User talk:Avanu/Archive 1

Assange/citation tags
hello Avanu, i'd just like to say (and this seems the appropriate section to do so) that out of all the regular editors on the Julian Assange article, you seem to be the one most aware of WP:NPOV, and props to you for it. i try and stay out of the ins and outs of editing and talk on the article as much as possible - i could without the wikistress - but i do observe with interest; your ability to remain aware of the bigger picture - that we're trying to make an encyclopaedia and a good article - is commendable and inspiring. if everyone else participating on the Assange article could keep as clear a head, it would be the best article on wiki. keep it up! Kaini (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That is really amazing! -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * you deserve it :) there's no doubt that most editors over there are trying to make the article good - but avoiding POV on this one is really, really hard. but you manage to do so. Kaini (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tucson shootings
Tvoz / talk 20:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising
Hello Avanu. I appreciate your good faith edit when you removed a great chunk from the intro of 2011 Libyan uprising. I also agree with you that it had become needlessly POV with many editors pushing to present certain angles. I know that intros should generally be short and this one was extremely long and was enough to repel novice readers. I just wish for you to know that my recent restoration of part of that text is not an act of defiance, I just believe that the information I had previously added belongs on the article. Please note also that I am neither pro- nor anti-Gaddai or opposition and I have only aspired to paint the picture of the episode. My biggest concern involves User:Gazpr who has twice now removed sourced information concerning rebel attacks on pro-Gaddafi civilians. Each time it has been conducted in a stealth manner but if I spot the source removed again, I shall discuss this with him. It had already been taken out by the time you blanked the section and now I have placed a small part of the removal into a new overview section before the timeline actually begins. I hope this is all right with you and I hope you appreciate I am neither pushing for rebels nor government. Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I saw your edit, and I thought it was quite nice. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping an eye on it. :) -- Avanu (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, I really hope that article can survive all the POV pushing going on. Parts of it really are jumping back and forth to things that I am simply surprised anyone could honestly see as anything belonging in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise this. I would personally advise you with the best of intentions that blanking is generally looked upon as hostile and it is far better to add citation tags, reduce smaller lumps, amend "journal-style" usages ("tyrant" or "dictator" to become "leader" or "president", "regime" to be "government" or "administration") and go about other ways to draw attention to the section. To be fair to you, I see you are standing by for a consensus and so am I for that matter. But as this is a current event with news coming in thick and fast and edits following suit, it may be better to wait a while until the situation settles down and then everybody knows where everybody stands. I'm just pointing this out so that you avoid ugly issues with other good-faith editors. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice little section for Superb when he's unbanned
Hiya, you seem like a helpful editor (Not sure from the Avanu sn if you're male or female, no offence), I don't suppose you'd want to make a nice little topic on the Talk page for 2011 LU so that SSP can put his reasons down for choosing Jamahiyra etc over the better known terms? I'd do it myself, but I'm getting sleep and must to go to the gym (girlfriend's orders) after I finish fixing the International Reactions Page and finish watching this cheap Sci-Fi flick. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DreamGuy (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You need to be warned also. The revert you just engaged in, you did without referring to any sources, yet I have been and I was willing to actually spend time getting NPOV sources as well as biased ones. Instead of calling me out for doing research and placing reliable edits, please respond as REQUESTED at the article Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

