User talk:Antiuser/Archive 5

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
Apologies for the late delivery of this month's newsletter; the automated delivery system appears not to be working at present.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Names
Gone. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Context? X X X antiuser eh? 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the stuff you wanted deleted. Don't like being too explicit. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. I wasn't the one who wanted stuff deleted... I only replied to the user saying they should take it to RFO rather than post it at ANI. :) X X X antiuser eh? 10:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, sorry to confuse you. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could use some advice here...
I'm being accused of bullying and having political motivations behind an AfD which I didn't even start on Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista. This user began attacking me after I did a routine policy edit on the article, which another editor later put on AfD. I was actually preparing a rewrite of the article which I believed would meet WP:N and WP:BLP, but all it'd do would be start an edit war. The first ANI report is here, and the only resolution was the sockmaster and his one sock being blocked, but as you can see in the AfD discussion, the IPs and meatpuppets/SPAs are still plentiful and, beside their inability or unwillingness to understand policy, keep bringing my name up. Should I bother with another ANI? I'm tired of seeing my name brought up every time I log into WP. X X X antiuser eh? 04:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I don't like doing so for AFDs, I semi-protected the page for a period of 3 days. It's not really a good thing to protect discussion pages but in this case, a range-block would have affected far too many people. I hope this helps. Regards  So Why  20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The same thing is going on at Articles for deletion/Géa as well. Some sort of meat/sockpuppetry or forum shopping going on. X X X antiuser eh? 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've protected that one for three days as well. Favonian (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hopefully it'll cool down now. X X X antiuser eh? 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With great respect to SoWhy and Favonian, I think this is a serious mistake. I agree that the level of sockpuppetry, SPA ranting and personal attacks at these AfDs is appalling, but semiprotection will add to their sense of persecution, they will complain of censorship, and if (when) it gets taken to AfD well-meaning persons will say "relist for a full debate." The closing admin (not me, thank goodness, since I propose to comment) will be able to see through it all. I won't revert, but I urge you both to unprotect: if you are not happy to do that I would like to raise it at AN/I as a point of principle (tomorrow, as I'm going to bed now... JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that I didn't specifically ask for the pages to be protected - I was only asking if I should take the harassment to ANI a second time since it kept going. X X X antiuser eh? 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that - I was coming back to say, don't let the attacks and accusations worry you, everyone can see them for what they are. Nil illegitimi carborundum. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If SoWhy agrees to unprotecting, go right ahead. I'm an hour ahead of John, so I'm definitely going to bed now. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that protection was a bad idea per se. Yes, those socks will complain about censorship etc. but they did so before. Sometimes protection is the only way to stop a wave of personal attacks that attempt to derail a discussion. I know that the closing admin will see through it but that does not mean that personal attacks should be allowed to be made there. That said, I reduced the length of protection on both AFDs to a day which will hopefully be enough. Regards  So Why  15:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SoWhy, that's fine by me. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This user has a tendency of crying censorship no matter what. See about the deletion of Géa from the Portuguese Wikipedia. They've also dragged my name into the Portuguese talk pages, because someone marked the article as controversial. Can't win, can I? X X X antiuser eh? 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the others cannot drop the stick and you do not want to discuss it anyway, just walk away and ignore them. Sooner or later they will give up if you simply do not react anymore. Imho, you said all you can say at the AFDs, so nothing you can add now will improve the situation anyway. Regards  So Why  20:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ANTIUSER, Could you read and to posta a comment to my last post? I'll appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcms1506br (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but no thanks, I've already said all I had to say on there and got nothing but bombast and namecalling in return. I'm gonna stay out of it until the matter is resolved. X X X antiuser eh? 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for anti-vandalism protection my my talk page
Along with User:JohnCD, I noticed you helped protect my talk page from a rather persistent vandal (one who has appeared in other online media from time to time). Thanks! Edwin Herdman (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. User:JohnCD protected your page so IP vandals won't be able to mess with it anymore. X X X antiuser eh? 07:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Edwin, I only semi-protected it for a month, which expired on 8 May, but I will be happy to renew that if you like. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Géa
Apologies for apparently overwriting your edit.  Teapot  george Talk  19:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's all good, I've restored it, no harm done. :) X X X antiuser eh? 19:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CCDB
