Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 10 July 2006

/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 Geni. I travel professionally and am not always at sites that allow me to access the Internet. You mentioned that the article did not "read" like an encyclopedia article. Please give me an example of what I can do to help my article "read" correctly.

Thank-you.

Unknown Master

Why am I blocked? Please remove it so I could edit some pages. Thank You!

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY KAMISHIN RYU PAGE?

Part 2 I travel professionally and am not able to access the Internet at all sites that I work at. You mentioned that my article did not "read" like an encylopedia article. Please give me an example of what I can change to help with its reading.

Part 1 I checked the deletion log of my article "Kamishin Ryu" and found that you are responsible for deleting it on June 11, 2006.

Why would you do this without contacting me first? Do you question something within the article? The information is directly off of my website and is information that I GENERATED OVER 15 YEARS AGO! I am the original author of all information that was written in my Kamishin Ryu article.

I don't mean for this to come across harshly but was surprised to see that such actions were performed without any contact through my Talk page concerning these edits. I appreciate any information that you can share with me.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AbdielColberg.gif)

Geni,how are you? I've never had the pleasure of writing to you before. As far as I know newspaper and magazine images are public domain and of fair use. Maybe I used the wrong tag, will you check that out for me? Take care. Tony the Marine 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for writing back, I accept your sound judgement. Tony the Marine 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Angolan War

As you are the admin that deleted the Angolan War article as a copyvio, could you also please close the AfD discussion that was recently discussed about the same article? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bands (neck)

I saw that the article on neck bands had been deleted as a "copyvio", apparently because it duplicated text found on Geocities on what looks like the author's own site. I have asked that this decision be reviewed and that the article be restored at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. You may want to chime in there and make sure we know the whole story. Smerdis of Tlön 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about an unblock on User:Amorrow?

Geni: Please unblock Amorrow. The account has been in the dog house for a better part of a year now. AWM -- 71.141.39.159 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No.Geni 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, you cannot blame a boy for trying. I predict that we are going to dance a little waltz yet, my darling. -- 71.141.19.71 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NB harbour

Hi, I reverted a revert you made to North Berwick, it looked like an obvious case of a new user from the town linkspamming the page with his own freesite, but it's actually a historical research site and very important source that was instrumental in getting North Berwick Harbour on the front page as a DYK? a few weeks ago. I added it to that article back then and should have added it to the main NB page myself. However, good spot, 99% of such cases are indeed spamtastic. Cheers, Deizio talk 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Geni,

I was disambiguating "Rebirthing", and trying to move Rebirthing-Breathwork to Rebirthing (Breathwork), but was all thumbs.

Macchendra 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

CPO Sharkey

I thought according to the rules, magazine covers are fair use. So what happened? MrBlondNYC 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm an idiot but I read the tag and I see how mag covers are used on Misplaced Pages and I see absolutely no difference. MrBlondNYC 08:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Tickle-4

The original comment on this name, which I have also heard, is from the main admin for WE-Chem- Martin Walker. But if you think that the monicker is too unprofessional or dopey, go ahead and kill it because I dont have a source (not the kind of thing one finds in books). --Smokefoot 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Buffie The Body image

