User talk:Violetriga/archive10

Archive 10 – Posts from December 2006 to July 2007

Buffalo * 8
It has to be done, and I've done it for you. I recorded the spoken version of Buffalo buffalo...for you. :) --Caninedoubletake 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got to listen to the whole thing. You've done a fantastic job - well done!  violet/riga (t) 14:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

MoS(LoW)
Any thoughts on Manual of Style (lists of works)? Sorry to repeat, but it's been very quiet there, despite my requesting comment at literally a dozen top-level pages! Humble thanks :) --Quiddity 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Np at all on reply delay :)
 * A few months ago Radiant went through a number of guidelines, marking them either historical or accepted. He marked WP:LOW as accepted. I was wondering if I could simply mark it as accepted again? (because I posted notices for feedback in about a dozen prominent/pertinent places, but have got almost no replies since mid-October). Thanks again :) -Quiddity 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional people who were cremated
You sent this to VfD in August of 2004. It's still around. Someone tried to delete it recently using the new WP:PROD process, but it's ineligible for that. Since I see you're around again some, I suggest you take it to AfD again. I bet it gets deleted now. The community is a lot more deletionist on the whole these days. - crz crztalk 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK hook
That's a really nice hook you wrote for the Rouse Simmons article. I made the comment there that you "get it" and thought to share some humor that I almost posted on the DYK suggestion page:
 * ...that the Mediterranean mantis is capable of virgin birth? -- self nom House of Scandal 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This hook may be too short, interesting and sensible. We may want to go with "..that the Mediterranean mantis is a mantis, is from the Mediterranean, eats flies but will also eat things which are not flies, has six leg-shaped legs, and is not generally considered a member of the dolphin family?"  House of Scandal 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice one!  It feels good to get something into DYK after a long hiatus.  violet/riga (t) 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive comments by famous people
Sorry that your article was deleted. I'm not sure if I would have said keep, but it's astounding how many people "voted" on it as if it were a list. It's just still more proof that some people don't look at the articles on AfD, they just go whichever way the wind is blowing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK replacement
The hook for your DYK suggestion is fairly obvious. I mean, toy safety laws are there for a reason. So children don't get hurt! Another admin had told you the hook was not very appealing/interesting, and that itself is sufficient reason to deny a DYK hook from being on the Main Page. I don't appreciate the fact that you replaced a DYK on Next Update with that of your own. If yours had been missed, then it would have been okay. However, we already stated the problem with the hook, and unless you were able to find a more interesting hook (adding that bit at the end didn't really help), it should not be on the Main Page.  Nish kid 64  23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Toy safety
Nice and interesting article, but: If an entry is disputed, don't add it to the template until the problem is resolved. Cheers, --Camptown 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as an acceptable dispute and that user has not responded, hence it being a valid entry. violet/riga (t) 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that self-selecting is a valid option. I was away over the weekend and could not respond. Also many admins agreed that it was not appropriate, thus it was not selected by them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-selection is acceptable and certainly does not warrant a wheel war - please discuss this further. Your objection is invalid as it is plain false and other admins did not add it simply because they saw the words "object" as a reply and not necessarily because they agreed with it (else they'd have commented too).  violet/riga (t) 02:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which user?  Nish kid 64  02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I agreed with what Blnguyen said and I didn't respond. If he said something I agree with, I'm not going to drop by just to repeat what he said. We already gave you a sufficient explanation. Unless you can radically warp the hook to make it more interesting (find something in the article), it will not be on DYK.  Nish kid 64  02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agreed with him then you could easily have responded to my reply to him rather than simply ignoring it. Sorry but you are not in charge of DYK and do not have the final say in what happens there.  I believe it should be there, is a good article, and has a good hook - just because you don't doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.  What is the problem with it actually being there in the grand scheme of things?  Seriously?  violet/riga (t) 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very simply because it was discussed and you didn't get your way so you put it up anyway. That's why there was a discussion with generally a consensus against self selecting. What's the big deal with it not being there. Reverting it back in twice is rather innapropriate. - Taxman Talk 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you at least re-write the hook to make it more interesting? It's pretty lame, and that's the whole point. It states the obvious. How about: ...that many toy safety problems have arisen when babies play with toys intended for older children? I'll see if I can find something better.  Nish kid 64  02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The deaths of babies and children and millions of products being recalled isn't interesting? I'm sorry but that's where I'm lost.  violet/riga (t) 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you know should have a hook that is appealing/interesting. I think it's a given that toy safety issues have resulted in many deaths over time. Moreover, what do you think about my proposed hook?  Nish kid 64  02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note a discussion at WP:DYK here. violet/riga (t) 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it is too short and doesn't convey that gravity of my hook, not mentioning the fact that countries impose standards that are frequently not met, the millions of toys recalled. It is written passively, "problems have arisen" does not convey the idea of death.  I thank you for your attempt at a rewrite, but think that mine is better.  I'm trying to think of an alternative wording at the moment, and am finding it difficult to improve on what I think is already more than acceptable.  violet/riga (t) 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Template:Did you know
Any more reverts will lead to you being blocked for violation of the 3RR. Nacon kantari 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People should talk then, as they've violated the far more important WP:1RR. violet/riga (t) 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Toy safety
Thanks, it was a funny one in that only the battery on the back of the toy showed up on the x-ray. I assumed that he'd just swallowed a watch battery. Was a big surprise to see Simba staring back at me when we removed it! Nice article, BTW, as usual! -- Samir धर्म 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Toy safety, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! See, a better hook, and now it's on DYK. =)  Nish kid  64  16:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's best to check modes before dealing with Main Page imbalance. I removed an ITN headline to balance the Main Page, but apparently, I only made it worse for those people working in 1024x768.  Nish kid 64  21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Rouse Simmons, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

featured topic "constellation" icon
I really like the Image:Cscr-featuredtopic.png icon that you uploaded, and I was wondering if you could design a version of it to be used for candidates (like Image:Cscr-candidate.png) and failed candidates (like Image:Cscr-former.png). Those two would be useful for talk page tags so that FT nominations could be easily distinguished from FA nominations. Thanks! --Arctic Gnome 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take a look when I have some time soon. violet/riga (t) 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tempest Prognosticator
I added an image which I think is old enough to be PD but too crappy for the mainpage. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I was considering doing the same but never have confidence in the whole copyright status of images! violet/riga (t) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN
Have been trawling through the Bad Jokes pages and I just wanted to say I thought you handled the conversation about the HANS device brilliantly. You displayed an enormous amount of class. Coricus 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's a very nice thing to say. It did get rather tedious but at least it was easy enough to fix.  violet/riga (t) 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cock throwing
Thanks. I'd never heard of it either until I wrote The Four Stages of Cruelty. By the way, I've suggested Tempest Prognosticator for the April Fools Day DYK (because it sounds like it should be one, especially with the nom you've written), you may like to comment here. Cheers, Yomangani talk 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I've commented there. violet/riga (t) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

