| Revision as of 09:36, 20 August 2008 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,215 edits →Image closure: more serious.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:13, 5 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (586 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:20px; top:10px;" class="metadata" id="administrator"> |
<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:20px; top:10px;" class="metadata" id="administrator">]</div> | ||
| {{User talk:Dreadstar/Talk}} | |||
| <!--TOC--> | |||
| <div style="float:right; padding-left:5px;"> | |||
| {| style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #003153; background-color:#4682B4; width: 160px;font-family: Arial" | |||
| |- padding:1px;padding-top:0.5em;font-size: 99%; | |||
| | | |||
| <div style="border:1px solid #4B0082; background: #fff; border-right:1px solid #4B0082; border-bottom:1px solid #4B0082; text-align: center; padding:1px; float:right; font-size: 95%; width: 97%; line-height: 1.3; margin-right: 1px;"> | |||
| <center> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </center> | |||
| </div> | |||
| |} | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!--End TOC--> | |||
| ==Archives and sandboxes== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{signpost-subscription|left}}], award you the '''Society Barnstar'''.]] | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ==New comments below this section== | |||
| ==Defender== | |||
| Thanks! ] <small>]</small> | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making ] a good ] (instead of ]) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. ] 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Award! == | |||
| so is this where I can send you a comment? I know nothing! Anyway... you and littleoliveoil are doing a GREAT job on Yoani Sanchez's page... thanks a ton!!!!!! | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| -- from yoaniedits -- ] (]) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Vandal Eliminator Award''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. ] ] <sup> Go ] </sup> 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==RL Barnstar== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Real Life Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For ] a ] that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Thank you. +] <sup>(])</sup> 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)+] <sup>(])</sup> 05:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| I don't understand why you undid your speedy on this article. Veronika Zemanová is not a Playboy ], but merely a model who has appeared in various ], not even the magazine itself. As such, she clearly would not qualify under ], and I see no suggestion of significance enabling the article to survive a speedy proposal. ] (]) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +] <sup>(])</sup> 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, <small>please don't report me Mr. ]-man!</small> :) +] <sup>(])</sup> 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If I remember policy correctly, which I may not, if the article '''asserts''' notability then it passes (and of course has to be supported by sources). Might be an AfD candidate though. ]] 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for taking a second look at this one. Given the conflicts that I and other editors had with one contributor, deletion won't be uncontroversial, so I'll take it to AFD. Since that contributor's managed to get himself blocked for a week, though, I'm going hold off for a short time so he'll have a chance to participate in the discussion if he sticks around. ] (]) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Society Barnstar, Congrats== | |||
| :so... where's that AfD now ? ] (]) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Society Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For finding key public domain documents that proved ]'s military record and were key in helping improve that article and helped to settle issues regarding it, I salute and thank you! <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span>} 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)} | |||
| |} | |||
| == Policy/guideline talk page == | |||
| ==Problem== | |||
| I can understand your good faith change, but your edit summary is incorrect. As WhatamIdoing has pointed out there was in fact a consensus for the change, it is SlimVirgin who changed from the only version that had consensus agreement. I suggest from now on that threads be allowed to work their way through a bit longer before you declare a consensus. The archived discussion What points to occurred for almost a month and was detailed to every aspect of the policy page. I and What were both involved in it; I am intimately aware of what on that page had consensus and to SlimVirgin's history of reverting new consensus' because he/she prefers "status quo" and wording "with long standing history" both of which are illegitimate debating points against a new consensus. That is why I reverted him/her.] (]) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately someone decided to disclose and use my full name as vandalism in an article. Here is the I know I'm probably being a pain, but could you help me? Take care, thanks in advance, and have a great week... --] (]) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You need solid and wide consensus to make changes to a Policy page, and I don't see where consensus was reached for the change. SlimVirgin reverted the change and I back her reversion because I haven't seen the "new" consensus for it, nor is there consensus now - the "new" wording is inferior to the original. I remember discussing that same wording months ago and we decided on it then, I haven't seeen anything since that time. Please continue this