Antiuser, what do you make of this article? Would it be possible to modify it to meet WP standards? Wekn  reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly. I was actually going to have a go at it, but then this whole debacle got started after I removed a piece of original research from that article and Géa, and Mr. Baptista and his socks and supporters/meatpuppets started stalking me. You can see how it all started on this ANI report X X X antiuser eh? 08:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 08:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I have mentioned the fan-club's harassment of you in my !vote (reluctant, weak keep) at the CCDB AfD. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you haven’t yet, I thought you might want to see this. *Sigh could be a long night. Sean (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised. That only proves the point that he doesn't understand Wikipedia policies (he says the article was deleted because "having twice the lexicon of Shakespeare's works is not allowed". X X X antiuser eh? 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And this. What is the sense of the word "movida" there? JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Orchestrated". He thinks there is a crusade against him, orchestrated by Brazilians. He also thinks Google is a mafia that's out to get him (possibly NSFW) and that the Portuguese Wikipedia is censoring him. X X X antiuser eh? 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh brother! Screenshots? What next? How come he found the traffic calculator and didn't read the rules? The only reason there's so much traffic to his article is because we're trying to decide wether or not to delete it, anyways. I've changed my stance to "Delete". Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 10:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know, the article is going to be deleted in a few hours. Wekn  reven i susej eht  Talk• Follow 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hem Chandra DasGupta CSD removed
Hi, a claim of being head of department in any university is a sufficient claim of notability to avoid CSD A7. I have removed on this basis. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is head of department an elected position? I thought WP:PROF only applied to elected positions or positions of high distinction. In any case, thanks for letting me know. X X X antiuser eh? 08:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Criteria 6 includes "or appointed" and so any head of department (even purely admin) may meet PROF. Fæ (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad then, thanks for removing it. X X X antiuser eh? 08:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Dads
Hi; you seem to have removed a proposed deletion tag from the article without explanation. I don't know whether or not it was a mistake, but just to let you know, the article is now listed at Articles for deletion/Only Dads. Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Syndic General  ─╢ 08:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was an edit conflict, I was just doing some general cleanup after the previous editor retracted his speedy nomination. X X X antiuser eh? 08:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm – that's what I thought. But it's too late now! Perhaps you wouldn't mind commenting on the deletion discussion to make clear that the PROD was only removed in error? See you just did that! Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 08:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks
...yes, butchered Parkway a bit there, not exactly what I intended, thanks for your reversion. In good faith, Nankai (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you didn't leave an edit summary so I didn't know what your intentions were in removing those bits. It's all good. X X X antiuser eh? 10:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
kongr43gpenTalk 09:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gp-best can not sufficient evidence of space-time curve
Hello Antiuser. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gp-best can not sufficient evidence of space-time curve, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''This seems like OR, but it isn't a test page. I will make some checks and then probably PROD it.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The way the page was initially formatted looked like a test page. My mistake. X X X antiuser eh? 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out it was a copyvio from here. Deleted as such, and author told about NOR. JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's stuff like this that makes me shut right up whenever I'm beginning to perhaps consider an RfA :) X X X antiuser eh? 09:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Marked as Patrolled
Hi there,. Just a little request. It seems that Twinkle, quite annoyingly, doesn't mark pages as patrolled even when you tag them for WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I've just come across an article, that you'd tagged for WP:CSD on the unpatrolled list. I'm sure you already know, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there will be a little link in square brackets that says  [ mark this page as patrolled ] . Clicking that means it'll get taken off the unpatrolled list and so no-one else will come across it on that list. It's not your fault, I know; it's Twinkle's. But until they fix it, it'd be great if you could click that link just before you tag an article. I've marked that one as patrolled. If you didn't find the article via the new pages list then just ignore me; you won't have had the option to mark it as patrolled. Sorry to be a pain. Keep up the good work. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  03:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I had no idea you could mark something as patrolled. I just use the Recent Changes page, so I've never seen that option (I patrol primarily for vandalism, but tag new pages when applicable). X X X antiuser eh? 03:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you open the New Page Patrol list ( see here ) then you'll be able to mark them as patrolled. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep that in mind, but like I said I patrol recent changes as a whole, not just new pages... X X X antiuser eh? 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Your talk page has been semi-protected
The Brazilian IP socks were getting annoying, so I have semi-protected your talk page for six hours. Favonian (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 01:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

WPF1 Newsletter (August)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC).