User talk:William Pietri/Archive 04

national arts club
Hi: Most of the detail I added is from a careful reading of the sources (NY Times) articles already cited, being more specific in the comments backed up by the articles cited. The comment about the exterior of the club being refurbished is from my own observation walking by the place over the past months: scaffolding, bricklayers, hard-hats. Sure looks like work being done to me. As for conflict of interest, none that I'm aware of. HOW ABOUT YOU? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedhead (talk • contribs).

Hi - Sorry. I didn't mean not to "sign" my previous note. I was logged in and thought the thing would automatically stamp, or some such. Apologies. Anyway, re: your comments. Line 13 is not sourced so I'll change back to original. Line 19 = a more detailed reading/description of the already cited NY Times article. So that's the source. Line 25, same story as line 19 - a more closely accurate description of what is actually said in the article. On 31, the Times article cites an argument between the arts club management and various other Gramercy Park keyholders over the cutting down of trees, the arts club being for the trees and some of the keyholders being against the trees. I'll try to flesh out the sentence to be a bit more on target. On 37, I remember hearing that the charges came to nothing but can't find a reference so I'll change that back. On 43, I'm sorry that my observation of all the work being done isn't good enough, but I guess the rules are the rules. I'll change. But what if I take a photo the next time I'm over that way? You can barely see the front of the place for all the scaffolding and power-washers and sand-blasters. All best, Tedhead

Bad Astronomy user
In your list of dubious characters on your user page, I believe you've made a typo: "Bad Astonomy" instead of "Bad Astronomy." "Bad Astonomy" doesn't actually exist, and "Bad Astronomy" does seem to be dubious, although inactive at the moment. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers! Carolfrog 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed! William Pietri 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay stuff
In looking back over that page, I see now what the issue is. I was edit conflicted when I posted that comment. It wasn't directed at you, or a response to your words. It was directed at everyone above you but the conflict caused the indentation to be off. I still think that at this point adding insult to injury by letting that page be open is immoral however. pschemp | talk 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. That makes more sense, and I appreciate you correcting it. I understand your position on closing the RfC and think it's very reasonable. However, I think over the long term it's better to let everybody have their say. Letting everybody get their opinions out now, as long as they do it with civility, means more sense of closure and less suppressed emotion cropping up later as Essjay rebuilds his standing in the community. Which I strongly hope he does. Best, William Pietri 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eckankar
The article is a mess, always has been. Andries 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that fact, but I don't see that as cause to be sanguine about it getting worse, which is how I'm interpreting your comment here. Thanks, William Pietri 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Euchre hand
Bottom to top or top to bottom? I put "top to bottom" intentionally for the new image… but now you're making me second guess myself =) — atchius (msg) 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So you did! :-) Sorry, I misunderstood the history. In Euchre with spades as trump, the highest card is the jack of spades, and the lowest is the queen of spades. How about I change that to "from lowest to highest" to make it clearer? Thanks, William Pietri 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. — atchius (msg) 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!


Heh. That's very kind of you. And it's a special pleasure to learn that this is "Finny the Panderichthys". Best regards, William Pietri 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock-en-l
Go ahead and request to join, we are ready to add you now, you have already been deemed 'trustworthy' ;). Prodego  talk  03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks in return!
Hey William, re: my positive comment to you at Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination), you're very welcome, and thank you for responding back to me! :D Cartwarmark 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you on the Rickshaw Inn entry
Dear William:

Thank you for help on the Rickshaw Inn entry I just started. Our family has been involved with Cherry Hill for a half-century; and there is much to say as I go back to the Cherry Hill Library's township history room in the basement... Which my parents have contributed many artifacts to, including interior & exterior photos from our family's photo archives that I will donate to this site.

Dan Schwartz

Discpad 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Metaweb
William — since freebase was publicly announced today, I took the chance to add quite a bit of detail to the Metaweb article. I'm assuming from your comment that you either work for the company or know somebody who does, so any input for the article would be greatly appreciated. I'll be happy to research and add anything you feel should be added. I'm pretty excited about this product, its very much like something I've been imagining implementing for years. -- Bungopolis 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bungopolis. I admire your enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I have signed an NDA, so the most I can do is point you to things I'm sure you already know about. Sorry! Good luck, though. -- William Pietri 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thend
Thanks for the help regarding User:Thend and "The Government." I posted another note on his talk page, hoping to convice him that really don't have anything against the band, but they simply aren't notable by WP standards. Your note posted on my talk page while I was writing my message to him. If you could do both of us a favor and post that message on his talk page, I would appreciate it. You might want to read my message to him first. I think he means well, but he just doesn't understand that notability isn't conferred just because he thinks the band is god, which they may well be. Thanks! Realkyhick 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. People take these things so personally, and I find having a second person saying the same thing can calm things down a lot. And I'm all for calm. I'll copy my note from your talk page to his. Thanks, William Pietri 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation
Hi, I just added a short summary of an article on peep shows, and gave a citation. Please explain the copyright violation to me. Perhaps you are referring to a few seconds where an entire article was put up, prior to it being summarized?M.O. 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly it. I was watching the recent changes feed, and must have seen you in the middle of something. Note that because Wikipedia keeps old versions forever, even having copyrighted material for a few seconds is technically a problem. I don't think it's worth worrying about in this case, though. Thanks, William Pietri 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh up
Can I interest you in applying for a mop and bucket? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is tempting, as it would ease vandal-fighting work, and I'm sure there are backlogs I'd beaver away on. However, looking at some of the RFAs that have been cited as examples on list, I doubt I'd pass. My edit count is modest, and my involvement waxes and wanes depending on the paid work I've taken on. You think I'd make it? Thanks, 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Paid
Done! It just occurred to me, that maybe both articles should contain a split top/bottom or right/left section with both the SUPPORT and OPPOSE lead paragraphs. The continuation for the alternative lede would require going to the link. Eh?-Stevertigo 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think the current bit is enough for now, but you should work up some samples and see if you can work them into How_to_create_policy, as having a structure that makes alternatives clear would be great. William Pietri 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Itll be at How_to_create_policy/split intro - Stevertigo 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gary Coleman Sighting
I am disappointed with your recent edit of Gary Coleman's appearances. It was very surprising to see him at a lan center and there are many in the gaming community who care. Please stop flexing your e-peen and let the information out. Stop sticking your keyboard in matters that don't involve you in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheFamilyJoels (talk • contribs) 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * First, new posts go at the bottom, not the top. Second, as HagermanBot suggests, please sign your posts. Third, if you're going to drop by and be offensive, you could do me the favor of being right. The one edit I made to that page was to remove somebody else's vandalism of that page; I didn't touch the section you're frothing about.
 * Now that you mention it, though, per WP:BLP, dubious information like that probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page, though, and perhaps other people can help you find sources that meet WP:ATT and WP:BLP. William Pietri 10:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOPAY
I've been closely following how this potential policy will come out in the wash, and wanted to point out another related incident here which the ArbCom is just winding up. A user Rosencomet, who is the self-professed Executive Director of the ACE LLC created a username with the same name of a website he maintains called Rosencomet.com. He created an autobiographical entry for Jeff Rosenbaum (which has since been deleted) and created dozens of articles and links which aggrandized his enterprise(s) in one way or another and caused some protracted wiki-feuds and edit wars. ArbCom has actually taken a quite soft stance regarding COI and editing when there is a clear fiduciary interest in this instance as evidenced by their proposed decisions here. It is a very protracted affair, (more than half of those involved were banned as socks) but you may want to keep the precedent in mine and look over there as you are working on the potential paid editing policy - because in this instance the org in question is supposedly a non-profit, yet obviously somebody benefits financially. - WeniWidiWiki 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request concerning M.I.A. article
Could I request you check out the M.I.A. article page, and see if the overuse of the citation needed tags in the early life section and elsewhere can be removed. They've been added by users who seem to work together on Sri Lanka related articles. I've tried reasoning but to little success. A source site to Steven Loveridge's bio of MIA from where the early life section is taken has been credited once at the end of the section. I personally think this is sufficient, but would like to know your views on this. Thanks. Lifebonzza 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How would it be...
if I nominated you for that mop and bucket? Guy (Help!) 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok! I'm all out of excuses. :-) I'm on vacation until the 25th, so I'm good to go after then. Thanks! William Pietri 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for adminship/William Pietri; I have also shamelessly trolled the list for co-noms. I have not linked on WP:RFA yet, as I usually wait until the candidate accepts and any co-noms are done. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's very kind, and I will accept shortly. However, I have no legal training; perhaps I can blame that on my father's training in philosophy. Thanks much for doing this! William Pietri 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that you would be an excellent choice.

Capitalistroadster 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's very kind, and especially appreciated coming from somebody whose work I've admired. William Pietri 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Nosons
You've got mail!--thunderboltz(TALK) 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel
I have replied on the user's talk page, rather than on Jimbo's. Thanks for the heads up. I don't know that I will be able to keep up with the conversation as I am away from the computer most of the weekend, so please drop me a note if there is anything further that you think I should be aware of. Pastor David † (Review) 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, it takes a great deal more than that bit of uncivil behavior to make me take it personally. I hope this works out well, but it is not looking good for the editor in question.  Pastor David † (Review) 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please leave it
thx EnviroGranny 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is tainted, so please leave it for someone who is neutral, thanks. EnviroGranny 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for your recent 3O on the book Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training.

To address your questions about why anyone would be concerned about such an old book: There is a group of individuals on Wiki (go figure) who are modern-day witch-hunting. The more articles they can write on this particular subject, the more they can legitimize it (larger than life). They are even writing articles about insignificant companies, which get mentioned in books and journals, in order to make the LGAT topic larger than it is. (Several of those qualified for SpeedyDelete or were deleted via AfD.) One editor in particular, seems to spend about 12 hours a day (my view) on wiki and has cranked out dozens of these articles, all with a very negative bias against LGAT.

The controversy appears to come mostly from the Rick Ross (anti-cult) forum and website.

One of the first uses of LGAT, was in a book, where LGAT was used instead of cult seemingly to avoid the legal issues involved in naming cults.

LGAT is a methodology used by Personal Responsibility training seminar companies. It has no religious or cult overtones. It is something more like group therapy (whatever that really is). Some companies use it abusively, other companies use it well.

A few people, who have taken courses, were not prepared to accept responsibility for their contribution to their circumstances in life, and decide that the course was horrible. They end up on Rickross.com and ... well.. then people start showing up on wiki, writing articles about the abuses of LGAT.

There are valid complaints of abuse against some of the companies. One of the main companies being targeted is Landmark Education. From what I read about them, there were some legal issues and lawsuits. It is critical to the cult-watchdogs (anti-cult activists), to tie the book to Landmark and to tie Landmark to as much wrong doing as possible. That is why it is so very important to them, to establish the sale of the 'rights' of Erhard to his employees.

The (we'll call them watchdogs) have managed to subtly tie cult into most of the LGAT articles, in some fashion or another.

With respect to the employee purchase: As I understand it, the employees bought the Erhard's intelectual rights. Though I am not sure that the company they founded afterwards that was exactly the same. This is one of the reasons that there are objections to including this in the article. It is a thin thread and not particularly significant.

Thats it in a nutshell, clear as mud, I'm sure.

Thanks for taking time to give an opinion.

I've no doubt that someone will be along shortly to tell you how one-sided I am. ;)

Peace in God. Lsi john 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit issues
Please explain the issues that have led to your reverts 72.137.68.110 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no master woodworker, but sandpaper can indeed be held in the hand or wrapped around a Sanding block. Honest. I've done it. William Pietri 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, I work in a sandpaper factory. It's not a good idea. 72.137.68.110 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source that says so, and we can talk. Otherwise, I'm going to presume that this is more entertainment for you than a serious effort to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks, William Pietri 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nerd 72.137.68.110 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. William Pietri 04:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan Bennett
Why not speedy delete - the page is clearly a hoax. No such person was eleected to the House of Representatives in 1956. Nor did they command the frigate USS Lexington, none of the ships by that name were a frigate. . Edward321 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:CSD, hoaxes are explicitly excluded from speedy deletion. William Pietri 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
Thank you for a good answer to my question on your RfA.(I would like to point out that my username is not really U.S.A.cubed, it's U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.. It's just my signature. People have frequently refered to me as U.S.A., or U.S.A.x3, etc., so I shorted my signature. The cubed part is there becuase it says U.S.A. 3 times) Anyway, good luck on your RfA, and I don't think you'll abuse the tools.--U.S.A. cubed 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it up a little bit.--U. S. A. 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct
You are correct, it is a much deeper issue. Which was the reason I asked for a 3O in the first place. I get tired of my edits being reverted for inappropriate reasons. The user very carefully stays clear of 3RR, and thus games the system and prevents (or at least makes it very difficult for) other users from taking him to arbitration or whatever higher judicial processes are on wiki.

I'm still getting my feet wet and learning the process.

As you can see, he did not want my question asked, and by rewording it, he twisted the issue to his own purpose.


 * shrug* I guess thats part of wiki.

Peace in God. Lsi john 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was rewording, in a much more succinct and NPOV fashion, the crux of the issue that was in disupte. I was making this an issue about content, as opposed to focusing on the other editor in question.  It seemed the other editor in question came to WP:3O to do the reverse...  Smee 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thats exactly my point. I wanted to get a 3O on limiting tag usage to 1 per article. You wanted to change the issue and make it about tag justification for the tags. You never challenged the basis for any of the tags, you challenged based on quantity alone. *sigh* Lsi john 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But your phrasing of the issue made it about the user, as opposed to the content debate. If you had phrased the issue as you did just now, that would not have been inappropriate.  Smee 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Seriously, guys, you should talk to one another, not to me, and show more respect while doing it. Smee, changing another person's 3O request is out of line. If you want it changed, ask him civilly on his talk page and suggest a wording you think is more fair. Again, the first part of dispute resolution is talking to one another while assuming good faith, remaining civil, and keeping cool. And really, don't worry too much about a potentially biased 3O request; it's just as likely to backfire as it is to help. William Pietri 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, good points. Thanks for your time.  Smee 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I have become involved in the dispute between these two editors (and some others) through Third Opinion as well, and I think we're on a good track at the moment, after about a month The issues with the core page, LGAT, have been (mostly) solved. The above is typical, by the way :) - I wrote this page because of it. Extensive mediation does help. And thanks for all your recent third opinions - a nice backlog was beginning to form. --User:Krator (t c) 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so. As I said elsewhere, it seems like they're both well-meaning editors with reasonable points of view, and I think it's just completely different styles that cause so much misunderstanding. I hope they get it all sorted out! Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks, William Pietri 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

 * Do not post any further messages on my talk page, if you wish to discuss the Sprite (lightning) article or people related to it, then post the article talk page. Pls don't post on my talk page any further. EnviroGranny 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
For your most polite and kind demeanor whilst posting your Third Opinion at Template Talk:LandmarkForum. Smee 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Congrats
Hello sir, after your successful request, you are now an admin. Have fun with the new tools and as you get comfortable dig in and help clear out all the backlogs. Still be conservative with them, especially blocking - try to see if you can de-escalate a situation instead. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help and spend some time on the admin reading list of course. Again, congratulations. - Taxman Talk 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I am sure you will use the tools well to the benefit all who contribute to the project.  Smee 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, everybody! I appreciate it, and as soon as I get a little time, I'll properly thank all concerned. -- William Pietri 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, another expert computer programmer is now an admin! :-) --Uncle Ed 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * William, great news - I am pleased that editcountitis lost out to sense. Carry your mop with pride (and use the pointy end to fend off POV-pushers). Guy (Help!) 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
William, Thanks for your beat-the-nominator support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to continue to drop me a line any time you think my opinion could be helpful. Pastordavid 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Redwall Online Community
I'm assuming you removed the SD request because you sincerely believe that there will be controversy regarding the removal of this article. I disagree, but I'll respect your desire to let this play out in AfD and let the revert stand. I do hope you'll add your argument to the AfD discussion, however. Groupthink 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. I just finished doing that to see this. Next time I'll do things in the other order. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, William Pietri 12:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and more specifically, I see speedy as a way to get rid of stuff that the community sees as obvious cruft. This article has enough history, is well-enough written, and has enough in the way of contributions to merit an open discussion. More pragmatically, people have put enough time into the page that I think it will just get recreated until we have an AfD anyhow. William Pietri 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your AfD contribution. From what I can tell from that page's history page, it looks to me like contributions primarily came from anon ip's and absentee users.  You're right though, better thorough and safe than quick and sorry.  Groupthink 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pam Marshall
Thanks for your bold removal of my CSD a7 tag from Pam Marshall. Reviewing the article a second time, I'm not sure why I tagged it as such; the subject is indeed notable. I can only assume that I felt it did not assert the subject's notability well, and perhaps I was of the opinion it could not be salvaged. I've now placed a cleanup-date tag on it, and I may tackle it myself later this week. Thanks for the review.

Yours, &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're throwing me off here. They've clearly explained that I'm going to be yelled at for doing admin-ish things, and such a reasonable and friendly reply has left me befuddled.
 * Seriously, I appreciate the note. I think one of the great things about Wikipedia is how we all sanity-check one another, so little mistakes stay little. I'm glad to have helped you here, and can only hope I'll be so gracious when others do the same for me. Best regards, William Pietri 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarva Dharma Sammelan
Thank you for asserting the notability of the Sarva Dharma Sammelan concept/movement.

--Malaiya 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I didn't assert the notability of the concept. I just said that the article asserted notability, which means that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. To make sure it doesn't get deleted in some other fashion, make sure to make clear why the topic is important, and link to reliable sources that back your claim. Best, William Pietri 00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicide box
I added a note that I did not make it for disruption. Any belief in that is a misunderstanding. Please leave it. Thank you. -Eridani 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not my interpretation of this edit despite your subsequent denial. As to the note, as I'm not an expert on DRV closures, I'll leave it. Generally, however, comments on closed discussions are reverted, so I imagine somebody else will remove your comment shortly. Sorry, William Pietri 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoreline Entertainment
William, Thanks so much for your help on the "Morris Ruskin" page. I believe the "Shoreline Entertainment" article is now ready as well, so please let me know if anything else needs to be done, otherwise if you could please remove the speedy deletion post that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikey younesi (talk • contribs).

Unless I misread, the conflict of interest page did not say anything about me not being able to edit the page, it just stipulates that I should do so carefully and neutrally. I am making sure to follow the guidelines as posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikey younesi (talk • contribs).
 * Actually, it says to avoid or exercise great caution when editing such articles (the bolding is in the guideline) where there might be a conflict of interest. Creating such articles is included in this.  AK Radecki  02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Mikey's talk page for my response to this. William Pietri 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I responded to your post on User talk:Athaenara and don't know if you saw it there. Feel free to delete this message if you wish. — Athaenara ✉ 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NAM
I wanted to say that I always enjoyed the WP:NAM page. It is up there with the uncyclopedia essay on "No One Cares." :) SanchiTachi 06:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Laguna Mountains Skipper (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae)
Wondering why you made this page a redirect instead of a deletion? There is already a redirect at Pyrgus ruralis lagunae. It's a pretty trivial issue and I really don't care either way, just curious. AdamMorton 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From the history, it looked like the page was created by a newbie who was still trying to come to grips with Wikipedia's strange ways. This way he can follow what happened through the history and recover his changes to merge into the main article if he wants. I figure that eventually the redirect will get speedied, but having it for a bit causes little harm. Sorry for the confusion; I should have put more of my thinking in the edit summary. William Pietri 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I don't know if you noticed, but the original creator made two identical copies of the article, one at Laguna mountain skipper and the other at Laguna Mountains Skipper (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae).  I moved the first one to the capitalized version to get the redirect, added the redirect for the latin name, and proposed deletion of the duplicate page with the non-standard name.  Since the original poster's content is still in the Laguna Mountain Skipper article, I didn't think it would be an issue. But, more continuity is probably a good thing, and I don't think a stray redundant redirect is going to hurt anyone.

"BADSITES" controversy
Have you seen my essay about the controversy?

User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy

*Dan T.* 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. And the bit about the KKK calling Phelps evil is just delicious. Do you happen to have a cite for that? My brother, who went to college in Kansas, introduced me to their particularly vile brand of kookery years ago, and he'd love to see that. Thanks, William Pietri 17:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was cited in the Wikipedia article on the church; the mention is down in the last paragraph of it. *Dan T.* 00:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com
Looks like I stumbled into another meatpuppet march. So many IP edits that only contributed to endorse deletion. No matter what the outcome, it can't end well. Sigh. DarkAudit 17:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was crazy. I'm used to seeing a few SPAs here and there, but I had to tag pretty much every paricipant including the nom. It would be nice to have a clean, reasonable AFD discussion on the topic, but you're right that it won't be this one. William Pietri 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny how the article suddenly gets attention. (and I'm not referring to the open proxies) I want to note that previous AfD nominations have failed to generate sufficient traffic, (lack of interest with the article in question, I imagine) and consequently, no fair consensus could be reached. This also applies to the decision to overturn the original deletion, as the two avid watch-dogs Dstumme and Nihonjoe were the only other participants in the discussion. 74.242.99.62 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:Speedy of Tim Bulman
Sorry, my mistake. Senordingdong 10:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Last November
No problem with taking it to AfD, but out of interest what do you believe is an assertion of notability? Nuttah68 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! From a search on Amazon, their label seems legit enough. I saw that as of April they were working on their second album, whose release would push them over (or at least near to) the line in WP:BAND. Then when I checked out their site, I thought I saw two different albums. But they just have two different covers for their one album. Feel free to re-speedy it if you like. I probably won't nuke it myself, but I won't object if somebody else does. Thanks for checking, William Pietri 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gonzalo Suarez
Agreed on the awards, but still a minor(at best) contributor. Please, what do you suggest? Thanks. Stellatomailing 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that anybody who has written 30 movies and directed 27 while winning 5 awards is somebody worth having an article on. The Spanish Wikipedia does too. He's listed in the All Movie Guide as well: . If you still think he's not notable, I'd suggest WP:AFD. Thanks, William Pietri 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) Stellatomailing 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Casagrande Labs
I was sent an email from another editor about what looked like an astroturfing campaign.User:Britisharchitecturefoundation23, User:Martta1, and User:Matthiasmatthias were the main suspects. The only sources cited in any of the articles I tagged as spam were their own web site. DarkAudit 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi William. I appreciate your concern, and just would like to point more users. OscarHansen 61.229.181.19 61.229.173.79 Jurefrancetiz DrBulthaup Chichenshui

Not saying that you are wrong, just sounds unlikely. Your take? Stellatomailing 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Some of the stuff seems to be legit. Treasure Hill, for example, is mentioned in a NYT article on Taipei, and the Taipei goverment also writes about it. Makoto Sei Watanabe also seems to be a legit architect with enough awards that they probably aren't a speedy, and could well be notable. So it's a subtle astroturfing campaign, anyhow, and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You might do a WP:RFCU to see if they are the same person, and the Architecture Wikiproject could probably help sort out the wheat from among the chaff. William Pietri 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did a checkuser outlining the situation, using code G. I'll ask the project about all this, as well. DarkAudit 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now. Not only was the puppetry confirmed, but there were almost as many that I missed. I've put that information into the AfDs that survived the speedying last night. There are some endorsements to keep Marco Casagrande asking to assume good faith, but those come in before the confirmation of the puppetry came back. No comments back from the Architecture Wikiproject yet. Thanks for your help. DarkAudit 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion of eLiberatica page
Hello,

We, ROSI (the Romanian Open Source Initiative) would like to put up a page about eLiberatica on wikipedia. We actually did this until you deleted it.

The eLiberatica Conference brings community leaders from around the world to talk about the hottest topics in FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) movement demonstrating the advantages of adopting, using and developing Open Source and Free Software solutions. See eliberatica.ro for more information.

We request your help on how we can create a worthy page. So, if you have any suggestions or if there is a conference page on wikipedia that would serve as inspiration, please point us to it.

