User talk:PeaceNT/Archive 2

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for signing my autograph book! Cheers, —mikedk9109SIGN 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. β _PeaceNT 16:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert vandalism
Please, do not insult me by calling my edits "vandalism." I believe you had a point in putting the comments back, but I believe I had a point in removing them. There is still some debate about whether or not we, as third part editors, can remove personal attacks in Wikipedia. However, removing personal attacks and arguments that have no significance to the actual discussion is not vandalism and many people believe it should be wikipolicy. I've actually decided to leave the comments, as I feel it better to avoid the page now that I see it is a toxic environment. Please, when editing my edits, don't call them vandalism. You may definitely edit them, but don't try to insult me. Be condsiderate, even if you disagree with me. --User:Lulurascal

My RfA
Hi PeaceNT,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
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 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
Don't worry it is always helpful to get advice. What work, I see something that needs improvement, I improve it to the best of my ability, it's a hobby. I didn't add sources for the Sammy, Cron, Cash and Kai images because I got them from the actual TV episode .... using Youtube. Speaking of adding images, I might add some more now. trainra 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your warning to User talk:67.187.154.208
Ok I Got It. Thanks. King Lopez 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on Articles for deletion/Mrs. Puff
I had a question regarding the Articles for deletion/Mrs. Puff discussion that you marked as "Speedy Keep" after only a few comments and five hours on the afd forum. While I'm not sure I'm convinced the article should be deleted, I'm also not convinced it was a "Speedy Keep" since the nomination raised some seemingly valid points. In reviewing the article I noticed it has no references whatsoever, not even for fictional biographical information, and also seems to make no attempt to meet the "real world context or analysis" recommendations in WP:NOT and WP:FICT. Certainly I was prepared to comment on those issues in the discussion, and it's possible other editors might have as well.

Which brings me to my question - you speedily kept the article, but made no other comments so I wasn't sure what the reasoning was for the speedy result, especially considering the complete lack of references in the article. What was the reason for the speedy close?

P.S. I have tagged the article as unreferenced, fyi, and I'll probably check back on it in a couple months to see if there's been improvement on that front. But I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts on the article since I would normally nominate unref tagged articles that do not improve for deletion after a couple months. Thanks. Dugwiki 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PeaceNT, please see Deletion review/Log/2007 February 9 and in the future be aware that non-admins cannot close anything as "speedy keep". — coe l acan t a lk  — 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dugwiki, in reply to your question:


 * Firstly, I should say articles which lack the references can be tagged as such. Lack of sources isn't a valid reason for an AfD, unless the articles in question show no improvement after being tagged for a while (which isn't true in this case). Anyway, the article now properly cites its source, added by User:AMK152, so this is no longer the issue.
 * Secondly, I quote from WP:FICT "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article". The rule can be reasonably and appropriately applied to the Mrs. Puff. That's why I believe further explanation isn't needed.


 * Coelacan, I'm aware of Deletion_process, but speedy closure of AfD as keep by non-admins isn't prohibitted. I admit it was a mistake on my part not to give a clear explanation for my judgment. I'll add my reasons to Articles for deletion/Mrs. Puff as soon as possible.

Thank you for the input and advice, it is very much appreciated. I promise to be more conscientious about clarifying my decisions from now on. Regards PeaceNT 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your quick reply. However, you're mistaken about the policy. Deletion process says: "Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so." — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had actually read the policy, and did admit my mistake of not expressing my view that the debate should be "speedy-closed". Thank you for reminding me. PeaceNT 11:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We're still not talking on the same wavelength. "Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions" means exactly that. You can't speedy-delete it, and you can't speedy-keep it, WP:SNOW doesn't matter, it's just not your decision to make as a non-admin. — coe l acan t a lk  — 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I've misinterpreted the sentence. Your point is taken, though I feel it's necessary to clarify something: If you take a look at the deletion logs, you may find quite a number of "speedy keep" AfDs frequently closed by non-admins, it was probably why I had taken it as given in the beginning that I had the authority over speedy closure. Now knowing that I don't, I can assure you that I will definitely not repeat the action in the future. I didn't intend to contravene the policy. Thank you for your patience with me and please accept my sincere apology. Regards PeaceNT 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No worries. I guess I haven't noticed speedy keeps by non-admins because I'm not looking for them; I only noticed yours because the matter was brought up in WP:DRV. I'll try to keep my eyes peeled in the future. On a separate note, I'm opposed to speedy keeps in general, because they don't hold as much evidnence of consensus as a full-term AFD does. I've seen articles be speedy kept and then come back for AFD in less than two weeks and stir up controversy again because the speedy doesn't get "counted" as recent consensus. Also, anything that was speedied (keep or close) is very easy to overturn at DRV, and I see this happen regularly. So for articles I've wanted kept, I've (successfully) argued to admins not to close even when the nomination is withdrawn, because letting it go the whole five days gives a sturdier result. Take an article that just passed a full AFD two weeks ago back to AFD and people will chew you out and it will almost inevitably be kept; the same isn't true of speedies. But that's a different matter. Thanks again for your patience as well. Peace, — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, PeaceNT. I just want to make clear my main concern was that the discussion was speedily closed, effectively aborting any chance for most people to comment. The end result probably would have been "keep" or at worst "no consensus", but it still seemed premature to end the discussion after only five hours.