 * After some fiddling around, I've begun making progress in cleaning-up Breastfeeding. Since you had such a significant role in the article's original improvement drive, I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions you might have as I try to bring it back to an FA-worthy level. No hurry - I have lots to work on..... Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Phantasie III Human.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Phantasie III Human.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

boxes
Wikipedia is not a design contest. Whatever your affection for colouring an entire template purple - using inline styles can often conflict with stylesheets causing horrible colour clashes, and possible illegibility. See also Accessibility. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that guideline, but having a plain white box is not good aesthetic design and makes it far less clear. Once reverted please ensure that you start discussions without going on an edit war - you've tried this before on various templates and I'm sorry but you are not right to do so.  I will reflect on your compromise edit.  violet/riga (t) 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "plain white box" which is "not good aesthetic design" is the de-facto standard for infoboxes. If the community felt they were either unaesthetic or unclear something would've been done about it by now. If you think that using purple makes it more clear then I couldn't disagree more. If you feel there needs to be some contrast between the sections, a horizontal rule should be sufficient. ed g2s &bull; talk 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While you may disagree you can't then go and edit war to enforce your own preference. You are talking about de-facto standards but that is for infoboxes - this is not an infobox.  While there are commonalities between other forms of templates too there are also lots of navigational boxes that utilise (very well I might add) colours.  violet/riga (t) 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion
Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmographies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachmanTC 11:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons guest cast members
And your reason for removing the category from articles is? Note: "The category has been nominated for deletion" isn't a good enough reason. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you stopped blindly reverting me and asked this question, though no doubt you would've got an answer more promptly had you asked it in a nicer way. The category has been deleted and was being depopulated.  violet/riga (t) 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could just edit summaries. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, hurrying, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Online Music Store Comparison
Over on Talk:Online_music_store you wrote that you were going to do a comparison table. I wrote one here: Comparison_of_Online_music_stores using the simple one you wrote as a template. Hope you don't mind. Chevinki 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great - I totally forgot about it and you've done a nice piece of work there. violet/riga (t) 07:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up - I've voted now. violet/riga (t) 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Here is overdue award for your work on a rather reather uniqe, Wikipedia-only article, Toilet-related Injuries.

Felixboy 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How wonderful - thank you very much for that! I'm starting to get some inspiration for some more articles soon so watch this space.  Cheers, violet/riga (t) 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold Lane

 * "It is primarily used for shoppers despite being 10 minutes walk from the main shopping centre."

Please pardon my ignorance, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, surely the car park is used for cars rather than shoppers. Didn't you mean "used by shoppers"? Also, if the place is ten minutes from the closest shopping centre, doesn't it make sense for people to use it? - Mgm|(talk) 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a bit unclear. What I'm trying to get across is that...  well I'll rewrite it there now.  Cheers.  violet/riga (t) 08:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, though I do question the importance of the sentence. violet/riga (t) 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: American English vs Americanism
That's what wikification is for. I review British English articles regularly for GA nominations and GA reviews. There are almost always British-specific words and terms used. It is not a disqualifier for GA and it is not inappropriate for standard articles. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your spell checker should not weigh in on decisions like this. There are plenty of British English words that my spell checker throws out. That doesn't mean they are unacceptable for Wikipedia. If you feel sophomore is not an acceptable word to be used in American English articles, you have some work to do to revert all uses to your preferred alternative.
 * Wp:mos states "If there is a strong tie to a specific region or topic, use the appropriate variety. - Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."
 * Wp:mos states "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. For example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If an article has been stable in a given style, it is not converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
 * Thus, I have replaced the use of the word sophomore in the article as the topic is of an American band. If you still feel this is wrong, take it to arbitration.
 * Regards, Lara Love  T / C  07:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: American English vs Americanism
So are you editing sophomore out of every English Wikipedia article, or just singling out the Maroon 5 article? Regardless, thanks for bringing this to my attention. From now on, when I review articles of British topics for GA, I'll be sure to insist that any British terms that don't register as acceptable in my browser-based spell checker be changed to a mutually common word to save readers the time of utilizing the wikification feature. Regards, LaraLove 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I stand by my point, but I understand yours to. I'll leave it alone. --LaraLove 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Want some help with that? If you want, I can change "sophomore" to "second album" for most articles on hip-hop/rap albums. Just saying this because I noticed your edit here. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any that you wish to do would be great - it's a bit of a mammoth task for just one person! Thanks.  violet/riga (t) 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Please do not restore articles deleted by other administrators under this policy without first consulting them.

I want you now to redelete those articles until Doc has had a chance to reply. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't see the reason - he has deleted articles that are fully referenced and should not have been removed in the first place. If he can give a reason for each one being deleted under policy then I will accept their removal, but he cannot arbitrarily go around deleting other people's work claiming "WP:NOT".  BLP can apply in some cases but none of these articles are defamatory in any way and they are properly referenced.  violet/riga (t) 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doc has been going through and removing articles on children that are excessively focused on salacious and sensationalistic detail. These articles are a serious privacy violation, and there is excellent ethical reason to remove them. Please undo your removals. If you want to talk more about specifics, please pop onto #wikipedia-en-admins. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't use IRC so I am unable to discuss it there. Doc has been removing articles that are not "salacious and sensationalistic" in all cases - I cannot see how they can be removed when they are fully referenced.  violet/riga (t) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They can be removed because they obviously don't belong on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously? I'm sorry but you cannot simply decide that an article such as the referenced Abhilasha Jeyarajah does not belong despite having been here for well over two years.  violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are serious privacy concerns. If you have specifics, please - grab an IRC client and log in. This is an important issue, and undeletion without discussion is very harmful. Phil Sandifer 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no privacy concerns on referenced articles that are in no way defamatory to their subject and that do not detail personal information not available in those references. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because there are other sites on the Internet violating people's privacy doesn't mean we should. Google any of those people and Wikipedia is the first or second hit you get on them. We have to be VERY careful about the way we present these subjects, and in these cases the articles were not presenting them in a humane way. This is a BLP concern, and a valid one. Phil Sandifer 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with BLP and feel that it does not apply in these cases. The matter should be discussed without unilateral deletion.  violet/riga (t) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to unilaterally revert another administrator is not acceptable. Doc was (and is) online and able to discuss the deletion with you. You should have discussed the articles with himbefore taking action. And if you still found his reasons unsatisfactory, the deletions could have been taken to deletion review - there was absolutely no need for you to revert him so casually. WjBscribe 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the articles should have been taken to AFD and never unilaterally deleted. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to reverse a deletion without consultation is unacceptable, to do so when the administrator responsible is online is wholly unacceptable. I must insist you revert your misguided administrative actions straight away. Nick 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The decision to delete articles without any consultation is wrong and an insult to those that worked hard to create them.  Now the articles (note: not all of them) have been restored communication and discussion can take place.  violet/riga (t) 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is never appropriate to reverse an administrator without discussion. That is wheel warring. And in BLP cases the default is to delete, not restore - eventualism is not an acceptable route for BLP concerns. Finally, there was consultaiton - extensive consultation in the admin channel on IRC, which exists specifically to talk about sensitve BLP issues without compounding privacy violations. Phil Sandifer 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IRC is not a mandatory part of the Wikipedia process and these are not sensitive BLP issues. We are talking about articles that have existed in the present form for years not hours or days.  violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion should have taken place before you acted, as you well know. There are serious concerns regarding these articles and you were clearly not aware of these. That is why it is wholly unacceptable to revert when articles have been removed due to BLP concerns. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Public discussions should have taken place before the articles were deleted. violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that it would be more constructive all round if people calmed down a little and worried more about the proper route to take from here onward, rather than insisting on self-reversions and secret IRC discussions? The issue should be "what should we do with this article", not "so-and-so did this! outrageous!" "but you did this first!" "but you did this! I won't discuss it until you revert yourself!". That's petty and childish and not getting anyone anywhere. --YFB ¿  01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BLP has to be dealt with accordingly, as in this case. For some totally unaware user to come along and blissfully wheel war is totally unworkable. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From my point of view it is totally unworkable for someone to blissfully delete articles that have existed for several years without any form of discussion. violet/riga (t) 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Wheel war I have not gone against the policy. It clearly states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it" - I have not repeated my action, having only done it once.  violet/riga (t) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem quite appropriate (if unconstructive) that an out of process deletion be reveresed by an out of process restoration. If the article had been taken through the proper channels in the first place (why the hell do the people continually crying BLP insist on sidestepping these) the discussion would have occured, as it should. We would then not have once again angered the community (yes unilateral deletion piss me off as well) and once again started an uproar. Going around deleting articles in this way when you know what the response is going to be is both point-y and disruptive. Viridae Talk 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-process deletions can be undone without discussion, if an admin so chooses. The recent deletions done by Phil and Doc are out of line, and seem to be based more on personal ethical beliefs than our policies. "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify unilateral actions and ignoring of past consensus and AFD discussions. Prolog 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As this seems to have gone quiet for a while I'll finally take the chance to get to bed, having stayed up until nearly 3am to discuss the matter (yet I get accused of not discussing it). I'll be back in the morning to read any further comments, and trust that there won't be any wheel wars (i.e. re-deletions) overnight. violet/riga (t) 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)#

