User talk:R. fiend/Archive10

Regarding Place names considered unusual, can I remind you of Wikipedia's 3RR policy. I have now protected the article from editing, please discuss you concerns on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of archived talk page
I have removed a section of your talk page archive User_talk:R._fiend/Archive2 which relates to a living person. This is done in accordance with foundation level correspondence. We have not removed the content from history, so a record remains of the conversation, topic content removal is done to prevent search engine spidering and disparagement of the conversation's subject. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray
It's fine to undelete the article during the deletion review. However, to state in the undelete comment that the article is not the one listed on the AfD, after the listed article was moved to here, is disingenuous. I will assume good faith that your comment was not meant to disparage my action in closing the AfD. —Doug Bell talk 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirby
I'm REALLY confused how you came up with this idea that Kirby will suddenly stop being popular after a few years. He has been around for more than fifteen years, he's the most popular video game character created by HAL Labs, every main Kirby game with the exception of one (Canvas Curse) has sold 1 million copies. At what point do you predict that the fanbase will suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging of God Save the Queen (songs)
There was actually a conversation going on here. Would you care to join us as this is going nowhere. Maybe you could point us to policy, or state where it was noted as standard? Thanks. Look forward to conversing at the talk page. :) Bubba hotep 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology
Even though I feel that you are unfortunately biased against video games on Wikipedia at times, I should have conducted myself better in the Kirby move discussion. Just because I disagree does not mean that I should have acted in such a way and try to discuss civilly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Sulla
Hello, R. fiend. As a prominent contributor to Sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for starting the process, would it be possible to suggest solutions in the discussion section prior to editing the article. I know that I maybe biased here!, but I think as it is now written is very confusing. If it is possible to reverse the edit and await a consensus, I would very much appreciate it...thanks Nick 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, have re-read your suggested compromise, I think it is quite a neat solution. I don't know the protocol on these things, but should you enter it into the RfC on the discussion page, prior to editing the article. If I am wrong, please forgive me, leave it where it is and forget I ever said anything! Nick 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for the assist. Nick 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vincent has reject your and all compromise (including your fellow Sysop User:Xyrael(I can provide transcripts of the mediation if required), is it possible to protect the page from his edits for a while, otherwise I see no end to this...thanks Sulla16 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have argued on the Sulla talk page that the wording on which Sulla16 insists is both unsourced and erroneous; he has not bothered to reply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:DSCF1427.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSCF1427.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to watch you edit summaries
Please see WP:CIVIL. 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re
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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. John254 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Great DAB on Rote
Thanks! That was a major improvement via deletion! --Myke Cuthbert 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sean Heuston
You seem quite active on the Easter Rising articles, can I get some quick input here please. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Murray brockman
Just curious: What is Geogre's Law and why is this article a violation of that? Postcard Cathy 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How cool! You made me laugh.  Well, Geogre did but you pointed me there!  Postcard Cathy 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SSgt.BarrySadler.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:SSgt.BarrySadler.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising
As you may or may not have seen I created Easter Rising. I was thinking it could possibly end up something like 1981 Hunger Strike, so if you've got any ideas as to who/what else could go on it feel free to help. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I believe you deleted sections of the Victor Jara article. Someone has deleted most of the entries into the Trivia (References in popular culture) section of this Victor Jara English article. There has been a delete of the mentions of U2’s song One tree hill and the clash’s Washington bullets and many others – just compare revisions?

Trivia on an article is not encyclopedic but it does provide rudimentary information that can be used to expand the body of the article. Before being removed there should be a tag placed on the article, requesting editors to place it in the body of the article.

Don’t remove information from the Victor Jara article without stating why it has been removed. Thank you. Moshe-paz 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Pearse
Hi there,

I'm currently on WP:RPP patrol right now. An anon editor has requested that the article above be unprotected as they say they have been removing unsourced information while also providing detailed edit summaries. When reviewing, I find that that certainly does appear to be the case and I'm requesting unprotect here, rather than undoing your admin action here. I believe comments to this effect were already made in ANI some days back. Remember (and this applies primarily to User:Snappy56) that anon accounts are editors with the same rights as the rest of us and are not obliged to get an account before editing. The comment, "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", I found to be particularly disturbing, given that this is the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". Thanks - A l is o n  ☺ 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also came across this on WP:RFPP. Alison says on her talk:
 * So there is consensus, yes? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that on the talk page - Alison ☺ 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it either. And even if there is, consensus doesn't override WP:V. And even if it did, it would still be inappropriate for you to protect it yourself given you are in that dispute. – Steel 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkers speech
Greetings. Can you please provide a source to this subjective sounding statement you re-added to the Checkers speech page after it had been removed. Tiggerjay 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Smerge
Found your user page when I Googled Wikipedia and smerge, looking for a good definition of it for use in an AFD. Probably the vast majority of merges should be smerges, to avoid undue weight in the target article. On another topic, Wikipedia will soon reach the milestone of 2 million "articles" and it would be interesting to repeat your previous analysis of the quality breakdown via random article sampling. I would be happy to do my part in it. Regards. Edison 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Love it - I found this when adding a note on Edison's page about something else... ah, Wikipedia serendipity. Thanks for the term - it's a useful concept.  As for common sense - I see less and less here as time goes on., sadly.  Tvoz | talk 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry
How come Ed Poor is blocked? You didn't specify a reason. MessedRocker (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Hi, why did you block Ed Poor, please? Your block summary is not informative. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I unblocked Ed because you never gave a block reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done. R. fiend 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an odd mistake to make... so you meant to block another user then? Which user?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was a mistake, I'm sure an apology would be gratefully received. WjBscribe 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of religious leaders in 1220
Hi R. fiend, I notice that long long ago you voted to keep this list, which was then a paltry and worthless stub. I thought you might be interested to see how far it has come since then! Thanks for supporting it way back then! Adam Bishop 08:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still filling in the names and some of the offices need to be redirected, but you're right, it is a little too ambitious...maybe it needs a different name like "List of Catholic clergy in 1220" or something. The other years will be done eventually too; once this one is done, the whole list will be essentially the same from about 1100 to 1400 (with names changed as necessary, of course). Adam Bishop 17:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