Thank you for your message regarding the Buffie The Body image. I no longer deal with that image (and similar images), and I have also abandoned the type of articles. Also, it seems the image was put back after you messaged me, so for that reason, it is probably no longer up for deletion. You said it was up for deletion, but I don't see a discussion regarding the deletion anywhere. Hmm, I could be wrong. Thank you anyway. Stiles 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize. I guess we aren't allowed to use magazine cover. Please delete the images on Cindy Crawford, Kim Alexis, Christie Brinkley ... in fact pretty much every one of the hundreds of articles on ] at your earliest convenience. Have fun. 23skidoo 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case I invite you to place a comment at in the Village Pump (policy) section, where the topic of eliminating all images from Misplaced Pages is being discussed. Incidentally, I was under the impression that creating a sockpuppet account is against Misplaced Pages rules. 23skidoo 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on WP:SOCK - I've just seen one too many vandals using them so I thought they'd been forbidden. Regarding the magazine issue, is there a Misplaced Pages page where suggestions can be made on this particular issue? I truly believe that fair use image use tag for magazine covers should be expanded to allow their use to illustrate articles on the subject of the covers and the photographer's work. The current wording is way too restrictive, will have a negative impact on far too many articles in my opinion, and no one has presented me with compelling reasons as to how this might damage anyone's copyright. IMO there's no more damage than using them in articles on the publications. All or none. And I fail to see why it should differ from the current policy on comic book covers which does allow the use not only to illustrate the publication in question, but also the subject featured on the cover. BTW just for the record I don't have a particular interest in Buffie Carruth and I'm not sure why she's even on my watchlist (I think I'd made some adjustments when it was a new article and Wiki automatically added it to my watchlist), but my concern is in the broader scheme of things. 23skidoo 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Whao..don't get me wrong, please. I never said magazine covers are against Misplaced Pages rules. They are perfectly in line with the rules, and there is no objection against them. I don't know where you got the impression there's something wrong with magazine covers. The issue with the Buffie The Bodie image was that it was no longer being used in an article. If an image is not in an article (or other places where one can be used), it should not be on Misplaced Pages, partly to save space. That was the only issue here, not whether magazine covers are allowed. Never mind all this though, it seems that the image is now once again being used, and there is no need to delete the Buffie image. Stiles 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your response wasn't entirely helpful, though I did leave a message on the project page and thanks for that link. I can't find anything to support the fair use rationale that magazine covers cannot be used to illustrate their subject matter. I am of the opinion that this is an error -- until such a time that someone actually quotes me chapter and verse where Misplaced Pages has either been sued for copyright infringement over such use or the US Government has banned their use. Incidentally, why does a double standard exist? Why can we not use magazine covers, yet comic book covers (and last I looked comics are magazines) are OK? 23skidoo 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection of WP:CSD

Please see y comment. Since this page was protected against protection policy and without what I would consider to be adequate reason, I'm asking you to remove protection from the policy page. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship renewal discussion

Is now at Misplaced Pages talk:Adminship renewal, due to typo on my part. My apologies if it confused you. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, Geni. Would you mind taking a look at Spinecor? It appears to be a candidate for WP:AFD, but I'm not sure. Cheers! -AED 06:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract Management

There was a case filed with the mediation cabal by a maybe legit user Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Abstract management. I left some questions for you at Talk:Abstract_management. Your call however you want to handle this. jbolden1517 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan S. Chartock

Geni, what grounds do you have to delete the entire section just because you don't like the words 'decidely one-sided'? So just delete those few words and leave the quotes intact? I think your actions could be construed in this article as being abusive of your privileges as an admin.Fungible 17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Geni, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaccines and fetal tissue

You marked this page {{totallydisputed}}, but you did not update the article talk page. That's bad form on it's own, but I would also say that the facts in the article (about Rubella Abortus and so on) are referenced and factual. I think the article has a problem with NPOV and is sort of inflamatory, but the contents are true. Many people are interested in whether fetal tissue cell lines are currently in use. Heathhunnicutt 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the same ingredient are used in UK. I couldn't agree with you more about the potential for {{copyvio}} on that page. In fact, I delete the section in question -- not that I was the source of it in the first place. Please check the latest edit out. I think this article can and should be saved. Heathhunnicutt 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

issue from afd

Geni -

I'd kick this to User: Mailer Diablo but he's on wikibreak. He didn't handle an AFD for multiple articles correctly. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pscad. Anyway just wanted to pass this on to an admin without having to make the mistake public on something like admin notice-board. jbolden1517 04:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for this lead!

re: VP

everytime a new policy is proposed god kills a kitten. please think of the kittens.Geni 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• At least one person around here recognizes the KISS principle, and there is alomost no way to assimulate all the guidelines we have already!

