User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/05

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the Bird 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) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Respect mah authoritah!"
Oh do grow up. --Calton | Talk 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you'll need to provide some actual evidence of actual consensus for your claims of eternal preservation of useless talk pages, not just of the use of the temporary userpage tag. Useless pages get deleted, 'twas ever thus, regardless of the magical powers you seem to believe accrue to a page by the mere addition of the "User" prefix.

...creates a risk that pages will be deleted due to your miscategorization

That's known as "begging the question", where you assume your conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, it's the furthest thing from "miscategorization". --Calton | Talk 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Change name from "Sex work work group" to "Sex work task force"?
Polling all members of the group to see if they are OK with changing the name of the group. Poll is here. – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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) 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Doug
I was just wondering whether you would mind taking a look at User:Commoncase/Bloodstained_Memoirs and seeing whether it would be possible to move the page back to the main Wiki? I tried the DVR but the page was just archived without a judgement. Thank you Commoncase (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
Could you please adopt me, sorry for the late reply. JordanAshley (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An apology
A while back, I had a bit of a scuffle with you over a fairly insignificant matter regarding a dispute with another editor whom I thought was trolling. I always regretted my actions to you, because I was not on best behavior. This evening, due to a weird accident, I wound up being accidentally locked out of WP for 100 years (that's actually a mild accident compared to what I do offline). Any how, I thought you were online and made a request earlier for assistance. I then realized you were not online, so I deleted the request after making it. To make a short story long, I was seeking the assistance of someone I was not pleasant to in the past. It was a much-needed humility lesson, so I wanted to take this opportunity to say that I am truly sorry that you were audience to my indelicate verbiage and rampant stupidity. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it, I haven't been on very much in the past several weeks due to responsibilities IRL; I don't understand the problem you had but hope you got it sorted out. I think you understand that I thought I could have handled things a bit differently, but that's "all water under the bridge"; no need to go back over it.  Apology most certainly accepted.  And thanks for commenting below.  By the time I'd logged on the matter had already been addressed thanks to you.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem was an incorrectly coded WikiBreak Enforcer (for 2108 instead of 2008 - I would've been offline a bit longer than I expected), but I was able to get it fixed fairly quickly. Thanks, also, for your comments on my Talk Page - it was appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)
Since you are part of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''I know you are an admin, but that was just plain uncalled for. Since warning number 3 was related to calling someone a 'bastard', and then you did it... well, you get where I'm going with this. Stay calm.  a s e nine  say what? '' 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am sorry to intrude, since I was not an original member of this conversation, but I need to point out that Doug was not responsible for the coarse language you are citing. Please see Doug's original blocking post: []. Then see the salty addition from Wikipedian64, who is responsible for the decidedly blue verbiage: [].  Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Disregard this in entirety. Sorry for the inconvenience, I did look through the history but somehow managed to miss this, not sure how. Once again, sorry.  a s e nine  say what?  22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, you may want to consider Don't template the regulars, however, and if you'd encountered me much before you'd know this would have been pretty out of character! I'll request an extended block and/or page protection of this user; since I'm now "involved", I won't do it myself.  Thanks for letting me know about it - one way or another :-).  As an aside - if I had left the above comment on someone's usertalk page, especially in a warning, I would deserve to be reported at WP:ANI for administrator abuse and I'd treat this as a request to give up my adminship.  I'm glad that's not the case though.  Thanks Ecoleetage for noticing this!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked an experienced admin to take a look and see what if anything needs to be done. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAC
Hi Doug, I just noticed your post on User talk:Ecoleetage, and I completely agree with your sentiments and efforts in helping Eco be a better NAC-er. I didn't realize that WP:NAC is different from WP:DPR, and will use the latter link when discussing non-admin closures with editors in the future. (Essay v. Policy) Thanks for tangentially fixing my own linking! Cheers, Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Like your humour
In relation to the block of this user here very nice, i like it and i think that taught him a lesson he will never forget. I guess you got to shake it up a bit regarding the messages, you know talk in a language they will understand. Keep it up  Roadrunnerz45  (talk 2 me) 05:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You apparently didn't notice the thread above or check the page history - the blocked user refactored the block message.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Like your humour
Heh heh heh, I just can't stop laughing! It's so dang FUNNY! Oh my god, I'm on the verge of tears, oh gosh, it's hilarious. Roadrunnerz45 actually thought you... Haha, haha, dang, that's gotta be the funniest thing I've ever seen. Hahaha, oh, man... that's just hilarious. Wikipedian64 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