Thanks, Mihai


 * Hi, Mihai. A user requested that it be deleted, and although I have a big soft spot for FLOSS, I had to agree that it met our criteria for speedy deletion. The heart of a good article is that it be written from a neutral point of view and that it be verifiable from reliable sources and having no original research.
 * Another big thing that causes articles to disappear is that the topic does not appear to be notable. Keep in mind that you folks may feel your topic is more notable than your average Wikipedia editor will. That's natural, as you guys wouldn't run the conference if you didn't think it important.
 * That brings me to something else important in this case: conflict-of-interest guidelines. For the most part, people can't write neutrally on topics they are passionate about, especially including their own projects.
 * If I were you I'd focus mainly on finding good sources for the article. The best place for you is probably to find articles that professional reporters have written about the conference. Alternatively, if obviously important people in FLOSS field have written about the conference and why it matters.
 * Once you have those sources, drop back and let me know. Once I've seen them, I can suggest ways for you to get your article on Wikipedia, hopefully by connecting you with an editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the same way you do.
 * Best regards, William Pietri 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contribution
Does Wikipedia have any method of tripcode verification available? —  ROGUE  p 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Rogue. Sorry for the slow reply. I know I saw this on somebody's user page recently, but I can't find it again. If I recall rightly, the answer is yes: there is a standard way to put an encrypted token on your user page so that if your account is compromised you can prove you're the true owner. It's something I have no need of, so I didn't track it. But if you post as the Villiage Pump, I'm sure somebody will know this in three seconds. William Pietri 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunzfavor
Please leave some indication that an empty area had been previously deleted, and I won't waste hours of my time contributing. --Fortunzfavor 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a great point. I have posted about this on the mailing list with a proposed solution. I'm sorry we wasted your time on this, and I hope that won't sour you on Wikipedia in the future. Thanks, William Pietri 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The last time I mentioned it, I got griped at and ignored. Thanks for actually thinking about it, I hope something comes of your efforts.  --Fortunzfavor 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good news! Other people agree it's feasable and a good idea and have put it the software's tracking system. I don't have time to work on this right now, but I've been wanting to get into the MediaWiki code at some point, so I hope to pick this one off eventually. If somebody doesn't beat me to it, that is. Anyhow, thanks again for speaking up! William Pietri 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even better news: this is now fixed! Take a look at Deletion log, for example. You can see the previous deletion comments there. That's quick service! And I believe it was User:AmiDaniel who did it. William Pietri 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is quick. Thanks for the followup.  --Fortunzfavor 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN
Re your comments on another userpage of one of the persons behind the BJAODN CSD, MfD, and DRV debates. Don't worry about them, the user in question is an administrator who enforces policy and procedure how and when it suits him, and has no problems acting in a cabal like manner when dealing with those who question him. Just look at AN/I and my talk page to see just how they get in these circumstances. If you look on the BJAODN talk page, you'll see there is things in the works to bring it back in a manner which puts the policy wonks back in their box. I totally agree that the user and others were acting in contravention of WP:POINT and breached the spirit of No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Those are issues which are going to come out in the wash as these matters proceed. It's just a clear shame that admin's aren't forced to automatic recall elections every couple of years, as it would help rid the encyclopaedia of those who act in total disregard for accepted policies and procedures, and do so with impunity. Thewinchester (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliberatica
Hi. On May 29 you speedied ELiberatica after I nominated it. It's been re-created, in somewhat different form, as Eliberatica. Its creator has also graced Wikipedia with ActiveFailSafe. I don't think either of these particularly notable subjects, but do take a look and see whether they should face the axe. Biruitorul 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll take a look at both and comment on the article talk pages. Thanks for pointing them out to me. William Pietri 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I've prodded the second one, given that it's been up since October with no improvement. Biruitorul 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LEARN diet
Thanks for comments. Please see reply at User_talk:Badgettrg. Badgettrg 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
How do I initiate a deletion review based on the content at User:Badgettrg/LEARN_diet? I put a Delrev template on the page, but I am not sure that was correct. Thanks.Badgettrg 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably don't want a deletion review.
 * The question anwered in DRV is whether the deletion was properly done, not whether we should have an article on the topic in the encyclopedia. Instead, I'd just encourage you to beef up your draft until you feel it unquestionably belongs.
 * Then on the talk page for the draft, explain your thinking. The two causes for deletion were that it did not appear notable and that it looked like spam. So make it clear how people have noted this diet (e.g., has it been the subject of studies or articles?). Also make it clear why you're putting in the article (in particular disclosing any conflict-of-interest issues you might have).
 * Then you could move the draft back into article space. But it might be better to get some opinions first from people previously involved. That includes me and Naconkantari, who performed the deletions, and Realkyhick, P4k, and Erechtheus who edited the article (two of them to request speedy deletion). You could also invite comment from other people working on that topic area, as opinions from people like that are often more persuasive than laymen like myself.
 * The basic spirit here is that on Wikipedia we generally just do things, per WP:BOLD, until we bump into some disagreement. Then we build consensus so that we're all on the same page.
 * Hope that helps, William Pietri 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I removed the delrev. Hopefully will get to the other as time permits.Badgettrg 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson
Hey, I noticed your post on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's page, and must say I couldn't agree more. I've been dealing with him for the past few days and have gotten nowhere. But, he's welcome to be a Negative Nancy if he wants to. However, I was wondering if you might do me a slight favor, since Gustafson seems to be unwilling to, and since it seems you are an administrator as well. To make a very long story short, Gustafson deleted an image that I uploaded, and I attempted to discuss the reasons with him since I felt he was incorrect in doing so. I got the typical deletion-of-my-post-with-a-short-moody-edit-summary treatment. I persisted, and once I realized I was getting nowhere, I requested a of the image. In an attempt to archive our previous discussion, as limited and one-sided as it may have been, i posted my posts and his edit summaries here and made a link to it within the deletion review. That way I wouldn't have to rehash my argument a million times and could show how difficult Gustafson was being in the whole matter. Well, low and behold, Gustafson deleted my little archive, citing "G8", which, if you read it not-all-that-carefully protects such a talk page. I appealed to him on his talk page but got the same run around. I would request a deletion review of that page too, but that would seem to only compound the problem. So, if you might be so kind, could you reinstate that one talk page? I'd do it myself manualy, but the history page was purged along with the article, so I'm powerless. I don't even know if you have that authority/capability, but I thought I'd ask since you seem to empathize with me a bit about how rudely Gustafson is behaving. I'm not asking you to take my side on the original deletion review or anything else, but am just asking for a little administrative help since I seem to have another administrator making things difficult. Thanks either way! Drewcifer3000 08:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Drew. It seems like a reasonable request to me. To be polite, I'll ask him first. Is it an acceptable compromise that the page end up in your user space rather than attached to the article? Thanks, William Pietri 17:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks William. I suppose that's an alright compromise, though it seems more appropriate to discuss an image on an image's talk page.  After all, it's not "my image" so why should discussion of it be contained on "my talk page."  But whatever you think is best, either is fine by me. Thanks again for your time.  Drewcifer3000 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with you; I think talk pages should stay around until nobody cares to have them. However, for the current goal, which is just making the discussion visible in the DRV, this seems like a reasonable compromise, and a lot easier than working something out via edit summaries. If the image is restored, we can always move it back to the talk page. Regardless, it's now back and I've mentioned it in the DRV. Let me know if I can be of further help. -- William Pietri 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, I am perfectly satisfied with this compromise. While I'm at it, I do have one last question for you.  I've only recently had to deal with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, but it has been a difficult experience to say the least.  I did a little research (which Wikipedia makes it very easy to do) and found that I am not the first to have these difficulties.  In fact, as far as I can tell, Gustafson has been temporarily banned around 6 times (2 or 3 times by himself, admittedly), has previously been the topic of an administrator review (mostly concerning his incivility and odd User Talk purging), often gives inappropriate edit summaries ("Because I'm a fucking monster" comes to mind), ignores or shows disdain for his admin responsibilities but brashly exercise the very same power, and seems to, in my opinion, know Wikipedia policy fairly well but ignore or subvert them regardless.  That last point, ignoring or subverting policy, is of most concern to me, since he's also been speedy deleting a ton of images based on Fair Use violations. (check out his "Log" page.)  As far as I know, Fair Use is not a criteria for Speedy Deletion, and it has its own process and waiting period to give the uploader a chance to fix things.  He seems to be completely ignoring this process, and just deleting images himself regardless.  That seems unacceptable to me.