As far as the part of WP:FICT which explains that If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article, that obviously assumes that the article is encyclopedic, which in turn requires that the article be verifiable and (hopefully) meets other policies and guidelines. The question is whether the treatment of a character is encyclopedic if it is unreferenced and contains no real-word context or analysis. Note that this obviously is a fairly broad policy question that delves into all character articles and plot articles, and is one reason why such articles receive so much heated debate on afds. I'm fairly sure there is a decent size camp of editors that could reasonably argue that if a section or article about a fictional character contains only fictional plot elements, then that section isn't encyclopedic and should be either trimmed down or deleted entirely. Obviously that also would imply that splitting off such plot-only sections into seperate articles likewise shouldn't occur.

Personally, I'm somewhat neutral on the concept. My main concern would be consistency in how characters are handled. But I'm pretty confident that the topic, if brought up on the WP:FICT talk page, would stir some good debate. Just something to possibly consider when closing these afd's. Dugwiki 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can be one instance of the exceptions. Anyway, I'm not arguing about this. I understand that the point of AfDs is not only to have the result, but also to discuss, so it would be interesting to see how the debate will go. I'm appreciative of your remarks on the issue. Having learnt from experience, I will surely be meticulous about closing AfDs in the future. Regards PeaceNT 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely, I'm interested as well in seeing how the larger debate goes, and I wasn't looking to start an argument here, and I'm posting anything else specific to the Puff afd on that discussion page. I mainly wanted to put up the caution flag.  Thanks again for the replies! Dugwiki 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers ;) PeaceNT 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

 * ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bj2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bj2006.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC) {| width=100% cellpadding=10px 10px 5px 5px;
 * style='border: 2px solid #9B75AD; background-color: #EED8EE;' |

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice
This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of &quot;Coordinator&quot; for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. --
 * }

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
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 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Israel Defense Forces
I need your help. I'm a noob here, not really femiliar with the way to do stuff But I found this post in the IDF talk page: "Consider this: Almost everything written about a Jew is either pro-jew or anti-jew. No Israeli is capable of actually telling the truth without exagerations in their favour. Be prepared to be critical on whatever the U.S or Israel has to say about themselves or each other, after all, they are in the war on Islam together now arn't they? Hitler was right.."

I don't know what can or should be done. Sorry if I posted in the wrong place.

LiranIIsrael 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out.

LiranIIsrael 12:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith
I know that an editor is at liberty to remove comments from their talk-page (although it is frowned upon). But it is bad-faith, and unacceptable behaviour, to accuse the other editors of 'vandalism' or 'abusive writings' when that is clearly not the case, which is what I was noting - look at de Fanel's edit summaries in the diffs. Michaelsanders 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Vandalism, "on a user's own talk page this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion".
 * That there were comments that I was not willing to host on my talk page, was not something he could ignore. After I told him several times, he could also not ignore that I had every right to remove these comments.


 * However, to manipulate a talk page on which he has no definite right, in order to impose his own views on me, is concidered talk page vandalism.


 * When I concider that some comments adressed to me are abusive, then I say it. Not matter how Michaelsanders hates me. He has no right to impose me any opinion: he can't force me to see any comments that were adressed to me (and which did absolutely not concern him) in the light he chose...


 * That's all I have to say. Michaelsanders is currently being obsessive and even close to being compulsive, I suggest that we should all ignore him until he calms down...He has already ceased to vandalise my talk page, which shows he can improve in a way. Just give him some more time, and maybe he'll stop being delusional. It's better to just ignore him, really, PeaceNT. Folken de Fanel 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You see what I mean (this is bad, his long prose on the Incidents board is worse, and shows pretty neatly what I'm talking about)? Content disputes are one thing, but he has serious attitude problems, which should not and are not tolerated. He needs to be told, or made, in no uncertain terms, to behave properly. Michaelsanders 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of accusing me all the time as if it was a matter of life or death, you should calm down, you should try to concider the situation with detachment. You should try to stop continually fueling this dispute, and after a week without talking to me or making reference to it, you'll probably be back to normal and you'll be able to make good contributions to Wikipedia.
 * You know that there is no "attitude problem", the only problem here is your rivality against me about an article content. You're trying to much to avenge yourself, so please, be reasonable before,it backfires at you...


 * I also remind you that you're absolutely not a part of Wikipedia's administration, so it's not yours to say what should be "tolerated" or not. That you absolutely hate me is one thing. That you make a personal crusade against me is another. If you hate me so much, the solution is simply to stop talking to me, instead of continuously challenging me...Folken de Fanel 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * → WP:DR my favourite page ... Seriously, both of you need to compose yourself. PeaceNT 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship
 

 Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)