User talk:Physchim62/Large wet herring

Wikiproject:Pedophilia

Physchim, I have listed your closing of the MfD about this Wikiproject at deletion review. I have done this beacuse it was not eligable under the speedy deletion criteria you used (G7) and there was not otherwise a consensus to delete (if there were I wouldn't have objected). Full details are at WP:DRV where I would appreciate your comments. Thryduulf 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user pedophile project

Given that you speedied this template after speedying the pedophilia Wikiproject and then recreated the pedophilia Wikiproject, can you recreate the page and reopen debate? Thank you. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until after the conclusion of the MfD debate on the WikiProject before deciding whether or not to reopen debate on the template. In any case, it is a G5 speedy as its creator was under an ArbCom injunction when he made it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I... simply don't know what to say about last night's comments, other than to apologise. That's probably the harshest statement I've left, though it was rather benign (I'm actually starting to learn from past mistakes...). But you are right, and I am wrong. It's not my job to defend Wikipedia in such a manner, and I was likely out of line in coming back like that. I might have removed it, but I didn't think that to be so keen in a public debate, so I simply struck it.

I primarily edit articles, and I like to help mediate and help draw lines and champion underdog causes (See the Erik Beckjord deletion vote). I haven't been involved in the politics of Wikipedia so much, so I am somewhat ignorant about a lot of things in that area. Combine that with the fact that I was only finding out about things a day or so after the fact, I was a little frustrated.

Any kind advice you may have would be fondly appreciated, but I'd rather hold off on any new lumps on the head, as I'm kinda trying to refocus on new horizons with my editing here. Sorry this message is so long and dippy; but it was the last thing I needed to say before I got off to a fresh start. And also know, I don't mean anything I say here to excuse anything offensive I may have said anywhere. But, live and learn. Thanks for your time. --DanielCD 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, we all get frustrated and annoyed from time to time. Best wishes with your editing, in whichever fields you choose to contribute. Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:User Nine Inch Nails

I didn't mind when the template was been deleted. Alex 101 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

"trying to get a rise out of people for giggles is not the sort of behavior we accept on Wikipedia. Your contributions seem to indicate that this was not an isolated incident. Please refrain from petty trolling, otherwise you will be blocked from editing." What the hell are you talking about? "trying to get a rise out of people for giggles " is a line form Austin Powers that the user I sent it to indicated he was a fan of, so I assumed he would get the joke, I didnt send it to you so I have no idea why you are replying & "Your contributions seem to indicate that this was not an isolated incident. Please refrain from petty trolling" & I dont know what this means either, please give such an example. I dont think its very nice behaviour to threaten people with being blocked without doing anything wrong, surely there are others who have done worse, why dont you police them? Even in the original article "crazy people rock" you would see it was someoneelse that called me an idiot first.(Khan 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) "I am not MC Brown Shoes mate, I'm a totally different person, you idiot, yeah mate make total assumptions about people because they have similar usernames.MC Survey" This was written by this user first & he wasnt issued a NPA warning, why is that?(Khan 23:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You can so say sorry for your vile personal attack any time you like.

deletion of templates in user space

Why the zealous deletion of user space templates? As long as there is no policy yet on how to deal with user space templates (there is only a listing of concerns at WP:UBP) I would recommend some constraint. Cheers. Intangible 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't be deleting any more tonight, but there are currently three userboxes in CAT:CSD. Devisive and inflammatory userboxes will simply have to go. Many if not most userboxes are against long-standing policy: this is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in free expression. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this may touch a nerve, but i liked the userbox 'user opposes ubx screwing'. I understand why you deleted it, but would you object if i was to recreate the idea, but without the term 'screwing' - possibly like this "This user doesn't like people changing his/her userboxes without discussion"? Pydos 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and recreate the template: I was probably a little hasty in deleting that particular userbox. I should add the following at the bottom:

<noinclude>[[WP:CIVIL|Civil]] comment about matters related to Wikipedia is permitted under [[Wikipedia:User page]].</noinclude>

to avoid any problems with other admins. After all, this template is no more divisive than User:Physchim62/My userbox or User:Mindspillage/userpages (a member of WP:ARBCOM). Physchim62 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. By the time you read this it will exist at the old address...but with text as per my suggestion. I don't think the name of the template itself is too bad. And, of course, I will add the warning text at the bottom. Pydos 16:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page not to your liking?

Hi, I see you are not happy that I was recording:-

unwarranted personal abuse from an editor given carte blanche irrespective of policy
interesting editing habits
demands that normal use of English language terms should not be permitted

Is there anything else about the page you thought merited its summary execution?

Is making what happens visible so unwelcome that user pages get zapped for it?

The Invisible Anon 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my edit to your user page, if you wish to have a user page, get an account and follow WP:USER. In general, publishing your disputes with other users on your user page is considered to be unconstructive: you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other ideas as to how to pursue your grievances. Physchim62 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reply to your message here [[1]].

