User talk:Tbsdy lives/Archive 7

Could you please explain...
The record shows you deleted File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg. Is there a reason you didn't wait for my efforts to get an OTRS from the Red Cross to complete? Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When you have the permission, then we can restore. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * May I point out that the deletion of the image considerably complicates the clarification of the OTRS? How can Red Cross staff be asked to confirm permission for an image they can't see?  Geo Swan (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for participation
You are invited to join the discussion at. Amsaim (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (Using )

WTF.
Have you gone completely mad? How can you possibly undo an another's admin action without at least discussing it with them? Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your block was not particularly wise. Let's discuss this on ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he has not gone mad. It ain't wheel warring until you revert Tbsdy's action.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've noted my reversal on ANI for community review. I don't think the block was completely unjustified, but given the time frames I think it needed to be reversed as this seems to have come to an end. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your DRV closing of User talk:Spartaz
Please undo your out of process closure of my DRV request. There is no policy basis on which to do close this request, and even if there were, you as an administrator who appears to be involved in a conflict with Spartaz should not have done so. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

IP thread
I removed your thread regarding the IP vandal from ANI as the vandal seemed to take it as proud recognition of his efforts (WP:DENY). I forgot to mention in the edit summary that I was manually archiving it rather than merely removing it. Equazcion ( talk ) 14:17, 19 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, a wise move. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That "big-ass IP block"
Is right here, per request. This IP range has been used over a number of days, contains basically nobody else behind it, and is now hardblocked for two weeks - A l is o n  ❤ 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I wasn't following the threads so I missed that little bit of drama :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop
Stop challenging Spartaz about his management of his own talk page, or else you will be blocked by me for harassment. Is that crystal clear? Jehochman Brrr 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wha? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's obviously aggravated and unhappy. Let him be.  :) Jehochman Brrr 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh? I've not done any criticising of him about his talk page. Except for the fact that he deleted it and fully protected it? I've not said a word in over an hour, so I've not got any idea why you thought it a good idea to threaten me with a block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wha?
What on earth are you talking about? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. A bit trigger happy today are we? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For God's sake man - that was all done and dusted about an hour ago. There was a. no need to threaten me with a block, and b. no need for you to add that talk page message. The only reason people were adding notes to his talk page because he had fully protected it. Far out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the page get deleted, undeleted, deleted and then protected. Not by you, but you did add fuel to the fire.   I am glad it's out, and that you agree nothing else needs to happen.  Rock on.  Jehochman Brrr 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tbsdy and I aren't on the best of terms, but he's exactly right here. Spartaz was misusing his tools to delete and fully protect his userpage. And he did so repeatedly. That isn't acceptable talkpage "management" in any way. Sandstein and Tbsdy approaching him about it is not inappropriate at all. Scott  aka UnitAnode  15:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And now he's been driven off. Nice work!  What a sad display of hamfisted administration. Jehochman Brrr 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Evidently you've come in late and you have no clue what was going on. This has been discussed to death on ANI, if you want to comment then go there but perhaps get some info before you go to snap judgements. Accusing Unitanode that he drove the admin away is insane - he was the one who got blocked inappropriately! And, yes, the consensus was that the block was out of line. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of all doubt, please provide a link to ANI, and diff of your notification to the blocking admin, please. Jehochman Brrr 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Jehochman was brought to ANI for making threats. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-polite comment by me
No. Enough of polite robot-style warning templates and other... I hope he sees the comment and has a feeling of something human, to let him know someone thinks that way. Now, if you don't mind leaving me alone.. Cheers, -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Diablada discussion: Personal Attacks
Tbsdy, I'm getting quite tired of Ereb's personal attacks against me. Moreover, per his last post, now he's also stalking my actions in Wikipedia. User:Dentren has been involved in this discussion in the recent past as well; and several times Erebedhel has contacted him and praised him as "a very valuable wikipedian." Tbsdy, there can be no good discussion if this user purposely evades my sourced information and constantly gets emotional over the situation in order to draw attention out of the focus of the discussion.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence of Personal Attacks:


