User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Friday 1st of November 2013 06:44:53 PM

Reminder: WP:NAC is not policy, it is only an essay. My closures follow WP:NACD (actual policy), thank you.
'''Please place your complaints here. It appears that no matter how an AfD is closed, it will offend SOMEBODY, therefore please place your complaints below. I will read them all, but I will not respond to them if they are rude. I am also likely to ignore your threats helpful comments and advice if your own closures are regularly up for deletion review... I do not take a simple head count of the !votes, I consider consensus and Wikipedia policy. I close Afds that are WP:SNOW keeps. Or if they are hopelessly locked, with three or more relistings, as WP:NOCONSENSUS. If they have less than three listings, I relist. If I closed a 20 day old hopelessly deadlocked discussion as "no consensus", please do not accuse me of doing a NAC on a "controversial" thread, as obviously there was no consensus, and it was wasting everyone's time, and needed to be closed.''' --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undone your NAC as it met none of the criteria listed in the appropriate conditions for a NAC. Please review WP:NAC and restrict yourself to appropriate cases where appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to do so of course, but I think it's a big waste of time. There is no chance of it being deleted. I closed it as "no consensus" because there isn't a consensus, nor will relisting likely result in a consensus, as it has already been relisted... In the interests of saving a lot of people a lot of time, I hope you will reconsider, but if not, it will most likely be closed as "No Consensus" anyway. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  04:30, 5 January 2013
 * You were wrong sue. The article was closed by an admin as a Keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no right or wrong. No need for drama. "No Consensus" defaults to "Keep", so there is no real difference in how the article was closed, just a (very slight) difference of opinion between the closing admin and myself. Since the nominator was angry at my closure for not DELETING it, I am sure the backlash would have been considerably more had I closed it as a Keep, rather than "No Consensus". Either way, the article still stands. It was not deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me say this another way: You were unable to see the consensus that was right in front of you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me say THIS another way... I don't like drama. I try to be very friendly to everyone that I meet on Wikipedia. The last thing I want to do is quibble with somebody, on my own talk page, the difference between a "No Consensus" and "Keep". It is the tiniest of judgment calls. The absolute tiniest. Other than what you are doing here, you seem like a very nice and rational person, so I am willing to discuss this trivial matter with you, but I will not muddy up my own talk page with it. This discussion must continue on your talk page, thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No Thanks.I have made my point PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well then, I appreciate your input. Happy editing! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

acc:XXXXX
Why was this closed as technically impossible? The MediaWiki software is reading it just fine.— cyberpower ChatOffline 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reset the request and am evaluating it. Impossible should only be used if requested usernames don't agree with the MediaWiki software.— cyberpower ChatOffline 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have custom closed the request awaiting a reply. If I gave the impression of being snippy or rude, I apologize.— cyberpower ChatOnline 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable with talking about the ACC tool publicly, could you email me please? I'll be happy to tell you what happened with that. And you were not snippy or rude, you are a gem. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

my question
i want to ask you how can i make a page on wikipedia. And i want people to know my ideas. And i want to make my own page on wikipedia. Please reply soon if i can do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirkhan11132 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am very happy to help! Look for my response on your talk page. I will post some helpful tips for you there in just a bit! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not intentionally stalking – just happened to see this while editing below and thought I'd help. Based on what the user asked, I'm concerned that this is another misguided WP:AB in the making, and have pointed them to some reading material here. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and you are always welcome to stalk my page, you rock! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
Per the WP:RFC and WP:FRS guidelines, I respectfully request your feedback regarding a question of law.

Should the Ugg boots trademark disputes article include example cases of counterfeit consumer goods? Is the counterfeiting of brand name goods a "trademark dispute" when the counterfeiters are taken to court? Also, an editor has claimed that the introduction of example cases of counterfeiting "dilute" the discussion about whether the word "UGG" is a generic term, and therefore ineligible for trademark protection.