The Invisible Anon 12:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:86.10.231.219 page persists, and has noticeable amounts of material in common with the deleted user page. Midgley 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midgley seems unsatisfied with the deletion of the user page! Understandably he cites no evidence of anything objectionable. There is none. He initiated [[2]] the events involving you in the summary deletion of the User page on no notice. It was from him I was receiving abuse. Carte blanche [[3]] ???

The Invisible Anon 12:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio??

on the administrator noticeboard page, you said:

"No, that's not a legal threat in the sense of WP:NLT: it is, however, copyvio!"

in regards to Frankmash. I'm not sure I understand...what is the copyvio? and how is saying "I'll sue wikipedia" not a Legal Threat?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted this link when you reported to WP:AN. I still cannot find any instance of a specific legal threat, and certainly no instance where he has said "I'll sue Wikipedia". What he said was "I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law": this is not specific enough to merit a ban. However a large part of the edit was obviously lifted directly from Socialist Worker—the copyright notice was even left in place—and was thus in violation of copyright (the licence is not GFDL compatible). If you know of any instances where this editor has specifically threatened to sue the Wikimedia Foundation or any specific Wikipedia user, I would be grateful if you could provide the diff. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cyprus non-recognition

You may wish to join the on going debate on this one rather than trying yo use brute force deletion.Geni 17:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]

Alex Popov Deletion

Why do you think the article was libellous? all of the information was purely objective and verifiable. I would appreciate an explanation. Headsinger 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully and please do not block me for trying to have a dialogue

The remarks which Midgley posted to the Admins Noticeboard [[4]] to persuade you to delete my User page

were not on my User page
and they are not even by me
I have just seen the Admins Noticeboard [[5]]
a wholly independent editor just posted this regarding Midgley

"Added NPOV Template - this is the most biased entry on wikipedia I have ever seen" [[6]]

you were tricked into deleting my User page.
Please therefore do not block me. I am not doing any disrupting.

I am obliged to try and engage you in dialogue before instituting formal procedure regarding the deletion and Midgley's behaviour The Invisible Anon 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the obvious intepretation is not placed on that excerpt - that the conspiracy is not aimed solely at { } but at John as well. John (User:Whale.toScudamore's posting being the subject of that reply. The quick judgement by the even-tempered WWW would apply, as does the tag, to the article, that being what some of us are trying to do in WP, while others disrupt. The posting above takes something irrelevant though nearby, assserts it proves something else, and threatens trouble. It is tiresome, unproductive, uncooperative and characteristic. Midgley 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should be obliged for a considered reply from User:Physchim62 and look forward to his support in the reinstatement of my user page. I trust User:Physchim62 will note I provided hard evidence, whereas we see more unsubstantiated personal attacks and allegations by Midgley immediately above [[7]]. The Invisible Anon 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Fiedler

Did you get a reply from Mr. Fiedler on the subject of these Karsh photos? Lupo 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Since you have deleted the RFC, would you please suggest other avenues for resolving these issues? Thank you. Guettarda 16:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on what you said at AN/I about NPA? Also, I am still curious as to what you would suggest as an alternative. Thanks. Guettarda 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has now been reopened by another, non-involved, admin: that's fine by me now. If you really must discuss personal details, RfC is not the place for it. Discuss the matter with a member of WP:ARBCOM or contact User:Jimbo Wales directly. Physchim62 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:PROTECT when protecting a page!

(please note that I posted a copy of this notice at the AFD page for Brian Peppers)

Since you protected Brian Peppers, could you please do steps 2 and 3 of the page protection procedure at WP:PROTECT? It's very confusing when no mention of page protection can be found in the page history. Thank you! --Ashenai 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I thought it would only be a temporary measure while things were discussed on WP:AN. My wrists have been slapped by the large wet haddock I keep around for these purposes. Physchim62 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. You've remained reasonable throughout this fiasco. Very much appreciated. :) --Ashenai 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User marriage man-woman

===>Wha? Why was this deleted and not {{User not narrow}}, or {{User Same Sex Marriage}}, or {{User ally}}? -Justin (koavf), talk 20:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was nominated for speedy deletion and the others weren't. I have now nominated {{User Same Sex Marriage}} for speedy deletion, as it appears to fit the criterion; the other two will have to go through WP:TFD. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my sub-page Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --God of War 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the redirect, did you? Physchim62 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Note consensus See the vote here, and note the people were in favor of keeping it. -Justin (koavf), talk 07:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Drug-opposed

I can't even remember what it said that apparently made it CLEARLY divisive and/or inflamatory, so could you explain to me what was wrong with the template? Could it have been fixed by an edit, or was it so outside calmness that it needed to be deleted? WriterFromAfar755 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said. And as someone mentions above, your userbox is just as divisive if not more divisive than the ones you are deleting. At least give us a chance to add our input, seeing as the policies regulating userboxes are far from clear. The Ungovernable Force 05:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. This is ridiculous; how is pointing out that the United States is a republic divisive? Rogue 9 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two userboxes were tagged for speedy deletion (by another user) under the T1 criterion "polemical or inflammatory"; I agreed that there were polemical, and so deleted them. There are plenty of places for you to join in a constructive debate about userboxes, notably WP:UBP and WP:UUSM. Although I hardly see this as a constructive way forward, you also have the right to request a deletion review at WP:DRV. All Wikipedians have been requested to remove political and religious userboxes from their user pages since 21 January; the worst of these—those which fall under CSD T1—will be deleted without warning. Not to do so would be a travesty of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG football logos speedy deletion