 * I don't know if there's anything that can or should be done, but he seems to reflect poorly on the admin position, wouldn't you say? Maybe I'm just venting here, or maybe I'm just asking for your opinion on what to do next, but I'm definitely not trying to instigate a witch hunt.  Having dealt with Gustafson, I'd just like to make Wikipedia a friendly and more effective place, I guess.  Anyways, if you have any opinions on this, please let me know.  Thanks again! Drewcifer3000 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see on his talk page history, I've had an unsatisfying discussion with him about this. I haven't looked at the deletions yet. I think both editors and admins should have wide discretion to do anything that unambiguously makes the encyclopedia better, so I don't think out-of-process actions are necessarily a problem. However, I think not playing well with others is a big problem. I also don't want a witch hunt, so I'm not quite sure what to do next. Let me take a bit to think about what options are most gentle; making him feel defensive surely won't help his frame of mind. Feel free to prod me though, as I don't want to let this fall through the cracks. Thanks, William Pietri 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I think we're on the same page here, and you seem to know a bit more about what you're doing, but what ever you decide is best I'm behind you on.  I guess the speedy deletion thing isn't against the rules per se, but it is bound to cause more headaches than it is worth.  In the past two week period, he has deleted something like 100 images, the majority of them for fair use violations.  Granted, 9 out of 10 of these images did violate fair use, but the original uploader was not notified and given a chance to fix the page, and a number of images were deleted under shakey grounds (such as the image that I'm concerned with, Image:Make-Up.jpg, as well as Image:Blondie1982.jpg and Image:Inchophone.jpg).  Such a burn and slash technique gets rid of the good images with the bad, which is the whole reason for the usual Fair Use process in the first place.  Anyways, let me know if you think of an appropriate course of action. Drewcifer3000 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey William. Just wanted to get back to you to see if you have any ideas.  Also, to add to the ongoing list of Jeffrey's antics, the purging of his User Page has also been discussed and brought under scrutiny not only on the Administrator's noticeboard, but also as a deletion review (here).  Also, he went on a spree of speedy deletions today, deleting 12 images which I uploaded.  Of course I have issue with him speedy deleting images for fair use reasons, but also since he seems to be targeting me specifically.  This situation seems to be spiralling out of control, and since I am not an administrator there is little I can do.  If you have any ideas I would appreciate it.  Thanks! Drewcifer3000 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears as if someone already read our minds. Check this out: WP:ANI. Drewcifer3000 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Randalph P. Williams 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

usability
That would be fantastic; let me know. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson RfC
Hi. Given Jeffrey's response to the AN/I thread and his stated intention of continuing his behaviour, I think there is no option other than starting an RfC to (hopefully) address the problem. I have created a draft RfC at User:Black Falcon/Sandbox. Given your effort to communicate your concerns to Jeffrey, I was wondering if you'd take a look at it. I've deviated from the format of Requests for comment/Example admin, but only because the alternate format (Template:RfC) is more suited to the purpose. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but if you file it, I'd feel obliged to endorse the parts I'm familiar with, as I feel they're accurate. Please let me know if/when you do. Thanks, William Pietri 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Desktop Tower Defense
Hi! Would it be ok if you unprotected the Desktop Tower Defense articlespace? I've been working on an objective, encyclopedic, referenced article on it for some time now (not related to the previous one, which I suspect was rather crufty) and I'm planning on moving it from User:Shrumster/Desktop Tower Defense if it's already ok to go into articlespace? Thanks! Shrumster 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Great work on the article; it seems to address the concerns from the AfD. If I were you I'd add something to your new article's talk page explaining why it is now a keeper. It's pretty obvious to me, but it wouldn't hurt to make it obvious to others, too. Good luck! William Pietri 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will do! Shrumster 06:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD G1 and hoaxes
I removed your changes to G1. The hoaxes item along with the rest of the list at the end of G1 is actually a list of things not eligible for deletion under G1, so there is no conflict with the non-criteria. No hoaxes are speediable, obvious, implausible, or even convincingly possible.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah. You're absolutely right. Sorry, that's what I get for jumping in when tired. I appreciate the instant catch! Thanks, William Pietri 05:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuned blocks
This is a reply to what you said on the WikiEN-L mailing list back on August 1 or early July, about blocking. I can't find our original but KP quoted you here:. Second, people often just want to have their say. Blocking people to prevent harm to articles is already frustrating to people. But I think they'll put up with that better if we indicate that we're still willing to listen to them, at least as long as they play nice. I would love to see short-term blocks be done on a per-namespace, per-article, and even per-grouping-of-articles basis. If an otherwise-good editor has a penchant for NPOV violations in articles about NBA teams, block him from those articles but allow him to edit other articles, plus the talk pages of articles he's blocked from. Unfortunately, I don't think the software can do that now. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. Thanks for the comment. I think I saw mention from Tim Starling on the wikien-l list that somebody is working on this, but I'm buried and don't have time to check the details. I'd encourage you to give the developers support and feedback on this. Thanks, William Pietri 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw something to that effect also. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup
Sounds like Sunday, September 16 is the best day for a September SF-area meetup -- hope to see you then! Check the meetup page for details and to suggest a location and time. -- phoebe/ (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Article that needs to be deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_The_Sickest_Kids --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lisa. I'm a little surprised that you're looking to get small bands deleted, but I guess it's a complicated world. If you believe the article does not belong in Wikipedia, you should start at WP:AfD. That explains how to propose something for deletion. Good luck, and let me know if you need help with the instructions. Best, William Pietri 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Shameless by Billy Joel
William,
 * The song, "Shameless" was out long, long before the British T.V. show, Shameless; thus, I put the stub at the top of the Shameless article. I submit that a disambiguation page be written containing both.