 * "MarshalN20 apparently find it amusing to argue in his mockingly way"
 * "apparently MarshalN20 didn't study in depth this subject":
 * "is trying to pick a fight on a very tangential matter":
 * "you're recurring to this low methods":.
 * "I sadly feel MarshalN20 sometimes has a ...need to fight with someone":
 * And that is just a minor compilation of the aggressive personal attacks this user continues to bring upon me despite you have asked us to focus on the material. I am attempting to be as kind as possible, but there is a limit.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I think MarshalN20 is spending a considerable amount of effort not in having a constructive discussion but to try to subdue me and when I don't follow his games he recurs to mock me, it's clear in the talk page that he wasn't acting civil and constantly recurred to ridicule my arguments, I requested several times to stop that conversation as it wasn't relevant at this point but MarshalN20 got more aggressive and his arguments started to get more personal and offensive completely out of the main topic, the conversation is right there and it's evident that I'm not the one who pursued this discussion and pushed to the other party, furthermore I suggested a methodology to avoid this kind of situations. I'll request that MarshalN20 don't recur anymore to use the argument of "Erebedhel is emotional" as I consider offensive and is not constructive, he has no right to mock me in this way. Besides attitudes like these  aren't helping to the process either.  Erebedhel   -  Talk  21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Folks, I don't think that there have been any insults or personal attacks so far, at least not until each of you have accused the other of personal attacks :-) Erebedhel, I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Marshal to some degree here. You initially raised an issue about personal attacks in the mediation discussion, but I couldn't see any such evidence. I did see that Marshal was fairly forthright in his opinions, but I think you need to separate passion and reasonable argument from being attacked. I still can't work out where the personal attack is, can you please quote this for me? (Marshall, please don't respond to this, let me work this out). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No I believe I was misinterpreted, I didn't raise the personal attack issue (MarshalN20 did  there isn't any diff where I accused him of personally attacking me on the talk page if I'm mistaken please correct me) what I said was that the discussion reached a dead point and carrying it on wouldn't be productive anymore . The discussion was due to a comment I made on my description of the lead where I said that the usage of Autos sacramentales through t the entire article wouldn't be neutral because there isn't consensus among historians to whether consider it a product of the introduction of the Autos sacramentales or a dance named Ball de diables thanks to the discovery of Julia Elena Fortún the last one is often quoted         but MarshalN20 consider her view a minoritarian view based on the sources he mentioned, I think that each one said his reasons and there wasn't more point to argue about it because we weren't addressing a specific content issue, for me the discussion was over. But MarshalN20 started with comments about my "emotionality" when I never expressed anything like he hurting my feelings or offending me, honestly I think that attributing your arguments to your emotions when you're trying to have an intellectual discussion is mocking, so he started with this:
 * "I'm sure you hold much appreciation for the work of Ms. Fortun (You even created her a page)", "I'm sorry Ereb if that hurts your feelings"
 * Then repeated it Why do you get so emotional about these things?- Also, Tbsdy, please (please please) tell Ereb to leave out his emotions in this discussion
 * Then recurred to WP:NPANPA Furthermore, he is personally attacking me (twice!)
 * Then again please put yourself together
 * Then he kept doing it
 * Went to the Morenada article and continued an old fight unnecessarily
 * And started canvassing


 * I don't say is a personal attack but it's evidently uncivil to recur to say constantly I'm being emotional and things like that when I'm not saying such things, in my responses I never raised such accusations but he put it in my mouth to make me look ridiculous and this really doesn't help much to the process.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right - who said what is not really my concern though, it is enough that the personal comments are irrelevant to the article and not helpful in productive discussion. If I asked Marshall not to mention anything about emotional states, and you could just ignore anything that seems to be insulting (or message or email me so I can keep the drama down and off the mediation page!) then maybe we can work things out. Would that be fair? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that now that we're focusing on the real content we should make a rule of avoid accusations on both parts. If the conversation reaches a tense point any party could chose to end the conversation or pause it then ask for your advice, I think it should be clear that we're building consensus here and not see who wins.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that his contributions have a lot of value... same with your own. Definitely let's not worry about comments of a personal nature - Erebedhel, while I agree that comments on your emotions aren't really terribly relevant, I don't believe he was trying to attack you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no not at all I never considered them direct attacks but I can't think of a really constructive answer to comments like "I'm sure you hold much appreciation for the work of Ms. Fortun (You even created her a page), I'm sorry Ereb if that hurts your feelings", because that's not the point in the conversation. But let's move on I think the conversation is back on track. Thank you Tbsdy for your patience.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Sometimes people make it really hard to assume good faith. Oh well... X X X antiuser eh? 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know... but this one might not have known about the OR policy :( Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy
Since you declined the unblock request, I feel you should read this note I left the blocking admin. I don't feel I should post it in reply to rp on his talk page, as he may blank it, therefore I'm telling any involved admins in regards to RP's assertion that Ab's note is false, when it is in fact RP.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Tbsdy lives
Apparently you have been engaging in meatpuppetry: Sockpuppet investigations/Tbsdy lives. ;) Cunard (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that is too good! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects
Hi TBSDY, Do you suppose you could please provide some details on why none of my arguments at the late Talk:United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects prevailed? I feel that, since the federal laws on that subject combine many concepts (e.g. involuntary medication, insanity defense, incompetence to stand trial, etc.) dealt with in other articles into one set of statutes and rules with a common case law, it would be good to have that centralized article. Also, there are some specialized procedures involved in the federal system of dealing with mentally ill subjects that I don't think are covered elsewhere. Tisane (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the talk page comments, this duplicates work in other articles. If you feel that this is wrong, please take it to WP:DRV. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I pretty much hate WP:DRV. It tends to be an uphill battle, partly because there is no viewing of deleted articles by non-administrators. But, let's see what happens. The outcome can't be any worse than what has already occurred. :) Tisane (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD
I was in the process of asking the tagger about this draft article. Seems fully sourced, and not truly an attack page ... you've already deleted it, so I removed my question from the tagger's page ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually emailed oversite about a few diffs from that editor. None of the references used on the user page are from reliable sources. As I've deleted the page, I'm not sure I need to get oversite involved on the deleted material, however I did consider this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Breuss