Prologue is wrong. I've already demonstrated that. Arbcom have already made that clear. I am willing to review my deletions and if I'm incorrect I will reverse myself. I have done that before. If there is still disagreement we go to DRV. Undeleted BLP deletions is unacceptable. Undeleting without discussion when the admin is on-line is discourteous. I ask once more for you to reverse yourself - and then list the articles you wish me to review on my talk page. If you will not do so, I fear will arbitration be the end result, and wheel-warriors (for that is what arbcom has repeatedly called it) will likely be sanctioned. I am not infallible, I always review on request, and am willing to admit and reverse my mistakes, If I'm not, then DRV will be open to you. Once again, I ask nicely for you to comply.--Docg 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering your attitude in the past to BLP (once again, this is not a clear BLP violation) I find it unlikely that you would reverse yourself. Continually calling other people wheel warriors is very unhelpfull, and continually threatening someone with arbcom is also unhelpfull. As you well know, this is unlikely to have been taken up by arbcom on its own (possibly as part of the full BLP issue) for a start because it is a reliatively minor reversal and secondly because there has been no recourse to any other dispute resolution. If you wish to make an issue of it, why not take your own advice, don't redelete the articles and instead attempt to gain some consensus in an RfC. Viridae Talk 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the undeletion of an invalid delete is not wheel-warring as per the policy as it stands now. Deleting people's work without any comment is discourteous.  Threatening people with arbitration when you have not tried to discuss the matter is discourteous.  Discussing things off-wiki is discourteous.  I suggest we talk about this matter and try to find a resolution.  violet/riga (t) 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting articles when one does not like the subject matter is not only discourteous but desysop-worthy. These articles did not meet any CSD criterion (including G10), Wikipedia is not censored and you deleted them with summaries such as "eak, no WP:BLP", "per WP:BLP", "WP:BLP not this". Was it not obvious that this would cause drama? Not to mention that you deleted five articles in eight minutes, which is not really a sign of respect towards other users, their work and opinions. I do not think you are in any position to blame others for not discussing before acting. Prolog 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if I had the time I would be starting an RfC. But unfortunately I am flitting between a computer and the lab. I have been meaning to get around to an RfC on Docs actions int his whole BLP thing for a few days - i think this just adds to the pile. Viridae Talk  03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bring it on. I like RfCs. I invariably find they backfire on those that file them though.--Docg 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to clear up a matter on which I can speak with some authority. The most important definition of wheel-warring came out of the Pedophile userbox wheel war case, which Doc has already mentioned. If you look at the proposed decision page, you'll note that the Arbitration Committee explicitly rejected the idea that wheel-warring involved multiple reversals in favor of a wheel-war being one in which an administrative action is reverted without discussion. Repeatedly undoing deletions, where the deleting administrator had asserted WP:BLP concerns, without prior discussion, strikes me as reckless. As an aside, there's a reason BLP discussions occur in IRC: IRC doesn't appear in Google cache, therefore existing in perpetuity on the Internet (probably the first hit). Think about that. Consider the implications. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The IRC matter is true, but as at least one of these was not a clear and obvious violation of BLP (especially since the deleting admin himself has thus far not provided references to which part of the policy it happens to violate) there is no harm in these things going to afd. Viridae Talk 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Repeatedly undoing deletions..." - yeah, repeatedly doing it would be bad. Doing it once of a few articles is different.  BLP is not an excuse for deleting any article you think happens to violate the policy.  It's lucky that I happened to log on and notice this otherwise several valid articles (imo) would have been removed with very little evidence that it ever existed.  That is very bad.  violet/riga (t) 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-waring - arbcom clarification
For your information. By the way, since you obviously simply misunderstood the policy here, there's no hard feelings. It is easy to lose sight of these things.--Docg 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be commenting there. violet/riga (t) 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. We interpreted policy differently. But, the difference is important. There seemed little point is us squabbling over it, so I asked for arbcom to clarify, since there is obviously some room for doubt. I deliberately proceeded by 'request for clarification', so as not to ask arbcom to sanction anyone. We just both need to know what the ground rules really are.--Docg 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
I have proposed that you be added to the arbitration case for Badlydrawnjeff, as your reversals of deletions are a related issue to that case. The proposal is at Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop if you wish to comment on it. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYKs
Any idea how many you have? If you have enough, you may have a place on the list. Please get back to me. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief, umm lots! A look at my archives should get most of the ones I've done.  BRB!  violet/riga (t) 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Going through my talk archives I can spot 50 that I created (a nice number - maybe I should stop there!). I think there will be a couple more than that, including those that appeared on DYK without notification (back in the day when it wasn't so common!).  violet/riga (t) 08:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you take a look at the list, you will see that you fit in at about the tenth spot. Feel free to add your name in the correct spot. As you can see, many of the higher contributors do not know *exactly* how many they have, so a nice c.(number of articles) or approx.(number of articles) should be fine. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident  Utter 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is common in practice now, since the birth of the list, to grant users appropriate awards for their number of DYKs. Thanks for your hard work, Anonymous Dissident  Utter 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - a very lovely medal! Much appreciated.  violet/riga (t) 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case
I want you to know that I strongly support you in this. I think it's totally unacceptable that some admins are unilaterally deleting sourced, verifiable, non-libellous articles in some sort of moral crusade to censor Wikipedia, based on an overzealous interpretation of BLP; you were quite right to undo the deletions in question, and should be commended. Walton Assistance! 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks for that. I don't like disputes but at least it's helping everyone to discuss the matter and will (hopefully) lead to a positive outcome.  violet/riga (t) 10:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys
why couldn't you have left my arctic monkeys contribution? it makes sense, it has a high possiblitly.
 * It's a very common snowclone and not really likely to have been influenced from that film. It constitutes original research and was not referenced.  violet/riga (t) 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

question?
With regards to the DRV of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu which you instigated, it appears that the same admin who deleted the article also closed the deletion review discussion. I don't know about the official appropriateness of that, nor do I know where to find the policies regarding such. But I thought that it might interest you, as it struck me as a conflict of interest. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the most appropriate of things to do but if the consensus is clear and the process has run its course then I don't think it's too bad. Thanks for pointing it out.  violet/riga (t) 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