Please respond to the survey here with "Support" if you believe counterfeiting is a trademark dispute when taken to court, or "Oppose" if you believe the reverse is true. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thegooddeedsorg
Hi. As expected, this user went right to work performing the same questionable edits to IIMSAM that they had performed as an IP and possibly as blocked user User:Hamoudy113. The edits remove a lot of material, replacing some of it with "See the IIMSAM website", which is inappropriate (i.e. our articles aren't just here to redirect people to externals). There are lots of MOS problems, etc. I really thought this was a slam-dunk for the reject bin. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from their actions, the username can be parsed "the good deeds org", which would seem to be a WP:ISU problem, in addition to confusion with this site if they are not associated with it. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 08:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've kept an eye on them. Consider them blocked. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Cookies
THANK YOU!! I shall pass a few along! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

✅ --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Child protection
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Child protection. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

✅--<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Review
Hi, Thanks for the email, are you the one who is reviewing my article? (WagnerVinci) username — Preceding unsigned comment added by WagnerVinci (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I am afraid that I do not know which email and article you are referring to. Could you link please? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ACC #
There is an ACC request we might need to review. I can't find a reason for why you closed it as you did. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, if you email me, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. :) --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't do talk page and i don't do email for this. Might explain why i never found a response from you in a week. I wasn't expecting it here. Also, you double-indented your comment. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel it's just too easy to accidentally slip ACC personal info into a public forum. So I don't take the risk. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback Request
Hello, I got your name from this list.

Would you please get involved in the article Hog-dog rodeo. As you can read at the following links, Link1 Link2 Hog-Dog Fighting, Hog-Baiting, Hog-Dog Rodeos, Hog dogging, hawg dawgin and hog dog "rodeos" are synonyms for the exact same activity. This article should be moved to "Hog-baiting", so it is inline with the naming convention of the other articles in its classification here. Wikipedia defines Dog baiting as follows:


 * "setting game dogs against a chained or confined animal for sport. The dogs bite, and tear to subdue the opposing animal by incapacitating or killing it.  Baiting is a blood sport used for entertainment and gambling."

This definition fits for Hog-Dog Rodeo, Hog-baiting, Hog-Dawging, or whatever name or idiom you want to call it. It is all the same activity. Please see the two citations I provided above for third-party confirmation. Just because some parts of the world do not call it illegal, does not mean is not Hog-baiting. It is all the same activity, it might be marketed and packaged differently, but it is still the same and fits into the definition of Dog-baiting. Currently, one editor Chrisrus does not like the term "Hog-baiting" and keeps reverting the article, even though I have provided strong third-party citations, he seems to be exerting article ownership and is not displaying a NPOV.

You can read our conversation on the article talk page and see the reverts of the article for the edited changes.

Thank you IQ125 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Give me a day or two to digest all of this. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 00:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

lynas edits
Hi Sue, I am curious as a researcher to ask you some questions about what happened in the development/editing of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynas) which I believe you edited and moderated at least once. You must be really busy, but not sure if possible to ask you a few questions on this??. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattinot (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts. Yes, it appears that I did edit it at least once last year. I don't physically remember the edit, but by looking at it, it seems that I reverted some info blanking back to a clue-bot version. I probably did this while on vandalism patrol. What can I help you with? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Help please, with my RfC?
Would you help me, please with RfC: Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate?

I started it after another user undid some changes I made in the Criteria of an assault weapon section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. On my talk page, the user told me that what I'd done was "scrubbing," told me the matter had been discussed previously (implying but not citing a consensus of opinion among article editors), and just generally treated me like I'd not acted in good faith.

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years, and an editor for quite a few, too - though I am not a very experienced one. I'd never been involved in a dispute before that I can remember. When I realized what was going on (after a revert and another undo), I reviewed the Dispute resolution page and chose RfC. Perhaps I chose poorly, but here we are.

Help, please?

Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers! Unforgettableid (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

✅ --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Hi Sue! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)