User talk:Simon Dodd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This user is very busy this week and may be slow to respond

This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.

Archives: 2005-2008 2009 2010


My edit of Lights to include critical reception was not in relation to the debate we are having on the merging of articles. This was a standard addition to a single article as you can find on any other single (including all of those you are proposing merging). I came across the quote when trying to add to the Ellie Goulding article and believed it to be useful - as critical response is a standard feature to nearly all notable singles. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens seeing as it the single is yet to be released. More info will be added to the article (or section) as it gets closer to the release date. Pafcool2 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Christian terrorism[edit]

I am wondering as to why you have put a NPOV and factual accuracy tag on this section? I realize you have been working furiously on the article and are whipping it into shape, but please remember if you add a tag you ought to open a section on the talk page. Hope to see you there soon, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


The sad thing is that some two years ago I went through and did the same exercise, fortunately some of the more egregious items have not returned. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Size shouldn't necessarily be a barrier to inclusion. I did research a whole bunch of the groups under "Christian Identity" and there were I think one or two who qualified. Most of these USA groups are small, and most of them do nothing but go to gun shows, and stock pile bullets and rations. As I say I forget which actually committed terrorist acts, or at least acts of violence - I just remember the drabness and awfulness the stories conjure up. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC).
the sad thing is that you guys just can't let this go. (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI request[edit]

I have moved your ANI request to the bottom of the page, which may help it attract more attention than simply restoring it to the top of the page. I can understand your frustration with not receiving anything resembling a timely response. My own declining to block the user is not an endorsement of that user's actions, nor is it a slight to the quality or correctness of your report - it's only because, due solely to the delay in responding, the issue is somewhat moot. --B (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you also explain why I've been blocked?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted in replying to this by the blocking admin's reply below. Suffice it to say, I'm surprised as well. --B (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As am I. If you see this as being as aberrational a use of a block as I do, I wonder if you'd be so good as to raise it at ANI for me, since I am unable to do so for a few hours? It would be nice to be vindicated after the fact, but it would be better to have the block expunged before then.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on permission from the blocking admin at his talk page and on ANI, I have unblocked you. All that I ask is that you accept whatever happens with the ANI thread and not restore it once it falls off (or someone archives it). Also, please remember, we are all volunteers and sometimes things do fall through the cracks. --B (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 3 hours[edit]

Do you have any understanding what a volunteer is? Someone who choses to spend their time and energy and whatever skills that might be useful on a project or undertaking. The most important aspect of volunteering is that it is done with no expectation of responsibility or duty other than which is freely given - volunteers need not do any one thing that they do not wish to do. In fact, demanding certain actions from volunteers can possibly de-incentive them from participating; and it is on that basis I have blocked you for 3 hours. (You have been blocked previously, if you want to contest this block then you will know the protocols.) If you do not care for the responses by the available sysops to your own specific issue with another editor, then you are at liberty to find a website that is administered more to your liking; you are, after all, just another volunteer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I will wait out the block, treating it as a short wikibreak / cooling off period. I don't know how to contest a block (and I think you ought to have told me how in your comment above), but I imagine the machinery involved is not nimble enough to be worth engaging for a three hour block. I hope that your action will be raised at ANI before then, but if it is not, I shall do so at that time.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To contest your block, simply post {{unblock|reason=whatever}}. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Discretion being the better part of valor, I think it wiser to cool off, wait out the block, and raise it at ANI. (He should still have told me how to contest it, though, regardless of whether I choose to or not.) As I said above, I would love it if you or someone else would file the report about User:LessHeard vanU at ANI if you think he acted poorly; every user who is blocked thinks they've been done an injustice, so an appeal will have more credibility coming from someone other than the subject of the block.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Per discussion at both ANI and LessHeard's talk page, B has lifted your block. LadyofShalott 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

Happy to help! GiantSnowman 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight tag[edit]

With this edit you placed an undue weight notice on Christian terrorism#History. You didn't give an edit summary. The tag says an editor has expressed concern re undue weight. Who? Where? You never mentioned this tag on the talk page, or explained concerns. It is a copout to tell others to "discuss and resolve this issue" without stating what the concerns are in the section. I am removing the tag, and if it is replaced then the concerns held by an editor should be clearly spelled out on the talk page. I have mentioned this at that talk page. Moriori (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts at CT[edit]