Hello. The images are already replaced (I replace them and just then tag them for speedy deletion), the problem is probably because of some database refreshment delay, as the system shows they're still used in pages with the {{BG A PFG}} template, when it's not how matters stand. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm glad to see you at least put the code for the Anarchist 2 template in the edit summary while deleting. You deleted it as divisive, but I am at least one anarchist who was never offended by that, and almost put it on my own userpage because it was so funny. I really think the issue of what is and is not divisive needs to be settled, because most of these deleted templates are not. The Ungovernable Force 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template contents are sometimes placed automagically by MediaWiki, sometimes not. I don't deleted them when they're placed, but I only rarely add them if the software hasn't. As for userbox content, see User talk:Jimbo Wales. Physchim62 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User liberation wars

Why did you delete this userbox? I was using it. Did it went through TfD? I didn't see any notice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion by another user as "polemical"; I agreed. Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature/Chemistry

Yes, the Reaumur scale is obsolete. R is also Rankine, still in use for absolute temperatures, comparable to Kelvins, but related tp the Fahrenheit scale. As always, I appreciate your input.

With best regards.

Sorry, but just I had to post a comment to make sure my eyes were not fooling me when I saw a non-userbox comment on this talk page. And even better, it's about Chemistry! ;-) All the best. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC) P.S: Your flame-proof suit is on the post. [reply]

Your reverts and personal attacks

You have reverted me on two pages safe sex and Population Control. Your comment on safe sex wasn't nice, but I'm a big boy and can ignore it. What I woul like to talk to you about is why you reverted both. The Population Control might have been for the comment, but I was just reverting the previous revert because it sounded un grounded. Saying that paedophilia is a rare disease while it is a personal choice or maybe a mental affliction. The safe sex page's revert war thing, I can't understand. I did some minor rewording nothing drastic, and yet I'm being reverted. Please explain. Chooserr 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert on Population control was for the same reasons, coupled with an inappropriate edit summary. Your efforts to ensure NPOV on these articles by describing the antiabortion position are more than welcome, but I feel that you are swinging too far the other way in some of your edits (I'm not the only one, that's why another user asked me to take a look at your edits this evening). Physchim62 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't really care if you think I'm swining to far one way or another, wikipedia isn't meant for feelings. My summary was appropriate (if not the edit) if you think of it as a reply to the others. I was stating that both are a personal choice - neither is a disease. Chooserr 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "comment" on my talk-page

I can't see the purpouse of the box, could you explain? _→AzaToth 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see the purpose of you proposing Template:User wikipedia non commercial for deletion either... Physchim62 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did intertpret that the criteria includes all boxes that states against or for anything as inflamatory, but perhaps my interpretation is wrong. _→AzaToth 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I shall post it on WP:TFD then, as process says I should. Physchim62 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your massive deletions on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics

Hello! Could you please explain why did you delete the MANY templates residing on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics? A quick check proved that most of them were speedied with comments such as (t1) or content was: {{db-divisive}}.... As an admin you were responsible for checking if the templates really fall under the T1 CSD. Most (if not all) of the mentioned boxes were neither "divisive" (compare with pluralism) nor "inflammatory". Also, you are not consistent. While you have deleted {{User independend Tibet}} (not caring about 100 red links you have created this way) you have for example left {{User Free Iran}} (and a few others) - how do they differ? Or are you going to be more thorough now and delete the other ones as well? Thank you. Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above --Masssiveego 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted those that were tagged by other users as speedy deletion candidates, and which I myself fet that they entered into the criterion. If you feel that there are other userboxes which should be deleted, you are welcome to tag them with {{db-t1}} so that an admin can review them. Physchim62 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil?

I don't know why you're suggesting I read WP:Civil. You'd be better off pointing Marksweep to that very page. His comment on my talk page was (unintentionally?) insensitive and tactless, and also needlessly authoritative. --Mal 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Irish Republican deletion

I was surprised and shocked when you speedily deleted template:User disBush, even though there was thus far a censensus in the TFD to keep it. While I believe that such userboxes should not be on Wikipedia and would have voted for a delete had I known about the poll while it was in session, the fact that you acted against consensus based on a controversial interpretation of CSD makes me worried that you are abusing your admin powers. Recall that the opinion of an administrator is technically not supposed to carry more weight than the opinions of other users. I urge you to undo the speedy deletion and reopen the TFD so that we may reach a consensus as to what to do. Wh e re ^(talk) 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion by another user as "polemical"; I agreed. Physchim62 (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

`{{User revolutionsuperior}}`

Why did you delete this? I don't see what was wrong with it.--Ac1983fan 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]