User talk:Adamfinmo/Archive 2

Speedy deletion nomination of Viddler

A tag has been placed on Viddler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clever

You have done what I was trying to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.10.188 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Re [1] - some patience might be good. You tagged that page less than two minutes after its creation. The editor who created it is a physician, and has since continued expanding it. Sometimes when tagging articles, it pays to take a glance at the contribs of the person who created it. It might give you an idea of what kind of work they do, and whether a {{db-nocontext}} tag is really appropriate. Nathan ^T 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice.--Adam in MO Talk 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi there. I have closed your RFA per WP:NOTNOW since you agreed that this was probably a good thing to do. Please do not allow this to let you down, the comments on the RFA were critical but also said, that you are on the right track, so keep up the good work. You might want to consider requesting an editor review to receive more feedback on your editing and later, with more activity, an admin coach maybe who can tell you what is important. If you have any questions, you can also ask me at any time. :-) Regards SoWhy 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I must echo SoWhy. Most of the oppose section seemed concerned about the relatively low level of activity, but believe (as I do) that once you pick that up, and keep doing what you're doing that you'll be a fine administrator one day. So just keep doing what you've been doing and know that there are many of us that are available should you have any questions or concerns. Best of luck! @Kate (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the kind words.

I am not the sockpuppet of that ip

I am not the sockpuppet of the ip address (68.81.95.145). That ip have been globally blocked until November 25th. There were many edits before November 25th. The autoblock decline notice at the top of my talk page in the history was at different ip address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Beals (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Holocaust denial # Jewish population

You reverted a(n other user's) edit that contained an earlier edit of mine to the subject article and section. In doing so, you restored inaccurate citations of the 1949 World Almanac and consequent criticisms of the veracity of persons quoting it. Without reverting anything (in fact, leaving the content as close to the way you left it as possible), I restored accurate (that is, complete) citations of the Almanac (all years from 1945 to 1949), along with eliminating unfounded charges made against persons who quoted the Almanac accurately. I also eliminated a dead link, loss of which didn't seem to affect support for existing content. I'd suggest that, before further editing in this area, you actually consult the Almanacs in question. If you use the page numbers cited in the six footnotes I added, you'll have an easier time running it all down than I did, having to rely as I did on the indexes. The situation I describe in the Almanacs would seem unlikely, and evidently were not (at least at first) suspected by parties leveling charges against other parties. As you may note, the situation was "rectified" in and after the 1950 edition.--Joe (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't alter any citation's at all with that revert. The section that I removed, they you are referring to had no citations to any almanacs in it. I don't object to the information's factual accuracy but something like that should have citations in it. If yohu look at this diff you will see that I did remove or add any citations to the article. I see you have add refs to the almanacs. Bravo and work well done. If you wanted to re-insert the prose that was rolled back with the new citations, then by all means do that. Thanks. Adam in MO Talk 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a terrific lot of back-and-forth leading to the restoration of old, wrong citations (to/about the Almanac). They actually trace back to errors originally (and invidiously, in my opinion) committed at Nizkor. So I might have fingered the wrong editor in you. Anyway, if you and I are comfortable with the way things stand now, maybe others will leave them that way ... for a few days, anyway.--Joe (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

David Beals sockpuppet investigation

Hi Adam,

I'm aware that this didn't turn up anything, but it's strange that this error, which I corrected, was later reinstated by 68.81.95.145, who hadn't edited in a little over seven months. (And yes, it was an error.) Seems to me the original investigation might be worth a second look. Thanks. Şļџğģő 17:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably itsn't a big deal. There isn't anything to look at if sanctions for the user are not in place.--Adam in MO Talk 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't think, in light of that sock investigation, it's weird that IP reappeared after over half a year to defend Beals? Both were the accused parties, and both are interacting? This is a one in a million thing if they're not the same person. Şļџğģő 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. The user nor the IP are under any sanctions, therefore there is no violation. I have their respective talkpages on my watchlist, but I don't think anything malicious is going on. This user is a newb and just needs sometime to learn the ropes. He probably doesn't know about socking or meatpuppeting. I would talk an AGF and wait and see approach. Its best not to bite the newbs, and offer some advise when necessary to help him along.--Adam in MO Talk 11:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did advise as such, but it's nearly impossible to AGF if someone's being dishonest by pretending to be two different people patting each other on the back. It's one thing to be the new guy, it's another to do something that pure logic tells you is wrong. Şļџğģő 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm cookies

Millahnna has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I won't lie; I took a screen shot of the "content dispute." =) Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

reinstatement

I would really like to be reinstated, every time my time limit has expired I have applied and failed. No matter how hard I try or whatever I say, I feel as if I end up in a worse position. Per your request to contact you on my talk page, I would like your input.--Levineps (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to prove to the community that you can participate in consensus building before they will release you from the ban. You have to get beyond the idea of a 'time limit'. Your bans are indefinite, they have no time limit. You will only be release when you can work with the community and not against it. Consider this, this user is proposing that a cat be named and then letting other editors put their comments and suggestions on the proposal. I would suggest that you engage in this process. When you find something that you feel needs changing or renaming put it up for discussion. Once you understand and engage in this process long enough, the community will become more comfortable with letting you off the hook. You should look through those suggestions I left on your page and try them out. I think you will find it helpful. If you want more help than this I would be willing to guide you through some stuff. Let me know--Adam in MO Talk 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He just violated his restrictions the day before leaving you this request; there's a page move in his contribution history on March 19.[2] postdlf (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See new thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions, again. postdlf (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West,.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TheoreticalBullshit

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This was an incorrect warning per this, and this--Adam in MO Talk 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already admitted I made a mistake, I'm human just like everyone else. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I know. I am just putting the diffs in there in case this becomes an issue down the line. I take a lot of pride in having a clean record. I have no doubt that you acted in good faith. This was one of the rare times when the duck test fails. Thanks.--Adam in MO Talk 09:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

Even though the consensus went the other way, I just wanted to commend you for your thoughtful and civil contributions to the discussion on the Attila the Hun entry. You made some excellent points that were supported by research, and I wish all editors were as thoughtful in their discussions. Thanks! Verkhovensky (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the best one can do. I did my best to sway consensus and failed. The ultimate goal of an article that reflects reasoned consensus was reached so I view this as a "win" situation.--Adam in MO Talk 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! You are awesome! Verkhovensky (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for giving me some much needed help with archiving my talk page! Verkhovensky (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Why do I love administrator's notice board, incidents so much?--Adam in MO Talk 07:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

atheism

you posted on my USERPAGE.

i have opened discussion on the discussion tab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daenumen/atheism

please leave your comments on the dicussion tab. thanks. Daenumen (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I notice on ANI you said " the editors lack of willingness to address the issues " can you tell me precisely which issue you think I haven't addressed? Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Help

Hey: You added a welcome note on my talk page when I first joined, offering to help if I had any questions -- I know that was over a year and a half ago, but I'm not sure where else to ask for help :) There's an anonymous user who keeps re-adding a promotional link to an article, and every time it's removed, he waits what he feels is a sufficient amount of time for the individual to stop caring/forget about the link, and re-adds it again. Is there a way to report the user (who doesn't have an account, but uses the same IP address every time) or block him from editing that specific article in the future?

Thanks :) JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for continuing to keep tabs and making repeated requests for protection -- I really appreciate your help -- I think you've finally stopped the guy

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Seriously, thank you ;) JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)