Rudolf Breuss is very well known across Europe, he has developed a 42-day fasting program and he cured more than 45,000 people of cancer and help many other cure of other diseases. He has wrote a book "The Breuss Cancer Cure" and it is sold officially by Amazon. His book was sold in more than 1 million copies. His treatment can help millions of people who desperately need hope and connections. It is also a German version of Rudolf Breuss on wikipedia so an english version is imperious necessary for USA/Canada living people. Stefandicu (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tbsdy, What did I do wrong about Rudolf Breuss? You have it in German here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Breu%C3%9F, why did you delete the English version?

Thanks a lot for everything.

Stefandicu (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefandicu (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All that it had was a hangon tag. I see that the previous revisions had no references, but I didn't delete that copy. Might be best to take to deletion review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tbsdy, Rudolf Breuss has helped more than 45,000 people to cure of cancer and his book was sold in more than 1 million copies all over the world. I represent a group of volunteers who supports Rudolf Breuss cause and our mission is to help people understand that there are cures for treating incurable diseases like cancer and leukemia, but also to prevent them. I have personally know 2 friends who were supposed to be death by now according with the doctors and they are doing very well. Rudolf Breuss's treatment can help millions of people to heal and many other millions to prevent these problems. You are keep saying about references, I gave you the link from the book "The Breuss Cancer Cure" which is officially sold by Amazon, I gave you the link from the wikipedia in German versiona and the link of our website that we just started to help people connect with each other. I appreciate a lot what you guys did with wikipedia, however if these facts are not so important to you, I will take is as your policy and I will definitely respect your decision. I really hope you will consider my message and will proceed further with your best knowledge.

Stefandicu (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tbsdy, I still did not get any answer about the Rudolf Breuss article. Please let me know if you need anything else or if you came to a final conclusion. I would appreciate a lot a fair answer. Thanks a lot for everything.

Stefandicu (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did Tbsdy lives delete List of animals from "King Kong" (2005 remake)?
Tbsdy lives, why did you delete my article? I had references and everything! Wesley J M (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it, and your newer "list of" both are WP:FORKs, and duplicated information elsewhere? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bwilkins :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry i did that stuff WP:FORK stuff, i'm new to Wikipedia and still learning the rules. Please don't delete my other article, what do you say Wesley J M (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)?

Deletion review for United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects
An editor has asked for a deletion review of United States federal  laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sorry, I forgot to give you this notification earlier. Tisane (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changsha Medical University M.B.B.S & B.D.S
This should not have been deleted, because I merged content from it to the real page on the university Changsha Medical University. Having done that, there is no alternative to keeping the redirect because of the licensing, absurd though the redirect was.  DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * nor do I think that Sakha in United States of America is the sort of "group" that A7 was meant to cover. Not that it's a satisfactory article, but presumably it can be fixed. I know I have the ability to restore them myself, but I always ask first.    DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG, you can always reverse my deletion decisions - I appreciate you notifying me though :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephenson Harwood Article
Hi,

Is it possible for you to unsalt Stephenson Harwood so that the article (Stephenson harwood) can be moved?

Thanks! Shsing (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done this for you. Finally I see some assertion of notability. I've restored the previous revisions. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Friday Band article
I saw that you got rid of my Friday Band article on February 12th 2010. WHY!!! I have their albums and since nobody created a page for them I thoguht what the heck but you got rid of it, look they are an 1980s American rock band, you better have a good explantion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneMCummins (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll respond, as I have looked at the article in question. First, have you read the policy on conflict of interest?  Second, someone else tagged it under WP:CSD A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.  There is absolutely nothing in the article that asserts why they your band was notable.  I've done a little digging, and still cannot find anything that makes the notable for musicians. Did they chart a top-10 single? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paolo I
Wondering why page was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskinge (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clearly referenced. In fact, you claim that they got a Juno - but none of the references that you provided confirm that.  None of them confirmed the Diamond certification.  In short, the person failed WP:MUSIC, and therefore the article was deleted as promotional and unreferenced. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AOL vandal
Remember our discussion ? I suspect the same person is back again and being discussed here. Since you seemed interested in pursuing this thing to the end, I was wondering if you had any ideas as to the next step in the process... the subpage discussion seems to have gone quiet and I want to get this thing decided one way or the other, or else find out what, if anything, AOL had to say about any abuse reports filed.

