Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Masha (singer) (2nd nomination)

Warning templates

 * , doing a cocktail campaign and singing a song on VH1, that's not exactly of biblical scope, though I appreciate the rhetoric. However, this "girly behavior" comment, that's just incredibly stupid, and I'll put a nice sticker on your talk page saying so. I'll gladly remove it after you apologize, and if you make a sexist personal attack like that again I'll block you. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved from project page. Rebb  ing   22:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I believe Dontreader is free to remove your warning, apology or not. See WP:BLANKING ("Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages . . . . There is no need to keep [notices] on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."). (girl observation) Rebb  ing   20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe I need to be lectured on the legalities of wiki lawyering. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to irritate you,, but, as you appeared to insinuate that Dontreader needed your permission to remove your template, politely reminding you of our rules was appropriate. As has been discussed before, you don't get to make up rules, no matter how sensible they may seem. Furthermore, pointing out a rule is not wikilawyering. ' explains: "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. . . . [S]imply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer'''; remember that Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats, Featured Article & Good Article review procedures, and various other formal processes." Again, no disrespect intended. Cheers. Rebb  ing   20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think your reply to was uncivil. In my opinion you should have walked away unless she was wrong, but instead, it looks to me as if your ego was bruised. Per WP:CIVIL, editors "should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably," and per WP:ADMINCOND, "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." Rebbing is extremely capable of defending herself, but nevertheless I felt the need to say something about the matter even before she replied. Anyway, as she said, no disrespect intended. Dontreader (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like escalating miscommunication. I don't read Drmies's comment as insinuating that a warning cannot be removed. I see him saying that he will remove the warning upon apology (i.e. rescinding), not that nobody else is allowed to. I don't think it's crazy to interpret it the other way, though, and I can see how both Rebbing and Drmies could be put off by the other's response. This doesn't seem like it can go anywhere productive, though. I'm going to hat it as completely unrelated to this AfD, to be resumed on usertalk pages (or, ideally, nowhere). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you . We're now wikilawyering about the term wikilawyering? If something needs to be clarified, in this case about the removal of a warning, it can be done on that user's talk page without pinging other parties. And if anything is irritating, it's this constant linking of the most obvious things--like CIVIL ADMINCOND BLANKING ETC. Citing and linking policy to someone who obviously knows, or should know, such policies is just...well. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO this should still be hatted/closed. My suggestion to move it wasn't to the AfD talk page, which should still concern the AfD, but a user talk page (or, as I said, preferably nowhere at all -- i.e. leave it hatted). I don't think anybody is under the impression that it's controversial to remove a warning from one's own usertalk page, and the initial comments which led to the warning have been apologized for. As such, perhaps we could move on if strikes the warning on 's talk page, following up on "gladly remove it" (strike vs. remove because there's a thread based on it now), and everyone chalk what's left up to miscommunication? I don't want to add to conflict, though, so I'll take my leave :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any further action needs to be taken on this. Also, I didn't mean to overrule your hatting; I just felt it belonged here rather than hatted on the project page. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is finished. I disagree with Drmies' stance that it's a breach of etiquette to remind someone in power of our policies, guidelines, and basic terms when he's shown a lack of understanding about them—e.g., his clear misuse of the pejorative term "wikilawyering" to describe PAG-based points that he finds annoying or pedantic—but there's nothing to be done about that. I can't blame him for not appreciating being told how to do his job (yet again) by some uppity bitch with 3,000 edits—he's on ArbCom for goodness' sake—but I'd have preferred he just call me annoying or bitchy or whatever instead of pretending I was misrepresenting our rules (which is what wikilawyering is). I have no objection to you using archive top on this or whatever your preferred method is.  Rebb  ing   23:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)