Best regards // FrankB 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Peppers

Hello Geni,

I was sorry to see that you seem to have restored a page that was legitimately speedily deleted, and which is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Please delete the page, and feel free to let us know your thoughts on the matter at the review discussion, should you so wish. Very kind regards —Encephalon 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for restoring the wrongly speedy-deleted Peppers talk page. My opinion of Misplaced Pages is that it's a bit unwieldy due to all the editors, but this sudden deletion when the conversation was hardly problematic was crushing. ==Bobak 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you, but since the page is protected --is there anyway to add a note that it's going through speedy-deletion review on the top of the page? I only found out about it by accident from reading the above comment. --Bobak 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for canvasing a few people. I didn't realize the position until GTBacchus told me, and I was worried people wouldn't know about the deletion review. All the best, have a great weekend. --Bobak 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion of Template:User Christian

Can you show us where there is consensus to do so, us on IRC are a bit concerned about wheel warring / was their consensus to do so -- Tawker 01:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Looking at DRV, it doesn't look like consensus in any way shape or form to undelete that, can you please take another look -- Tawker 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what page are you looking at in your decision. From the DRV there is no consensus to undelete and it looks a tad like wheel warring w/o explaination. Please do provide a link to the page of which you determined this conculsion thanks -- Tawker 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion was to continue discussion. Undeleting certainly doesn't further that point; let it run its course. .:.Jareth.:. 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing that require discussion continue in that manner and you did notice that no one bothered to list it at TfD? Because these debates get clogged with "oh no, don't delete the userboxes" or "but, wait, there's no policy" means that a bit more care is required. Absolutely nothing required that template to be undeleted, using a previous discussion to circumvent a current one isn't productive. .:.Jareth.:. 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times must we get the same result in the same discussions over the same issues before its enough? Having to constantly re-debate the issue every time someone talks a few more "friends" into the discussion probably causes a lot of this frustration. Regardless of these things, this isn't about the userbox debate, its about the methods you use to make a point. I'm sorry you consistently choose to war over issues; I have a hard time imagining how that approach does Misplaced Pages any credit. .:.Jareth.:. 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you continue to make this about the userbox debates. I think you'll find I've not been a very active participant in them, so your statements are misplaced. Perhaps you need to have a discussion with those people you feel are using their status to push around the debates? .:.Jareth.:. 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer points that had anything to do with the discussion. If you believe wheel-warring is appropriate, so be it, but don't try to sideline this with a userbox debate. .:.Jareth.:. 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User christian

Geni, what's going on with Template:User christian? Why have you undeleted and protected it? You say in your edit that consensus has been reached, but I see no evidence of this. I'm not involved in the conversation, but I'm concerned with your actions. A quick count showed 11 undeletes out of 23 comments which does not seem to indicate any degree of consensus either way. Furthermore, the issue remains under discussion, and your actions appear not to be in line with established policies regarding controversial articles. I urge you to reconsider your course of action and bring the issue back to the table. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

However there has to be some rationale for doing such an undeletion. If you are not willing to provide such a reason I am strongly suggesting that we keep the article in its deleted status. -- Tawker 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Debate

Hi

I see that you have deleted all the external links to debating clubs/societies/etc. Whilst I understand that some of them may well be spam links, they are non-profit organizations which deal with debating. The links have been categorized so that it can easily allow for finding the relevant information.

Many of them are in fact very relevant and important, such as international unions. They symbolize how debate is conducted today.

Do you mind if I sort through them and restore some of the more relevant ones? Just because some are bad, doesn't make them all bad. -- Chris Lester 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Geni for helping with vandalism on the Baha'i Faith page. -- Jeff3000 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi, just a quick note to say I like your shorthand "list MT" or "not MT", cuts down the typing I guess :-), mind if I borrow it for use? Also we had a blocking conflict on 82.110.217.131, but I'll let your shorter block stand. I'll stick him on my watchlist as he seems to be pretty determined. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My sig

Hi, I agree that my sig code was kinda huge & I was thinking of changing it one of these days. I have changed it now. What do you think? Srikeit 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it a bit. Srikeit 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually bold it so that the links don't stick together. Anyway I have removed the <b> tag from the front & added after the