I'm also thinking about a policy proposal to get more assertive about filing abuse reports early on instead of simply blocking IP ranges and zillions of sockpuppet accounts over periods of months and years. The current WP:ABUSE team seems to be indefinitely on hiatus becuase they're "building a tool" or something. I think we should focus the abuse reports on our most egregious trolls and really press them, not focusing on the one or two edit flyby edits done by a bored kid one afternoon to give his buddies a chuckle. Thoughts? &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Takedo_panacea (Edegonz)
Dear Tbsdy_lives,

I am writing to discuss and contest both the speedy deletion of the Takedo_panacea page for the company Takedo Panacea and most recently the deletion of my Edegonz user page. You (Tbsdy_lives) wrote "Patent nonsense.". To bring you up to speed with other recent bashing RHaworth wrote, the pages were "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "Wikipedia is not a free host. Please publish on your own website.". Similarly, Kuru wrote, my page was "so far off the mark that [him or her] would not know where to begin". Harsh attacks on my character and both the company's legitimacy & intent, but I can expplain.

First of all, I want nothing other than for me to follow your guidance (assuming you'll provide it) and for us to come to an amenable agreement without in any way bringing discredit to Wikipedia, an organization I admire and deeply respect (to prove my admiration I just donated $500 on 19:37, 21 February 2010):

Second of all, I would like to say that I can see, most definitely, how experienced Wikipedians such as yourselves on first glance would flag this page and/or warning lights would shoot up in his or her head. Third, I am not interested in free hosting. It's an insult to a company that it cannot afford $10 per year for a host. I personally have 2 websites of my own and setting up their domains took less than an hour and just $20. To prove it would it help if the company owner contact Jimmy Wales to donate $500 to Wikipedia? But this is beside the point and makes money an issue when it shouldn't be. Moving on...

I can understand the "unambiguous advertising" label. This Wikipedia page is simply a descriptor page for a company and not a marketing gimmick. As you'll see the page has no direct or even indirect links for purchasing anything or even contact information to facilitate such so please reconsider this pejorative label if/when I try to upload this page again for this company. Next, "patent nonsense" is also understandable but only when in the context of this being a first glance of the page. There are lots of non-profits whose aim is to promote love, education in the art of eastern mysticism, spiritual practice, and alternative forms of "conscious" holistic healing. All of the above categorize the company. I do not find this as nonsense. Odd, sure, because the company is new and in the eyes of this editor unestablished but allow me to provide further support for my position.

Before I proceed, I just wanted to say that I can even empathize with someone who would think to qualify this as a Wikipedia "Conflict of Interest", but I hope that this person can also see that I've followed most of the other rules to the best of my ability (e.g. third-party sources) in making this page live for Takedo Panacea. I've tried to write in as neutral tone as possible, but I am willing to tone it farther down and AS FAR AS you expert Wikipedians would like for increased legitimacy. I do defer to the community's opinion and will take the editors' advice very seriously and reassess all future edits.

Ultimately, I think that this page, although it's on a company and not an individual, would qualify as a justifiable Autobiography per-se. Why? Because I believe this company is notable enough, which is substantiated by the depth and rigor in referencing the hundreds of internal and over-a-hundred legitimate "notes"/external references, which at the least can serve as educational for anyone interested in the field this company is participating in. Again, I defer to the consensus of the community, but I find it a little frustrating that there are dozens of pages for small bands and one-hit-non-wonders while this page is finding considerable resistance. I'm sure you try to discourage those small entity writers as well, but I really just hope some or all of you actually spend the time to read this company's page and understand that this is a real page, about a real & legitimate company, and with a consistent message throughout. It's got depth and others who are reading it are finding that it's a work of art in itself even though it is yet unfinished (I suppose it never will be due to the beauty of Wikipedia).

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and address this post on your user space.

Cheers. Edegonz (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to take this to deletion review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tbsdy, I will but I need to develop more notability and verifiability to give myself a fighting chance. I'm getting badly bruised in discussions with Kuru and RHaworth. =)  Edegonz (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the deletion for Save Cahuenga Peak?
Hi - I'm wondering why this page was deleted? This is a campaign to save public land in Los Angeles, it is not "marketing / promotion". It is a notable event - covering the Hollywood Sign and the campaign to protect the land around it is akin to covering Mt. Rushmore and campaigning to protect the land around it.