discussion on the policy's talk page, not here. Let's keep it all in one place. And, just fyi, SlimVirgin is a ''she''. ] <small>]</small> 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dont really care if she is a she, that has no bearing on anything and I didnt really care to learn that. What provided the link to the relevant discussion. You were not involved in it, dont know what discussion you were involved with, but it was a wide-reaching discussion involving the entire page, it rewrote alot, and Slim was warned then (and has been warned at other places) for reverting changes after we came to a consensus. It was a wide-ranging consensus.] (]) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm certainly involved now. And I really don't appreciate your ] comments, I suggest you try to restrain yourself. And you certainly shouldn't try to for your own rude behavior. ] <small>]</small> 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Portmanteaus == | |||
| :Thank you so much. I really appreciate your help. That person didn't have the town I live in, but he did use my name unfortunately. It kinda freaked me out a bit. Sorry for the mess I made on your talk page. Not that proficient with Misplaced Pages code yet. Take care and have a great rest of your week. --] (]) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not really certain on where I can have this discussion with you, but I would really like your reasoning as to why comments about words being portmanteaus should be put everywhere a word appears to be one regardless of whether or not the information is helpful or too obvious not to already be known by a user. Furthermore a'ight is a contraction not a portmanteau. I feel like you've just come to an arbitrary decision on this subject and are going to enforce it without a second thought. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Re-Breast talk== | |||
| :That's not my position at all, but your removal of the sentence from the article with the reasoning that ] makes Misplaced Pages sound "pretentious" or "pompous" is something I completely disagree with. Instead of ] with multiple editors to remove something you disagree with, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page and find ] for your disputed change. Go to the article talk pages and discuss it. ] <small>]</small> 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::While we're at it, why don't you explain , I'm very interested in what you were attempting to accomplish with that one, since you have such concerns over how Misplaced Pages might appear to its readers. ] <small>]</small> 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Dreadstar i have voice numerous time my objection to you becoming involved or contacting me for various reasons voiced before. | |||
| The image was used for identification of the subject. There are no substantial differences in appearance between the cheerleader image and the crime-fighter image—only clothing change. Lack of this image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the appearance of the character, which is required by our NFC policy. ''÷]'' 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There is clearly not support anything that says consensus hasn't been made. The Survey went into a direction that Atom did not like so he claimed no consensus when it's clear the majority is in favor of the change. | |||
| :I put it up for DRV: ] ] <small>]</small> 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == File:BG1 cover.JPG listed for deletion == | |||
| I shouldn't have to repeat the same arguments and i haven't. I've stated the facts. 5 for 4 against. Where do you see how consensus wasn't made? Also I was not the first to think that WP:OWN would apply there as i stated numerous times. Also he keeps on saying the wrong numbers. he is mis representing consensus. | |||
| An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Idw --> ] ] 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Explain to me please == | |||
| Why must you focus on me? I stated that the WP:TEND would apply to Atom because of his view on the illustration factor which he keeps voicing it over and over. | |||
| How "remarkable" is sourced. Explain to me please how listing non-notable athletes on a track team can be legitimately explained in any policy herein. Explain to me please how listing Cheerleading as a sport, when the state association responsible for athletics refers to it as a club, and does not recognize it as a sport. Explain to me who "Damon McDaniel" is, and how he's notable. Explain to me how the students in charge of the JROTC, and the JROTC itself (which is present at most every school in the entire country), are notable. Sure, the bomb threat is sourced. I know of approximately 30 schools in my area alone that have received bomb threats and people have been arrested as a result of said threats. They don't make national news, this one didn't either. It was a flash in the pan, notable for a day, at most two. It certainly wasn't nationally notable. It is sourced, so its inclusion is fine. NOTHING else that you claimed was "sourced" had any sources whatsoever. Your edit was clearly in bad faith, and the edit summary disingenuous given the actual edits you made. Furthermore, where did you request semi-protection, so that others could weigh in on the discussion? ] (]) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not threaten me again, and keep from contacting me. I ask this for a ethical standard, given our past you are ethically obligated to maintain a distance and not interact or persuade others to interact for you. ] (]) 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, let's see, you were ] in order to remove sourced content: , so instead of ''protecting'' the article, I '''''could''''' have waited and '']'' you instead; which would you prefer? ] <small>]</small> 03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would prefer, rather than an obviously upset response, if you'd actually read the reasons why I removed the content in the first place, and explain your reason behind reinserting them. I'd like to think that if you had blocked me for it, you also would have blocked the other user, but you and I both know that wouldn't have happened. Admins around here don't get blocked for anything...more of the same if you ask me. ] (]) 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I've asked you multiple time to leave me alone. I have reported you multiple times and i have caught you and the other two involved with my blocking from the 5-8th in the wrong by fraternizing with the admin who blocked me again. After i had called you bias and it was clear that you became bias through your actions. | |||