London 2012 logo
why did you remove the b3ta imagery? i can understand the Lisa simpson comment going, but i think at least some of the images should be left back in. Cm619 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * B3ta parody a lot of things and this is nothing new or unusual. Linking to them does not really benefit the article or our coverage of the 2012 Games.  violet/riga (t) 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated
I've jotted down some thoughts at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd appreciate your feedback. JoshuaZ 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bartonella rochalimae removal
The item is listed at Current Events. See Portal:Current events/2007 June 7. Also, it is of international significance, or interest. The new bacterium belongs to a genus of bacteria that is known to affect hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Also, the news was published in a reputable journal (New England Journal of Medicine), and news reports of the new bacteria have been published in other countries (Australia and Qatar) for example. I ask that you reconsider your previous decision to remove the item from ITN. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I missed the entry in CE - sorry about that. Still, I can't see that it's of significance or importance news-wise given the lack of coverage it is receiving.  violet/riga (t) 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Science has always been given second-rate status to politics or sports. When someone dies from this, I can guarantee there's going to be a throng of news reports filed. Anyway, the findings were published only yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is why it hasn't been covered extensively. Anyway, see, and . There's a few dozen articles on the subject already, covered in different newspapers across the globe.  Nishkid64 (talk)  22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of those show only 1 result each, and the other shows only a couple of unique stories. Since most major news organisations have ignored the story I don't feel that we should carry it on our "In the news" section.  violet/riga (t) 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The two that show only one link are the ones that are shown when you search "Bartonella rochalimae" in Google News. Below the one news item, there is a link entitled "all 38 news articles »" that goes to all the news stories. Also, in regards to "major news organisations", I don't think that's a good indicator for ITN notability. There have been many occasions when science-related articles put on ITN are not covered by major news groups. Also, what do you consider "major news organisations"? If you look at the big list of news items, you'll see a bunch from world-famous news companies. I see the San Francisco Chronicle, China Daily, Agence France-Presse (which is an equivalent to the Associated Press), New York Post, and the Daily Chronicle. Nishkid64 (talk)  23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see the news stories on Google News, but if you look at them you'll notice that there are only about 5 unique stories syndicated across these sites. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with it being there? Some people like to read about things like that in an encyclopedia!    Cbrown1023    talk   23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but we have rules to follow for the ITN page. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like good news (well not good news, but newsworthy news) to me. Nishkid is right that science is usually undercovered.--ragesoss 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes science is often overlooked and undercovered, but this story, to me, is not a news story of international interest or importance. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the support of two others I am not averse to the story being replaced, but I do believe that it doesn't meet our requirements for ITN. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comment
Hi. I assume you have read the linked guideline regarding relevant material. I have reverted your post as I do not believe the trivial fact you are discussing is worthy of inclusion, either in the article or its associated talk page.

In short, you revert the edit to the talk page, but be bold enough to try adding it to the main article as well, if you really believe it is that relevant. I have given an opinion about the validity of the info, and I do not editwar. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Our perceptions of trivia, without the benefit of a Wikipedia guideline to measure against, are clearly miles apart. In the scheme of things, given all that Uriah has achieved, including his personal struggle for professional acceptance, given the racial tendencies of some within football, I see your fact as a pebble in a pond. Excuse my bluntness on this. I am under the impression that article talk pages are there for discussion as to what might be suitable for adding to the main article, and indeed for what might need removing. Our article talk pages would be pretty congested if editors popped up willy nilly adding snippets like the one under discussion right now. If it really is a serious contender for inclusion, then of course it's relevant. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intentions.


 * The only test I can suggest is as stated above, to add your info to the article. The reference supplied looks fair, as long as it doesn't belong to 2003, like some of the other points mentioned in the webpage. Consensus will win out anyway, either for or against.


 * Please note that I am not arguing about your experience and knowledge, as an admin, of Wikipedia guidelines. As I have said, I do not editwar, as my edits are always meant in good faith. You have obviously reverted, and I am saying that the matter is closed from hereon in. If my edit to the talk page was meant as wilful vandalism, I could understand being blocked (I do enough vandal-reverting to know this). I am not trying to talk myself into a block. I would merely wish that you take what I have said at face value. Thanks for your posts to my talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help
I'd be glad if you could see my talk page:-topics entitled(Fluence,Victoria). Also on my previous archive some user called The Mekon's called me a cunt and stuff like that and now it's bcome everyday business. I need you to do something about this if you can, please. You can check my history if you like, I haven't started any sort of argument with any of this people. ThanksVictoria Eleanor 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No need of help now, it's all under controlVictoria Eleanor 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Just a word of support. No-one seems to be listening to you, and this proposal is ridiculously heavy-handed. Please don't let all of this uncalled for opprobrium upset you too much. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's amazing how some people want to simply ignore the fact that I'm trying to help sort the matter out and improve BLP so that we don't have such problems.  I now regret coming back from my wiki-break.  violet/riga (t) 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it. I went away completely for a week to recharge, started contributing very slowly, and then got sucked into this morasse.  Just look at my contributions.  It is so frustrating to be wasting time on this sort of nonsense when there are articles to be written.  So much for redoubling my efforts to sticking to writing articles and avoiding wikipolitics...


 * As Ghirlandajo wisely said to me: Travaillons sans raisonner; c'est le seul moyen de rendre la vie supportable. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom 2
I saw your comments on the case talk page and want to reply. Primarily, ArbCom takes cases to deal with disruptive conduct. Along the way we sometimes need to clarify policy. In the BDJ case, ArbCom needs to make a ruling that will help the community work more collabertively on BLP issues.