The campaign is garnering international attention and a large groundswell of support from the public. If successful, it will add 125+ acres to Griffith Park, one of the most visited parks in America.

http://news.google.com/news/search?q=cahuenga+peak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.239.7 (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like information that would be better served as a section inside the article for the peak instead of an article of its own. It would need to include facts-only discussion of what needs saving, why, and only minor mention of how. It's the peak that's important. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On WP and conflict
Before I start: I've posted on the pages of a few editors with whom you are currently in conflict, but please don't take that as partisanship. I try to like everyone until they kick me directly in my behind; and despite the near-impossibility of missing such a wide target, I've only received a couple of boot-prints on the hiney. I especially try to talk informally with users whose real-world views I disagree with, mostly because I simply can't do it in real life and would run a serious risk of living in an echo-chamber if I didn't try to do it here. (I tried it once on Facebook, with the people I went to grade-school with.....Yeah. Not gonna do that again. Apparently I need my opposite-view chat partner to be someone with whom I have no fraught emotional history....) So this isn't some Wiki-political attempt at social climbing, double-agency, or anything else really. I guess I'm largely here to ask: How are you doing? I noticed on a couple of pages your references to suffering from depression; that lovely little nightmare is a part of my life as well, and I've noticed that if it sometimes doesn't get WORSE when I'm in multiple conflicts (no matter where), it certainly doesn't IMPROVE. And you seem to be in.....yeah, I'd call it "quite a bit" of conflict. Honestly, I don't pretend to understand where it all comes from--I've had a fairly craptacular RL week, and so I had missed the genesis of most of the drama; suddenly this morning I logged on and the whole AN-AN/I axis was calling for your head, or calling for the heads of those who were calling for your head. (And all I'd wanted to call for was some breakfast.) I haven't done the intensive study of diffs, old grudges, and who-said-what-to-whom's required of a truly EXPERT Wiki-dramaticist, and frankly I have no intent of doing so--again, since I don't feel the imprint of any Doc Martens below my tailbone, I can assume that no one has kicked ME recently, and so I'm comfortable remaining on good/decent/civil terms with almost everyone. But I do worry that all this howling and yowling re: the propriety of you keeping your scalp has maybe not had the best effect on you just as a human being, and as such I just wanted to say: Keep your chin up. It's a website; granted, an important one, but "important" for a website is.....well, that's a low-ish bar, ya know? Definitely not worth sacrificing even a speck of your equilibrium (...contentment, functionality, happiness, whatever...) over. You've got an actual real life--how old is your son now?--so don't let some goofy Wikipedia-conflict upscuttle you too badly. I mean, if you want it to go away, just....I dunno, kinda slow your roll on the whole adminning thing--but if you don't want to do that either, then I guess just try not to take it to heart too much.

Now I am going to go eat bagels and watch crappy TV. Take care of yourself, okay? GJC 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (Edited: holy hell, what kind of formatting atrocity did I just perpetrate there? Maybe a nap is in order here.) GJC  00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! You know I read that entire paragraph and I understood every word of it. That is the biggest paragraph I've ever parsed :-)


 * I'm OK, I think I've managed to keep my head but for some unknown reason I managed to stay up all night, and my dad and my brother just came over from ages away and I dug holes and mowed my lawn and tried to work out if my house is about to fall down around my ears. Sadly, I still don't know!


 * It's been a total roller coaster for me. When the last ban mobile rolled around, I actually sat back and laughed at the ridiculousness of it all - this made me feel better, though not for the poor sucker who was hounded out of one of Giano's articles. The farce became better when someone got upset that I corrected a typo on one of their talk messages. Apparently I was a perpetuator of dishonest edits, however because I did this good faith and with good intentions this doesn't make me a dishonest editor. I know, you try working that one out also - I sent a number of fruitless talk page messages to him, but he eventually decided I was a troll and it was beneath his dignity to respond any further. Along the way I discovered that my talk page seems to have a cast of thousands of watchers, and that there is someone called TungstenCarbide who is a banned sock puppet who pops up every now and again to hurl abuse at me, right before I block them to oblivion and roll back their edits.