Semi-protection

Because of the recent string of vandalism from User:80.134.170.37 and his threat of coming back as another IP, can you please semi-protect the pages he is editing? The King of Kings 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See your point. The King of Kings 12:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Geni. Darn, know what an I supposed to do for fun :) The King of Kings 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg

"we can't use images for which we only have premission to use them on wikipedia." - Where does it say that? That seems like it would be a pretty ridiculous policy. Why must[REDACTED] have permission for other people to use the images in addition to permission for us to use them.. ? Fresheneesz 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so what should I do about this? I'm sure theres some way we can keep the picture. Fresheneesz 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of cats

Hi, just responding to your removal of vandalism report; just wondering if you have gone through the history of both User:ComposerCleanup and his/her previous IP, User:72.144.158.243 and seen the multiple RRs, defiance of block by use of new user account, removal of valid categories not dozens but hundreds of times? A previous admin thought it was vandalism and blocked as such. At least would you explain what MT means? Badagnani 12:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and found at least 20 instances of "delt with list MT" in your history but can't make sense of it in any of the cases. Perhaps you could spell this out in plain English in future edit summaries because I don't think I'm the only one not understanding this. Thanks; no offense meant but it's just very confusing. Badagnani 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Brights Image (Fair use)

Thanks for drawing to my attention the incorrect copyright code on this logo. How do I change the tag from fair use so I can use it? NB I have permission to use this logo as a paid up Bright member.--Hontogaichiban 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the logo can be used in this way as the whole point of it is that it can be used instead of relgious symbols such as a cross, crescent moon or penticle. However, just to be sure I have requested confirmation from "The Brights" organisation.--Hontogaichiban 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible hostile editor on Baha'i page - FYI

Hi Geni. You've been a very fair and impartial admin, particularly around several hostile editors and edit wars on the Baha'i Page. I wanted to just give you a quick FYI about 140.126.125.111, who has engaged in "pruning" as he/she puts it of verifiable information, as well as a pretty strongly negative POV edit. While I'm not sure where it's going, I wanted to give you the heads-up and ask you please to monitor the situation unofficially, before it actually becomes worse. I don't want to have another page protection thing go on, but I have a bad feeling, and it's very hard (though I'm trying) to assume good intent with the kind of action so-far taken. --Christian Edward Gruber 13:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked from editing!

I am being blocked because I am apparently using my account only for vandalism, please help! Vihrea 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again!

I am being randomly blocked..and i quote:

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Geni for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Therealslimsunny". The reason given for Therealslimsunny's block is: "account only used for vandalism". Your IP address is 64.233.172.34"

You'd better figure out who this "Therealslimsunny" is... I have never vandalised a page.

Thank you

Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statement that are divisive and inflammatory, being them pro or against. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler

RE: AOL

Yes, sorry, I'm a complete prat sometimes. I block for 31 hours before noticing that they're AOL, so I unblock, forgetting that I conflicted with others blocking for 15 minutes. Sorry. —Celestianpower 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Block on Matt Rutledge

Thanks for that. Moving pages back was getting annoying. Algebraist 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked users

Get the {{indefblockeduser}} tag, not {{Test5}}. :-P --GraemeL 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DaffyDuck619

Your request for sources will result in him citing imdb, however there have been debates on the validity of imdb as a source as seen on Talk:Bob Orton, Jr. in which Daffy caused ANOTHER edit war over an inconsequential bit of trivia from imdb. Nearly every edit when asked for a source results in him either citing imdb or deleting the notice. It's like talking to a brick wall. --- Lid 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

I think the brights logo is fully available for identification of an individuals worldview, that is that purpose of the movement afterall, the entire point of the bright movement is to make the word and logo available, if you read through the site I'm sure it allows for the type of display that is on my userpage. I believe the image may in fact be mislabeled.Solidusspriggan 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you make and can sell copies, i dunno about derivitive works, it might be under some public license of sorts. You should look throught the site http://www.the-brights.net

I see that you very painstakingly scrolled to the bottom of the webpage. If you go here http://www.the-brights.net/movement/downloads/ you will see a number of graphics bearing the logo which people are encouraged to use freely. I in fact have just sent an email to a fellow bright at the-brights.net I await his official replay eagerly.