cuppa thanks


tedder (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Thank you for patiently waiting out my misunderstanding and miscommunication. tedder (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I was detained today by Union County College police
Wondering if you saw my write-up on the talk page. Wondering what your thoughts are. I'm thinking along the lines of -- can we substitute drawings for photos? Then the UCC police will be happy; and so will readers, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You own the copyright to the photographs, I assume, and they may be able to dictate access to the campus for a photo, but they certainly do not dictate Wikipedia policy. -- Avanu (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I declared the photos public domain. But I'm wondering whether they can make my life miserable at other oppotrunities. My daughter goes to school there. I'm a good researcher. I may want to work over the UCC article with more references, and cut out a lot of the unsourced promo material, don't yo uthink? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems like it would be silly of them to make such a fuss. Probably it would be best if the College public affairs staff was consulted about the picture taking, or perhaps even the college administrators, or even the local city government.  Regardless, to me, it seems inappropriate for campus police to have a blanket policy that forbids innocent photography, and is probably illegal for them to pursue anything against you regarding that sort of activity. -- Avanu (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in retrospect, I probably should have gotten permission first. But I dislike how I was treated. There are no signs up saying "No photos". And, police have the uniforms and the weapons and what am I going to do? My thinking is: if photos are disallowed, what's wrong with drawings? No problem there, right?-Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it would be advisable to get permission first, we don't live in a police state, hopefully. No harm, no foul, is an expression for a reason. -- Avanu (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD section levelling
Check out Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 27


 * 1) If you use a level-2 heading, EVERYTHING after your section header will appear underneath your header a subheading, meaning every other article nominated for deletion on March 27 after yours was placed on that page. It competes with the DAY heading level, having the equivalent heading as "March 27" itself.
 * 2) If you use a level-3 heading, your section will appear exactly the SAME as article headings on the list of sections, so it appears like another article on the list instead of just being a subheading of an article already nominated.
 * 3) Your sections are a subheading of your nominated article for deletion, it therefore requires to be at a lower level than the heading level of the AfD header for the article, which is a level-3 heading. So every subequent heading for the AfD page needs to be level-4 or lower.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Superb Superbus
I don't really get how this fellow is seemingly not understanding that he should not keep doing what he is doing when all the other editors are telling him not to, to the point of actual disruption. Any theories? My blunt statements didn't seem to work, nor did your friendly attempts to dissuade him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know... it's disappointing. I haven't seen any other editors with his viewpoint and it sounds like a good one to have in the article if he would just stop editing like he is. -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I put my thoughts on the talk page, I just happened to see that he was unbanned, but only for talk pages. Best choice imo, because now he is unable to edit in articles, and maybe, just maybe he can be persuaded to put his talents to good editor-friendly use. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He is still at it! How?! O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Avanu, I just noticed you posted two responses to the Evidence page of Noleander's arbitration. Just so you know you can only post to that page if you present your own evidence, and then you're restricted to post in your section only. In other words you can't post in anyone else's section. A clerk, or other person will revert your posts if you don't do it yourself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? You should add your own evidence section if you wish to, but this is just a matter of procedure.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed 2 of the 3. The one with the editor accusing SilverSeren of claiming a "Jewish Conspiracy", I did not remove, because honestly the section is not 'evidence' at all, but merely a character attack and really should be removed from that page entirely.  It was a settled matter in the Wikiquette forum, and dredging it into this other page as 'evidence' is incredibly misleading and inappropriate.  Regardless of whether we ought not comment in sections, such a comment shouldn't stand apart and unchallenged. -- Avanu (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is 'evidence' of anything, it would be the nature of the rancor that is present in some of the comments aimed at Noleander. -- Avanu (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have actually adressed that issue in my own evidence section and others have on the talk page. I'm afraid that you still can't post comments to someone else's section.  You should remove that one as well.  Create your own section to refute it if you want, or post to the talk page, but you just can't post in another's section.  Sorry.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Avanu. The instructions at the top of the evidence page are very clear: "Do not comments to other editors' sections." You have added comments to three different sections. Please remove them. You may place them as evidence in your own section if you require, but please note the requests from arbitrators on the talk pages of the evidence and workshop pages. I am sure this was an unwitting mistake. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi article request
Hey, you reverted my revert, so I thought I'd send you a message instead just reverting again:)

The original content I had restored was not mine...I was reverting a deletion by another user. The deletion had not been discussed on the talk page (and still has not). It is sourced, and the sources seem to match the claim. I don't disagree that it's a bit vague, but I don't think we should be deleting sourced content without consensus, and especially (as per the previous user) based on unilateral whim.