Nes Pas?

Alzuun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzuun (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alzuun. Could you give me a little more context? Other than sharing a first name with Mr. Joel, I'm not sure what my connection to this would be. Thanks, William Pietri 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

William, the context of the word, Shameless, is that it is a very old song title. It has nothing to do with the nouveau British television series. I am requesting a disambiguation article or whatever is best to point folks correctly. My addition to the article bearing the title, "Shameless" was very short. It said the above before the second sentence, it provided links to articles about Billy Joel and Garth Brooks and it provided a source...yet you deleted it. What more do you need, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzuun (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looking back in the article history, I now see what you mean. That was more than six months ago, so I had forgotten entirely.

From what I can tell, you edited the article about the British TV series. I understand what you were going for, but the right way to achieve your goal is to create a disambiguation page. Luckily, somebody has done that at Shameless. See Disambiguation for more information. I hope that helps! Thanks, William Pietri 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Chore Wheel
I haven't seen a comment of it in the responses to your idea, but you also may wish to check out User:Suggestbot, which seems to be a cross between self-interested tasks, and ascribing tasks. - jc37 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, neat. Thanks for mentioning that. It's definitely in a similar spirit. I'll look at it in detail. Thanks, William Pietri 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Other account
Hello. You asked me about my other account. It is User:Antonio Stradivari. Thanks.--Privacyisall 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S
We'll have to agree to disagree as I havent violated any Wikipedia policies and she continues to violate three or four in each edit. Perspicacite 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another user has drawn my attention to this post by e-mail (since I thought it best not to check your contribution history any more, since it seems to bother you).

I can't always rely on friends helping me in this manner, so I wonder if I can ask you to notify me (by e-mail or on my talk page) if you wish to discuss me by name in future?

Now the substantive point: I've a very new account here on this wonderful encyclopedia so may I beg a favour of you?

Rather than pointing out my (alleged/real) violations to others on noticeboards, etc, do you think you could manage to point them out to me (but in quite some detail - I'm really not the most perceptive of people) first?

Maybe we could make a start with the three or four you've noticed most recently; but please provide a precise diff (and perhaps also provide an example of how an experienced editor like yourself could have complied with our policies)? Thanks! Alice.S 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you two. I've also left a note on Alice's page. Neither of you has acted without error in this, but Perspicacite, I see your inability to be civil and assume good faith as the core of the problem here, and it's why you ended up blocked for a while. You have turned minor editing disagreements into big wikidramas, wasting a lot of other people's time. I've asked Alice to give you a wide berth; I agree that following you when you guys are already in a personal conflict is not going to help anything.

However, you should also stop focusing on Alice's behavior. Even if you and Alice never interact again, you are very likely to end up in a similar dispute if you keep going the way you are going. I expect that Alice will reflect on this experience and learn from it, but I am very concerned that you won't. Please take advantage of this opportunity, as I think you could be a great contributor if you can learn to work with others here. William Pietri 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, William.

I've posed a more general question for you (and all the other experienced and great Wikipedians) on my talk page.

Thanks for taking the time to give good advice and analysis. Alice.S 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For your help with User:Abhih. Quick question - is checking someone's edits because you've noticed an ignorance of policy considered Wikistalking? I ask because he told me to "stop stalking" him. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome. I appreciate you pointing it out. See WP:STALK for more, but my view is that it depends on what's in your heart. If you are keeping your WP:COOL and can deal with him sympathetically, then keeping an eye on his contributions is fine, and is not stalking. If you're irritated to the point where people can tell from how you talk with him, that's not so good. And even when you mean well, he may see it as a personal conflict, so feel free to ask for an outside opinion if he has a hard time dealing with you personally. William Pietri 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm just gonna keep out of his stuff for now...thought it'd be fun to help a newbie...but they have to be willing. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just passing through here but I think you're both absolutely right - what a pity there isn't some sort of template that shows what is genuinely felt in your heart - a "motive meter" - that could be placed after the timestamp in your signature. Alice.S 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Riggies
Oops! I guess I did make an incorrect tagging there. Thank you for removing it. I had better work to make sure that I don't do that again. Captain  panda  22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fab!Don't sweat it too much. This is a team game, so there's no shame in having somebody catch a ball you fumbled. And honestly, Chicken Riggies sounds like some sort of made-up poultry disease. William Pietri 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi William
I wonder if you get a spare moment if you could once more point me in the direction of the template you developed referring to an article being held in a specific state due to a legal consideration. I think it's become more and more appropriate at Giovanni Di Stefano, where we've just had a deletion and recreation on these grounds.

Thanks in advance! (hope you're well) - best, Privatemusings 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. It is User:William Pietri/Legaldispute. Instructions for use are on that page. William Pietri 08:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, William, I've put it on to the article because I think it's a good idea. best, Privatemusings 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request
Hi William Pietri I wanted to let you know that Bots/Requests for approval/ChoreBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBot Talk 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

tigers
I just read you essay on tigers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beware_of_the_tigers and thought i'd log in especially to say what a fine job you did! --Dylan2106 (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)