Beyond that I found the instructions for proper display of the logo on the site...in this zip file: http://www.the-brights.net/movement/downloads/Brights_Visual_Identity_Materials_v1.0.zip

I am in fact using it properly, thank you for your concern, i learned something new.Solidusspriggan 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"You can't even though you may be a paid up memeber"

There is no payment or exclusive membership involved! The brights are fully committed to the making available for all identification uses of all brights the logo.

here us the official response:

Are you using the "official logos" that are found and can be copied at: http://www.the-brights.net/movement/downloads/ ?

If not do so. Then forward the following to the appropriate WikiPedia administrator. You can point out that if s/he visits the website s/he will find statements authorizing (in fact encouraging) the use of the materials on that page.

The Brights' Net authorizes (in fact encourages) any registered Bright to utilize the logos and other symbols found at URL http://www.the-brights.net/movement/downloads/

Bright Regards Paul Geisert

=

Paul Geisert Mynga Futrell

Co-Directors of www.The-Brights.Net A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview

why are you so interested in selling the logo? isn't this a non-commercial project? Beyond that this seems nothing more than a prejudice action. If I must remove my bright logo then all christians, jews, bahais, etc must remove their affiliative symbols! you dont want to end up running this place like a rural highschool administrator that bans the display of pentagrams but allows jesus saves shirts with bloody crucified men on them.

the philosohpical relevence and logic of my argument aside, the simple fact is that I have permission to use this image as I see fit, any bright does. Beyond that, it is not a particular copyrighted image of jesus I was referring to, but it WAS a concept that is represented by a symbol or picture i was referring to, which is exactly what this is. I have the right to display it when and where I like to symbolize myself as a person and to display my credibility as[REDACTED] editor who is rational and will not integrate make-believe stories about super humans into my articles. The "fair use" tag is incorrect, I move for a different tag to be placed on the image or for a new tag to be created to account for such discrepencies in usage of such symbols.

3RR rule broken using sockpuppets on Baha'u'llah page.

Hi Geni. Could you check out Baha'u'llah history? Alex0072, and an anonymous user has reverted the article four times with a POV edit that, while subtly different each time, is nearly identical, and removes links, or replaces them with redirected links. I'm not sure what to do now, as I'm at my 2R limit, Jeff3000 is at his 2R limit, and we are asking Alex0072 to comment on his proposed changes, and he doesn't - either by that address or any other user/ip address. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

why did you remove the link to the video? It reinforces his own statementss on his drunken past. did you watch it? Qrc2006 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC) i want it back up tell me what you think Qrc2006 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't order me around Gini, I appreciate your suggestion but there is no rule on discussing additions to an article beforehand just because you personally deam it to be high profile. Where exactly does it say its high profile? Where is this rule? Even if it is true or false, it is an interesting link and can be included subjectively. i.e. This video shows a man appearing to be President Bush being interviewed at drunk, allthough this cannot be verified

evidence for high profile is based on number of edits vandalism rates and traffic stats when we last had them. You will notice a certian patturn in the links currently there. The patturn exists for a reason. The article already adresses his activities involveing ethanol. Your caption would be original research.Geni 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for high profile? I think this is your own personal definition. I can and will continue to edit any article i please, even if you believe i shouldn't simply because you PERSONALLY deam it to be "high profile" at my hearts desire. It is spelled Pattern not Patturn and Involving, not Involveing friend. I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to ethanol which is a fuel. Are you confusing it with alchohol, which i did not mention, I mentioned his drinking and partying. "My Caption would be original research" what does that mean? Is that a question or a statement? I am confused.

I never mentioned its not high profile, I just mentioned that is your opinion, there is no basis for an article being high profile or any special rules regarding them. You can say, and I can agree that it is high profile all day long but there are not established conventions stating that I have to discuss it first since you think I should because it is high profile by definition but not by[REDACTED] guidelines which don't mention it at all. I think your stupid, you can't spell and are immature.

