use to keep. Information technology being what it is, we want to be the main source of all accurate and reliable information. I laugh at that but maybe Jimbo would not. (?) ...As he walks to a car for the airport laughing. Lee Nysted 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is the great philosophical "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" debate that has been happening here since long before I ever got involved in the project. Where do we draw the line; at "Notability" or "Verifiability"? What is the definition of a "trivial" article vs "non-trivial"? Ask 10 Wikipedians and you will get 10 different answers, which is why WP:CONSENSUS is so important. We are not all going to agree all the time.--Isotope23 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message on Isotope's talk page

This is not related to the topic I was trying to discuss with Isotope. Please remove it and post it on Henchman's page as it's him you should be thanking. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________

My Message to Peter M. Dodge

Even though you chose to delete it off your talk page, calling me

a "sockpuppeteer."

My opinions and message:

In my opinion, you are making the right decision, to leave Wikipedia.

Jimbo Wales made the right decisions, in the last week. Your attitude here has

been very narrow minded and one-sided. Clearly not objective.

"Short sighted" about me and my family.

Condescending is also a good term for you, Peter.

Carry on; press on Wikipedia.

Thank you Jimbo for doing the next right thing. Lee Nysted 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)