Hi, just want to say thanks for your work at that page and your comments in the discussion. I had not intended to become so involved in the discussion or editing there, but given the state the page was in I felt I should at least make some effort to fix or tag some of the sections. I didn't know what WP:SYNTH was till I came to that page. Seriously, there is a lot I am not familiar with on Wikipedia and I just mentioned what was the fuller context of a quote, and then editors said the section was SYNTH. I would not have known to make that call but I could see when they said it that it was clearly the case. I hold to the view that the term christian terrorism is something of an oxymoron, and that the only sort that exists is the kind were a form of christianity has become entangled with some political or nationalist or other agenda. You might be interested in the following article. [[1]]. I mentioned it on the talk page, I am not sure if it is from a blog but the writer has reported extensively on terrorism across the media. All the best to you with your editing. User:DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Simon Dodd, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox/Lights. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
For your continuing efforts at improving the main article on the Supreme Court of the United States. Magidin (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hot companion[edit]

Please stop telling me what my energies would be best used for and what the most productive use of my time is. There's no need to be condescending. Cheers, Icalanise (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


I think you will be able to appreciate the opportunities here. Lionel (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Please see the discussion page where I responded to your comment/suggestion. I await your input, etc.

Koltorah (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded to your suggestion. I look forward to your opinion.

Koltorah (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to bring about a fair resolution. I have one question (on the discussion page) for the interm which I would appreciate if you could address when you have a chance. Thanks again. Koltorah (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Review: Terrorism[edit]

If you want a copy of the JSTOR article, send me an email. NW (Talk) 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


While I understand your annoyance regarding that AfD, comments such as [2], [3], and [4] are definitely problems in terms of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It would be best if you toned those comments down, particularly giving they are on WP:WQA themselves. Prodego talk 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your objective support on the terrorism article. Being objective seemed to work here and kept the tone of the discussion at a high level.

I don't want to push my luck there, but I am still a bit put out that "association by casual comment" is taken as a "abetting" of terrorism. While I would tolerate the mention of Arab groups rejoicing in the street after 9/11, I'm not at all sure that this applies to individuals, unless they can be shown to be more directly involved. What the President of Syria said (or didn't say) after 9/11 doesn't seem quotable unless he can be shown to be involved with the actual conspirators. There's always a claque that supports violence with "conversation" but this seems far from "abetting" IMO. And, of course, I am not talking legal accusations here, merely Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Please note this comment on your WQA. I'm quite serious. Calm down, stop attacking editors based on your perception of their maturity, and address issues. You are setting your own cause back with your behaviour.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your help over there. - Haymaker (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Reviews[edit]

I will still suggest that if you intend to bring each individual article from the AfD to deletion review that you tag each one properly with {{Delrev}}. It's the proper step to do. I've tagged the currently reviewed one for you this time. CycloneGU (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My petition for review expressly stated that "[s]ince there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement." Since nobody objected in the review itself, I considered the waiver constructively granted.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a misunderstanding on my part, then. When you referred to waiver 5, I thought you were talking about the six steps to listing a deletion review. If that is mistaken, I apologize for the error. CycloneGU (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I should add to this. You only brought one item to deletion review, and I only put the notification on the one item; I notified you here the day of the review, it was not necessary to do so in the review itself. Frankly, five separate AfDs might have been proper, but this type might be an exception for AfD. I don't think that's the case for DRV. I gave the April 14 review an early non-administrative close (as I am not one) because it was snowing in there. If you wish to bring the other four in, by all means go ahead; I've created AfD redirects for each one that link to the original AfD (templates are hard-coded to a certain link for each page). I don't recommend it because of a snowball keep in both the AfD and the existing review, but each would be assessed individually and if any are not proper articles, or not notable enough, then surely those will be merged into the discography or album articles or even deleted entirely. CycloneGU (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Children's Museum backstage pass[edit]

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Welcome Center.jpg
The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is hosting its second Backstage Pass and its first Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, August 20. The museum is opening its doors to Wikipedians interested in learning about the museum's collection, taking them on a tour of the vast collection before spending the afternoon working with curators to improve articles relating to the Caplan Collection of folk toys and Creative Playthings objects. Please sign up on the event page if you can attend, and if you'd like to participate virtually you can sign up on the Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Vigo county courthouse.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vigo county courthouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jan Cyrka[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jan Cyrka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, no indication of notability.

While all constructive 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. JayJayWhat did I do? 17:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)