Can you please either restore the content or start a talk page discussion? Until we have consensus one way or another, I think the sourced content should remain. If it wasn't referenced, I would have no problem, but someone went to the trouble of getting a reputable source, and deserves a discussion on it being removed.

Thanks!Jbower47 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Mexican-American War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Sandstein   19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Comment: Thanks for reporting the problem, but in view of the talk page's history I feel that I have to leave you with an ugly template warning as well. Regards,   Sandstein   19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein   20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wuz guy
Yup, he PRODDED about 20 articles on fraternities. I removed the PROD and he took them to AFD. He started with Alpha and was working his way into the Betas when people started to revolt against the deletions. I am not an anti-deletionist, just when things are on the fence I tend to favor keeping or merging. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology
I totally misread that comment you left me. Somehow I thought that you were calling Sandstein all of those things that you had boleded, where in reality those were just quotes from the AN thread. I misread a situation, overreacted, and went after you in the process. I am sorry for that and I will be more careful in the future.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Taco Bell lawsuit.
The law suit was withdrawn.

Lawsuit questioning Taco Bell's beef is dropped --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Userpage
I assume you didn't intend to edit my userpage? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would a person of your obvious intellect assume something like that? -- Avanu (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the normal and accepted way for Wikipedians who don't intend to intentionally cause disruption (and I had placed you into that group, in my mind) to leave a message for another editor is not to edit their userpage but to post on their talkpage. Obviously. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢


 * I wasn't aware it was disruptive to comment on your commenting on other people. What exactly would I possibly be disrupting? Your solitary enjoyment of lambasting other people? Maybe in the future it might be better to just use your userspace for things relating to yourself, rather than on attacking people who are just trying to work collaboratively with you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to me to be experienced enough to know that it is in no way the done thing for editors to leave comments on each other's userpages. If I've mis-assessed your level of clue then I can only apologise. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, pity, you have enemies – your redirect was actually the one sensible thing I've seen anyone do to that article! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of people as 'enemies' is probably why you end up in so many debates like this. They have a different point of view, that's all. -- Avanu (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And persistently so, it would seem! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Silence (Doctor Who). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. 88.104.40.103 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the AfD template explicitly says "do not blank or redirect this while the AfD is ongoing". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And I believe I explained myself within the Edit Summary, so go away please. If you have a *constuctive* comment, I welcome it, but not a lecture.  Ignore All Rules is a valid rule. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see "don't redirect this" written anywhere, actually, Sarek? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It says don't remove the tag during a discussion, so technically blanking the page fits within that, but since there is a debate over notability, moving the content to the List page removes that debate and we can all move on with our lives. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct, I edit conflicted with you while trying to fix it. It is implied in "don't remove this notice", though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I'd still have said it's not explicitly outlawed for (good) reason... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also do not merge or copy content while the AfD is ongoing. See WP:Guide to deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no one can logically object to the content being under the List, a redirect at the moment makes more sense than continuing a silly argument. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

 * You seem to have simply posted roughly the same unblock request. This has zero - zero - bearing on your block.  You cannot revert war with someone like that, even if you're in the right.  If you don't like the tag, you can argue with them on the tag's talk page, or at their WP:ARS clubhouse.  What you can't do is break 3RR to enforce your opinion.  Good luck.  Kuru   (talk)  02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You replied too fast, I was still making changes to the unblock request. I *will not* let blantant POV bias be added and any thoughtful editor should do the same. Just because its being done that way a lot doesn't make it right.  -- Avanu (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing. I'm glad you took your time with that last bit; I've never seen someone claim the "good intentioned vandalism" defense. Kuru   (talk)  02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Glad to amaze.  I can't say I'm too sorry to have done this and like I said, I'm in favor of keeping the article that is under AfD.  I just think that the tag as written is very inappropriate. It might seem like a minor thing, but its one thing to save an article and quite another to bias the debate. -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu, there was no vandalism. Edit warring to keep your preferred version of the article in place is expressly prohibited by policy.  You will not be unblocked as long as you are confused by this; certainly not while you seem to be implying that you will continue the dispute.  Good luck.  Kuru   (talk)  03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't about my preferred version of the article. It is a template tag that has no place being added.  This revert wasn't about the content of the article itself.  Please refer to WP:VANDAL and WP:VANDTYPES


 * Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as afd, delete, sprotected, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria.