| :::Um, I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else, I'm not in the least bit upset. Your removal of sourced content and then edit warring with another editor over that removal, has all the earmarks of vandalism - I revert vandalism and take appropriate actions to make sure it, and any edit warring, stops. Glad to see you've started a discussion on the talk page, you should also consider ]. Good luck! ] <small>]</small> 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Earmarks of vandalism does not make something vandalism. Did you even look at what you were reverting? You say it was sourced, I removed ONE sourced bit of material, for a valid reason. You can't honestly believe that high school athletes who win a race, and achieve no other notoriety aside from that race, merit listing in an encyclopedia. You no doubt realize that "remarkable" is a pov word. Just because your reverted, doesn't make the edits right. The edits I made were absolutely not vandalism. I provided concise and policy driven reasoning for each of my edits. Just because something is sourced, does not make it notable. ] (]) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Also the one that handle my report against you told you to leave me alone, yet you keep coming back. Leave me alone, do not contact me or act through others. This is not a thing a admin should do. You are stepping on boundaries of civility now for one last time leave me alone. ] (]) 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| for the record it's 60% and in 2 weeks no one else voiced support or oppose. Also i saw no strict min on when consensus is met on the consensus article. The 75% or what ever might apply to admin's being elected but i don't think that number was ever meant to be represented in a survey for a image. ] (]) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfA thank you== | |||
| <div style="background-color: white; border: #5B92E5 solid 2px; margin-bottom:.5em; padding: 5px; font-family: trebuchet ms, sans-serif;">]<font color="#084C9E">{{PAGENAME}}, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful ], which ended with '''82''' supports, '''3''' opposes, and '''1''' neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank <span style="font-family: verdana;"> ] for nominating me and ] for co-nominating me.<br/>{{spaces|50}}— <i><b>]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 19 August 2008</div> | |||
| == Image closure == | |||
| May I respectfully suggest that you are personally in no position to make controversial closures in contentious NFCC IFD cases like the Conqueror one ? I could accept a keep (or rather: "no consensus") closure from a competent admin with a serious track record on image deletion issues. But, sorry, I can't accept it from you. You have no substantial experience in IfD closure work. You have only done two or three cases that I can find; in both the previous ones you suddenly popped up at IfD to save scouting-related images that were being defended by your friends. Now you close this one that I nominated, after me scrutinizing your own image uploads and calling you on a few bad cases. This reeks of retaliation. | |||
| Moreover, your own track record at non-free image uploads indicates you are either not competent to correctly judge copyright and NFC issues, or unwilling to follow the policies. Just the other day I caught you at a blatant case of copyvio, the fraudulent pd-self claim of ]. That alone would have been enough to get you desysopped. Today I find there's another of the same kind: ], where at least two components, as well as the overall idea of the composition, are quite obviously copied from motive, together with ]. I first thought it possible that your claim here (''"None of these items are copied from any 2001: A space odyssey film frame or other related artwork. I created each aspect of this image by hand in a graphics program"'') was just an error of judgment, and that you honestly believed that by just re-tracing the contours after the original in your graphics program you could avoid committing copyright violation. If it was just that, it would still document a degree of cluelessness that would make you unfit for being an administrator at this site, and very definitely unfit for venturing into closing IfD debates. But on checking the images again, I can no longer extend even that degree of AGF. The images are pixel-by-pixel identical. Your claim was just a lie. | |||
| (By the way, I've also tagged your replacement ] on commons, as it is evidently again based on some photograph and fails to declare its source.) | |||
| Can I please ask you to revert your closure and let this be handled by somebody else with more experience and less grudge. | |||
| Also, on having verified the nature of the copyvio, I have to ask you at this point: what are your criteria for recall? ] ] 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:13, 5 March 2023
|
|
||||
Archives and sandboxes Defender
Award!