While you intend to help, IMO, your participation in the case has inflammed the situation. Your ongoing attempts to discussion the issue are not bringing the result you want. I think you need to take a different approach. Maybe take a break from this issue for awhile. Then come back and privately ask someone that is experienced with BLP to explain their understanding of the policy. That approach will help you understand the policy and not draw the spotlight on you as is happening now. FloNight 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You talk as if I don't understand the policy. Well perhaps that's true, but that's because of the way it is written as evidenced by numerous disputes and disagreements about it.  Right now you are disagreeing with another arbitrator about one aspect of the policy that really should've been sorted well before now.  You can talk about the ethics of BLP but the policy as Tony is calling it is not what it says.  The fact that I am fully supportive of the need to remove dodgy content seems to be lost on you.  I do hope you've gone through the history of the BLP page and seen the disputes there.  If Tony were to put in everything that he is saying the BLP covers he would be immediately reverted by several people.  Simply put, I'm being taken to task for following the policy as it stands (stood) rather than what some users think it should be.  This is totally different.  It's not even the difference between letter and spirit, it's more.
 * I'm not sure what you think "the result [I] want" is. I want for us to sort out the mess that BLP is currently in and make it more explicit.  And no, that would not involve dumbing it down, quite the contrary.  violet/riga (t) 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have stated several times, you drew attention to yourself and got the strongly worded sanction largely because of your statements and conduct after you undeleted the articles. I assumed good faith...that you undeleted because you wanted to help the project. People make mistakes. That can not be helped. But you do not seem to grasp the fact that undeleting was inappropriate. Discussion was needed before the articles were restored. If you had acknowledged that and moved on then we would not be here now. But you lost my confidence when you said that WP:BRD was approprite. In cases where BLP is given for a reason BRD should never be done. That you do not yet understand this idea means that you do not understand the BLP policy. FloNight 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or that I disagree with you. It amazes me that you see things so black and white.  violet/riga (t) 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that "you do not understand the BLP policy" is an unnecessarily large logical leap and perhaps somewhat unintentionally rude. Wouldn't it be better to phrase it as "I FloNight have a belief of what the BLP policy is. Your statements about the policy differ from my belief, therefore as my belief is correct you must not understand the policy?" The written BLP policy has been in flux for weeks, the reason being that there was not a concensus about what it should say. You can claim that actions on the policy precede the writing of the policy, or that the written policy only contains the highlights of the policy or any other statements to support the claim that there is more to policy than is written down.  But, when there is non-trivial debate about what should be written and what the policy actually is, that indicates that perhaps there is not a concensus about what is being debated.  You can see at [WP:BLP] that Tony is _now_ trying to add the text that FloNight is admonishing Violet for not following. Heck before the ArbCom decision, Tony claims that he hadn't read the BLP policy.   Uncle uncle uncle 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't, and I still largely ignore the written words of the policy. Seems to work. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot of what I've put into the BLP has stayed there. I agree that if any of us tried to put his own version and wording in, it would be reverted many times, but that's why we adopt a consensual, revisionist approach, continually refining the document to try to make it into an accurate expression of our policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you still go by your own version and ignore said consensus. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good lord Tony, now you sound like bdj! -- nae'blis 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well no, I'm not claiming that I'm always right, or that those who disagree with me are mendacious. Like everybody else, I do always try to implement what I view as Wikipedia consensus on matters that are well established, and to act sensibly where there is no consensus. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but you are tenditious, stubborn, and selective in your interpretation. I told Jeff that on more than one occasion, and I've probably said the same to you before. But I'm not sure I've seen such a close parallel in wording before... I would have preferred that both of you been more careful in your actions and wording at times. -- nae'blis 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present, and apologies for hijacking your talk page, v/r)
 * I'm sure Jeff isn't the only person ever to have replied to a surprising and unsupported accusation with the phrase "not to my knowledge". --Tony Sidaway 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPA
In hindsight, my remark was probably unnecessarily harsh and confrontational; I apologize for that. It wasn't my intention to suggest that you were purposely damaging the project; my frustration is with the extension of casual process-wonkery into the arena of BLP, to the detriment of both the spirit of the policy and of the articles' subjects. Kirill 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary
The edit summary of this edit was uncalled for. Perhaps you're not aware, but Doc has forced himself to take a break from Wikipedia for real life reasons, He has scrambled his password. His edit made his identity quite plain, there was no need to cast a slur like this. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As per the immediate response after that post it was clearly not obvious. He should have posted his username as he did with his second edit to the page.  I would hardly call it a slur as it is true and I never said that it was an intentional misdirection.  Perhaps you should get that edit summary removed per "do no harm".  violet/riga (t) 11:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the word "hiding" implies intentional misdirection, I should have thought. It is, I agree, unfortunate that you cannot easily withdraw the comment, which was made in a summary. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My little lad couldn't find his favourite teddy a minute ago. We searched and searched.  Finally we found her ('cos it is a her) underneath a pillow, hiding.  I wouldn't say that the teddy was deliberately hiding from us - it's just that the teddy happened to be hidden from view when it would've been better had we all been able to see it.
 * "Hiding" could be intentional and maybe Doc deliberately didn't include his name. I couldn't say, but whatever the intention it would've been much better if he had done so.  violet/riga (t) 12:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Equivocation like this isn't graceful. --Tony Sidaway 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "It's possible that what passes for standard English vernacular where I live isn't considered acceptable where you live. My apologies, no offense was intended." violet/riga (t) 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * :D Viridae Talk 12:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome.
Re: Your welcome. I was amazed, in particular (though not the only time) when Tony presented "evidence" that BLP applies to dead people, that there you were, in the thread of comments, once again talking about the issues (which were not btw, "evidence"). Thanks again, and don't let'em get to ya, you're worth a hundred of at least half the people I've seen working on this project. be strong. R. Baley 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my thanks for your efforts at having a clear discussion of the BLP issue. I'm very new to the editing of wikipedia, but not new to the idea of content discussions and having a clear balanced presentation of information. I fear that the 'powers that be' are less interested in NPOV biography than in people not calling them on the phone to complain about less than fawning biographies. If they could just come out and say that, this confusion and disagreement would be moot. Some of the people who took part in that discussion seem really set that biographies must be postitive and can only include negative items if the notable person is notable for a negative thing. I hope you have a great day. Rocksanddirt 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit death
Hi Violetriga, I saw your comment at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions about the Benoit death. Ral has asked that we not use the tipline as a discussion forum, so I'll respond here. I didn't realize that Ta bu shi da yu's comments were about the edit itself. I thought he was saying that the Signpost story was going to be a BLP issue. I thought it went without saying that adding information about living people without a source was against policy -- but it was clear to me that the story wasn't going to suggest in any way, shape or form that this was a good thing that somebody had done this. Certainly the Signpost wasn't going to encourage people to make these sort of edits. Hope that makes sense in explaining my comments. --JayHenry 19:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right - thanks for the message and the clarification. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I categorically reject the decision based on how badly the arbitration has been run, the way in which the proposed actions were made, the lack of acceptable discussion, and the omission of anything related to other people involved. violet/riga (t) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration decisions can be appealed to Jimbo, especially if it appears that the arbitrators haven't performed their duties correctly. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They can, but I'm not really interested in carrying it on. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Solitaire Meissmer
Hi Violet,

I notice that the Solitaire Meissmer page moved to a new name. Also, there was a discussion point raised by you about the inclusion of her name.

Can you update me on what changes have been made to the article and why? (I noticed edit comments talking about privacy, for example - what happened?) youcantryreachingme 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to our policy on living people we need to have articles abouts events rather than presenting it as a biography if the person is only notable for that one thing happening. This, it was decided, was the case with Solitaire and the article moved.  Some argue that removing the names of people, particularly children, is a good thing in order to help preserve their privacy.  This is of course complete nonsense when the name of the person in question has been plastered around the world.  violet/riga (t) 07:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Violet, I've only just read the ArbCom decisions (I deliberately kept away from reading the case before this). I strongly support the BLP policy, but I want to say that your input on the BLP talk page has always struck me as insightful and helpful, even when I've not agreed with it. You're a highly respected admin and a really good editor, so I hope you're not discouraged and that you continue to give us the benefit of your views about the policy. Best, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I really appreciate it. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV: Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

You actually undeleted, but I couldn't find a template for that. :-) Let me make a separate comment here. Softly, softly, catchee monkey. I think this particular article can be undeleted. This does not mean any others will or won't be. It doesn't mean anyone was right or wrong. It certainly doesn't mean this should become a place to prove who was right or wrong, to clear or besmirch anyone's record, or anything like that. This is a DRV for one article, if it becomes more than that, everyone will lose. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paternal bond
Paternal bond, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Paternal bond satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Paternal bond and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Paternal bond during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Solitaire Meissmer disappearance
Solitaire Meissmer disappearance, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Solitaire Meissmer disappearance satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Solitaire Meissmer disappearance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Solitaire Meissmer disappearance during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman
... has closed with a resounding Keep. In case you were curious. The article needs work to expand it; if you want to do that work, you are welcome, if not, I'll do it, but only in a few days, though, as I have to expand James W. Walter first (which is apparently otherwise going to be a perennial AfD target).

When that's done, we can take a look at the other of that ill-fated list of half-a-dozen articles from the AfD, one at a time, and see which are worthy. There is no deadline.

Anyway... Priekā! I hope that's correct. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I hadn't noticed that it was being AfD'd. Glad to see it was kept to further vindicate my actions.  violet/riga (t) 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

St. Francis Xavier's College (Liverpool)
Greetings,

A week or two ago, admin User:Guy assumed bad faith on my part and blocked me from editing the above article over some contentious content that I included in it, which one user thought violated WP:BLP. There were a couple of reverts on both sides, hardly edit-warring, yet rather than discuss or mediate the matter properly, or attempt to reach a compromise in editing, Guy protected the article from me without question. However rather than complain or go to the lengths of presenting something to WP:RfAr, I accepted this with little fuss.

