Jump to content

User talk:RMHED/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Banime (talk | contribs)
3,137 edits
Banime (talk | contribs)
3,137 edits
Line 330: Line 330:
::You seem to have covered it all, as far as I can recall the only user who I had a disagreement with about talk page deletion was CC. I'm not sure if CC is evading a block though, even if TGH1970 proves to be his sock, then it's standard to block the sock and usually let the main account carry on editing, at least I think that's what happens. I suppose it depends what the sock was used for. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED#top|talk]]) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to have covered it all, as far as I can recall the only user who I had a disagreement with about talk page deletion was CC. I'm not sure if CC is evading a block though, even if TGH1970 proves to be his sock, then it's standard to block the sock and usually let the main account carry on editing, at least I think that's what happens. I suppose it depends what the sock was used for. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED#top|talk]]) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the concern, however I like to be extra sure before dealing with blocks, especially when it comes to indefinite blocks and checkusers. I've had to deal with a sockpuppeter before, and all the accounts got banned, including the main, and I've read all of the appropriate policies and guidelines. Also as a failsafe theres an established checkuser there to make the right call. Finally, would you wish you state that CC was the only user you had that argument with on the checkuser page, or may I clarify that in the original statement? --[[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the concern, however I like to be extra sure before dealing with blocks, especially when it comes to indefinite blocks and checkusers. I've had to deal with a sockpuppeter before, and all the accounts got banned, including the main, and I've read all of the appropriate policies and guidelines. Also as a failsafe theres an established checkuser there to make the right call. Finally, would you wish you state that CC was the only user you had that argument with on the checkuser page, or may I clarify that in the original statement? --[[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I put that in for now, if you'd like me to change it let me know. Also, I'll re-read through all the relevant policies to be sure. --[[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


== Spandau Prison library ==
== Spandau Prison library ==

Revision as of 02:13, 11 December 2008

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Baptist Centre

Hi. As you removed the PROD, you may want to comment at the AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

I appreciate the work being done with the csd's, but some of the ones do indeed meet CSD Criteria. Most fail WP:V and some fail WP:N, of course these can be saved just add hangon and wee will see how it goes from there. Regards -Marcusmax(speak) 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Waste News

I don't understand why you don't feel that this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. It seems to be a pretty clear case of blatant advertising. Mishlai (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the tone is promotional, it's not the tone that I think makes it blatant advertising. The article exists only to promote the Nuclear Waste News website. A quick google of "Nuclear Waste News" doesn't reveal any other websites mentioning or linking to it, so it's hard to imagine how the article could possibly be expanded beyond self-reference in any verifiable way.
Blatant Advertising is defined in the CSD policy as Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. I've marked it for a regular deletion. Mishlai (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have different opinions on what is blatant advertising. Anyway I'll leave the Prod alone as it seems entirely reasonable. RMHED (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of the author's contributions shows that he/she has only created newsletter articles promoting websites from the same publisher. I've marked those others as CSD as well. Mishlai (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Capitol Press publications, my what a coincidence. RMHED (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xymmax RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Furthermore, I really appreciate that you were willing to re-evaluate, and abstain. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your PRODs

I think that for most of these you should probably go straight to AFD, as it's all but certain that the tags will be removed. Besides that, per WP:PROD the proposed deletion is "way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate..." Do you honestly believe that these are likely to be uncontroversial? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any totally unsourced BLP should be deleted on sight IMO, at least a Prod gives interested parties a chance to add sources. For too long the BLP problems have been ignored, time to deal with them. RMHED (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with you in spirit, but in practice I don't find your approach useful, because I believe that it incorrectly presumes that sourced BLPs are less likely to be problematic than unsourced ones (and also because, as I said, these are all going to be de-PRODed and you'll have spent a lot of time accomplishing next to nothing). In my experience, this is not so - the likelihood of a BLP hurting the subject is independent of the question of whether or not it's sourced. Besides that, your response to my question - "at least a Prod gives interested parties a chance to add sources" - does nothing to distinguish it from the alternative I proposed, that being AFD. You and I both know that these aren't speedy candidates, so it's either Prod or AFD, and I think AFD is by far the preferable of the two. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the Prods will be removed, unless you intend to remove them to make a point? I could send them all to AfD but no doubt that mass influx would be criticized too. RMHED (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I predict they'll be removed because almost all of the people you prodded are notable per the assorted subject-specific notability guidelines (I realize notability isn't your argument; I'm just explaining why people will remove them). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

You've missed a crucial point re: BLP.

It's that any negative statements in a BLP article must be sourced or will be removed immediately.

