User talk:Leaky caldron/Archives/2014/January

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Chuka Umunna talk entry
No personal details were included. If I am wrong please tell me which particular detail you find personal. I believe it is relevant to point out that Mr Umunna runs a constituency office that seems to be operating to mislead the public. Why would it be irrelevant to point this out? Wikipedia is about getting to the truth, isn't it? Thanks Matt Stan (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I did post personal details about myself and I can completely understand that you had no evidence to show that I had given myself permission to post such personal information about myself or that I was not in the process of harassing myself. The Wikipedia guidelines on personal information in the link you gave are quite clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." I'm sorry that I completely misunderstood this Wikipedia guideline and your wisdom in this regard should be publicised to show what a highly superior person you are. Thanks for taking the trouble. Matt Stan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely out of order to publicise that the office of a highly public figure publicly gives constituents misleading information. I realise that this MP is justifiably far too busy to ensure that his office is operating reliably and efficiently. Matt Stan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And no doubt many people will find it adorable that you are acting as a censor for the UK Labour Party. Well done! Matt Stan (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of Chloe Smith's page
Could you please explain / discuss before just reverting? I was adding factual specificity to the article, but you gave no explanation when reverting less than 5 mins later? I trust you're not simply using a bot to do your edits (seeing as how your user page has such a dislike for 'cabals' and 'low criteria for adminship' - closed shop much?)

We all have our political opinions, but please keep them out of wiki editing unless you've got facts to back it up - i.e. unless you're actually contributing new content yourself rather than censoring other peoples' :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.104 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the above talk page, I should mention I intend to revert your revert unless you give me reason not to - this is meant to be your 'right to reply', but from what I can tell you just 'fire and forget' your edits. Would really like to discuss with you first but maybe that is not your style...

Weidenhammer Packaging Group
To explain myself on this: While an editor may have an undeniable conflict of interest, one that in this case resulted in an indefinite block on username grounds, the article they create may nevertheless be on a notable subject. I undeleted the article not to reward them—as I had already blocked them by then, they couldn't edit it anyway—but to let Wily work on bringing it up to our standards, as he deserves to be allowed to do.

If there hadn't been a username issue, we would have asked the eponymous creator account to adopt the usual arm's-length posture dictated by the COI policy.

I hope this explains things. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hi Leaky - may I pick your brains? What to do about a young editor with article review rights, whose occasional/sporadic work has picked up since a recent snowed RfA, and who is struggling in that area and doesn't seem to know it? And who has only just written their first article which was rejected for basic WP:NN reasons but which can be seen was a mess; frankly horrifying as a sample of a finished article from someone reviewing those of others? Do I tactfully tell him so? The talkpage shows that it seems this pickup in activity is due to the RfA and his reviews seem to be exclusively of articles by new users (that's my worry). I don't mind getting involved but feel I need some advice to sort this out carefully and constructively: I'm not involved in reviews and have had nothing to do with him before. Anyway I've drafted a note but thought I'd first ask someone more sensible than I am....Any help appreciated. Thanks and all the best Plutonium27 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , Are you talking about me? - (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you discuss the issues with the editor concerned, using diffs and references to policies and guidelines where appropriate. Stay calm, be polite and discuss your concerns even-handedly, without making actual or perceived personal attacks. Leaky  Caldron  23:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for ! Cheers, LindsayHello 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Living for the Weekend
Hello Leaky caldron. You've nominated a bunch of pages in Darkshdadow1990's user space for deletion. (A list of the 21 Darkshadow MfDs can be seen in WP:AN/RFC). I was thinking of closing all these debates. When I checked out the one named above, I noticed that Darkshadow1990 was actually making one or two large content contributions to the main article. For instance [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Living_for_the_Weekend_%28The_Saturdays_album%29&diff=next&oldid=578926957 here] on 30 October. It appears that most or all of his material is still present in the main article, so people must have found his change worthwhile. People have different approaches to content development, and while this one is unusual, he seems to be following through. How would you feel if I closed all these MfDs as Keep, on the basis that the userspace copies are being used for an encyclopedic purpose? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

SoV
Hey, are you sure you want to but in at a 'crat discussion referencing the wrong policy and threshold? SoV is running for admin, not 'crat... Just a heads-op :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?
Hi. I see you voiced concern about multiple account abuse at User talk:2.217.146.172. Perhaps you might want to review and comment on Sockpuppet investigations/MariaSemple. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)