 * In addition, in keeping with WP:BRD, this tag was added, and then reverted by me, and then re-added without discussion. In fact, I believe I was the only one in this little fracas who decided to take this to the Talk pages of the article and AfD.  It is a bad tag, and as I demonstrated above, can easily be re-written to be NPOV. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Removing the tag is vandalism. If you want to change the wording of the tag, which I agree could be worded better, then take it up at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. But please stop removing a tag that you have no reason or backing to remove. The tag adds the article automatically to the list of articles for ARS members to improve. That is embedded into the code of the tag. It is not meant to just sit there and look pretty. Silver seren C 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah...never mind then. Guess I was a minute too late in my response. Silver  seren C 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain how adding the tag in light of its ability to skew a discussion isn't vandalism (by WP:GAME). I'm not opposed to the mission or purpose of the Article Rescue Squadron, and have even checked in and helped ARS, but this tag is simply not appropriate. It wasn't apparent to me that such a tag was used until I saw it today.  Regardless of whether it might have been set up this way, the wording as is should be modified to be in line with the idea of consensus in AfDs. -- Avanu (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand what the tag is for. It is to let ARS members know about this article that needs improvement. It doesn't promise that there will be improvement at all and shouldn't affect the AfD whatsoever if no improvements are made. It just asks ARS members to look into whether the article can be improved to meet notability guidelines. I'm not sure why you think that it supersedes the AfD or something. Silver  seren C 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The initial wording and the final wording are my main issues with it. "This article has been flagged for rescue" implies that despite the AfD discussion, its being taken care of and everyone should move along and forget the AfD. The final sentence, "Please leave this tag in place until the discussion has closed" shows that it is clearly in place in order to influence the deletion discusion, and apparently has no purpose in promoting further improvements to the article.  It is a very biased tag, as written, and really doesn't belong alongside an AfD tag.  Again, let me say, I *like* Doctor Who and I think this article is fine whether it is left alone or merged, so this isn't something against the article.  I'm honestly surprised if no one has mentioned the problems with the rescue tag before now. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

< Question for you, Silver seren: You clearly don't understand what the tag is for. It is to let ARS members know about this article that needs improvement. Could you explain to me what function the tag serves which the large 'articles for deletion' notice doesn't? As far as I can see it, rescue is just slapped on an arbitrary selection of pages nominated for deletion anyway. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 08:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is meant to be added to articles nominated for deletion that an editor believes can be improved through editing to meet the relevant notability guideline. Once it is added, it lets ARS members know specifically about that AfD out of all of them, so that we can get to work looking for sources in order to improve the article and show that it is notable. That is it's purpose. Obviously, most AfD ends rightfully as delete and the Rescue template is meant to point out the ones that users believe can meet what is needed to not be deleted, so that ARS members don't have to slog through every AfD, wasting time attempting to find sources for non-notable articles. With the rescue template, we can know which few we should focus our efforts on and which ones have a higher likelihood of being able to pass the necessary guidelines. Silver  seren C 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know roughly what proportion of articles listed at AfD are tagged with the rescue template at any one time? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 08:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it's 7, though it's usually around 15 or so. Considering that AfD generally gets at minimum 100 nominations a day, I would say less than a fifth are tagged, likely less than a sixth. Silver  seren C 08:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Silver, according to the WP:RESCUE page:


 * What the Rescue template is for:


 * Our main focus is on articles on notable subjects going through AfD that:


 * Need references
 * Are written poorly
 * Lack information readily available
 * Need cleaning up.