You're mass-tagging valid articles on spurious grounds. DS (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RMHED here on the interpretation of WP:BLP - everything needs to be sourced, and anybody can remove unsourced material at any time. But I think he's completely misguided on what the source of the BLP problem is: the problem isn't that there aren't enough footnotes in BLPs: the problem is that anybody with an axe to grind or a sick sense of humour can come along and write anything they want in a BLP, and in a great many BLPs this will remain unnoticed long enough to get cached by Google and scraped by mirrors. Citations are important and valuable in cleaning up BLPs, but they don't really have anything to do with the root of the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that I agree, in my opinion all BLP's should be permanently semi-protected to help limit this problem. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As do I - I proposed as much once at WT:BLP. It didn't go especially well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course someone could probably bring it about if they so wished, but I won't hold my breath. Maybe he's hoping flagged revisions will do the trick, though by itself I doubt it. RMHED (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure that he could, actually, though it does seem to be an academic question at the moment. As for flagged revisions, I think they'd help a lot. They haven't yet been implemented, though, because the devs are waiting for a consensus from a community that's incapable of forming consensus. As a wise man once said, "Whee!". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimmy is very careful about what Godking actions he takes, he knows only too well that if he pushes his authority too hard it could well be challenged by a strong opposing faction and who knows what might result from such an internecine dispute. So for this reason I understand his caution, but he could still do more, in conjunction with the Wikimedia Board, to bring it about. Maybe his caution is indicative of a loss of vision or a waning of his authority. On the other hand he might not give a fuck about this problem, except for the libel implications of course, who knows.
    Yes you're right about the problem of major change it seldom happens on Wikipedia anymore, the rut grows ever deeper. All we get now is tinkering around the edges and even that requires almost limitless discussion. RMHED (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I did not remove your comment. Please don't falsely accuse me of things again. Otto4711 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion about BLP / blanking

Hi, a courtesy notice. While reviewing an unrelated issue I noticed that you have been blanking a number of pages on WP:BLP grounds. That seems unwarranted and potentially disruptive so I've brought the matter up for discussion here: WP:AN#RMHED blanking pages under claim of BLP. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hard-hats are needed for BLP enforcement. Keep it up. Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sakes. Please don't encourage disruption by giving it a barnstar.Wikidemon (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, uoi don't get it. Despite the explanations on ANI. This isn't disruption it is sterling work, which tends to bring the people who are bold enough to do it into precisely the type of flack you are giving him. What's disruptive is the criticism which doesn't accept or understand the basics of BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is highly disruptive. A good-faith discussion is going on at WP:AN. I understand BLP just fine. You are using barnstars as a tool for arguing a disputed point, and using this other editor's talk page as a place to be uncivil to another editor. Please stop.Wikidemon (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be uncivil, and the discussion on ANI is fine. But I don't want your (good faith) annoyance at what RMHED did to discourage him from keeping up his invaluable work on BLP. That's why I gave the barnstar. It isn't aimed at criticing you, but encouraging him to continue.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a read through of the AN thread, quite entertaining really. Still must carry on regardless, there are so many unsourced or poorly sourced BLP's out there and so little time. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful in the future, and do not disrupt the project to make a WP:POINT. If you wish to contribute constructively, please remove only material that is truly contentious or unsourced, and try to do a reality check on what you are removing. Thanks Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Deckert

I deleted the article, and then had doubts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse Pet articles

I created some stubs today for missing Penthouse Pets, which I see you have prodded. WP:PORNBIO and long-standing consensus both suggest that simply having been a Penthouse Pet (or Playboy Playmate) is sufficient to meet the threshold of notability. Are you intending to delete all articles on Penthouse Pets, just the ones I've created, or just a random selection? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just don't see how an in-house award like Penthouse Pet means instant notability, that combined with the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources indicates to me that the articles should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Todd