However a couple of days ago, I left Guy a message on his Talk page requesting I now be unblocked from this article as I consider the matter now resolved, and as I am a member of Wikiproject Education, I would like to continue editing the article by adding an infobox, in the first instance at least, obviously avoiding the contentious content that was removed. However he simply removed the request from his talk page. I am not a vandal by any stretch of the imagination, and I do consider not being able to edit an article for this length of time as highly disproportionate, considering the full Wikipedia bans that persistent disruptive vandals initially get are shorter that this in most cases!

Sorry to land all this at your doorstep, however as it conerns another sysop I thought I'd give you the full story. Can you please allow me to edit this article again? It would be greatly appreciated. Liverpool Scouse 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring
It appears as though you're wheel warring over a certain redirect. Please stop. MessedRocker (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And seeing as you've done as much warring as JzG, it's only fair that you're blocked as well. As I told JzG, I highly suggest mediation so that this issue can be solved without continued wheel warring. MessedRocker (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse this block. JzG may have deleted this article one more time than you restored it but we don't do this by counting number of actions in a wheel war. Given that you were criticised by ArbCom for your previous failure to respect BLP deletions and in light of the principle of "do no harm" ArbCom espoused in that case, you were clearly wrong to restore a page deleted citing BLP instead of seeking deletion review. WjBscribe 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh nuts. Violet, for the love of everything that is small and furry, please don't wheel war over this issue. Yes, I know you've had provocation. Don't give in to it. It's a trap. You absolutely will lose your adminship, and that won't help anyone. There is a way here, the Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman way; find evidence, argue, and convince people in the proper forum. It is slower, but in the end, it sometimes works. Not always, but enough. Just reverting seems like it will work faster, but it only works for a few hours or days, then in the end you lose your mop, or even your editor privileges outright, and whether or not the article is kept is still decided the slow and painful way, just without you. And all the other articles you could have helped, go on, without you. Please, if I've earned any points in your regard by that Charlotte article work, believe me. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated already, this matter was already discussed and a consensus reached. Guy either knowingly deleted against consensus or without investigating the matter enough - neither is acceptable. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How does that justify you wheel warring with him? WjBscribe 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he was going against consensus! It was discussed and agreed that the name should be included.  The article was not changed and an internal engine search would still come up with Baby 81 as the first result.  How can the redirect be deleted without the name being removed from the article?  That's ludicrous.  There was no justification for the deletion of a redirect.  violet/riga (t) 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You do realise "but I was right" doesn't justify wheel warring, right? Imagine if every admin on this site decided to run around overturning each other every time they disagreed - it'd be chaos. JzG is blocked as well. Admins don't wheel war. Full stop. Personally I think you were particularly in the wrong given you were overterning a deletion on BLP grounds. But that issue aside, there cannot be any justification for wheel warring. That you don't see that concerns me incredibly. WjBscribe 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so you are saying that it's isn't allowed to undo improper and unjustified deletions? Sorry but that ain't right.  The "deletion on BLP grounds" was actually just a case of Guy trying to have his own way and, as stated, either he knew about the consensus against him (thus making him incorrect in his actions) or he didn't investigate it properly (also making him wrong in his actions).  Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided.  He can cite BLP all he wants but it has been interpreted by numerous other users that it does not apply.  So are you saying that people can just delete things on a whim?  violet/riga (t) 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is an "appalling" thing to say. Well I'm sorry but if an article is deleted without any decent reason and after discussions state that it should be kept and is acceptable within policy (as interpreted by several admins) I can't really see that undeleting it is wrong.  violet/riga (t) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've ever seen another admin put their judgment of what is right or wrong so high. You insist that other abide by consensus but seem to show no respect for the overwhelming consensus WP:WHEEL has as a policy page or the damage done to this project whenever admins simply overturn each other without regard for outside input. Frankly, if you can't see why wheel warring is unjustifiable I don't think you should continue to be an administrator here. If you can't bring yourself to not overturn other admins just because you believe you're in the right, I think you should seriously consider stepping down. WjBscribe 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell another admin, there are 1200 of us after all. Tell WP:AN/I. Tell me. It's not fair, but you have been admonished and warned that you could lose your mop over something very much like this. Don't let that happen. Let someone else whom Guy can't tar with the sticky brush of the arbcom do it. It will take a little longer, but there is no deadline. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of running to another admin. The project is not harmed by what I have done and Guy has clearly gone against consensus.  I understand that AN/I could be an avenue to wander down, but that shouldn't be necessary when the matter has already been discussed - admins can't come along and choose to ignore that.  violet/riga (t) 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to DRV it V. We both know that you are right, but the wheel warring doesn't help anyone. You are going to take a good admin down with a bad if you keep going like this. Viridae Talk 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it shouldn't have to go through DRV. The name is still included in the article!  How can it be right to delete a redirect while leaving the name within the article?  The common misspelling of "Abhilash Jeyarajah" also remained, so this is clearly a case of a deletion without any clear rationale by the admin.  violet/riga (t) 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it shouldn't have to, but as long as you keep going in this vein, the wheel warring charge is going to be used to keep it deleted (or not as the case may be at the moment). Viridae Talk 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it's a sad day when people like Guy can be allowed to bypass a consensual interpretation of policy. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Response
WP:BLP states: In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

This had taken place and the consensus was to include the name. Guy deleted that name as a redirect while letting the name remain within the article and he did not delete the common misspelling redirect Abhilash Jeyarajah. Citing BLP and pointing to the ArbCom case (which did not make any sort of decision on such things) is inappropriate and goes against the consensual interpretation of the policy as evidenced on the talk page of the article. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your points are entirely valid, and I applaud you for attempting to hold up community consensus, but please wheel warring is not the way to go about it. Viridae Talk 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wheel-warring is bad and is a last resort. It's bad that I had to undelete the redirect, but since the people in opposition seem to be able to cite IAR and get away with biased deletions I don't feel it is right that the opposite can't be true.  violet/riga (t) 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately and completely unfairly that is not how it works. If only you had backed down and tried to discuss it you wouldn't be blocked. If you really want to make something like this right, the way to do so would be through the legitimate channels. Viridae Talk 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that going through due process is generally correct, the fact remains that the matter had been discussed and the decision made. It is not acceptable for one person to then come along and ignore all that, make a botched deletion and then we all have to go through DRV to get it resolved.  I was/am more than willing to discuss the matter further on the appropriate talk page, and clearly stated that.  This deletion appears more as a POINT not a BLP, especially given the Meissmer AfD by the same user.  violet/riga (t) 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise all that, but wheel warring does not help your position in the slightest. Undoing the deletion once, may have been within your bounds, and at a stretch, acceptable. Undoing it multiple times just throws you in a bad light. Viridae Talk 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is no last resort...it's no resort at all. That's like saying "If I feel that I'm really really right in doing so, I can rape this person, despite the overwhelming meta-consensus that Rape is bad". &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually quite offensive as an analogy and I'd thank you to avoid such things. As soon as such an act can be undone with no ill affect, as with the restoration of a little redirect, the world would be a better place.  violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
You have been unblocked.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Blnguyen - I think it's right to unblock us both as long as we avoid each other for the time being. violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Morning response
Now that I'm sober again (not an excuse, just an explanation of why my words might not have fully reflected my position) I'd like to further comment. Wheel-warring significant content is clearly a bad thing. The deletion of a redirect when (incorrect) variations of said name are left and when the name itself exists within the destination article (and does so by consensus of people fully aware of BLP) is inappropriate. BLP, it has been decided, does not apply here as has been discussed. Note that this is a significant reason behind my actions - it was already discussed. Perhaps Guy didn't check through the talk page properly and his first deletion would be understandable, but a second was certainly not warranted when he had sufficient time to comment on the relevant talk page. When citing BLP in a deletion (especially a clearly contentious one like this) Guy should do more than refer to the BDJ case (first deletion) or be rude (second). Guy appears to have gone through the articles in the BDJ case and restarted the crusade to remove them (the other remaining one he tried to AfD). violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as a teetotaller in a family of non-drinkers this type of editing lifestyle seems to me a bit hard to grasp. But I see that other users also drink and edit so it seems. Is it a common type of thing?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it must be. I'd like to believe that anything that I say and do when under the influence is still coming from sensible thinking, and my comment above is merely intended to show that I might not have worded things as plainly as I might otherwise.  I don't usually return from an evening out and come on here, but given the inevitable fallout from the restorations I wanted to come and see what the latest was.  violet/riga (t) 08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing
Thank you, for correcting something that was wrong. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 07:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. You did the right thing. It's a shame what's happening now. Best wishes, J Readings 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, wheel warring is the right thing. Kudos all around! MessedRocker (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is never good, but neither is letting something wrong go uncorrected. -- Ned Scott 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking exactly. As I said before, it's a shame it had to come to this. J Readings 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your name
Hey, does it have anything to do with Riga? I was wondering because I live there. Reinistalk 08:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was very young when I started using "Riga" and wasn't consciously aware of any other use, let alone a capital city. It is actually a misspelling of the Latin "rigor".  I intend to visit at some point as I hear very positive things about Riga and Latvia, but I don't have any link to the city or the country.  Regards, violet/riga (t) 08:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat after me...
Please. "It's important that an administrative action not only be correct, but that it appear correct. I am sorry that my action gave the appearance of impropriety. I will try not to repeat it."

