User talk:Cbrown1023/Archive 17

Another bird newsletter
Hi Cbrown: Can I get you to send out notification of April's WP:BIRD newsletter on April 1? The link is located at WikiProject_Birds/Outreach/Newsletter_link. Thanks a lot! MeegsC | Talk 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sending out now! :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A very tardy thanks! MeegsC | Talk 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Films newsletter
How are you doing this month? The WP:FILMS newsletter is ready. If you aren't able to send it out let me know, I got a spring break and time to send it if you're busy. Have a great April Fools Day and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sending out now. ;-)  Cbrown1023   talk   01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Googoosh protection
You protected the googoosh article, citing a dispute between myself (as well as others) and Zipbip. The dispute arose from the switching of 'billing' the English or Farsi spellings first. As this is the Wiki-en, I was in favor of the English spelling being first, whilst Zipbip was not.

Since the protection, the user Zipbip has made no contributions, and it would appear that his account is an single-purpose account, (determining such from both Zipbip's contributions and - I will assume Good Faith here - the unintended 3RR violations in reverting the Farsi spelling back to preeminence). It would appear that in light of this, the dispute seems to have petered out. The article is as it should be, and new information (album releases, etc.) is needing to be added. Could I trouble you to remove the Dispute protection from the article at this time? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected  Cbrown1023   talk   01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject College Football Newsletter
The April edition of the College Football newsletter is ready to go out. Just wanted to say thanks for all you do. It's really appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. :-) Sending out now.  Cbrown1023   talk   01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why am I still getting the newsletters?
I did unsubscribe after all, please reply in this section.

Milhist newsletter
Hi there Cbrown, could you send out the WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Newsletter March 2008 per the different lists at WikiProject Military history/Outreach and the Active members list. Much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Being sent out now! :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons
See. Input there is appreciated. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Talked to you on IRC about this.  Cbrown1023   talk   14:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing resolution date
According to this page the licensing policy was passed 18 March 2007, but the resolution itself has a different date. I can't log in on that wiki, so I thought I'd leave a note here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks.  Cbrown1023   talk   01:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008
John Carter (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Approve?
Could you approve me for the en-admins channel on IRC. I filled out a report here and I noticed you responding to Tiptoety. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did before I even saw your message on my talk.   You should have gotten a private message from me with instructions.  Cbrown1023    talk   00:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be frankly honest, I have no idea what you are talking about, or how to do it. Have never had a need for IRC, and as such have never used it or even looked at the page. There has just been an incident today that has shown it is probably best to have it as one of those "just in case" measures. Would you mind helping an incompetent admin out? :D Tiptoety  talk 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think? Tiptoety  talk 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk advice
I am writing to you to seek advice and guidance. You are listed as a "clerk" for the Arbitration committee and so I figured you may be able to answer my inquires. Recently on an article I edit, an admin blocked two users he was in a dispute with on that page, and prior to that blocking, they had protected a page and edited it, in what was not a consensus fashion, nor exempt by the rules of BLP. I attempted to open a RfC, detailing some users discussing the issue with them, however it was deleted. In the case of clear abuses of admin rights, who is suppose to be shown to attempting to resolve the situation? I tried discussing the issue with the admin, however they just assist they are correct, and ignore all points to the contrary. Is there a more direct place to report admin abuse as it seems its not really a dispute to be resolved. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI is a good place to bring up these types of things.  Cbrown1023   talk   21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bird newsletter for May
Hi Cbrown: I hope your month has gone well. Can you please send out the WikiProject Birds newletter at the beginning of May? The newsletter link is located at WikiProject Birds/Outreach/Newsletter link. Please use a combination of the participants list (located at WikiProject Birds/Participants) and the delivery options (located at WikiProject Birds/Outreach to determine who should get what! Thanks, as always, for doing this for us! MeegsC | Talk 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sending out now.  Cbrown1023   talk   00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:OTRS Templates
I am changing the Templates from ConfirmationImageOTRS or ConfirmationOTRS because they are in the Category:Pages using deprecated templates which says PermissionOTRS should be used instead of the above templates. I tried to give an example but could'nt link it. Kathleen.wright5 03:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your reply on KnightLago's talk, thanks.  Cbrown1023   talk   03:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)
I must protest your no-consensus close of Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor). We have a clear consensus of non-sockpuppets. Did you take into account Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj when closing and, if not, will you reconsider, or should I take it to WP:DRV? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't take long... there was no consensus in the discussion. I personally feel the article should be deleted as well but there was no consensus in the discussion, feel free to relist or bring it to deletion review.  (I won't oppose either.)  Cbrown1023    talk   19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's at Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking through your contributions, it seemingly took you only one minute to close this AFD. It's baffling how on earth you could have closed this as "no consensus".  I doubt you could find one admin to agree with your call.  I think you ought to take more care (and time) in the future.  --C S (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that ever-so polite message posted to my talk page. I went through a run of the AFDs, looking at them and if they were clear-cut I closed them.  If they weren't, I left them and then later came back to them.  Don't assume I spent that little time on the discussion.  Cbrown1023    talk   22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your story doesn't jibe with your contributions history. Even assuming that you opened it earlier that day and went back to it later, I don't see how in the run of edits and closures you were doing (at least one a minute), this would give you any more time than the one minute which I've stated.  You've yet to explain your reasoning for "no consensus", merely reiterating your decision.  I believe you engaged in vote counting.  You've said nothing to dissuade anyone from thinking this.  As for politeness, I'm sorry it has to come to this.  But administrators should always be ready to justify their decisions, even if it's simply an admission of making a mistake.  You've done nothing of this sort, and I expect no explanation will ever be forthcoming.  The only thing I can hope is that this episode will act as a deterrent in the future, and that you will either skip AFD decisions that take more than one minute or take the necessary time to make the proper decision.  --C S (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing of Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)
I saw that you have just closed this AfD as "no consensus". I must say that I strongly disagree with your decision. I think that it would have been better to give this AfD more time or, if a decision had to be made now, "delete" would have been more justified.