Please stop blanking the article. Either nominate for speedy deletion or wait until the RfD is complete, blanking serves no purpose and will be considered vandalism should you continue. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking was mistaken judgement. But it was good faith, with given reasons, and isn't vandalism. Rockpocket's machine rollback was poor, and his accusation of vandalism extreme assumtion of bad faith. Stop it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands is a violation of the BLP policy so blanking is appropriate. The content is a prime example of WP:BLP1E and is virtually all negative in tone, this just isn't acceptable. No responsible encyclopedia would have an article on this person, it is at most a fleeting news story. To leave it in situ as is, would be the height of irresponsibility. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a BLP hawk, however, negative material if neutral and referenced does not violate BLP. BLP1E is not a speedy deletion or removal criterion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If all there is, is negative content then yes it does. After all we're not talking about some serial killer here but a young woman who obviously made a bad decision. That one wrong choice should not warrant a Wikipedia article, the news media may well fixate on it, but they don't claim to be an encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: she does not warrant an article, and I am confident she will not have one once the community have their say through the appropriate mechanisms. However, blanking a sourced article while it is undergoing a deletion discussion is not an appropriate mechanism of removing an article. Rockpocket 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article violates BLP, as I believe this does, then blanking is appropriate. You have more faith in 'The Community' than I do. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this kept, the community has far too many dumbfucks in it to be confident that common sense and decency will prevail. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a BLP issue that can be dealt with by blanking the page. Each statement by itself was sourced and accurate, which precludes them from blanking as a solution. Its the fact that together they amount to little more than the documentation of a single poor decision by an unfortunate member of the public that is the problem. The only way that is going to be dealt with is by administrator deletion. And they only way you are going to get that is through one of the deletion mechanisms. Article blanking is not a solution that will last more than a few minutes and it will only ever lead to misunderstandings of intent (like I did, and I apologise for that).
I do have a little more faith in the community that you, since any admin with even a cursory understanding of WP:NOT will close that discussion by deleting the article. But even if you are right, the same community of dumbfucks will not permit you to continue to blank articles that are being discussed for deletion. Rockpocket 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact a statement is sourced is not pertinent, if the BLP as a whole is mostly negative then a G10 speedy deletion is appropriate. It's about time Wikipedia recognized its responsibility in this regard and stopped making excuses. RMHED (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion may be in some people's view appropriate. However, by no stretch of the imagination does G10 allow the speedy deletion of sourced bios on the grounds that they are negative. We've got plenty of high-profile BLPs on people who are largely notorious for negative reasons.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly serious criminals I'd guess, not young women who made one poor decision. This is a news story not a legitimate biography, its content is mostly negative and not remotely appropriate for a legitimate encyclopedia. So delete with extreme prejudice, in order to protect Wikipedia's rapidly diminishing reputation. RMHED (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But that's a judgement call, and we need to discuss it. There is no speedy deletion criterion for articles like this.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the merits of both arguments, but why didn't you make a G10 speedy deletion request then, RMHED? As I noted, that too is a valid mechanism of dealing with the perceived problem. Blanking a page does not really delete anything, and will simply lead to someone reverting to the previous version. We have the same aims here, I expect, but only way forward is going to have any sort of permanency, and that is through one of the deletion mechanisms. Rockpocket 00:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just discovered (several weeks after the fact) that you stopped an overzealous editor from trying to delete the stub for Marselli Sumarno, which I created earlier this month. That other editor never informed me that this article was marked for Speedy Delete or that he later put a prod on it -- you removed both of those inappropriate tags, and I greatly appreciate your work. Thank you!!! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfA

Hi RMHED! Thank you very much for your support and comments in the RfA. It passed today, and your comments were much appreciated :) I am glad that at least one user values mainspace edits and put it as a reason to support, which would be my first reason to support an editor who contributes heavily to the mainspace (actual article building). Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I do not think that nominated a dozen or so winnipeg politicians, all of them having undoubtable qualification for notability such as being on the provincial legislature, or mayor of the city, rather than trying to add what must be really obvious sources, is constructive. he criterion for deletion is unsourceable, not unsourced. DGG (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I do not think that any unsourced BLP should be allowed to remain that way, either it should be adequately sourced or deleted. I'm not going to spend my time sourcing BLP articles about people I'm not remotely interested in. If you or others wish to do so then all well and good. In the meantime I'll continue to nominate any unsourced BLP's. RMHED (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to but in on someone else's talk page, but RMHED was quite right to nominate some these people. Local councillors and city mayors are not automatically notable - there are thousands upon thousands of local councillors across the world - they are not all notable. And the Winipeg City Council is no exception.--UpDown (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies on AFD