You have to figure out what your goal here is, why you are here. Are you primarily here to help the encyclopedia, or are you primarily here to fight for the cause of righteousness? Because, see, this isn't a place to fight. Even to fight "the good fight". This is an encyclopedia. If you keep saying "I was right, darn it all, and I'd do it again" ... I estimate a 60% chance you'll be desysopped. :-(. Right or not. :-(. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do understand that, and I know that I could easily have said different things (or nothing) and been in a better position. I stand by my principles though, and while it might not be acceptable to wheel war I just can't see how it can be acceptable to ignore consensus and simply do your own thing. That's abuse of admin rights and such users should be clearly informed and cautioned about it. Had there not been any consensus to include the name, or had Guy deleted the name from the article and recommenced discussion I would not have undone his actions. As it was he was in violation of deletion policy and was clearly making a POINT. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well... I'm not going to go after him and say "he should be desysopped too" :-(. I'm just hoping you aren't. Over a little redirect, this is so not worth it. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call for a desysopping - I just wish that this was properly resolved when ArbCom had the chance. Instead they just skimmed a little bit of the issue and dealt out a few punishments on only one side of the issue.  Thanks for your comments.  violet/riga (t) 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By saying this, you aren't admitting your action was wrong per se, you're merely admitting that it looked bad... and more important, that you won't do it again. We don't do punishments around here, we do prevention. Any argument to have you desysopped will have to be based on the principle that if you keep the shiny buttons, you'll be wheel warring. I strongly recommend you de-fang that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks bad to those that jump in and don't look at the background to the situation. If it was something validly deleted I certainly wouldn't have restored it.  violet/riga (t) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I commend you for standing up to one of our more bullying admins, please remember what AnonEMouse is telling you. Don't give them a reason. --MichaelLinnear 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Violetriga, I totally understand you standing up to Guy, considering the obnoxious behavior we have seen from him (one of the more bullying admins is an apt description). However so we don't lose your very useful service, can you stand up to him in a more legitimate way next time. Viridae Talk 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above - that is, I support your position on this issue, and I don't think you were wrong, but I'd advise you not to wheel war. In principle, though, I don't think you've done anything wrong, and I will strongly oppose anyone who argues for your desysopping. WaltonOne 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Please let me reassure you that I only wheel-warred because it was a redirect and the name remained in the article - had it be the deletion of content I would not have restored it. violet/riga (t) 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support what's being said here. There are bigger issues than this redirect or even the arbcom ruling. The more you fight back on these issues, the better chance that they will succeed in bullying you off the project - which is the worst possible scenario for you and those of us who support you. I personally believe there is some evidence that you were baited into this latest wheel war, but the time to present that evidence is when (if) it goes to arb-com - and the more you try to defend the wheel war, the better chance it will go to arbcom. So please, stop trying to defend the wheel war, and rest assured that you have many people that have defended you, and will continue to defend you should this thing get escalated. ATren 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sermon
Please don't patronize me. I'm past that point. (Mind meal 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Stop bothering me right now. (Mind meal 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Yeah, you see a tiny portion of the picture. I didn't come to Wikipedia to spend my time at AFD. I guess some people do. It wasn't just one vote, or two votes. It was the nomination and many subesquent votes by people who vote that way always. Nominations based on an essay; rationale using an essay they wrote! Saying lists should be deleted because they will "never be complete". No sh** Sherlock. The list will be "hard to maintain". WTF policy is that? I'm angry that these people are permitted to vote time and time again with neither policy or any guidelines to back up their vote. It should be unacceptable. This place is for people who add content, and as the third option for deletion AFD should be HARD for users to get something deleted. Right now, its easy as pie. You can see I don't consider deletionists to be here in good faith, because I don't. To me, they are the lowest common denominator on this site. (Mind meal 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Hey, I'd be all for that. So long as their opinion refers to policy. That is my pet peeve here. As the last bastion for deletion, it should be policy ONLY that dictates a delete. Any vote that strays into the arena of essay or personal bias unfounded in any guideline or policy should be removed. Or, better yet, crossed out. It isn't just that people aren't providing rationale, it is also that they are providing rationale they made up. It is the monkey see monkey do syndrome. Someone sees another editor say "listcruft" and they assume l;istcruft is policy. Someone sees "incomplete list" and they assume incomplete list is policy. Such individuals should be immedietely told what policy is by an independant administrator. if they continue to base votes on their erroneous rationale, they will be blocked from voting. End of story. (Mind meal 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Barnstar award
Thanks for that. I know that I could have done things better in some instances, but I still maintain that I'm trying to do what's right. Gestures like this are very welcome. violet/riga (t) 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing Speedy Delete Tags
Regarding Snail racing the article no longer qualifies for speedy deletion. However in the future to not remove speedy deletion tags from your articles. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:SD and,in extreme cases, could result in your being blocked. Use the to contest speedy deletions but leave the speedy deletion tag in place. Helmsb 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When adding a new article you may want to add an tag to let other editors know that the article is not finished. Helmsb 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yuck - I avoided them back in the days of website construction and certainly wouldn't want to start it on a wiki! There wasn't really a need to do that to be honest, but thanks for trying to suggest a solution.  Creating an article in such a way was a bit of an experiment actually as I usually just use the one edit to create the entire thing, so I kinda expected someone to look at it with some confusion.  violet/riga (t) 23:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore
Sorry I reverted your edits, it's just that this whole issue is very confusing, so I don't know what to do anymore. I don't undertand why people don't want to use "second" when everyone understands what it means. Also, I am under the impression that "sophomore" is the correct term... but only in the United States. --- Realest4Life 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK
I meant to drop this off when I saw the article, but here ya go anyway, a bit late but you deserve it.


