User talk:MrDarcy/Archive7

AfD nomination of Goldwater (software)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Goldwater (software), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldwater (software). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• No recollection of creating it, have you? I never forgot an entire article. Did you have a list of articles you created before you 'retired'? If not, it might be a good idea. There's now even tools that can dig up, name and count your creations. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What purpose would that serve? Mr. Darcy talk 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Because FALSE

WCW wasnt under WWF control, EVER.And ECW wasnt under WWF control in 2001 either AustinS 20:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what, NO we're not clear AustinS 03:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry that I vandlilised your page. AustinS

Ad.sell's contribs (of his IP) are still editing, and he had vandalized using it. iMatthew 13:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More block evasion. See my talk page. iMatthew 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked that IP again, for longer. So childish. I believe all his edits today have been reverted. Mr. Darcy talk 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceedjee

Thanks for your advice, which I will endeavour to follow. And thank you for restoring my comment, and noting that it was not vandalism. I had no intention of exacerbating matters by restoring them. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Excuse me, but why did you perform this edit? I have reverted it as I dislike having comments removed from my talk page, I archive them, not revert them. I would like an explanation though, if you don't mind. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I was rather confused as to your motive for the removal. Thanks you for the quick reply. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet vandalism on Elie Weisel

Hiya-please have a look; it seems the vandalizing IP 199.68.16.14 now has opened a sock puppet account (who is also stalking me). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP filed here on the IP and the newly active account. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing via an IP address and then signing up for a username isn't a violation of anything. I blocked him because he's edit-warring and stalking you. Mr. Darcy talk 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosima von Bülow

I am wondering why you have deleted the page of Cosima von Bülow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.33.197 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

when leaving snide/unfriendly comments on editors' talkpages- -

please make sure you know what you are talking about. I don't if you are a new editor and don't know how to check contribution history, because had you checked my contribution history you would have noticed that I've made over a 100 edits since my move was reverted without re-reverting. In addition, if you would actually read the actual discussion at baseball wikiproject you would see that I readily and continuously admit that I have not achieved any sort of consensus to move the specific page. I recommend reading WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK, and WP:AGF. If you have further questions regarding checking the contribution history of editors or how to interact with other editors here at wikipedia or even generally how to interact with other editors please don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. But it must be in a civil and friendly manner. Wishing you all the best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, that wasn't friendly enough. You still have ways to go. But don't give up, one day you'll learn. Again, I admitted on the talk page that I have achieved no consensus to move the page. So notwithstanding your paranoia, and your violations of WP:AGF, if I admit that I achieve no consensus you shouldn't assume that I will I'm lurking in the weeds and will revert at a later date. So now you claim you're an admin. Assuming that's the case, are you open to recall? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you open to recall? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you've figured out how to use the contribution history. Now that you've moved onto another subject, I'm assuming that you now realized that you were mistaken in your initial assessment of the situation. I don't have a problem if you refactor or apologize over your initial snide comments. Regarding your administratorship, I find it hard to believe that you care very little about it. Indeed, your prose and tone on my talkpage ("that's enough" and "don't do it again") hint to an admin who cares deeply about his status. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I can't find you on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Are you sure you're open to recall. I also can't find any prior proposal for your recall. Would you be so kind and provide me with a link to the discussion? I really don't think admins should go around leaving snide comments on hardworking editors' talkpages based on a lack of good faith. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Asked and answered"? Where? I'm not interested in any sort of revenge. What it important to me is that admins don't go around insulting long-time established editors by flexing their non-existent muscles in regard to a rule that you suspect might in the future be broken. You should assume good faith, especially with long-time editors that have never been blocked over a 3rr. And especially, when the editor has already made over a 100 edits since the initial unexplained revert. Since we are dealing with a volunteer collaborative effort, it is most important that editors should not be insultingly admonished over non-existent violations. What is also important to me is that admins are faced with a mistake that they made, they just to admit to it, instead of desperately clawing after other potential issues. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As the conversation continues I am getting more and more convinced of a major problem that we have afoot. Firstly, you should never warn an editor with over 30k edits about 3rr. If an editor has that amount of edits he knows quiet well the 3rr rule. You shouldn't even warn a non-experienced editor. Secondly, if you think your tone opening - sans greeting with a "that's enough" - meets the WP:CIVIL requirements and is generally accepted way of dealing with editors we have a major problem on our hands. Whether I comply with wp:civil is not related to this conversation. You did not check my prior history and decided that from my comments I should not be insulted by your comments. First let's figure out your comments and see if your general approach to editors you suspect will violate 3rr is acceptable. When we are done we can move to my wp:civil deficiencies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your words: "just a warning not to move the article again". But whatever you call it warning, notice, notification, it makes no difference. Anyone with 30k edits knows exactly what edit-warring is all about and doesn't need anyone telling him that how close he is to violating 3rr. Its insulting to tell an established editor that he is close to a 3rr and a fortiori with the tone that you used. Not that I have to explain myself to you, but at the second revert, I reverted while pointing out in my edit summary that I am initiating a discussion regarding the revert. Since that discussion was initiated, and I realized that my revert was not supported by the consensus, I did not touch the article. But these explanations should not be required. You should assume good faith that there is no edit warring going on. Your strike of those comments mean nothing to me and it also exemplifies what I consider your misunderstanding of how to deal with editors. Although the "lazy" comment was by the letter of the law more violative of wp:civil, that comment did not bother me all. I understand that in contentious discussions these type of semi-insults are bound to arise. The more important issue at hand is why was there even a contentions discussion? Is it something that should have been avoided? In my estimation, and I think in the estimation of most editors, there never should have been any sort of message, warning, notice, whatever on my talkpage that I should not be involved in edit-warring. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to disagree about how I should have done my revert but you don't have the right to disrupt the project. I would strongly urge that you think long and hard before you issuing any sort of "soft warning" to editors. I hope that your inability to understand my issue is really just stubbornness on your part and not that you really don't understand how someone can get insulted from the content and tone of your initial warning. In any case, I will be monitoring your edits. If I see that these types of insults continue I will have to take this issue to the community at large. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Keith Law (actor)

Hey MrDarcy. With the current references in the article, no, I suspect the subject here won't pass WP:BIO. I rewrote the article just because it was written so poorly that it was bothering me, and I thought if I looked around I might find notable material (maybe should've afd'd instead). Tell you what - let me poke around and see if there's any other references or accomplishments that would make the subject notable, and if you don't see anything glowing in an hour, please feel free to delete speedily. FlyingToaster 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Friday

Actually, the comment appeared to be random forum chit chat. It wasn't directed at anything specific, and per the rules, forum talk can be deleted on sight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a vague comment that wasn't directed at anyone. It should have been better clarified. Maybe I was wrong in this instance, but I will continue to remove any comments that are "forum chit chat" in nature. If I make a mistake in my assessment, I'm sure someone will come along and correct it. Ciao.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)