From what I am seeing here, rescue is used in articles that already have notability established, not ones that haven't established notability. If something isn't actually notable, then no amount of "rescue" will save it, because it isn't notable. My initial suggestion of merging into the List of Aliens article was done in order to avoid having to prove notability and therefore "rescue" the content that people had created. From what I'm seeing, people have gone beyond the intent of WP:RESCUE and are using it as a tool to 'push back' against AfD's. -- Avanu (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just this one article and there are likely still references that can be added and new sources about the subject being made at any time. If you are actually speaking in general, then I would advise you check out the rescue links on the top of my userpage, which link to articles that were tagged for rescue and I personally improved at AfD so they ended up being kept. Some people might use the rescue template for that purpose, but it is certainly not anything close to a majority and it is certainly not so for the AfD in question. Silver  seren C 08:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That might be a general case, but after reviewing the situation at the Silence article, and the expectations for editors at the WP:RESCUE page, and the actual wording of the tag, I can say very safely that the tag is being misused at that article. -- Avanu (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply reply
I think you should just be more careful with your use of WP:BRD. It's usually better to actually discuss before changing anything, that way there isn't any chance of turning out the way it did. Silver seren C 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny. I was just mentioning the very same thing. :) -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sarek RE: BLOCK
Sarek, you are an involved editor, you have no business blocking me. -- Avanu (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the edit-warring complaint? I thought standard practice was to create one of those. This seems a bit like a summary ban to me (like summary execution) as I don't see it. So am I missing something here? He is also right that an involved editor really should not be doing the banning, rather an uninvolved one. It seems sensible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's been warned about 3RR twice this month -- another one would have been redundant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen, the usual practice is to start an investigation though. If this ban is not part of the same investigation it seems a little odd. Again this is from my understanding which may be flawed. Still, the point about you being involved in this is another important one which I think should be addressed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC) (Comment by Avanu at 00:17 UTC on 28 April 2011 was also in reply to 00:07 comment by Sarek)
 * When you can see four reverts without scrolling the history, the investigation is very short. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually just some sort of investigation, even if it is open and shut, to determine reasons that someone did this and that. Like I said, that's just what I have usually seen and assumed was common practice, and it seems fair. I'm afraid you still have not addressed the issue about your being inlvolved in this dispute directly though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No ANEW investigation is necessary, especially one as simple as this. A warning was not needed since the editor is familiar with 3RR.  Kuru   (talk)  00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense, though I am still wondering about why, and I think I can safely use the term ignore here after having mentioned three times already, the point about Sarek being an involved editor is being ignored. So far it's been pointed out by myself, Avanu and Griswaldo and neither he nor yourself have commented on it. Even if the violation is an open and shut case, it still seems wrong for him to carry out the ban like that rather than someone uninvolved. If the edit-warring was so obvious then it could have been seen by, or shown to, someone not involved and the ban could have been carried out by them. Could I get a response on this point please? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, however, the question is. Is there really a point in Sarek unblocking now just so an uninvolved admin can re-block since it is an "open and shut case"? Especially since it is only a 24 hour block? Yes, Sarek was wrong to do it, I think all of us are agreeing on that here, but no one is saying that the fact that a block was needed according to policy is wrong, just that the blocker was the wrong person to do it. Silver  seren C 10:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, thank you, that answered the q, and no, if the ban was justified, one should ofc not unban just to reban especially for this small time period. I just thought it should be pointed out for Sarek so that he will acknowledge it and make sure to be careful about repeating such an action in future cases where there is a conflict of interest. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 11:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No such luck unfortunately. I've brought this topic up at User talk:SarekOfVulcan and it appears that no such acknowledgement or promise of future care is forthcoming.  Oh well.  And admins wonder why there is a culture of complaints about their behavior.  A little self-reflexivity and humility would go a long way to alleviate that.  Nothing more to do about it now I guess.Griswaldo (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, I'd love to know what ways I supposedly was warned? What are you referring to?  I try very hard to do things by the book.  Your choice of words above seems like you're painting me as a constant edit warrior.   You're personally involved and ethically should have asked another person to review this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure Sarek is referring to these warnings  regarding issues that occurred on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Talk:Mexican-American War.  Although they were separate from the current issue, they make it clear that you were aware of Wikipedia's policies against edit warring and particularly 3rr.  When I responded to your question about the tag on Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) I was only aware that you had removed the tag once.  When I looked at the page history and saw that you had by then removed the tag 4 times, I came to your talk page to give you a 3rr warning, but you had already been blocked.  But even if you hadn't been, when I saw that you already had 2 previous 3rr warnings I may have issued the block myself. Edit warring and 3RR are issues that are taken seriously.  Although removing obvious vandalism is an exception, when your actions are opposed by mutiple established editors that is a strong indication that even if you believe there is vandalism, such vandalism is not at all "obvious".  Per WP:3RR, obvious vandalism are "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."  Clearly there were well-intentioned users who did not agree that adding the tag constituted vandalism. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, you might want to read WP:NOTTHEM. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm explaining my actions as well, and I would appreciate your courtesy in the same. -- Avanu (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sarek, you are one of the editors who previously reverted the article to the version Avanu was edit warring against. That makes you 100% involved, and 100% out of the running when it comes to taking administrative action against Avanu. How about filing an edit warring report or asking another admin to take care of this? Sarek you should really do the right thing here and unblock him leaving the matter to an uninvolved admin.Griswaldo (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Editor: Sandstein
Sandstein, I've removed your recent edits. Please refrain from posting, editing, or interacting upon my Talk page.