Eon8

please keep this discussion in one piece, I have this page watchlisted

I have redeleted this article pending the outcome of the deletion review. If you disagree with the closing admin's decision, please make your arguments there. --Sam Blanning 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was out of process. You know this.Geni 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The possibility that you think I just lied about what I believe on DRV for reasons I can't begin to imagine makes my head hurt, so I'm just going to assume you haven't read my comments there yet. Basically: no, I do not. AfD is not a vote. Your restoration was the out-of-process action. If a user wants to challenge the outcome of an AfD, he goes to DRV. If an admin wants to challenge the outcome of an AfD, he does exactly the same. --Sam Blanning 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And admins who want to delete something outside speedy take it through Xfd and follow process.Geni 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin's job is to weigh the arguments on each side as well gauge consensus. AfD process was followed. If DRV decides to overturn the decision, it will still have been followed. I have closed numerous AfDs as 'delete' or 'keep' where there weren't 70% 'votes' either way (including after discounting meatpuppets), and I can remember only three of those even being brought to DRV, of which only one was overturned and the rest endorsed. I also had one brought to RfC, where several editors endorsed the right of the closing admin to exercise discretion even though they disagreed with my own interpretation. I consider it an abdication of responsibility if an admin closes as 'no consensus' on the instructions of his calculator. --Sam Blanning 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

there was an actual majority in favor of keep. Neither side had come up with a knock out argument (as evidence by the existance of seniour wikipedians on both sides) thus no consensus is the only rational conclusion.16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but disagreements over closing of AfDs are what we have DRV for - if admins didn't have discretion in closing AfDs, there would never be anything to discuss at that page. --Sam Blanning 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

discression in marginal cases. This wasn't.Geni 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Extended block of User:160.94.224.179

FYI: I extended your block of this user to a week. It was the fourth block, no useful contributions and there is no reason we should have to deal with stuff like this. IMO. If you object to my extension, no big deal, just reset it. I don't get involved in block wars.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I've had requested it earlier I can only endorse this extension of the block (and one week is too good for him...), as the IP has the habit to wait and repeatedly return after several days. Femto 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have a personal policy of escalating blocks for stuff like this. So, 1 week now, 2 weeks next time, ... I however, don't like to just jump to a month. Just watch and let us know. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

You may not know me, I'm more of an IRC figure, but I've noticed your edits on my RC patroling, and I must say, you are a valuable asset to Misplaced Pages! Keep up the good work! Drop by on #wikipedia some time! --Steve-o 11:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh

So, slapping npov tags everywhere adding random templates to user pages, constantly removing warnings from talk page isn't vandalism?--Andeh 11:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK.--Andeh 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VAND.

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

 ??--Andeh 12:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33

The problem isn't Giovanni33's activities at Christianity related articles as you claimed. What prompted the reinstatement of his block and the extension was his rush after being unblocked by Rebecca to seek revenge at WP:3RR . Giovanni33 is a chronically disruptive editor; none of his activities upon being unblocked by Rebecca were constructive, a point conceded by Rebecca on my talk page. I don't intend to wheel war over Giovanni33 - he's hardly worth getting worked up over, but since you didn't have all the story when you unblocked him, I'm asking you to reinstate the block. If you still choose to leave him unblocked, so be it; I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll simply engage in another disruptive stunt and get blocked for that. But also know that myself and others expect you to take responsibility for his activities while unblocked and any results from them. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You said you'd do the honors: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Giovanni33_reported_by_User:Timothy_Usher_.28Result:.29 FeloniousMonk 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much else you can do. Don't be surprised if he's soon unblocked and the cycle starts all over. Thank you for being as good as your word; I'm impressed but not surprised. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How is blocking someone for a week for editing articles in a certain area sanctioned by policy in any way, shape or form? Giovanni33 has, since the 8th at least, dropped the issue and stopped making a nuisance of himself, and I'm failing to see any justification for this block. In the interests of good faith, I'm giving you the chance to explain this, but I see little good reason why it should stand. Rebecca 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite clearly not around, and as I see no explanation or discussion of this block on ANI or anywhere else, I'm very uncomfortable leaving this user blocked. As such, I'm going to unblock this user immediately. Rebecca 12:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)