I see you posted a whole list of biographies on AFD. I would like to point out that only unsourced negative comments warrant immediate deletion under WP:BLP guidelines/policy. Since AFD is not cleanup, I think it is a better course of action to first offer them to some sort of cleanup taskforce within a wikiproject to try and source them before you go through with the deletion nominations. That way sources are found where possible without using AFD for something it isn't supposed to do. - Mgm|(talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I don't think we have conclusive information yet on how these AfDs are doing, but I think it would be a good idea to see how this "first batch" of AfD nominations does before you continue nominating more articles. Based on those results, it might be easier to determine what articles are more likely to get consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes generally a consensus is required to keep or delete at AfD. If the articles are kept fair enough, but they still must conform to BLP policy and any unsourced contentious content should be removed. RMHED (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Aaron Brown (wide receiver). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 talk 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • BLP's without sources are harmful to Wikipedia as they have a tendency to confuse readers and cause potential harm to the article's subject. If you feel the article content was appropriate please do add sources to it in order to verify its claims. RMHED (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult a dictionary for a definition of 'contentious'. I do not think it means what you think it means. DS (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it means what I think it means, WP:BLP on the other hand does not mean what I thought it meant. Unsourced BLP's are apparently perfectly acceptable. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who barnstar

The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
For adding fair use rationales to a huge number of Doctor Who images, I hereby award you the WikiProject Doctor Who Award. You know, the Brigadier is supposedly semi-retired too, but he's still fighting the good fight... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Sincere question: Why would you remove an image from an article under AFD with the rationale that it is "not free"? It is claimed as a fair use of the image, and seems to apply. The image came from http://www.newportbeachpageant.com/2008/judges-2008/cassandra-jean/ and appears to be a "press type" image that is designed for distribution. From my experience, this is rather what "fair use" was written to cover. I didn't want to revert until I heard the rationale. Maybe I will learn something new. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is more strongly worded for BLP's, I have to admit. I am not sure that is saying the image is absolutely forbidden provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. but it is obvious that it is strongly discouraged and this case isn't an obvious exception to the policy as a whole. Ok, I learned something. Don't get the big head on me now ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I make a friendly suggustion? Maybe putting "see WP:NFC (Images #12)" or similar for future removals when they are at AFD? Your current summaries are perfectly fine, but this might help keep from having to answer questions that seem obvious to you. Twice. As you know, when something is at AFD/DRV/etc, it is getting a lot more eyes on it, and people get testy, even when you are right. It is more for your benefit than theirs, really. I have been trying to give better summaries as well, and I find it does cut down the frustrated replies I have to deal with. And if all fails and they ask anyway, I can always say "did you bother to read the policy that I quoted in the summary?" DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see now. I had actually reverted it too, but it appears I did so just as/after you were doing the same, and since my change and your change were the same, it didn't register mine. I am probably not making that clear, but trust you know what I mean. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image on Cassandra Whitehead

Why did you remove the image -- the image has appropriate tags and rationale for use on that article... -User:Belinrahs/sig

That's also part of #12. Just my opinion - the picture adds to the article. I think others would agree. -User:Belinrahs/sig
I already argued this, but the reality is that RHMED is right. This exception might apply to Sonny Bono during his "Sonny and Cher" days (note that we are talking over 30 years of "earlier"), but clearly not here. This isn't an "extraordinary" case, it is a common case, and the spirit of the policy is pretty clear: you can't do this with BLPs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rabbit

How do you close an AfD hours after it was relisted to generate a wider audience (which it was clearly doing by the number of additional opinions that came to the page just after it was re-listed). I'm again confused as the decision, since consensus was actually to merge the information. Granted, a merger doesn't require you to delete the page, but there is a difference between labeling a page as "kept" and labeling it as "merge".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no consensus to merge on the AfD. AfD isn't for discussing mergers the article's talk page can deal with that, AfD is for deletion requests and there clearly was no consensus to delete. Relisting was unlikely to change that outcome. RMHED (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not correct, particularly in this case, as a resulting merge will require deletion of the page (the article is not a usable search term); merge results are allowable discussions in AFD when this is a potential result. This is clearly not a case that falls under NAC. --MASEM 00:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your header

So which is it, arb com or semi-retired? And tell the bartender that I will have what you are having. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

An article in which you have had an interest, List of bow tie wearers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do so agree with you Frank, dearest Joyce and darling Fanny (allthough Fanny could be a trifle abrasive after the second dry sherry) they just dont make them like that any more. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joyce was always delightful, Fanny though could 'kick off' if the right buttons were pushed. Poor old Johnnie, he endured so much with such good grace. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in a BLP essay at User:Dennis Brown/Missing person. Coat and tie are not required. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for taking the time to correct my spelling. Any other thoughts? I did just add "the disappearance off.." as an article type covered. Ambitious, huh? And, if you don't mind terribly, reply there if you choose to at all. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the essay to be a bit more inclusive from other people's comments, and have changed the scope to recommend that the articles be named "Disappearance of [name]". When you get a chance, take a looks and if I have it wrong, please correct. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB

Hello, are you the one who let me a message on the french wikipedia about ODNB ? If yes, thanks a lot, that's fantastic !! Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for answering my questions at arbcom so quickly. I am not sure what drove me to ask the questions, other than a genuine desire to hear your opinion on those, arbcom or no. To be honest, I was a bit shocked at the amount of attention your candidacy has received, and how much of that attention looks so serious, considering your unorthodox candidacy statement. Perhaps only because I didn't even look at that end of Wikipedia until recently. I am never quite sure how serious you are about something, even when I am sure that you are serious about something. BTW, I checked but wp:afr is already taken. Would have been a great WP:Ask For Recall or similar reverse for RfA. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really kid myself that I've got much of a chance of getting appointed, but at least I've given it a shot. I did consider writing a conventional candidate statement, but I decided in the end that pithy and oddball were more true to me. Even when I'm being serious I'm not entirely serious, who can take the great cosmic joke of conscious sentience seriously. RMHED (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what has stopped me from just doing a self nom for admin. I'm over 40, hold a respectable position, owned and sold a few businesses, ran my own BBS for years, etc, yet I know that some kid living in his mom's basement will be popping up to point out how I corrected someone's spelling on my talk page when they called me an idiot (I didn't want them to look stupid), and saying that is why I can't be trusted to use the mop bucket here. The wannabe admins are probably worse than the actual admins in this. As you have demonstrated, I'm pretty easy to find. It is almost like some existing admins want to raise the bar high enough to prevent others from joining "the club". Not most of them, just enough that it turns off new editors. It is a catch 22, with a desire to do more but not willing to play games in order to do it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
  2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
  5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
  6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipkins...

OMFG...not even sure WHAT the appropriate response is to THAT!! :) It's even better because one of my closest friends is named Michael... hehehehe...needless to say, SOMEONE will have a little present in his mailbox shortly!!! Thank you for a WONDERFULLY WTF-ish link! GJC 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds

I have filed the request but have not introduced any specific evidence as I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the situation to do so. I've kicked it back to you and banime. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RMHED, fortunately this matter is almost completely closed, however I noticed today that user:Cumulus Clouds was editting again. As I strongly believe that the two accounts are the same, I'd like to open up another checkuser since now this time there is a reason. Before I opposed the checkuser since nothing wrong was done, however this time he is evading his indefinite block by using this alternate account. Would you perhaps like to give your reason for believing he is the same user at the checkuser? I know he said something on your ArbCom election that made you link the two, and was wondering if that was evidence enough and if you still believed it to be true? I don't want to run the checkuser unless there is evidence, since the last thing I want is to invade someone's privacy for no reason. Thanks if you can respond (you can respond here I'll check up on it). --Banime (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any input, here it is. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have covered it all, as far as I can recall the only user who I had a disagreement with about talk page deletion was CC. I'm not sure if CC is evading a block though, even if TGH1970 proves to be his sock, then it's standard to block the sock and usually let the main account carry on editing, at least I think that's what happens. I suppose it depends what the sock was used for. RMHED (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern, however I like to be extra sure before dealing with blocks, especially when it comes to indefinite blocks and checkusers. I've had to deal with a sockpuppeter before, and all the accounts got banned, including the main, and I've read all of the appropriate policies and guidelines. Also as a failsafe theres an established checkuser there to make the right call. Finally, would you wish you state that CC was the only user you had that argument with on the checkuser page, or may I clarify that in the original statement? --Banime (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put that in for now, if you'd like me to change it let me know. Also, I'll re-read through all the relevant policies to be sure. --Banime (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spandau Prison library

I need to search through the books, and I will this morning, but apparently there were quite a few books belonging to the seven prisoners which Raeder organized. I'll make a correction if needed. Otherwise, very constructive edits, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not exactly clear how many books the prisoners were allowed to order every six weeks, but Raeder does certainly appear to have acted as librarian of the books with Schirach as his assistant. Speer refers to Raeder entering the details of 30 books "in a register that he keeps with such care that one might think he is administering thirty battleships instead of that many books". RMHED (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, a couple of things. It looks like the prisoners, especially Hess, brought with them a lot of books, but I don't think that's terribly worthy of mention. I've also cut back on your discussion of the mechanics of the book ordering at Spandau. Feel free to put back what you want, but I want to keep the focus of this article always on Speer. One thing concerns me about your edits, your correction of page numbers. What edition of Spandau are you working from? I'm working from the original hardcover, the standard Macmillan 1976 hardcover. I don't suppose it matters much as long as we are consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED/Archive_3&oldid=257190421"