I'll give my reasons below but I'd also appreciate if you explain to me the reasoning for your decision to close it now as "no consensus".

I have been fairly actively involved in acdemia-related AfDs lately (I think during the last month I have participated in over 80% of them). I had not seen such a weak case being resolved as anything other than delete before. There were no serious arguments put forward by the "keep" proponents other than the fact that the subject is a department chair at Richmond who is well respected and admired by his students and his colleagues. That may well be so, but it does nothing to establish notability pursuant to any of the existing notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. No mentions of his work by other sources (let alone wide citability) have been produced or found. The publication record of the subject is very meager and a substantial chunk of them are essentially self-published (the Algana Associates ones). The people who provided "keep" votes are all new SPA users who by their own admission are either students or colleagues of the subject. Even if they are not actual sockpuppets of the subject of the article, User:Dwyerj, they clearly operated as his meatpuppets, per WP:MEAT and their votes, essentially obtained by vote stacking, should have been treated accordingly. There is an open suspected sockpuppet case at Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. Moreover, the "keep" SPA proponents have engaged in other unseemly tactics in relation to this AfD such as creating a content fork D function when it became clear that Dwyer function was likely to be deleted. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded. The timing of the closure was also problematic. There were two recent "delete" votes (the last two votes in this AfD, from April 25 and April 27) and more people would have commented given a bit of extra time (several regular academic-related AfD participants have not commented on this AfD yet).

Given all of this I don't see how a "no consensus" closure was appropriate at this time. As I said above, I would very much like to hear your reasons. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the above section, hopefully you can have a sockpuppet free discussion at Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27.  Cbrown1023   talk   19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I hit the "new section" button too quickly, before I noticed David Epstein's post. I'll take my post to the deletion review entry he created. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, happens all the time.   Cbrown1023    talk   19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Virtual Aviation Organization (3rd Nomination)
Hi there. I'm curious as to why you closed the Articles for deletion/International Virtual Aviation Organization (3rd Nomination) discussion with a "keep" result. The majority of the users suggesting we keep the article were IP users who had not contributed to Wikipedia before that AfD. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the comments of DJ Clayworth, DGG, and Protonk pretty convincing. The article could probably use work (like one of the comments suggested), so feel free to add cleanup-afd.  Cbrown1023    talk   19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous people Saranda
You have reverted "famous people" section in Saranda. I have added references about them, so I request the rewriting of this section. balkanian (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you format exactly how you want it on the page? It wasn't the subject of the dispute, so I'm sure I can re-add it with the references.  Cbrown1023    talk   19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

just adding their names and their profession, or what they`re are famous for. I am writting a preview in Saranda Talk Page. ok? balkanian (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.  Cbrown1023   talk   19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments on the talk page. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)