RL Barnstar
Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
New comments below this section
so is this where I can send you a comment? I know nothing! Anyway... you and littleoliveoil are doing a GREAT job on Yoani Sanchez's page... thanks a ton!!!!!!
-- from yoaniedits -- Yoaniedits (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Veronika Zemanová
I don't understand why you undid your speedy on this article. Veronika Zemanová is not a Playboy Playmate, but merely a model who has appeared in various Playboy Special Editions, not even the magazine itself. As such, she clearly would not qualify under WP:PORNBIO, and I see no suggestion of significance enabling the article to survive a speedy proposal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- If I remember policy correctly, which I may not, if the article asserts notability then it passes (and of course has to be supported by sources). Might be an AfD candidate though. Scarian 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look at this one. Given the conflicts that I and other editors had with one contributor, deletion won't be uncontroversial, so I'll take it to AFD. Since that contributor's managed to get himself blocked for a week, though, I'm going hold off for a short time so he'll have a chance to participate in the discussion if he sticks around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- so... where's that AfD now ? Wefa (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Policy/guideline talk page
I can understand your good faith change, but your edit summary is incorrect. As WhatamIdoing has pointed out there was in fact a consensus for the change, it is SlimVirgin who changed from the only version that had consensus agreement. I suggest from now on that threads be allowed to work their way through a bit longer before you declare a consensus. The archived discussion What points to occurred for almost a month and was detailed to every aspect of the policy page. I and What were both involved in it; I am intimately aware of what on that page had consensus and to SlimVirgin's history of reverting new consensus' because he/she prefers "status quo" and wording "with long standing history" both of which are illegitimate debating points against a new consensus. That is why I reverted him/her.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- You need solid and wide consensus to make changes to a Policy page, and I don't see where consensus was reached for the change. SlimVirgin reverted the change and I back her reversion because I haven't seen the "new" consensus for it, nor is there consensus now - the "new" wording is inferior to the original. I remember discussing that same wording months ago and we decided on it then, I haven't seeen anything since that time. Please continue this discussion on the policy's talk page, not here. Let's keep it all in one place. And, just fyi, SlimVirgin is a she. Dreadstar ☥ 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dont really care if she is a she, that has no bearing on anything and I didnt really care to learn that. What provided the link to the relevant discussion. You were not involved in it, dont know what discussion you were involved with, but it was a wide-reaching discussion involving the entire page, it rewrote alot, and Slim was warned then (and has been warned at other places) for reverting changes after we came to a consensus. It was a wide-ranging consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certainly involved now. And I really don't appreciate your rude comments, I suggest you try to restrain yourself. And you certainly shouldn't try to blame others for your own rude behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dont really care if she is a she, that has no bearing on anything and I didnt really care to learn that. What provided the link to the relevant discussion. You were not involved in it, dont know what discussion you were involved with, but it was a wide-reaching discussion involving the entire page, it rewrote alot, and Slim was warned then (and has been warned at other places) for reverting changes after we came to a consensus. It was a wide-ranging consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Portmanteaus
I'm not really certain on where I can have this discussion with you, but I would really like your reasoning as to why comments about words being portmanteaus should be put everywhere a word appears to be one regardless of whether or not the information is helpful or too obvious not to already be known by a user. Furthermore a'ight is a contraction not a portmanteau. I feel like you've just come to an arbitrary decision on this subject and are going to enforce it without a second thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.230.45 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's not my position at all, but your removal of the sentence from the article with the reasoning that portmanteau makes Misplaced Pages sound "pretentious" or "pompous" is something I completely disagree with. Instead of revert warring with multiple editors to remove something you disagree with, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page and find consensus for your disputed change. Go to the article talk pages and discuss it. Dreadstar ☥ 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- While we're at it, why don't you explain this edit, I'm very interested in what you were attempting to accomplish with that one, since you have such concerns over how Misplaced Pages might appear to its readers. Dreadstar ☥ 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 20#File:KPCKim.jpg