You have zero business here after that little stunt you pulled regarding the Mexican-American War article. I'd wanted to take that to an ANI, except that I told you I would drop it in order to let things return to normal on that page. But you really are not welcome here ever again, and I will never again ask for your assistance in resolving a situation. We expect good faith of all editors, even more so of Admins, and you demonstrated the worst character in your handling of those events. Not only did you not help when asked, but you escalated the situation and vilified many of its participants. Again, your edits are not welcome here. If you feel the need to respond or reply to what I've said in this section, please do, but beyond that, please don't. -- Avanu (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Access to talk page removed for rest of block
Since you have persisted in hiding declined unblock requests despite being pointed to the language that says not to, I have removed your ability to edit this page for the remainder of the block. I have also removed the hat tags you repeatedly added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, I will henceforth be examining every single contribution you make to Wikipedia, and if I see one more rollback abuse, one more UNINVOLVED violation, or even an 'undo' lacking an edit-summary, you can be expecting an RfC/U. My folder of bookmarks with your name as the title has more entries than the one called 'Doctor Who'. And for anyone reading this, check out WP:HA before you even think about using the word "harassment". ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constabulary  ─╢ 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "standard I'm using" is compliance with clear and simple Wikipedia policies such as WP:RBK and WP:UNINVOLVED. If you're so certain to violate them, then resigning your adminship would be appropriate. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note—the above comment was in response to this since-removed comment. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may, since I have this page still watched - wouldn't that notice be better suited for Sarek's talkpage and not Avanu's. Sarek obviously was looking here, but discussions that don't have anything to do directly with Avanu probably don't need to clutter up his/her talk.  Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
I've brought the matter of Sarek's continued use of tools against Avanu at AN/I. Avanu please consider this your own notification of being mentioned at AN/I, though I know you are unable to respond. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion was moved here - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on AN/I seems to be against the removal of talk page access, so I have restored it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

damn, some troll will notice this ;)
Cheers, 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * vs