 * Great! It's so nice to know people like the articles, and I really do enjoy writing the odd ones the most!  violet/riga (t) 14:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Donny Tourette
Why did you revert my changes? They are completely NPOV and simply facts. Are you yet another Towers fan trying to erase the facts?? Seems odd behaviour for an editor. I have reverted a few times when Tourette fans keep erasing facts from the bio. Perfectly legit surely?? Dvb23
 * Replied on your talk page. violet/riga (t) 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Dvb23 is using glove puppetry in his Donny Tourette edits. The user who claimed on the talk page that his edits had made the page much better hasn't been since since late 2006 and has only made edits on this subject today... could be wrong... but I very much doubt it. Petepetepetepete 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sock puppetry! Petepetepetepete 11:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem that way. It doesn't lend any weight to the opinion though so it doesn't really matter.  violet/riga (t) 11:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delition of h2g2 Template
Help_desk

I'd like the template back. I think there are some good reasons for retaining it given on the talk page of the template. I didn't create it (I wouldn't know how to) and I'm not very active on this project. Just an invitation to discuss this. Okay? TRiG 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll go and discuss it there. violet/riga (t) 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore
You said that this word was an "Americanism". Got any source for this? I haven't seen it label(l)ed as such anywhere.  Mel sa  ran  19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of the word has been discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard, the Music Wikiproject and various other places. The article sophomore itself says that it's a US idiom, as does the entry on Wiktionary.  It's hardly ever used outside the US.  violet/riga (t) 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, paranoid stalker. :) Bouncehoper 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about?  Mel sa  ran  17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, not you. Them. Bouncehoper 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hélène Desportes Copyedit
You edited this article and removed a section and source that I had just placed there. It concerned a Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry which is probably the best source for additional material. I didn't want to revert before checking. Thanks. --Stormbay 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I used it as a reference rather than having it as an external link - I used it to cite statements within the article. It still contains other details that should be added/referenced in the article.  violet/riga (t) 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it; missed it previously.--Stormbay 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's 2007 Album
Article now has 23 references to support statements made, as requested. --Smilesau 12:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

August 07
Please CEASE AND DESIST from A. following me and reverting items (i.e., 2Gether: Again, as though you care about that page at all, and not some petty edit war.)

B. reverting the MUSTARD and the Sophomore pages. Nothing has been removed by an anon for more than a month on Sophomore, and we came to a consensus on MUSTARD. Granted, it's not what you would've preferred, but we did. I'm sorry if you're upset about that, but it's not an excuse to change everything all over the place.

Thank you. Bouncehoper 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Following you? I think you'll find that I have edited lots of articles that contain "sophomore", some of which will of course be the same as the ones you have on your watchlist. You are citing MUSTARD as if it is some sort of policy or guideline when it is neither, nor has it been accepted by anything like a consensual decision-making process. There are far too many people commenting that the word is unacceptable and you have yet to make a decent reason for stating why it should be used instead of "second". As for the article sophomore just because it was vandalism from a month ago doesn't mean it shouldn't be reverted, and you are simply making that article worse that it already is. I might have to delete it as being a dicdef.  violet/riga (t) 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant recently. You seem to check anything I've done recently and reverted it, such as 2Gether: Again. I don't have time to fix everything each time I get on Wiki. And if it's not a guideline, why does it dictate how the music pages are set up? There's nothing important that has been deleted from the sophomore page; in fact, the most recent big chunk deleted was something about taking advanced classes when you're sophomore. Hardly necessary. There's no reason to delete it, either. Now you're just being silly and threatening. Bouncehoper 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We share articles on our watchlist. MUSTARD is not a widely-accepted guideline and merely something that a WikiProject works towards.  And I've replied at Talk:Sophomore.  violet/riga (t) 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Isolate
I saw that you removed an entire sentence in the article, can you explain to me why? Is it because the sentence needed to be cited? I found a review somewhere, where the reviewer said this but I can't remember which review or if it was one. I was expecting maybe a rewording of the sentence and not a removal because the album cover has a darker subject than their previous one. Explain please maybe I can learn something. --CircafuciX 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a rather subjective thing and I'm not sure that it adds much to the article. I don't think that the cover art is particularly dark when compared to that of the previous album, but if you have a review which states this then it may well be worthy of inclusion.  violet/riga (t) 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi violet/riga
Thanks for your message. Just busy, I guess. New job keeps me busy. I see that your collection of interesting DYKs continues to grow. Hope all is well -- Samir 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User page fix
Thanks for that. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. violet/riga (t) 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note
Please be aware that Crum and Tyrenius have been systematically reverting nearly all outside input to the Anna Svidersky article for at least a year now. Looks like a WP:OWN issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is absolute nonsense. We've reverted a lot of memorial comments.  Show the diffs of any constructive good faith edits in line with wiki policy that we've reverted.  The only issue has been to keep the article or delete it, and that resulted in a keep at the recent AfD which you initiated.  I'm sorry you want to completely ignore that consensus because it didn't go the way you wanted it to. Tyrenius 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I drafted a non memorial version of the Anna Svidersky article that removes the POV and trivial details. While I still think the title serves best as a redirect to mourning sickness, I think that this version would at least be more in lines with Wikipedia policies. What do you two think? AgneCheese/Wine 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have been helpful if you'd drawn attention to this on the article talk page, so that other involved editors could look at it. Tyrenius 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue appears to be resolved now, thanks for your time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kasey Kazee
Don't worry about deleting the article. I knew it was borderline non-notable when I created it, and I did so against my better judgment. It was just too good to pass up, and it was covered by several major news outlets, so I thought it'd be worth a shot. User: (talk • contribs • count) 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheating at the Paralympic Games
As a matter of fact, I did not know that the Spanish basketball team had their gold medals stripped because 10 of their 12 players were not disabled. That's crazy! What an interesting article. : ) IvoShandor 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's a very odd story and a shameful occurrence.  violet/riga (t) 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Content Dispute
Hello, I'm sorry to have to leave this message. A user named "Bucketheader" has uncerimoniously threatened to ban me for making valid edits that unfortunately contradict his entires made on the Robin Finck page. My contention is that the discography list is incorrect. Guitarist Robin Finck is not credited on The Downward Spiral, Closer To God, or Further Down The Spiral. I have provided sufficient, reliable links that prove this. Ironically, these are the same links that were used on the respective wiki-pages for those very albums. You can see them at the following:

http://www.discogs.com/release/4404

http://www.discogs.com/release/3528

http://www.discogs.com/release/4403

No where is Robin Finck's name listed in the credits.

Bucketheader refuses to acknowledge the validity of my edits and has threatened to remove my editing priviledges because he is not content with providing factual information. I'm just curious as to what I should do to ensure that ego-driven personalities do not corrupt Wikipedia with false reportings.

Thank you for your time,

VR2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VR2007 (talk • contribs).
 * I've commented on Talk:Robin Finck. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Violet, I apologize for having to bring this to your attention once again. If you read the talk page and check the edits on Robin Finck, you'll see that Bucketheader refuses to concede any ground. You made it clear that AllMusicGuide was not truly reliable, and MSN was not sufficient because it supported one piece of information, but lacked another. He's now using those very pages to forward his position. I'm trying to be respectful and act with restraint, but this is becoming extremely tedious. I have offered to end this argument by removing the discography section until verifiable sources can be presented. Bucketheader continues to persist, despite my efforts to find an amicable solution. I thought it was appropriate to bring this to your attention because you seem to be impartial. If you could look into it again, I'd certainly appreciate your input. Thank you. VR2007 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)