 * My depression is under control really, which is surprising given a total lack of sleep last night. It's partly to do with the medication I take, which in some ways gives me the beautiful ability now of carrying out do-not-give-a-fuckism. Thich means that when people want to ban me from articles I've made a good faith attempt at reviewing - and where I made my intentions known that I'm willing to research it - I sort of don't care. It's a rather freeing and liberating feeling. What's nice is that their many insults are like water off a ducks back really - so when Giano, et al. tell me I'm a liar I think "that's nice, but you're wrong" and go right back to the point again. I've actually found that the politer and friendlier I am, the more they hate me and the angrier they get, which I find a bit unusual. I've also noticed that when I stay on point, they believe I'm trying some sort of smokescreen and I'm trying to outplay them in some way. It's really all quite absurd, and I frequently shake my head at the whole shenanigans. The only disturbing moment was when Giano suggested I shove an olive branch up my arse, which I'll probably take a pass on but if some people enjoy this sort of thing I guess each to their own?


 * The issue that occured here was I was discussing incivility blocks and Giano as usual made his normal negative entrance into the thread causing the usual confusion and discord. However, this time he was attacking Chillum for not being as great an editor as he, but decided to ask admins to review what he called an edit war on Blenheim Palace. Of course, that always gets my interest, so I had a look and I found that there wasn't much to really be concerned about, other than him picking on an editor who had the temerity to try to make changes to his article, which Giano is modifying in his user space. I read through the article, and I have to say my interest was piqued, so I started by making some suggestions, and eventually noted that I would actually be interested in doing some research. To this I was told I couldn't as Giano had no intention of letting my edits stick because his rewrite is the only one that will be allowed. I sort of objected to this, thinking this was really an ownership issue but I noted that I would be happy to work with him. At this point he noted that this will never happen and that my general level of incompetence was such that I could never add anything.


 * As it turns out, a bounty had been offered before I had even noticed Giano mention the article. Later when Giano had sufficiently harangued and intimidated that editor he removed the bounty, which I readded as it was still current. He of course reverted the bounty template again, saying it made the page look "cluttered", so I started a thread asking why it was being removed, to which Jeni responded and explained that she had put the template back again.


 * Interestingly, some time later Unitanode came along from nowhere and this time removed the talk page history template and the bounty template, with the explanation that it made the article look "cluttered". This was really news to me as most articles that have been to FARC have the article history template. Of course, this was reverted again by Jeni, who put them both back, but Unitanode persevered and this time only removed the bounty board notice, which I reverted again. He of course reverted one last time, but this time he accused the bounty editor of violating POINT and self-aggrandizing by adding the template. When I attempted to ask him on his talk page why he thought this, he basically told me to go away and blanked the thread. So I took it to ANI, as there's not much you can do when this sort of thing occurs except do this. I noted that I'd discussed it with him directly and asked someone to comment as I wasn't sure whether bounty board templates should be removed like this. Of course I got a lot of grief from Unitanode, but I was expecting this. Soon, Equazcion came around demanding why I hadn't tried direct discussion with the editor, so I pointed out I had and that he'd blanked the page. I suppose I forgot to tell Equazcion that in the first few sentences I had actually clearly stated that I'd tried direct discussion on his user talk page, but who bothers reading the first few sentences of issues on ANI anyway? Far too boring. However, the diff to the blanking gave him some pause, but rather than make a decision on ANI (oddly, I don't believe he's an admin...) he archived the thread and told me to take it to the talk page. As this pretty much guaranteed that an edit war would occur I undid the archiving and noted what was going on. Eventually Equazcion decided that perhaps it might be a good idea to look into what was going on, and found himself somewhat surprised to find that I actually had a point and that there was no good reason why the template had been removed. He demanded it's restoration, to which Unitanode claimed the issue with the template was that it used an image of a pirate, and this made the template "cluttered". He tried to compromise by adding a collapse box around the bounty template, and hid it automatically, but Equazcion was having none of this and demanded that it be shown. Fair enough I thought, finally some sanity - this was what I was saying all along. I further pointed out that the boxes have a standard layout that is different in width and style to a collapse box, and in fact the collapse box made the article look even more cluttered.


 * Following so far? Well, interestingly Unitanode decided that it was perhaps a good idea to restore the bounty box, and so added it further down the page. Equazcion claimed a fair victory for all right minded men and that we had peace within our time, however I pointed out that the box had been removed because Unitanode had accused the bounty editor of gross disruption to make a point, self-aggrandizement and clutter of the talk page, all of which he had just proven false by readding the template. Apparently this made me a very tendentious editor, so at this point it was time to teach tbsdy a real lesson.


 * Three ANI threads later about either myself or Giano (the third of which was filed by someone who said that apparently I had been disruptive, but when pressed wasn't able to say where) there were still disputes occuring and so I thought that it might be best to make a compromise. This was roundly rejected, apparently because the word "compromise" in certain quarters means don't edit on the article at all and give in to all demands Giano might make. Given that Giano has a tendency to use peacock terms with gay abandon and isn't particularly crash hot on referencing, I noted that I could help here after he completed his userspace change. After quite a bit of argument, mainly stirred up by Equazcion and Unitanode, it was proposed on the talk page that an interaction ban with Giano be voted on along with an outright ban on the article be had.