refactoring
Sorry I took so long to respond ...

Yeah, it's clearly inappropriate. I would say, though, as long as he's only vandalising his own userpage, there's not a whole lot of harm he can do. I would say probably not in and of itself something to block for, but it does certainly warrant a warning and might justify watching out for further abuse. (If he had been blocked at the time still I would have said protect the page.) It's certainly not indicative of cooperativeness, in any case.

Sometimes these shenanigans go away on their on if you don't indulge. If more stuff comes up, don't be afraid to let me know.

Hope you are well. - Revolving Bugbear  22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
(moved here from User talk:Pbsolomon for unified discussion)

Hi, I noticed that on the "Editor Assistance" page you were willing to help with some advice on deletions/verifiability. I posted a page on Norman_Ralph_Bowen and it has been listed for deletion because some editors feel he is not notable enough. Would you mind looking the article over and giving me your thoughts on notability, etc? I would really appreciate it. Pbsolomon (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the article and I have several thoughts. First, it does give a lot of personal information about the subject that is of marginal if any notability.  For example, his education and military service are not likely of any interest to Wikipedia users in general, only to family and friends of the subject and extreme specialists.  Some background (birth town, birth date, studied at Columbia, degree in Remember this is an encyclopedia.  Second, the article certainly asserts importance for the subject in the lead, but the article references his status as a "correspondent for the Wall Street Journal" to a single article rather than a WSJ listing of their correspondents, etc.  If anything, I'd think the article should at least reference three or four separate articles.  Does the article refer to him as a "correspondent"?  If so, maybe a simple parenthetical comment would do.  Is the article available online?  Not required but certainly helps when defending against deletion.  Also, if one article does make a WSJ "correspondent", then it may not equate to notability.  If, on the other hand, this is just an example article, I would guess that a regular WSJ correspondent would be notable.  Third, you might consider disclosing your relationship, which has been questioned several times, rather than simply saying that you don't have any COI.  The question of how you got an unpublished family history and how that is not WP:OR at the very least is a serious question.  I don't presume COI, but if I go to the Vanderbilts and ask to see an unpublished personal diary, then reference it on Wikipedia, that's still Original Research and not allowed.  If, however, I find a (reliable third party) published analysis of an unpublished personal diary of a notable individual, that I can cite on Wikipedia.  Finally, I advise strongly against making "threats" to go to DRV or Mediation if the article is deleted.  These are just processes, they aren't weapons.  Experienced participants in XFDs don't make their decisions based on future potential actions by the opponents of specific deletions.  A better solution would be to ask for help and request the article be undeleted to your userspace so you can work with an experienced editor to excise the overly personal material and add more citations.  This of course, only if and when a deletion decision is rendered, but the debate is open for several more days.  One more point, if you decide to revert other editors' edits to the article you should at least leave an edit summary and, better yet, discussion on the article's talk page.  Let me know if you have more questions or want specific advice.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. Being a Wikipedia newb, I did make a number of mistakes in how I handled this listing initially. I will certainly try to find additional references from the WSJ and others that indicate notability. When I posted the entry, I had no idea that WP articles had to be about "notable" subjects, and so I have been surprised to see the caustic response of some editors what what I felt was an acceptable (but by no means extraordinary) article about an interesting man. I will also probably remove the material that references the unpublished family history. Again, thanks for taking the time to look my the article over. Pbsolomon (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)