?
Whats going on at Kevin Barry. It appears that you were edit warring, and have protected your version, or have I mistaken? Regards, M er cury    18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kevin Barry.
Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Additionally, please do not apply protection to articles you are currently in dispute. Regards, M er cury    19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Domer48
Since it looks like you were involved in the dispute at Segi, it appears you've blocked a user you were in a dispute with; doing so arguably presents a conflict of interest which could be easily resolved by posting to WP:AN3 (or a similar page) to get the attention of uninvolved admins. That aside, the user is currently requesting unblocking, if you'd care to comment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say what Luna Santin said. Please don't block users you are in a dispute with.  Metros (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, what the hell were you think R. fiend, it is not the done thing to get into an opposing POV from another editor and then blocking him for the same! I have just had a quick look at the edit history on that page and its looks like Domer48 was the least of your worries - yet unsuprisingly/suprising he feels the sharp end of your admin powers - care to explain why those who shared your POV avoided this? As an admin you should know better - rest assured that if your adminship is ever up for recall there will be plenty of editors only to willing support its withdrawal. No warning, no 3RR report + COI = no block. You should unblock immediately.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I have no POV on Segi, as I know almost nothing about them. My involvement in that article was to to re-insert the information of just who the hell Segi are (a Basque organization apparently, the article didn't say that) because for some insane reason it kept getting removed in the edit warring. Domer broke the 3 revert rule. It was a bit late for a warning at hat stage. Hell, I've been blocked without warning when I didn't even break that rule. I don't see the big deal. If I didn't block him someone else would have. -R. fiend (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have witnessed your recent POV editing - to block Domer48 - who yuou are in direct conflict is a big no no, you are supposed to be an admin and show some bloody example. Your actions with regards to this have been farcial.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "If I didn't block him someone else would have" - if you dont understand why you shouldnt have done that then I am at a loss for words. Is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a bad move this block considering it was a content dispute and you were an involved party no matter what your reason it was defo a WP:COI-- BigDunc (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be blocking users with whom you are in a dispute; doing so is easily construed as an abuse of your admin priviledges. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest you have, it creates a chilling effect by implying that users disagreeing with you will find themselves blocked. Not the sort of climate we want to nurture. It's very easy to get a neutral admin's attention. Now, you're free to keep defending your role in the block, in which case I'm willing to bet several of the concerned users commenting here will escalate matters, causing you much further annoyance and potential embarassment; wouldn't it be easier to just say, "My bad, I'll keep it in mind"? – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising Part II
If you have a problem with sourced material, take it to the talk page of the article, instead of just deleting content that you don't agree with, and the issue is not adequately covered in the next paragraph or section.--Padraig (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not stated I had any problem with the information you added, but it dosen't address the issue dealt within the section you are removing.--Padraig (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you stop removing REFERENCED INFORMATION because it doesnt suit YOUR own POV. Are you really an admin?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of suicides/Kurt Cobain
Hi there. In case it's not clear, Cobain is listed on the upper section of the page (I should have said this in the edit summary); what I removed was a duplicate listing that was claiming Courtney Love might be a murderer. Various versions of this content are frequently added by a small number of people and a selection of IP addresses who want to claim that Cobain might not have killed himself; what isn't added, ever, here or in Cobain's article, is references for the claim that his suicide is actually debatable (let alone accusation that Love might be a murderer). I'd appreciate you reverting your edit (which I suppose is a reaction to my lousy edit summary); otherwise, if you want to keep the material as given, it will need serious referencing, as you are accusing a living person of possibly being a murderer. Thatnks for your time. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough
Ok, enough is too much. You may be an admin, but you are expected to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I don't have an opinion on the content, but dial it back about six notches on the sarcasm-tron, please. You are expected to work with other editors civilly, even ones you don't like. Stuff like this is way way way out of line. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I try to be civil, but the attitude expressed so sarcastically in the edit summary is exactly the attitude I'm getting from another editor. He refuses to discuss on the talk page, just posts templates about "original research" for anything that is not a direct quote from another source. He reverts everything I do, including grammar fixes and clarifying sentences that are confusing or misleading. While he was blocked, progress was made, but now that's he's back he's started edit warring to make a point. -R. fiend (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page, at this time. While you're technically still able to edit the page during protection, doing so could draw criticism. Mainly letting you know in case you miss that tiny little "you're editing a protected page" notice. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, second, and LAST warning. You will watch your comments in your edit summaries (whoop-de-fucking-doo is pretty much a violation of Civility and NPA), or you will be blocked. Wikipedia required you to work civily with others, even ones you don't like. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that qualifies in any way as a personal attack. -R. fiend (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Easter Rising
Hi R. fiend. I hope you don't mind but I refactored your latest comments at the talk page and removed those which were unlikely to help attain a resolution. As I've said a couple of times now, because there has been a lot of conflict there, we all have to be especially careful not to annoy each other there. I applaud the spirit of compromise I see developing there, however. --John (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd rather you didn't delete my comments, but perhaps the use of the word "mindless" was a bit much (though, honestly, he's used that term for so many things it's become almost a cry of "I know you are but what am I"). The main point is that he has not made a convincing case for original research in what is basically a completely neutral sentence. -R. fiend (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The next time you make another uncivil remark about me, in either the edit summary or the talk pages, I will post a warning on your talk page. While I may lack the admin tools to stop you abusing editors, I have Wiki Policies that will. You may ignore your fellow admins, I will not allow this type of behaviour to continue. --Domer48 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