 * When I objected, they filed it on Talk:Blenheim Palace anyway. Of course I thought this a bit strange so never having had this done to me before I noted what was going on on WP:AN and WP:AN/I, not feeling certain which board would be the best venue. Apparently this is admin forum shopping, and I am a coward and drama queen for going to these venues, which is fair enough I suppose given that they wanted to ban me from a part of Wikipedia that I had been trying to improve. It appears that is, of course, what one does these days. I suppose there is a sort of sadistic logic behind it all, but I am not a clever enough man to work it out and I get confused easily, so I rather not think about the whys and wherefores of this issue.


 * Well, to cut a long story short, the thread was moved to WP:AN, and after it was divided into small and arbitrary sections it appears that nobody had any idea why Equazcion or Unitanode wanted me banned from the article. The sections made things worse, as discussions were going on about unrelated issues in those sections, so I decided to remove the sections. I then made a suggestion that the issue is that the summary of the matter was really the root cause of this confusion, as unless you had been following the drama you would not have known what on earth I was being banned for. Of course I was reverted by Equazcion who refused to write a better summary, so confusion continued to reign supreme until a surprised and somewhat stunned NuclearWarfare, who had been following the other 4 threads previous on ANI, decided to archive the thread completely and tell everyone to take a timeout.


 * For this I was accused by Unitanode of deliberately "muddying the waters" and sowing so much confusion nobody knew what going on, and of course his new found ally Equazcion was more than happy to pile on.


 * However, on a brighter note - my baby boy Matthew is extremely cute, small and lovable. So is my little toddler Emily, so I take solace in the warm love of my wife and children. This makes it easier to remember that this is just a website. This, combined with the medication, makes life so much easier. Certainly it has been difficult previously for me, and in fact the burnout that made me scramble my old account password was, in fact, largely caused by my severe depressive attacks. I am happy that I can now edit on Wikipedia again, and that there are still really good people like GoodDay, Ludwigs, yourself, NW, and a whole host of other folks that are reasonable, bright, funny and just a plain pleasure to be around. :-)


 * Does my ramble make sense? Certainly it feels cathartic to type it all out :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually READ this last night. However, attempting to reply, I was impeded by total exhaustion, of the sort that was manifesting itself by a total inability to type without falling asleep mid-word. The result was very much in the realm of "cat-like typing detected" and was able to be read only by a non-human audience. (I've written e-mails in this state before--oddly, it has nothing to do with intoxicants of any kind. When my batteries die, they die suddenly and sharply; the best simile I've got is this: it's like a small child who insists "But I'm not tired!!" over and over; then suddenly pauses, yawns once, and falls asleep, in the process performing a perfect face-plant into their ice-cream dish.) Now, at the moment, though I could probably manage a few good sentences, I'm not sufficiently high-functioning enough to respond to that very long, serious, and well-written message in an appropriate way....but tomorrow will be another day. I just wanted to acknowledge that yes, I have read it, and yes, I do plan to reply. Now I must go get a dish of ice-cream. (Turns out French vanilla is a great moisturizer--though once a week I try rocky road, as it's a good exfoliant.) GJC 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr (HAW!) Half  Shadow  03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, if you'd read it you wouldn't have missed much. You are much better off for having made that decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's erm....some catharsis you've posted there Tbsdy. I'll drop you an email. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My wife is on medication for her depression. We have been together for 22 years (today!). I like to believe the two are unconnected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I'm sure that is the case :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
It's been a while since the wiki folk of Sydney had the chance to meetup - and there's quite a lot going on. If you've never been to a meetup before, you're especially welcome, and if you're an old hand, then please do make an effort to touch base :-) You can sign up here, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or anything - hope to see you there! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Tbsdy lives for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Simpleterms (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved from my user page. Simpleterms has been indefinitely blocked now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection
Personally, I take a perverse pride in the frequency with which my userpage and (to a lesser extent) talk page are vandalized; Matthew 5:11 and all that. If I'm not angering the occasional thug and vandal, am I doing my job? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, usually because you deleted the autobiography that says that although they rode the bench in college football, they were some kind of town folk hero. Of course, they usually write it 10 years later when they're living in a double-wide that is older than them, and using the local library computers to edit Wikipedia between shots of Mad Dog 40-40.  They love to vandalize your userpage, don't they? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More often, it's either a garage band or a college club; sometimes a non-notable candidate for office looking for free publicity, or else an earnest but obscure non-profit trying to save (or ban) something or other. WP:ATHLETE is clearer, and frankly I can't be bothered in most cases, since all jocks are obscure to me (I doubt I could correctly name any of the current starters for the Brewers or the Bucks). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[[

