User talk:FloNight/Archive Aug 2007

Charlotte Bisman
Flo, give me a chance, please. You know me, I'm an experienced editor, I've written a lot of articles, and even deleted a fair number. Give me a few days to write this article, then, if you still feel it doesn't prove Notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, nominate it for AfD, and let people argue about it actually seeing if it's notable or not. Surely a BLP speedy deletion isn't supposed to save the subject from the donations she uses to buy her artificial limbs, is it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi AnonEMouse :-) I think you should let the DRV run its course since you started it. If it is found to endorse deletion then carefully read the reasons given by those that argued for deletion. Then evaluate if you you can overcome them by writing a new article. I will be glad to discuss it with you. As it stands now, I'm not seeing an article here, truly. Sadly, her medical conditions are not rare so she is not unique; She is not special in that she is xxx-est...like the tallest person. The mentions in the news media seem trivial. I do not see enough for something other than a mention in another article. The biographical material is mainly from her family and reads more like notations in a baby book than an encyclopedia biograpy. These reasons do not give me much hope that an encyclopedic quality biography can be written. Take care, FloNight 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I feel sure I can prove notability in a new article, I just don't want to be desysopped for trying! An hour-long documentary is not nearly a trivial mention. The reason I started the DRV is that I don't want to be accused of recreating BLP-deleted content without trying to discuss it first; I gather you don't see that happening, and agree with Tony that I could rewrite the thing if I wanted? Since you were a prime writer of that arbcom admonishment, I'll value your opinion on that rather highly ... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is good that you are discussing it instead of undeleting it!!! I do not see any BLP issues that keep the article from being created but I do think the speedy deletion was valid because it does not meet notability. The BLP issue is about whether it is possible to write an accurate well-balanced biography about an young child that is no longer being covered by the media. The media coverage seems to talk about the incident of her illness and medical care...like a medical case study. I prefer that you let the DRV run its course before you decide. I recommend that you carefully evaluate whether creating another article on her is the best course of action based on the comments. Just because you can do it, does not mean that it is the wisest thing to do. FloNight 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD of Soldier (Party)
Is it possible to have a look at the AfD log of the Joseph McNamara article, or even better, to see an archived version of it before its deletion? Thank you.--Victor falk 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on their user page. FloNight 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oversight
Hello. I am posting this message on your talk page, as you are identified as an individual with oversight permission on the English Wikipedia. On July 7, I sent a request for oversight to the appropriate email address. On July 8, that request was partially completed. Unfortunately, since that time, my (several) requests for follow-up have gone without reply. On July 18, I posted a message to the talk page for Oversight, which has not yet received a response. If you could please take a look at that message, and if you could please assist me with the remainder of the original request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! j   talk   20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on Wikipedia_talk:Oversight FloNight 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy FloNight's Day!

 * Replied on Phaedriel's talk page. FloNight 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm so happy that you liked the modest gift, my friend :) I had been planning to visit you for months now, but between my own lack of time, and seeing you so busy, I kept postponing it... but not anymore! :) You deserve this little celebration, and so much more. I hope to keep seeing you at Quote and Source - we have much work to do over there, and your dear presence is so welcome. I hope you've had a beautiful, wonderful Flo's Day! :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All my best wishes for FloNight day. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And from me too. Well deserved! ElinorD (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the kind words. :-) FloNight 10:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some Assistance
Hello :

Am looking for some help in your capacity as Arbitrator.

BACKGROUND:

Had posted a request for Arb on Swami Ramdev page about a week ago.

Swami Ramdev[]

Per your suggestion and as outlined in the dispute resolution process, I have tried the following pre-arbitration steps:


 * Asked for next-step suggestions from Arb Clerk and volunteer 3rd Party
 * Need Some Assistance on Arb []
 * Swami Ramdev Arb - 3rd Party User Sanchom[]


 * Requested opposing user to use:
 * Mediation through Mediation Cabal (Item 56 - Swami Ramdev edit []
 * 3rd party involvement (Item 60 - Swami Ramdev Request for Arbitration)

[]

Though I have heard from all the uninvolved parties mentioned above, there has not been any response whatsoever from the opposing user.

Consequently, I am writing you seeking some guidance regarding next steps

BASIC ISSUE:

Briefly, I had created some content on the page, mainly biographical in nature, using information from the organization's official website in concert with the following WP:EL guidelines quoted below

- WP: EL

Important points to remember

1.Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

2.External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end.

3.Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.

