User talk:Shirik/Archives/2011/June

Old cases
I would just like the redirects which have my old username deleted as they've brought some unwanted attention. It's alright to keep the cases, just the redirects with my old username to be removed. --Victory93 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to "unwanted attention", but those old links need to remain existing. For example, your block log shows a link in it which would be broken if the old name were to go away. I'm not understanding why you are seeking out this move without redirect. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is also editing old talkpage archives to remove the old name. I suspect 'unwanted attention' in this case is code for 'people can see how much I fucked around.' I don't think I can move back over redirect; is the snarl of moved SPI pages worked out now? → ROUX   ₪  18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We were actually just talking about what to do in this situation in the SPI IRC channel. We've resolved to leaving the old case pages up as redirects, bringing the archive back to the original comments, and fully protecting things to make sure it stays that way. I think we're all set. Thanks. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What a weird mess. → ROUX   ₪  18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John Sharp, Mark Burns and Lynne Frederick pictures.
Hi,

I saw the notifications and need to ask you for help in rectifying the situation. Could you please advise as to how I need to go about it? Thank you in advance.

Archiveeditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveeditor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What you've done here is appropriate. You need to add the "Non-Free Media Fair Use Rationale" to the other pictures as well. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
I have one last question about the SPI I filed et al. before I put this ugly chapter of my time here behind me; should the Chartered Wombat sock not be tagged with ? Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you choose to, feel free. I opted not to. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner and 3RR
Shirik, I would appreciate an admin's opinion on 3RR. Medeis posted this message on my Talk page. Honestly, I didn't think I was even edit-warring, let alone coming close to violating 3RR. It's true I made many edits, but most of them were just fixes to the article, like correcting the age of one of the women and moving a cite to after the sentence it supported. It's true I reverted a wikilink for penis based on WP:OVERLINK and I did remove some contentious language about the Delaware entry on the timeline (that's what Medeis is actually upset about), but I didn't think I was doing anything that violated 3RR, let alone the five reversions Medeis claims I made. I know 3RR can be tricky, so I thought I'd ask you for your opinion before I go forward contributing to the article. (You don't need to leave a Talkback on my Talk page - I'll watch here.) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ignore it, but don't take that word as gospel. You are just working on MOS issues; the dispute is about content. If it were an ongoing war about MOS issues then you would need to stop (you were doing a lot of reverts). But it's not. To be safe, though, it may just be easier to continue contributing without the "undo" button. People on that page are very on-edge and it is likely they just saw all the undos and got mad without even looking. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I count only two actual undos I did: one for the wikilink and one for the age. The rest were edits. However, the policy is not clear on this issue (in my view). For example, if click on undo, that clearly counts as a revert (even if it's innocuous as here). However, if I edit the material in such a way as to effectively undo an edit, I assume that also counts as a reversion. Yet, if you carry that logic to its extreme, any edit I do that undoes "another editor's work", which is pretty much all we do around here (we "undo" others' work when we change existing material), would count, but that, of course, can't be right. Anyway, I'm probably over-analyzing this. I'll try to be more careful because, as you say, editors are more combative in these kinds of articles. I appreciate your input, and I understand your comments are not definitive if I should ever be formally accused of violating the rule.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney, 100 years of magic
Thanks for your message. Can I just say that I find it really frustrating when admins decline a CSD and then just pass on and do nothing with the article. It's clear that that article should not be included. You were on the page; why couldn't you have nominated it for WP:PROD or WP:AFD? It feels like the admins insist on passing judgements while they leave the tagging to the rest of us. I thought that we were all users... Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you a good editor, and I'm not questioning you personally. It's just a common pattern that I've seen time and time again, and it really frustrates me. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not feel the article should be deleted at all. (For that reason, do not PROD the article either. Take it to AFD if you feel like it really should be deleted.) Yes, it needs to be expanded. No, I do not know anything more about the topic. But I do not consider it "unencyclopedic nonsense" as you so claim. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted: labelling it as unencyclopaedic nonsense may have been a bit harsh. But that's what happens after reviewing many pages (of what is often unencyclopaedic nonsense). The basic content of the article is that Disney had a birthday party and lots of mascots went into the crowd to see the kids. Since notability cannot be inherited, and there seems to be no difference between that and a US college football game, I don't see why it should be included. I assume from your tone that you didn't receive my comment as it was meant. I hope I didn't offend you. I was simply trying to articulate an observed truth. Anyway, take care. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Games Article
Thanks for that. I am new to wikipedia. However I believe the article to be purely promotional. All it says it's that they are a leading retailer with no citations. They just list a load of things they sell as well as 2 products they supposedly are Official UK Distributors of which is factually incorrect. Novotable company has ceased trading http://www.novotable.com/ and the offside football table is not and exclusive product. http://www.trifledesign.co.uk/ It's sold in lots of different places, John Lewis about 10 other websites included so I don't see why this article has anything noteworthy or gives the reader anything apart from promoting the company and it's products. The articles was also created by the companies Technical Director. http://linkd.in/kHwimm Conflict of interests and pure promotional material. Itsmee (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits
Hello, I am sorry. I did not try to offend anyone with my edits. I am new to Wiki. I am trying to edit Gutierrez' biography to reflect his early life, work, and accomplishments. I documented and cited the information. I added his early life, comments and information about his early debut, similar to other biographies I read on WIKI. The current edition needs revision. I would like to work together with you and the editors to make the biography the best possible. Can we work together on revisions? Please let me know how to best proceed to work on a biography. I would reallt appreciate your help. Thank you.--Maryphillips1952 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! I know that Wikipedia can be a little daunting for new editors. But so long as you're willing to work with people, and not against them, we're all happy to help. But do try to make sure you're logged in; that will help it be less confusing for everyone in the future. I see that you've already started discussing on the article's talk page. That's the first step towards resolution of the dispute you're in. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask, or type helpme on your own talk page and, like magic, an editor will be summoned to help you out. Happy editing. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello,

I really would appreciate your help. You are the only one that has responded. I am not sure if you know the other editors on the page and can help me put together the best possible biography together. Sorry to bother you. Thank you. Best, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryphillips1952 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mary, everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, which means not everyone is online and working at all times. I wasn't online last night when you left the message for me, for example. I've addressed your questions on Talk:Horacio Gutiérrez. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Error report
Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was. Please see the logs for more information. I will not report this error again during this invocation. --TorNodeBot (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Error report
Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was. Please see the logs for more information. I will not report this error again during this invocation. --TorNodeBot (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)