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but ok.... -- Avanu (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * it means that Doc9871 thinks you're me. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, after spending the last 15 minutes looking over this cryptic statement and then looking at your IP history in relation to Doc's, it seems he *really* doesn't like you. I had asked him why he seemed to be so willing to characterize me in negative ways, and this must be it.  Whatever the background issues are, this little game between the two of you needs to stop. -- Avanu (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc's the one playing games; he's playing The Most Dangerous Game. ;) I've not looked at your history. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Hi, Avanu; could I politely point out that your own personal interpretation of the episode ("...in stark contrast to the Doctor's 'man who never would' speech...") is considered original research. If you wish that material to appear in the article, you would be required to list a reliable source stating the same. Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  cabinet  ─╢ 21:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are already present. The Doctor said "X" here, now he says "Y". -- Avanu (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid to say that I am sure you are wrong; at the moment the info is out, which I'm fine with. If it's reinserted, I'll start an RfC to gather wider opinions. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  condominium  ─╢ 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Check the Talk page there. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, I have now asked you 4 times to leave it for an admin
Please take your own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am, that's why I took it to a Wikiquette page. If he won't even let me withdraw my own request, and reverts everything, I can't do anything else. -- Avanu (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, leave it to an admin in the sense of don't try and escalate it to WQA. There are plenty of admins at ANI. If any of them think that M's comments need hatting, I'm sure they will do it. You don't need to repeatedly do so yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All this experience is showing me is that taking something to AN/I when you need a gentle and polite hand is probably a mistake. -- Avanu (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else wants a piece
I'm going to take a break. My intentions on helping the editors at the Mexican-American War article apparently have just become a huge mess, and so I'm done for a bit. Comments by uninvolved editors that assume the worst and feel like attacks are not fun. Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
I noticed your post at Elen's. You sound like you've been beaten up! Just to explain on the AN/I thread: it was always going to go downhill once you said that you didn't want people posting. red rag to bulls etc. You did go about things the wrong way. In any case, I thought I'd apologise for contributing to your dejection. DeCausa (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Its not that I mind people bringing up comments, but I really wanted to give it time for an admin to see it without clutter.  At this point its just a mess. It seems like this was the wrong way, but I really don't have any idea what the right way would be. -- Avanu (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu, specfically this[] was counterproductive. When a neutral party sees a long back and forth squabbling between two editors it doesn't encourage thoughtful participation. It would have been fine to ignore Mathsci's comment. One comment isn't significant clutter that's going to keep an admin from commenting. Gerardw (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the comment, it was the link he added. That link was referencing a very contentious and hostile thread that was started by Sandstein.  In it, Sandstein called for a topic ban on several people, including me, and I had been a neutral party.  Several people in the thread commented that it was inappropriate for Sandstein to have included me.  Adding that link alone really amounted to derailing my request from the inital comment. -- Avanu (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AN/I is not the place to expect informed rulings on English punctuation because there is no literacy test on applicants for adminship. I added a note at the discussion. Your posts are sometimes a reminder that it's (not its) advisable to give no less careful attention to the English apostrophe than to the hyphen. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WQA closing
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Gerardw (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC). That was stupid, you obviously have. Anyway, per that discussion I've reverted your edit. If you review the WQA history you'll see three different admins have reverted that closing. Best to let it go. Gerardw (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your comment was supposed to be, it looks like it cut off. Anyway, one thing I try to do often is make sure I follow the rules. If you take note of the guidelines on the Wikiquette page, "How to Help" section.


 * How do I mark an incident as resolved?
 * Use at the top of the section containing the report.

Additionally, Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions says:


 * Resolved: (Specify how this was resolved. Optional signature)
 * "If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the template at the top of the item's sub-section."