Restore of Bethel Lutheran Church Manassas page to user area
Can you please help me out in getting this page restored to a user area under k1goalie? Thanks much. K1goalie (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi, as someone who has been a bit critical of my behaviour in the past, you may be interested in contributing to Editor  review/Ash. I promise to try and stay thick-skinned if you do want to chip in. Cheers, Ash (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you have been (and in fact you are) a very good editor, but I don't really go into editor reviews as I don't see them as being terribly useful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Help
I left this message on the upload talk page but I want to make sure someone sees it I need to have this file Deleted, Please help

Please delete file: >File:Myself2004.jpg< It was not licensed corectly, It was uploaded prematurely. It's too large needs work. Totaly my falut I will work on image and upload it again, but please delete. Thank you Mlpearc (talk) 10:04 am, Today (UTC−8)

Thank you Mlpearc (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated
I've noticed you're protecting quite a few pages which appear to have been deleted only twice with the rationale (repeatedly recreated). Isn't this technically incorrect as a page which has been deleted twice has only been recreated once not multiple times. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of "repeated" is to do something several times. Several times means anything done more than once. By creating the article a second time, this means that the page has been repeatedly recreated. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on, I see what you mean. I think that's arguing semantics. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is..." ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Retirement
Call it semi-retirement as there are still too many things that piss me off, I won't be as active as before, but not totally retired either. Thank you for your message nonetheless Justin talk 15:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AOL Proposal
Hi Tbsdy. Just wanted to let you know that I archived your AOL-blocking proposal from CENT. (It had been listed since Feb 7th, and hadn't had any edits since 23 Feb). I wasn't sure if anyone had contacted AOL, or taken any steps, so I wasn't sure how to summarize it for the Archive. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article
Hi i did an article and you deleted it, it's about Jad Aizarani ; i dont know why did you delete it ?? can i repost it ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JadAizarani (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On a guess, I'd say WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:N to start ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris redirects
Belatedly I realized that not only did you create most of those redirects, but it does make more sense to use the (redirecting) specific names to allow for list expansion. Unless you say otherwise, when I come in tonight I'll undo the redirect portion of that edit, but keeping the new entries. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Chris Craig, yes or no?  He doesn't have his own article but features prominently in the redirect target article.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think leave it as a redirect... might as well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My. Gosh.
I just want to say that if ever I have had cause to want to emulate another admin, that would now after viewing User:FayssalF/JK! You are one amazing contributor, FayssalF. If we could all be like you! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We learn from you, Ta bu! -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Long, Lost, WT:Incivility blocks
Oops! Well, for starters it should be archived for a view and taken off CENT. I admit I've kind of let this slide past me in the midst of being busy, but I think it'd be unfortunate to get zero guideline or even well-founded essay for later promotion. Right, so, from what I scrap together on the whole discussion:


 * The core principle of creating guidelines or detailed enforcement in some form had a consensus.
 * This issue is one of additional concern at present in line with longer-term goals of making Wikipedia more friendly to new editors.
 * Extremely few editors participating were completely opposed to any further detailing of possible blocks per incivility.
 * A very vocal but small minority in the last few segments stopped most any momentum in its tracks. Their concerns were completely reasonable but give a tilted weight.
 * Both the collective presentation in edits and sheer participation weight demonstrated a consensus that the standards at present are not acceptable at "letting things slide", especially for administrators.
 * Talking points in these cases were lacking in policy, though a major point of this is to cover gaps in understanding that would normally be cited.
 * The concept of an escalating warning system akin to disruptive was not taken to well given the nature of violations as being personal and not merely revert away from resolution.
 * A consensus formed that there should be no specific line in the sand that counts as a "100% violation" similar to a 3RR violation.
 * Length of blocks would preferably be short, as a matter to prevent escalation in the short-term. Informally, the thought being a Trouting with some bite.
 * (Personal opinion and assumption:) Longer-term, larger-scale and/or events not immediately present (akin to RPP and AIV enforcement being declined) could still be filed with possible warnings given.

I do not feel it would be appropriate to marked the proposal as "failed" in any versus the "Proposed" template, as this was mostly to test the waters before more detailed writing.

I wouldn't have thought it this complex to develop even a small enforcement mechanism to back up one of the five! I know it's been awhile on this topic so I'd understand a "meh" attitude, in which case could I at least trick you into archiving the talk page cluster? I end up with scoldings as a non-admin when I try such things. Many thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)