The image was used for identification of the subject. There are no substantial differences in appearance between the cheerleader image and the crime-fighter image—only clothing change. Lack of this image does not detract from the reader's understanding of the appearance of the character, which is required by our NFC policy. ÷seresin 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I put it up for DRV: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 Dreadstar ☥ 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
File:BG1 cover.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BG1 cover.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Explain to me please
How "remarkable" is sourced. Explain to me please how listing non-notable athletes on a track team can be legitimately explained in any policy herein. Explain to me please how listing Cheerleading as a sport, when the state association responsible for athletics refers to it as a club, and does not recognize it as a sport. Explain to me who "Damon McDaniel" is, and how he's notable. Explain to me how the students in charge of the JROTC, and the JROTC itself (which is present at most every school in the entire country), are notable. Sure, the bomb threat is sourced. I know of approximately 30 schools in my area alone that have received bomb threats and people have been arrested as a result of said threats. They don't make national news, this one didn't either. It was a flash in the pan, notable for a day, at most two. It certainly wasn't nationally notable. It is sourced, so its inclusion is fine. NOTHING else that you claimed was "sourced" had any sources whatsoever. Your edit was clearly in bad faith, and the edit summary disingenuous given the actual edits you made. Furthermore, where did you request semi-protection, so that others could weigh in on the discussion? 99.169.250.133 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's see, you were edit warring in order to remove sourced content: , so instead of protecting the article, I could have waited and blocked you instead; which would you prefer? Dreadstar ☥ 03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer, rather than an obviously upset response, if you'd actually read the reasons why I removed the content in the first place, and explain your reason behind reinserting them. I'd like to think that if you had blocked me for it, you also would have blocked the other user, but you and I both know that wouldn't have happened. Admins around here don't get blocked for anything...more of the same if you ask me. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else, I'm not in the least bit upset. Your removal of sourced content and then edit warring with another editor over that removal, has all the earmarks of vandalism - I revert vandalism and take appropriate actions to make sure it, and any edit warring, stops. Glad to see you've started a discussion on the talk page, you should also consider creating an account. Good luck! Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Earmarks of vandalism does not make something vandalism. Did you even look at what you were reverting? You say it was sourced, I removed ONE sourced bit of material, for a valid reason. You can't honestly believe that high school athletes who win a race, and achieve no other notoriety aside from that race, merit listing in an encyclopedia. You no doubt realize that "remarkable" is a pov word. Just because your reverted, doesn't make the edits right. The edits I made were absolutely not vandalism. I provided concise and policy driven reasoning for each of my edits. Just because something is sourced, does not make it notable. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else, I'm not in the least bit upset. Your removal of sourced content and then edit warring with another editor over that removal, has all the earmarks of vandalism - I revert vandalism and take appropriate actions to make sure it, and any edit warring, stops. Glad to see you've started a discussion on the talk page, you should also consider creating an account. Good luck! Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer, rather than an obviously upset response, if you'd actually read the reasons why I removed the content in the first place, and explain your reason behind reinserting them. I'd like to think that if you had blocked me for it, you also would have blocked the other user, but you and I both know that wouldn't have happened. Admins around here don't get blocked for anything...more of the same if you ask me. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)