What should be linked

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any...... --

The opposing user is deleting this content saying it is not cited from a reliable source since the official website is not a 3rd party source.

REQUEST:

An opportunity to clarify this issue vis-a-vis interpretation of existing guidelines WP:EL and WP:RS

Thanks for your time !

Wikipost 00:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For the interest in my ArbCom case. May I ask you to look review discussions at Proposed talk and main Workshop in particular? All parties have various questions, proposals, suggestions and so on and while we have hardly reached any consensus, most of us seem to agree that current proposed amnesty will not help us, and we are also disappointed with lack of any comments by arbitrators to our months-long discussions on those pages. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion
Hello:

Thanks for your prompt response !

Be happy to follow your suggestion on my talk page

(Hi :-) Seems that you are moving in the right direction towards reaching consensus. The key to reaching consensus is getting more experienced editors

involved. This takes time...likely will be weeks before enough discussion from more editors occurs to decide consensus. I encourage you to continue following

this path. Take care, FloNight 12:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request some assistance in regards to this:

1. Could I assume Wiki Policy does not state that third Party sources are the ONLY acceptable references for a Reliable Source ? (As mentioned above in my previous posting to your talk page, I quoted WP:EL as not just allowing but also suggesting inclusion of citations referring to an enitity's official web-site as an acceptable source)

2. Per WP:DR I backed off from edit warring in this matter after about 3 reverts total. The current version of the page does not contain the content in dispute since it was deleted after I backed off. Given this and the fact that there has been no acceptance by the opposing user on 3rd party involvement or Mediation - I'm unsure how to invite feedback from other editors. (The uninvolved volunteer 3rd party,, who I think is also an admin, suggested that an RFC is placed only AFTER 3rd party involvement has been attempted (Swami Ramdev Arb:[])

I am mindful of not hogging your time and would appreciate some clarification of these items at your convenience.

Best Regards

Wikipost 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga
This notice is in the interests of transparency. You should by now have received over the arbitration mailing list an email from me giving notice that Violetriga has resorted to wheel warring over the biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which was, of course, going with consensus and was undoing an unexplained and unacceptable deletion. The fact that the name was not removed from the destination article is quite comical as that would've been the appropriate BLP action to take, but the fact remains that it has been discussed and accepted that the name should be included.  violet/riga (t) 09:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nursing WikiProject
Hey! I'm on a mission to get the Nursing WikiProject active again. If you're still actively editing nursing articles, or are still interested in this project, please let me know on my talk page.  J o s h  14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking
I did ask Jimbo. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Courtesy_blanking

From what I read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_25#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBadlydrawnjeff, Jimbo made it clear that he intended to blank all sections of the Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff page, it was just that he did not get around to doing it. Ergo, I was merely doing what Jimbo meant to do himself.

I am not entirely sure what the policy is with regards to Courtesy blanking, but it seemed that in the Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser case, the entire purpose of the Request for Arbitration was relation to Internodeuser's request to have the Request for Arbitration page deleted. If the others have merit, then that one surely has even more. Since there seems to be a pattern, established by Jimbo, I thought that this was reasonable. Internodeuser, who runs Wikipedia Review under the username Blissyu2, has made about 1,000 statements on Wikipedia Review all pleading for Jimbo to please courtesy blank that page, so I think it is safe to assume that it fulfils the criteria.

I also note that the ban on User:Zordrac was not authorised by Jimbo, the Arbitration committee, or the community as a whole, and was intended merely to serve out the remainder of the 1 year ban against Internodeuser, as a result of his request to have the Request for Arbitration removed. Since the ArbCom took that to indicate it was a "legal threat", and since their 1 year has expired, and there were no other remedies suggested, surely therefore the deletion of the Arbitration page fulfils all requirements for that user to return to Wikipedia.

I have asked Jimbo to review the ban on Zordrac by User:SlimVirgin, who gave no reason for the ban, and was opposed by many admins. If you personally feel that Zordrac should be unblocked, then feel free to do so.

123.2.168.215 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Reply on your talk page. FloNight 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An important letter
Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 *  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats
 *  master son T - C
 * SonTalk
 * ( [ →]O - RLY?)

Request
Hello,

If I want to request a log entry in the history of an article be deleted (one that made an edit that is no longer in use), how would I go about that? Can this be done?

Thank you for your indulgence...

Jonweasel Talk Page


 * Answered on users talk page. FloNight 15:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Email
FYI, I've sent you two emails. JoshuaZ 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)