 Why not just put this troll on probation? Aatomic1 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, is that supposed to mean something? I don't follow whatsoever. -R. fiend (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Alison I was placed on probation by an involved administrator in repect of the troubles Arbcom for a lor less than Domer -then again he has got Admin mates Aatomic1 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles Aatomic1 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you think I should lobby to have Domer put on probation? Well, there's a reason why I've never started a RfC or any such thing, and that us that it's too much work. I can't be bothered to jump through all the hoops without a very compelling reason. I confine myself to editing and trying to work out article improvements on talk pages (with some deletion thrown in, but with the extra steps that have been added to AFD noms I usually just do speedies and prods). Looking at that clusterfuck of an RfA I'm glad not to be involved in any such endeavor (although it is a relief to see that my opinions of Vintagekits I've developed from my limited interaction with him are shared by many others; and I suppose you can judge one from the company they keep). -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you, as an uninvolved admin are required to lobby anyone - the Arbcom allows any uninvolved admin to take action. I do think you should review the reasons why I was placed on probation. In my opinion I am perfectly entitled to remove myself from probation but I would like that opinion to be properly scrutinised. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A) you are not entitled to remove yourself from probation (as it is an ArbCom enforced remedy), and B) as an active, involved participant in the edit war, Aatomic, R fiend is NOT allowed to place Domer on any of the remedies involved in that. I am now bringing it up on ANI, before this can get all the usual suspects involved and get into the "same old war, the same old way". SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. The exact section is here SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No Kidding
It is not acceptable for an admin to use language like you have, nor should you ever use the toolbox to gain an advantage in a dispute with another editor. (Evidence is at the ANI report here) Do I perceive the situation correctly or is the evidence somehow misleading? - Jehochman Talk 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit the protected page again while discussion is under way. See Protection policy if you are in any doubt about this. --John (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * R fiend, it seems to me it would defuse the situation (which has become rather tense, due in part to your intervention) if you could undo this edit you made. There seems to be a consensus that you should not have made it. I have never undone another admin's action and do not intend to start now, but it would really show good faith if you could do as I ask. Please see if you can help me here. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. --John (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising
Your message: "Hey, Scolaire, I guess you're still on break, but we could use a few sensible minds at the Easter Rising talk page again, if you have the stomach for it. -R. fiend 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

I'm replying on your talk page because of the time lag - you may not be still watching me. Thank you for calling me a "sensible mind", but I'm afraid when I come accross behaviour like that I just lose it! Even reading over what's been posted since my departure makes my blood boil! I referred to that behaviour as bullying, and I stand by that; good sense will never prevail against bullying. The only way out that I can see is to start an RfC, or whatever the appropriate equivalent is, and try to establish that endlessly repeating "OR", "sources" etc. instead of constructive discussion is inappropriate behaviour amounting to incivility. If such a process was started I would gladly contribute, with diffs (and not just Easter Rising). Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising edit war
Hello, R. fiend, it seems to me that you are edit warring at Easter Rising. I see that you haven't violated the the three revert rule, but you are repeatedly reverting contributions by other editors over a period of time. If I'm misunderstanding this, feel free to correct me, but otherwise you need to stop. Remember that users can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't technically violate 3RR. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)