The situation was clearly resolved with Consensus. It only became an issue because for some reason Mathsci and Treasury tag and a couple other editors started edit-warring over it being closed. ANY editor can close a Wikiquette thread with consensus. Despite the nature of the comments, it seemed clear that the thread had a consensus. I accepted this and closed it. If you guys want to look at it and find snarkyness, I guess you can, but if no one was wanting to provide comments in line with the guidelines at the Wikiquette page, then there seemed no point in continuing. As per guidelines, I closed it, provided a reason, and moved on. Having a hard time seeing the problem. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting you look at ANI, saw that you had just commented, so I struck out the comment.
 * I actually agree with you. Check out the history [].You closed, Mathsci reverted, then I reverted him. Then Tarc (admin) revert that, following by TreasuryTag reverting that, followed by two more admins, Maunus and Caslibar reverting Treasury Tag. As part of the ANI discussion I moved your reverting closing comments into the body of the WQA, so they are still on record. So, like I said, I'm not seeing snarky but the admin group is and they don't appear to wanna discuss it.Gerardw (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Crazy.... lol. Well, it didn't seem that the WQA was getting anywhere.  Honestly, I felt like that Mathsci guy was just doing everything he could to make my life hard at that moment, but Wikiquette alerts is totally optional for people, and if you aren't making progress, why continue?  As for those admins, it sounds like they need to read the rules for Wikiquette alerts, but people sometimes lose their heads here, I've seen. -- Avanu (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Editing-warring, even in slow-motion, and especially on high-profile pages, is unacceptable. Your repeated attempt to bend Rescue to your will, opposed by four different editors, is not any more justified for your having created a failed attempt at generating consensus on the talkpage. It's bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, discuss, revert, discuss, revert, discuss, revert.... Consider this a warning that continuing this behaviour could well earn you a block for disruptive and tendentious editing. Skomorokh  10:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted on WP:EWN . --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarek, aren't you jumping the gun a bit here? Why not wait until he does it again after the warning to file a report seeking sanctions? I think once an admin gives someone a "final warning" type message, such as the one Skomorokh issued to Avanu, the warned person should be allowed to reform themselves.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * .--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In don't see an edit warring warning there Sarek just you telling him not to make that particular change because he doesn't have a consensus. Had that been a legit warning surely you would have linked it in your report instead of the recent warning I was referring to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A different approach
I'm wondering if reinserting your language into the live Template:Rescue is the correct way to proceed. It appears that some users would characterize your actions as warring. I disagree; I would put your actions into the seeking new consensus/ignore all rules category, maybe pointy, but intended well. I'd suggest let's take a break from editing the template itself, and think about discussing the template language history and a natural progression. Instruction creep has made the template too wordy, imho and I'd like to see a tighter construction. Second, the instructions clearly indicate the template user has a responsibility to make improvements in pagespace or at least take a leadership role in the deletion discussion. If the problem is that many frequent appliers don't fulfill the back half of the process, then perhaps this is an issue best dealt with in instructions. Let's discuss it here, and perhaps create a sandbox for the purpose.

At least three users see a need for template growth, and four don't yet see the need. It would be great if somebody could call some objective eyes. Because the rescue template is both a floor polish and a dessert topping (that is, an official part of the process and a project-operated template), it's unfortunate ARS members can be called without admonishment, while no balancing force for change can be drawn without violating WP:CANVAS. At least you've been able to force discussion in the proper place (template talk) as opposed to the project's backyard (project talk), as was done to me. It's primarily for this reason I don't believe this is warring behavior. Your reinsertion forced the location of the discussion, IMHO. BusterD public (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In a way, I think Skomorokh and I may have already had this discussion about how to proceed. It is beyond obvious that several of these editors will fight any changes, no matter how small.  I can hardly see how it could be called canvassing, if it is part of the consensus process to request outside input.  Those editors seem to be strongly employing a double standard, since ARS says Improvement is the opposite of Deletion, and yet when asked to improve this template, they fight tooth and nail against any change, and as you pointed out above, while actually notifying the ARS members was not called canvassing, my recent request for assistance in getting more editors involved was met with a charge of canvassing.  Its very silly.  The funny thing is, I think they believe they have an inherent right to the current wording, even to the point of calling it the "Article Rescue Squadron's Template". If I were to instead focus on revising the Articles for Deletion template to make it more inclusive of the "Improvement" idea that the rescue tag is supposed to represent, it would make the rescue tag redundant and unnecessary (something these contrary editors claimed about the addition of simply 1 word earlier today).  I think there might be room for improvement in the Deletion process, because in many cases, Deletion is not the only suggestion or solution.  We might merge, incubate, split, etc.  In some ways, one could say that generally this is just a referendum on the disposition of the article.  What if the AfD was abandoned, and we moved to AfI (Articles for Incubation)?  Articles not improved to the point they are ready for Mainspace.  I'm simply looking for solutions, and I think the current inflexible attitudes from some of the editors only hurts their cause, and I think people will begin to notice. -- Avanu (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)